You will not be able to perform the effect as shown in the demonstration and neither can Jan. As a
clue, look for where there are cuts in the video and that's where the performer needs to do
something cagey (not difficult but possibly revealing) and another where you need to direct a
spectator to do something specific and a bit awkward. The result is something that is a bit more
cumbersome than what was advertised.
Either of those might raise questions. Both increase
the odds of somebody thinking you are doing something that isn't as fantastic as what we saw in the
demo video.
I guess some would say removing the missing steps from the presentation wasn't
that big a deal. A reasonable response would be to ask why they were removed? If this was demo'ed in
one of those old time magic stores I wouldn't expect the shop owner to ask everyone to close their
eyes for 10 seconds while he does something that if they saw it there's less of a chance they would
buy the effect.
Otherwise, it is a reasonable presentation (though not as clean as shown)
for an old method. Don't get me wrong, if you are the type of performer that draws people in with
the sound of your voice (and who doesn't miss Eugene) then it can still be extremely effective.
Beyond that, the explanation is a bit... plodding. You can save yourself a bit of time by
starting 14 minutes into the explanation and a bit of money by not getting it at all.
Anyone with the amount of experience I assume the reviewer has should understand why edits sometimes have to be made. Of course, not all trailers use edits for valid reasons, but if it's to protect the method from us experienced folks who may be able to figure it out by watching the full routine, then I understand & support that edit.
Not to mention, you're getting a routine from an amazing artist for $10. If you can't figure out how to get your money's worth there, I dunno who can help you.
I just don't see how anyone can rate this 2 stars. Its irrational.
Robert, how long have you had C.B.D? (Chronic Backslash Disorder)....just joking of course....
I admit that I have a bit of difficulties following your discussion. Please read my comments under “discussions” once you log in into your account. Try to see the routine/procedure through the eyes of a spectator. I offer various options how to start the routine. One version indeed allows that you do not (initially) know any names written down although that will not stay like that until the end (read my further thoughts using e. g. a me..zed deck… in this case you would not know anything until the final read out…). The first “mixing” (which is not seen in the trailer as I realize now) happens behind your back… the second mixing seems to be of no importance for yourself as you have not seen the first mixing, so you really don’t know anything, not the name, nor its position. But it makes sense for the plot, for the play with your spectator. At this point you can state the true test conditions which are also absolutely true: Nobody knows anything, apart your spectator who knows just one name, but nothing more. And if I perform it, I normally stay quite far away so that even marks (which are not existing) wouldn’t help me at all. Even that you can point out verbally. Please, give it a try – I am convinced that you will experience how strong it plays. Jan
I admit that I have a bit of difficulties following your discussion. Please read my comments under “discussions” once you log in into your account. Try to see the routine/procedure through the eyes of a spectator. I offer various options how to start the routine. One version indeed allows that you do not (initially) know any names written down although that will not stay like that until the end (read my further thoughts using e. g. a me..zed deck… in this case you would not know anything until the final read out…). The first “mixing” (which is not seen in the trailer as I realize now) happens behind your back… the second mixing seems to be of no importance for yourself as you have not seen the first mixing, so you really don’t know anything, not the name, nor its position. But it makes sense for the plot, for the play with your spectator. At this point you can state the true test conditions which are also absolutely true: Nobody knows anything, apart your spectator who knows just one name, but nothing more. And if I perform it, I normally stay quite far away so that even marks (which are not existing) wouldn’t help me at all. Even that you can point out verbally. Please, give it a try – I am convinced that you will experience how strong it plays. Jan
...not to further beat this dead horse, there is are... misstatements in the ad copy provided by Penguin. I\'ve quoted the relevant portion below. \r\n\r\nI\'m not talking about the part where it says \"the demo video is not great\", that\'s absolutely correct. Also, you\'re also not following MARKINGS on the cards and the routine would be so much simpler if you were. HOWEVER, #2 and #4 are BOTH lies. \r\n\r\n\"The demo video is not great. It cuts the performance in a way that makes it look like you\'re keeping track of some markings on the cards or something. You\'re not! In fact:\r\n\r\n1. The business cards used are completely unmarked! They can be any scraps of paper you find.\r\n2. Not only that, you genuinely don\'t even know what\'s written on the cards.\r\n3. You genuinely don\'t know which card the spectator looks at.\r\n4. All the cards are nudged/wiggled so you couldn\'t simply know which one moved, and you\'re genuinely not looking during any of this.\"
Ehrinn1, In fairness, not always and more often than I would like. \r\n\r\nAlso, it is to their credit that Penguin quickly posted my less than favorable review.
Add a comment
I hate when Penguin's videos leave out part of the presentation
Report this review
