|
|
|
|||
| Go to page 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
Pakar Ilusi Inner circle 5777 Posts 
|
Who is he? Anyone knows?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IemKihdLwX8 Go to the 4.00 minute mark... I can't say it is an Origami Illusion knock off as the method is different. Not the best presentation in the world but great technique. 
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
|||||||||
|
Pakar Ilusi Inner circle 5777 Posts
|
Just so you know, I know how it's done.
So I am not asking for an exposure. I am just amazed at his approach, totally unique. Love it!
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
|||||||||
|
the Sponge Inner circle Atlanta 2776 Posts
|
The method is different????? um, okay, if you say so.
|
|||||||||
|
Pakar Ilusi Inner circle 5777 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 30, 2016, the Sponge wrote: Technically, it is. 
He went the more classic and common way for effects like these, giving a slightly different look on the whole box and table. But it WORKS! (Kinda nice having the table that thin. Well, at least for me it is.) I have seen the Origami in its "normal" guise as I know guys who perform it in my country, knock offs though, sadly. (I was actually expecting a snide remark like that sooner or later here... Sooner it seems. Don't you just love the Café? )
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
|||||||||
|
Pakar Ilusi Inner circle 5777 Posts
|
I just realized sumthin'!
Maybe the Sponge has been performing it this guy's way all these years or at least he thinks that is how The Steinmeyer Origami Illusion is accomplished. Who knows? Maybe... Hmmm... If that be the case... You're doing it different than the original Steinmeyer creation! Just FYI...
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
|||||||||
Frank Simpson Special user SW Montana 883 Posts
|
I thought it was terrible in every way. Just terrible. This is like a bad copy of the performers who own an authorized Origami but still perform it poorly.
Just my opinion, of course, but I hate it. |
|||||||||
|
Pakar Ilusi Inner circle 5777 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 30, 2016, Frank Simpson wrote: Now if only I knew how you felt. 
But to each his own... I kinda like it.
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
|||||||||
w_s_anderson Inner circle The United States 1226 Posts
|
I agree with Frank on this one. I can only assume that the use of the cloth was because the audience was at such a high angle they could see down into the box. Other than that I see no reason for the cloth. Though, I also didn't think it flowed very well. Just my opinion.
|
|||||||||
|
Pakar Ilusi Inner circle 5777 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 31, 2016, w_s_anderson wrote: I actually agree with you, it didn't flow very well. Not the best performance of such an illusion. But my point is that he came up with a new technique! How rare is that for something so established? And to me, it looks good visually. By that I mean the box and table once the illusion is accomplished. The cloth could have been done without actually, regardless of angles, if only he had thought through the design of the flaps. I like it. But that's me of course...
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
|||||||||
|
natmagic Veteran user USA 301 Posts
|
The final deception looks convincing. Overall its terrible and makes no sense
|
|||||||||
|
Pakar Ilusi Inner circle 5777 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 31, 2016, natmagic wrote: I can actually agree with that.
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
|||||||||
|
Sorcerer Loyal user 289 Posts
|
Performance is simply awful.
Regarding the method, of course it's a different method but it's much worse. When the box is "small" is about one and a half times the size of the original folded box (certainly, there are some home-made origami whose box looks as big as this, but that's another story )
|
|||||||||
|
Pakar Ilusi Inner circle 5777 Posts
|
Quote:
On Apr 1, 2016, Sorcerer wrote: Performance-wise, I agree. I would not say awful as a circus arena has it's own approach, but even then it does have much to be improved. Although he could not possibly go the slow romantic Copperfield way in that arena, at least I don't think so. Box size-wise, while it is larger, to the lay audience it is the same effect. The positive "trade off" here (to me) is that the table needs no base, can be coloured other than flat black and it needs no mirror (or whatever blocking apparatus) at the opposite side to the box as in a regular Origami. Only Magicians "in the know" see the difference really. Both methods look like an impossibility, I dare say. Put it this way, all "colour change" card tricks, to the lay audience, has the same outcome regardless of the technique employed. Only Magicians see the difference really. Now, ethics-wise, I dunno. It falls into a grey area for me. I don't dare say this is a rip-off of a Steinmeyer Origami, exactly because it is a different design to us Magicians. However, I feel that it is a viable method to achieve the same effect as with an Origami Illusion. Again, feel free to disagree.
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
|||||||||
|
Frank Simpson Special user SW Montana 883 Posts
|
In my opinion it is utter fallacy to say that "to the audience it is the same effect" simply because it is so terrible. It doesn't look impossible at all. At best it looks uncomfortable.
To say that "only magicians see the difference" is a weak argument. A lay audience isn't even aware of a base as a concept. And they really don't care what color the table is. The mirror is probably the most maligned aspect of the Origami illusion. Most people who own the illusion are completely unaware of its intended function within the presentation of the effect so it becomes an uncomfortable and unnecessary bit of business in the routine. But if you understand Mr. Steinmeyer's concept for the mirror it makes complete sense. Suffice to say that if more people were knocking off Doug Henning's routine rather than David Copperfield's the problem would not be so widespread. This is not to knock David Copperfield because the way he performed it really worked. The way everybody else in the world tries to do it like him does not. I don't even think it is fair to call this travesty of an illusion a knock-off because it only bears a passing resemblance to Origami. It is less about the fact that it is a different design than it is about the fact that it is simply a terrible design. Bad illusion designs should be abandoned altogether. This illusion illustrates that point very well. There are simply too many "magicians" who think they know more than they do about creating a well-crafted design and prop. There are sooooooo many principles that they miss for every one they get. I'd say it's about a 1:25 ratio. A good illusion is a concert of subtleties that work together to create a unified effect. Bad illusions have a smattering of principles that might occur side by side, but don't work together at all. If I may be permitted an analogy, it is like the difference between a stage full of musicians on a stage playing the same song at the same time, and a band of musicians playing a song. The former has an unsatisfying effect on the listener, even though he might not be able to articulate why. The latter makes music. The differences are subtle but incredibly important. More important than unpolished practitioners care to admit. |
|||||||||
|
Sorcerer Loyal user 289 Posts
|
In this illusion box size matters, it's big enough to hold a little girl crouched inside. So it stops being magic to be contortion.
"Contortion box act" is a classic in circus shows (just google it) Audiences all over the world know this kind of act, they don't consider it "magical" but no more (and no less) than contortion. The novelty in your video is it's disguised as an origami illusion, incidentally poorly performed. In the small size of an original origami box is phisically impossible for a contortionist to get into, so that's magic. The supposedly new origami method is not magic; as an example, in this video not one, but TWO girls get into a similar size box than the "new origami" and it's not magic because of box size https://youtu.be/7Rb5SZYRRqo |
|||||||||
|
Pakar Ilusi Inner circle 5777 Posts
|
Quote:
On Apr 3, 2016, Frank Simpson wrote: Still, if you ask a lay audience member what the trick was after the show, you would get the same basic answer. Girl somehow goes into a small box and box is impaled with swords. Then girl survives unscathed. While it isn't as small as the Origami, the illusion still works. It works better here than with most sword basket illusions imho. Another sad fact of life now is this... If you think a thick table and a thin table makes no difference to an audience after all the Masked Magician exposures, you are kidding yourself. Sounds like a contradiction to my earlier "she went into a small box" but it plays to method. It is the method many would think first when they see a thick table. Blame Valentino for this. Mirror? In a surrounded arena, the mirror is not needed, logically. It makes no sense. Henning had a different arena. You know the mirror is there to hide something in the original design. But of course you can find a reason for it to be there! A plausible plot is great but if it is not needed and it can be done away with, why not? I say the technique here is fine. The presentation is wanting but then even the presentation with original Origamis can be wanting. If you don't think it is deceptive at all, well then it's your choice. I think it is.
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
|||||||||
|
Pakar Ilusi Inner circle 5777 Posts
|
Quote:
On Apr 3, 2016, Sorcerer wrote: While a smaller box looks better, it is resting on a bigger table in the original Origami. That's the trade-off here, this a slightly bigger box on a totally thin table with no skirting whatsoever. With no mirror or anything else blocking the back view. I feel both are deceptive to the eye. Here, I must say it works better than most sword basket illusions. Unless of course you think sword basket illusions are totally not deceptive? As an illusion it works for me. As a presentation, well, it has lots to be improved on. But that is another matter altogether really. And thanks for that contortion video. Wow, that would make one hell of an illusion routine.
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
|||||||||
|
Frank Simpson Special user SW Montana 883 Posts
|
I give up other than to say that I think that the illusion is still completely terrible. In every way. You can keep liking it if you want to.
|
|||||||||
|
jcmagicman Loyal user 221 Posts
|
Just finished showing this video to a lay person and her remark was " where'd she go?"
|
|||||||||
|
Pakar Ilusi Inner circle 5777 Posts
|
Quote:
On Apr 3, 2016, Frank Simpson wrote: Ok, got it...
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Grand illusion » » WOW! This guy came up with a different method for the Origami Illusion! (9 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Mar 30, 2016 06:19 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.05 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 < 
|