|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..13..23..33..43..52~53~54~55~56 [Next] | ||||||||||
RNK Inner circle 7528 Posts 
|
Quote:
On 2013-08-14 22:27, MaxfieldsMagic wrote: That's nothing new with Shufton - check out the trailer for 3D Paradox: http://www.penguinmagic.com/p/S8971 Looks great, right? Here's the thing, though - when you actually perform the effect, the deck has to come into contact with the bottom of the envelope. Don't see that in the the "complete performance" trailer, do you? Probably because it wouldn't sell as well. Having said that, though, 3D Paradox is a terrific effect, and very well made. It's a fooler, and a lot of fun. But there's no question that the advertising is misleading. [/quote] The deck comes near the card for literally a nano second. Its a move Doc Eason uses with unbelievable success. Further as someone previously stated there is a way to do this without the deck ever coming near the card. Lastly, with all these type of effects those who have studied magic for a while should know that there will always be a move required otherwise it would be real magic. RNK
Check out Bafflingbob.com
|
|||||||||
paperinick Inner circle my faro is starting to look nice after 1177 Posts
|
Quote:
it describes what the spectator sees and feels. If you don't see what's wrong with this you are legitimating those who tomorrow will sell a "one way force deck" claiming "no duplicates, no force" because "this is what the spectator sees and feels". Right?
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death my right to say "scr*w you" if you persist. [Voltaire
 ]
|
|||||||||
|
RNK Inner circle 7528 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2013-08-15 10:02, paperinick wrote: Not true. And no matter what is said papernick- we all know how you feel about "THE AD". So I don't know why you keep generating posts about the same thing. Is it to get your post count up? You don't have the effect and don't perform it- you were not happy with the ad- you made your point regarding that NUMEROUS times. So why keep coming back and re-stating the obvious? Can't you just accept- you feel you were mislead and I don't fell I was mislead because of the experience I have with performing Inexplicable. Agree to disagree and move on. This thread started to get back on track with people who are performing Inexplicable- let's keep it that way. As I stated previously- we ALL know people are not happy with the AD. No reason to keep posting about it. Especially the same (mainly papernick) people stating the same thing in a different way. RNK
Check out Bafflingbob.com
|
|||||||||
|
RNK Inner circle 7528 Posts
|
[quote]On 2013-08-15 10:35, RNK wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-15 10:02, paperinick wrote: Not true. And no matter what is said papernick- we all know how you feel about "THE AD". So I don't know why you keep generating posts about the same thing. Is it to get your post count up? You don't have the effect and don't perform it- you were not happy with the ad- you made your point regarding that NUMEROUS times. So why keep coming back and re-stating the obvious? Can't you just accept- you feel you were mislead and I don't feel I was mislead because of the experience I have with performing Inexplicable. Agree to disagree and move on. This thread started to get back on track with people who are performing Inexplicable- let's keep it that way. As I stated previously- we ALL know people are not happy with the AD. No reason to keep posting about it. Especially the same people stating the same thing in a different way. RNK
Check out Bafflingbob.com
|
|||||||||
|
paperinick Inner circle my faro is starting to look nice after 1177 Posts
|
I made a point numerous times, but I guess it's still not clear.
POINT: There a people very unhappy about the AD _BUT_ I am not one of them. I just said it could have been written better, but I really don't care at all about it. Like Lar summarized, what bothers me most, was the hype around something "already seen". Then you make a generic statement about "it's an ad, it's ok if it describes what spectator perceive". Taken out of this context I am pointing to you how bad things can turn if we apply this logic to all releases. I want you also to notice that I jumped back into the thread because I felt I could answer a specific question about it given that I own other comparable tricks. Then the conversation got derailed to the usual humor around it. I feel this, with all the 36 pages most of them wasted, is a great thread that can be used as reference. For example in the future I can say "somebody is pulling an Inexplicable" and most of us would know what I mean.....
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death my right to say "scr*w you" if you persist. [Voltaire
]
|
|||||||||
|
RNK Inner circle 7528 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2013-08-15 11:01, paperinick wrote: Again- whatever bothers you about this thread- you HAVE stated it over and over. As I have stated my point over and over. Therefore- as I stated previously- we know your position- there is no need for you to keep coming back and stating it again. This thread has been polluted with the same meanings written over and over. You don't like the HYPE that went into it- FINE- we all understand- no need to come back and state it again. Some don't like the AD- FINE- point taken, no need to state it again- we have all heard it MANY times now. Let's move this thread to people who own the effect and are performing it sharing their stories and suggestions. The HYPE thing and AD thing have been beaten into the ground. Why don't you just stop with it already? RNK
Check out Bafflingbob.com
|
|||||||||
|
paperinick Inner circle my faro is starting to look nice after 1177 Posts
|
Quote:
Why don't you just stop with it already? Explain me something then: somebody new to the thread asks "is this trick better than comparable ones?". So if I answer the question, I am repeating the same thing over and over. But if you disregard the question completely and repeat over and over that "this trick is a jaw-dropper" and "it never failed in my XX (*) past performances" and "it's not meant for F&F but for pros", then it's ok? (*) with XX obviously increasing for each post.
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death my right to say "scr*w you" if you persist. [Voltaire
]
|
|||||||||
|
RNK Inner circle 7528 Posts
|
First, you really do not know if it is better than other ones first hand because you never gave explicable a chance. You only know the method.
Second, if someone cannot make a decision on purchasing this after reading 36 pages then they should not be in magic. You and others have already talk about comparable effects.. Why do you have to keep repeating yourself? Lets start getting some post with people who are actually using this and the reactions and ideas that they are getting or have.
Check out Bafflingbob.com
|
|||||||||
|
paperinick Inner circle my faro is starting to look nice after 1177 Posts
|
Quote:
You only know the method. That is enough if everything else stays the same. Quote:
Why do you have to keep repeating yourself? Just following your lead here.
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death my right to say "scr*w you" if you persist. [Voltaire
]
|
|||||||||
Martin Pulman Inner circle London 3399 Posts
|
RNK,
You must be approaching 150 posts on this one effect. You could fill about 15 pages with your posts alone. I think we know where you stand. With sincere goodwill, don't you think it might be time to give someone else a chance? |
|||||||||
|
Martin Pulman Inner circle London 3399 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2013-08-15 16:13, Martin Pulman wrote: |
|||||||||
|
RNK Inner circle 7528 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2013-08-15 16:13, Martin Pulman wrote: AS what I stated above- time to SHARE ideas and performance thoughts of the people who are performing. If you would READ what my post stated- I CONCEEDED that some are not happy with the ad and/or the effect and some are. So let's stop those posts and comment on the effect. What this means martin is people (including myself) who are using this comment back and forth on ideas, tips etc... to make it a better effect for all. So I suggest you carefully read what I wrote so your "giving it a rest" comment can possibly mean something next time. People comment back and forth on effects which is what I am encouraging this thread to turn into. It's posts like your that are derailing the thread from being a positive thread for those who have this and use it to share their experiences which is what happens in most ALL the threads here. It's what the café is here for. Agree? So time to put your differences to rest and if your using this post your experience and share it with the community Martin? RNK
Check out Bafflingbob.com
|
|||||||||
|
videoman Inner circle 6750 Posts
|
Wow, this thread is still alive!!!
Maybe it can make it to twice as many pages than the cost of the trick in dollars. Don't know if that has ever been done in this forum before. And RNK is still arguing with anyone who doesn't like the trick or the ad for it. Some things never change I guess. RNK, I think if you sincerely wanted a discussion about sharing experiences with the trick it would seem obvious that it is far beyond the time to start a new thread. But you never do that, you just keep rebutting what others are saying over and over, and part of that includes chastising them for doing the very thing you are doing. So that would indicate to me that you really aren't that interested in sharing experiences but you just enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing. Then in every new post you seem to claim that you didn't say that or didn't mean this or whatever, they got it completely wrong, they should read more carefully, etc. It's comical. If so many people are getting you wrong, maybe you are just not a very good communicator. But I know it's up to you alone now to keep the boat afloat, since Zombie was made to go sit in the corner for a while and cool down. You two were essentially the only friends Shufton has in this thread. BTW, just for the record, I don't have a big problem with the ad (although it should probably bother me more than it does. I just wished there had been a demo video available that would have shown the extremely slow pace at which this must be performed, because I wouldn't have purchased it if I had known that. If that works for you, great, just doesn't suit my style of performance. But I got quite a bit of my money back on resale. Win some, lose some. Not the first time, won't be the last time. |
|||||||||
|
RNK Inner circle 7528 Posts
|
Yet another attempt to derail this thread. Ashame. I believe by Nicolino's definition you are trolling. We already came to the conclusion, some don't like the ad/effect and some do. Time to move on. If you are performing this please tell us your experience and reactions. If not, no need to keep posting nonsense posts.
Sorry to repeat myself as I stated this already with Martin who has yet to share with us his experiences with Inexplicable. I'm starting to wonder if certain people are actually reading these posts and just beginning to make posts for the heck of it. RNK
Check out Bafflingbob.com
|
|||||||||
|
MrWall New user Wished he had more than 99 Posts
|
One girl last night picked up the deck and started shuffling it! The cheek of her.
Still worked a charm. And I don't even do card tricks anymore. But it was a gathering for a few drinks and my bloody Luna hasn't turned up yet etc etc.. You don't have to get them to deal as slow as is in the instructions. I find 1 second is enough but I tell them they can stop anywhere way before what is suggested. Pace the effect as to how suits your style. Take risks. If you miss so what? Pull out the ID if you so wish. If I am performing it twice for the same group, do it once as per the effect, have them examine the deck etc, go into another trick and when someone asks to see it again, switch in a one way deck and don't even use the envelope. I have them deal face down anyway. No one seems to want to check the deck the second time. You can gather the deck up and put it away before the reveal anyway as the attention is always on the two face down cards.. |
|||||||||
|
Martin Pulman Inner circle London 3399 Posts
|
Hi RNK,
I'm afraid I can't furnish you with any details of my performances of Inexplicable as I have not and would not perform it. I was hoping for a card effect that could play in a straight mentalism context. I was misled by the false advertising to expect an effect where the spectator could stop dealing whenever she wished with an ungimmicked deck and that the reveal used a normal envelope. None of these things came to pass. I can see however, that the effect could well play very well for someone using it in a magic context. The dealing procedure is very strong. Such a shame that Steve chose not to credit its origins. The effect from 1940 where I first discovered the dealing procedure remains my favourite effect to perform with a deck of cards. If I were to perform Inexplicable, I would certainly change the prediction card. I can't begin to understand Steve's logic in his choice of "playing card". I would also ditch the sleeve and use a normal envelope. A jack of diamonds or seven of spades, for example, brought three quarters of the way out of a normal envelope before being revealed would seem to me to be stronger than the reveal in Steve's effect. In any event, if you reveal the prediction first, all of the heat moves onto the dealt card. I hope this has answered your request for my experience with the effect. There is no need for you to reply. I am aware from your previous posts on the subject that we profoundly disagree on most aspects of this effect. I hope you and others continue to have great fun performing Inexplicable. |
|||||||||
|
TheGreatRaymondo Special user Manchester, England 969 Posts
|
RNK:
The ad copy is highly misleading. That's why we have 36 pages on a less than average effect. I do believe you are suffering from 'cognitive dissonance' Just saying...
We are inclined to believe those whom we do not know because they have not yet deceived us...
|
|||||||||
|
Martino Special user Manchester, UK 928 Posts
|
Martin,
Clearly you were hoping it would be real magic. Regards, Martin.
"There's a difference between not knowing how something is done and knowing it can't be done!" - Simon Aronson
|
|||||||||
|
Martin Pulman Inner circle London 3399 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2013-08-17 16:56, Martino wrote: Martin, No. I was hoping that Steve had come up with a method that would justify the claims in his ad copy. I think your disparaging remark is absolutely uncalled for, and also illogical. I imagine that once upon a time a piece of ad-copy read: "A deck of cards is on the table. A spectator thinks of ANY CARD. The performer removes the cards from the deck which has been on the table throughout and, WITHOUT ANY SLEIGHT OF HAND reveals a single card is reversed in the deck. It is the spectators card." Sounds like real magic doesn't it. And magicians of the time must have been amazed and delighted to find The Ultra Mental Deck more than lived up to its ad copy. I think they may have been somewhat disgruntled if they had, for example, found that instead of ANY CARD, the spectator was actually limited to thinking of one of four cards. If Steve was unable to devise a method where the spectator could stop WHENEVER she wishes, he should not have advertised his effect as if he had. Maybe some "creators" and dealers could stop acting like snake oil salesmen and tell their customers the truth. Now THAT, would be real magic! Regards, Martin. |
|||||||||
|
Martin Pulman Inner circle London 3399 Posts
|
Sorry! Double post.
|
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » Inexplicable by Steve Shufton (8 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..13..23..33..43..52~53~54~55~56 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Aug 15, 2013 11:58 am 
X
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|