|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
reignofsound Inner circle Glasgow, UK 2200 Posts |
Quote:
On Oct 14, 2021, Fromentum wrote: 100% this. |
|||||||||
Morganjj Regular user 168 Posts |
Quote:
On Oct 14, 2021, Fromentum wrote: For the record, I have no issue with a full demo of an effect like this. I just think Penn's demo was terrible. If it goes like that in the real world, it's because you haven't practiced the effect well. I have no idea how the instructions are written - maybe that performance was by the book. It just seems straightforward to present this in a way that muddies the tracks a bunch more. |
|||||||||
kissdadookie Inner circle 4275 Posts |
Quote:
On Oct 15, 2021, Morganjj wrote: I don’t think it was demoed badly. What was shown is a realistic possible sequence of events due to the methods involved. The routine inherently has the possibility of going like that which does not make the ad copy inaccurate because at the end, you are able to come to a successful conclusion. By successful conclusion, this simply means that the chip accurately predicts the choices. The problem is how the spectator ends up with those choices. The which hand is essentially your back up method if the original path (psyche forces) end up not hitting. The issue with this is that you are abruptly changing the procedure. The flaw with this is the change of procedure. There’s simply better and cleaner ways to do either things (psyche forces and Colin’s Psycho). Put simply, Colin’s Psycho is better as the procedure is the same from start to finish. There’s simply no good reason to do any psyche forces to begin with. Think of this as a equivoque process. Anybody familiar with equivoque would understand how consistency in procedure is what makes a equivoque process good. This is it equivoque here but the approach and thinking for equivoque should be applied here. |
|||||||||
ArtIn Inner circle 1702 Posts |
Was just about to order but $49.95 for a plastic chip… no way
I know it’s hard to argue about pricing but this feels totally overpriced. |
|||||||||
davidredfearn Regular user London 196 Posts |
Quote:
On Oct 17, 2021, ArtIn wrote: I walked into a Casino in Mayfair 5 years ago and exchanged 500 pounds for a plastic chip? DR |
|||||||||
NeilS Inner circle 3237 Posts |
Quote:
On Oct 17, 2021, ArtIn wrote: It is not an ordinary plastic chip. There is much more to it. |
|||||||||
Morganjj Regular user 168 Posts |
Quote:
Think of this as a equivoque process. Anybody familiar with equivoque would understand how consistency in procedure is what makes a equivoque process good. This is it equivoque here but the approach and thinking for equivoque should be applied here. Yes, and you and I would both agree that equivoque can be done well or poorly. This presentation was badly done. It was a realistic sequence of events, it was just poorly rehearsed and clumsily delivered - which meant all the there was, was the process. It's like saying "Think of a colour, red or black. You chose black? Then I get red! Look in my pocket, I have a piece of paper that says you'll give me red. Amazing!" and thinking that's a fair presentation of equivoque. |
|||||||||
kissdadookie Inner circle 4275 Posts |
Quote:
On Oct 18, 2021, Morganjj wrote: But for this scenario, the issue is the change of process. There’s no amount of scripting that will circumvent that because you still have to change the process in that scenario. The equivalent analogy here is: Think of red or black and pick one. Red? Ok, we will use red. Now, think of numbers or court cards and pick one. Court cards? Ok, we will throw those out. Now, pick low values 1-5 or high values 6-10 and tell me if it is high or low. High? Ok, we will use the high value cards! There’s a change in process there. That makes bad equivoque. The process changed. Good thing for equivoque that a change in process can be camouflaged with good scripting BUT you can not script away the fact that you went from think of something all of a sudden to ok, think of that thing and this new thing that I am going to add and let’s do a which hand now for however many more phases I have to go here. It brings to question why you didn’t do which hand from the beginning. The process changed, it becomes a point of suspicion. You can’t present it or script it away. |
|||||||||
Steven Conner Inner circle 2720 Posts |
Quote:
On Oct 18, 2021, kissdadookie wrote: This is a Master Course by the Master on equivoque. Max Maven Multiplicity Best Steve
"The New York Papers," Mark Twain once said,"have long known that no large question is ever really settled until I have been consulted; it is the way they feel about it, and they show it by always sending to me when they get uneasy. "
|
|||||||||
Morganjj Regular user 168 Posts |
Quote:
On Oct 18, 2021, kissdadookie wrote: Before I get into the meat of this, two points. We both agree that the process changes here, and the outcomes shown were pretty close to worst case. We both agree that good scripting and performance can help camoflague process and focus attention away from the bits that would help people backtrack and work out what went on. Right? David didn't spend a lot of time with the effect, so his presentation and scripting was totally bare bones. You have nowhere to look BUT the process. Anyone, with a little time and rehersal, could script that whole interaction better. David included. Are you seriously saying you think what was shown in the WPR was as good as it could get? You couldn't possibly have done it better under any circumstances? I don't believe that. |
|||||||||
kissdadookie Inner circle 4275 Posts |
Quote:
On Oct 18, 2021, Morganjj wrote: What I’m saying is that even with great presentation, that change of process is a big weakness that can’t be covered by scripting so due to this, I can’t honestly blame the whole thing on David’s performance. The abrupt change in process is the inherent issue and even the smoothest performer is going to find that to be something that can’t really be covered unless you just go with a different method altogether to accomplish the effect. The gist of what I’m saying is that the emphasis on David’s performance is likely to give people the perception that the problem was just his performance rather than the routine itself. Essentially, it’s kind of a distraction to what the fundamental issue is with the release which we should really pay more attention to and talk about as that is what objectively is going to be important for a potential consumer that is interested in this release. It’s not a horrible release and people may be ok with their purchase and at worse, they learn some very cool techniques here (mainly Colin’s Psycho concept) and the chip you are provided with is a nice chip with a nice reveal (which one can probably get the main items to hit such as the Mona Lisa, Paris, Eiffel Tower, blue, and red flowers, there are other psychological methods that I think can be guaranteed outcomes if one uses some of the more advanced concepts for psyche forces we have available to us, Peter Turner’s, Michael Murrays, and Phedons all come to mind for which they each have thoughts on the concept which I can see one being able to utilize and string together to lead to a successful reveal of the chip). |
|||||||||
Morganjj Regular user 168 Posts |
Then we're pretty much on the same page. I only ever said it was demo'd badly, and given we both agree then we're both in the same place.
I reckon you can land this as a decent impact 70% of the time, without it being the disaster it was on WPR in the remaining 30%. Still not rushing out to buy it on that basis though. |
|||||||||
dirtyfoucault Special user UK 700 Posts |
Anyone from the UK find Paris to be selected less frequently than the literature would suggest? Proximity to our French brethren and the perceived obviousness, maybe? Rome is way more frequent in my experience.
Anyway, I know this routine has a back-up plan to get around a 'miss' but any spectator who isn't educationally subnormal is likely to piece together how they arrived at their 'choices'. Once you get them to Paris, the associated reveals are so spectacularly obviously forced it's about as likely to amaze as asking them to think of any colour with the word red in it. Why do we assume people are this dumb? |
|||||||||
Roberto W Inner circle 1253 Posts |
I’m just still flabbergasted at the rave reviews by certain well know experienced magicians.
|
|||||||||
Henryharrius New user 57 Posts |
There are chances to have a perfect outcome, which you have no which hand at all. Happens to many of Alex’s performances, real miracles.
And if you have which hand process, its actually a good outcome as well. Because which hand is a good effect to layman. We also talked about consistency of the routine in the tutorial as well. There are some very good subtlties in the script to make the which hand absolutely natural. Couldn’t explain what it is since it is what you paying for as well. Those who own it would know (David probably missed that part so he didn’t do it in the demo) The key is you have to memorize well your script. Smooth and no hesitation. A little hesitation is a tell. |
|||||||||
NeilS Inner circle 3237 Posts |
There are some very clever ideas in Totem and I learnt an excellent forcing idea that I can employ in different ways. However there are also weaknesses in the way certain outcomes are accomplished and also I am not overly keen on some of the force selections.
I certainly applaud Alex for creating Totem and found it a very instructive release. However, for powerful psychological forcing routines, Michael Murray's Between the Lines reigns supreme. Neil |
|||||||||
dirtyfoucault Special user UK 700 Posts |
Quote:
On Oct 23, 2021, Henryharrius wrote: Is there any possibility of further poker chips with alternative reveals being offered? Different routining could easily lead people down different paths and open up many more options. The obviousness of Paris for UK audiences (and its avoidance for this reason) really undermines the miracle, so some alternatives would be very welcome. |
|||||||||
Christian_de_Punto New user Earth - Europe - Germany 138 plus 86 Posts |
Exactly fromentum! and if a simple full performance exposes the secrets, then it's most likely not a good trick. because "unfortunately that's what your audience will see too, a full performance ;-)
i liked in the wizard product demo, that they did not give a "best case demonstration" and showed the "which-hand-plan-b" too. but that also showed very clear the negative points of these obviously weak psychological forces. Quote:
On Oct 14, 2021, Fromentum wrote: |
|||||||||
NeilS Inner circle 3237 Posts |
[quote]On Oct 23, 2021, dirtyfoucault wrote:
Quote:
What a brilliant idea. The concept behind Totem is really good as are some of the ideas. It is just the choices could be bettered and re-thought. Neil |
|||||||||
dirtyfoucault Special user UK 700 Posts |
[quote]On Oct 23, 2021, NeilS wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 23, 2021, dirtyfoucault wrote: Totally agree. There's no reason to limit outcomes to a few decades-old, possibly out-of-date, context dependent psych forces. If you could give the choices an appearance of complete randomness rather then it'd be much more persuasive. The actual Which Hand method is great and the prop is super. It's just incredibly limiting as is and therefore not something I'll be likely to use as much as it deserves. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » Henry Harrius Presents: TOTEM by Alex Ng (30 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] |
[ 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 < |