|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
R2D2 Veteran user 304 Posts 
|
I'd imagine that the advantage of Counterfeit over Guy Hollingsworth's method is just that Counterfeit is easier to do?
|
|||||||||
|
Proximo New user Belgium 96 Posts
|
I have Guy Hollingworth's version in print but I must admit I have never studied it.
I did find Wayne's version not that difficult to master, but I cannot compare to the original. |
|||||||||
|
TomasKancyper New user 78 Posts
|
I have an old video of wayne teaching this same trick with the same ending but diferent methods. And the name is exactly the same!
|
|||||||||
|
Proximo New user Belgium 96 Posts
|
TomasKancyper, maybe that's just his lecture DVD you're referring to?
Wayne did release this effect some time ago, but you could only buy it at his lectures. Back then it was known as Counterfeit Hollingworth. |
|||||||||
|
Leo H Inner circle 1334 Posts
|
Based on some reviews, the card can't be signed. This could be an important factor for some magicians. I'd rather have the card signed because the T n R card makes a nice follow up to a signed card effect.
|
|||||||||
|
FelixKraus New user 93 Posts
|
That looks like it has too much preparations. And the comments seem to agree.
|
|||||||||
martydoesmagic Inner circle Essex, UK 1670 Posts
|
I've seen Wayne perform this live and it does look good. However, I have an issue with the use of the lighter. The first three pieces are fused without it. This inconsistency destroys the internal logic of the effect. Why do you use the lighter for the last piece when you didn't need it for the first three?
Marty |
|||||||||
|
FelixKraus New user 93 Posts
|
I love the simplicity of it. The art of origami..
|
|||||||||
DavidJComedy New user Boston, MA 79 Posts
|
Quote:
On Aug 10, 2016, martyjacobs wrote: I can see your point, but like most of us we are thinking like magicians. There are plenty of ways to justify that action. And, unlike other versions, the nonchalant tearing takes all the focus off those phases, because it should be obvious to the spectator what is happening and no big deal. However, the restoration now starts the show, and catches attention. The fire adds to a dramatic finish, I think. It's like half the time flash paper is burned, sometimes it's not justified but who doesn't like fire?
David
davidjcomedy.com |
|||||||||
|
martydoesmagic Inner circle Essex, UK 1670 Posts
|
Quote:
I can see your point, but like most of us we are thinking like magicians. There are plenty of ways to justify that action. And, unlike other versions, the nonchalant tearing takes all the focus off those phases, because it should be obvious to the spectator what is happening and no big deal. However, the restoration now starts the show, and catches attention. The fire adds to a dramatic finish, I think. It's like half the time flash paper is burned, sometimes it's not justified but who doesn't like fire? Normally I'd agree with you, but this isn't simply a case of "thinking like a magician". It is a matter of consistency, logic and credibility. If you need fire to restore the last piece, why didn't you need its help before? This inconsistency undermines the magical nature of the effect and hints at a possible method. Does it stop the trick being impressive? No, but for me internal logic is sacrosanct. However, as you suggest, there are presentational ploys that would address the issue. But then I'd rather just use Guy's original handling which, while more difficult, is much better than Wayne's watered-down handling. As Ortiz warns against, we shouldn't confuse practicality for convenience. Often it is better to learn the more difficult method because the effect it worth it, as is the case here. Marty |
|||||||||
|
DavidJComedy New user Boston, MA 79 Posts
|
Marry, I do see your point, but also the other side. Spectators don't always seem inconsistencies the way we do To me, the fire in the end is like the grand finale so it can be different than the other phases. And, though I do see and partially agree with your logic, can I ask do you do an ACR? Each phase is different. Shouldn't the spectator question that? Or a coins across. Same idea of variable phases. Varying phases sometimes adds interest and a different dimension to the effect.
David
davidjcomedy.com |
|||||||||
|
JassTan Regular user Singapore 105 Posts
|
TNR is good, I have it, it gets decent reactions, because the routine its slower it look like real magic, definitely an eye candy.
|
|||||||||
|
FelixKraus New user 93 Posts
|
I actually like the tore and restore card Wayne houchin did in true astonishment more.
|
|||||||||
|
martydoesmagic Inner circle Essex, UK 1670 Posts
|
"Ripped and Fryed" by Charlie Frye is a very under-rated torn and restored card routine. It's based on "Tearing a Lady in Two" by David Britland. Charlie's handling is sublime and has elevated the trick to miracle class. Unlike most routines of this kind, the presentation justifies the ripping and restoring.
I also understand that Charlie has worked out a handling that allows you to use this with "Cardwarp". Getting back to "Counterfeit", the reason to involve the lighter is clearly to solve the final piece problem. I don't think it's a very elegant solution and dislike the presentational inconsistency it introduces. It is far from being a bad trick, but I agree that "Ripped and Fryed" is far superior. |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Deckless! » » TNR by Wayne Houchin (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
Posted: Mar 22, 2015 01:21 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.02 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 < 
|