The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Dvd, Video tape, Audio tape & Compact discs. » » True Astonishments Disks 1 & 2: Full Review (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page 1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next]
lumberjohn
View Profile
Special user
Memphis, TN
619 Posts

Profile of lumberjohn
I received my nine-disk True Astonishments set on Monday to much rejoicing. I have looked forward to this for some time and was like a kid on Christmas morning as I tore into the packaging and removed the box. My first impression was that this was some beautiful packaging. After an appropriate period of appreciation, I opened the box and popped in the first DVD. I was once again impressed, this time by the outstanding production values. From there, it was on to the effects.

For each effect, there is a performance and explanation segment as well as a short (one to five minutes generally) segment from Paul Harris, entitled “Phootnotes,” with his thoughts. Some of these are more helpful and insightful than others. Paul does not do any of the performances or explanations. They are handled by guest contributors, the most pervasive of which is the Director, Bro Gilbert, a likable if low key guy who handles most of the on-camera heavy lifting. Paul, in his well known heavy coat and stocking cap ensemble, looks the part of a wise drifter wandering through the stunning landscape of British Columbia, imparting occasional nuggets of wisdom and humor, equally interspersed.

At the time I am writing this review, I have watched only the first two of the nine disk set. I will discuss only effects listed on each disk’s packaging. There are four to five “Easter Eggs” on each disk, which consist of a mix of other effects (some older Paul Harris effects, some newer effects by guest contributors) and interviews. Because I don’t want to ruin anyone’s surprise, I won’t be addressing these.

DISK ONE

TWILIGHT ANGELS: This is the exact same effect found in the original Art of Astonishment series. Nothing new has been added. The effect is that as the spectator looks at the back of a card, the performer, P, places a reflective object such as a mirror on the middle of the card so that if the mirror were a window, it would appear that the entire card could be seen. When the mirror is lifted, the angel on the other side has disappeared, the inference being that it was absorbed into the “mirror dimension.” The mirror is then moved to make it appear that the remaining angel is duplicated and the duplicate is moved to another position on the card. When the mirror is lifted, the duplicate angel appears right where it was on the mirror, to the side of the remaining angel. The resulting card back appears very strange, with two of the angels side by side and the other angel simply gone.

Word is that Paul Harris really likes this effect and believes it may have been unjustly overlooked by many in the magic community the first go-round. So he has resurrected it here with the suggestion of possibly using a cell-phone or PDA as a reflector rather than carrying along a mirror to make the presentation more organic. This is not a magician fooler, as the slight(s) are simple and would telegraph the ending, but it does create an interesting retention of vision that may make for a powerful visual punch and it does use the angels, which could provide some of the more creative among us with strong presentational possibilities. It also, however, uses specially gaffed cards which will, if the cards are signed, which is suggested, cause you to restock regularly. For this reason alone, I don’t expect to perform this much.

BACKLASH 2: In this effect, the spectator signs the back of a card, and then signs the face. The performer openly places the card into his pocket. The deck may be immediately spread and the signed back of the spectator’s card appears back in the deck(!) The performer closes the deck, makes a magical gesture, re-spreads, and shows that the spectator’s card is no longer in the deck. The performer reaches into his pocket and removes the spectator’s card, showing the face that the spectator has signed. The performer waves the card in front of the spectator and shows that the signature on the back of the card has morphed into the performer’s signature.

I didn’t really like this one. There are numerous discrepancies throughout and it seemed extremely obvious to me what was going on. Also, at each of the points that I as a spectator would have wanted to see a convincer, none was offered (or possible). While it is possible that you could obtain a fairly visual name transformation at the end, this would only be possible if there is substantial similarity between the performer’s signature and the spectator’s, which would be pretty hit and miss.

Paul addresses these concerns somewhat in the Phootnotes by stating that neither he nor Bro had ever been called out on the discrepancies since beginning to perform this. It was interesting that Paul immediately recognized the more glaring problems with the effect and went on the defensive to assure us they weren’t a problem in the real world. I am always a bit suspect of performers who say anything to the effect of “I know that seemed obvious to you, but in the real world, no one notices it.” I would like the effects I perform to be deceptive enough to fool someone as perceptive as I am. I think this effect depends heavily upon having non-skeptical and non-observant spectators. I’m sure it would fly easily among spectators who are drinking or not paying close attention, but I certainly wouldn’t want to perform this for a group of alpha males who are burning my every move. And since I like my effects to give me a range of performance options, I likely won’t be performing this either. Also, you are left with a dirty deck at the end.

NEW LEAF: This damaged to restored leaf effect is fairly clever, but extremely limited in terms of performance venue. It is best performed while walking a trail in the forest, where the opportunity arises to stop for a second, find suitable leaves, set-up the effect (probably a few minutes) and then go into it while continuing the walk. The positions of the leaves appear a bit contrived, as do the procedures involved, but in the right circumstance, I’m sure it would play well. I just can’t think of a situation I’ve been in within the last ten years that would have been appropriate for performing this effect. So I doubt I’ll be performing this one either. It would be good to know, however, if your second job is as a trail guide.

CHENG’S CHANGE: This is a very visual change of a poor five card poker hand to a royal flush. For those unfamiliar with Zapped!, the gimmicked effect that this simulates, it is fast and flashy, much like a color change except with five cards instead of one. This one is knacky and would require a good bit of practice. Also, it is presented as more of a quick stunt than as part of any routine. This would be great for those into “Street Magic” guerilla style performances, but it’s not clear where you would go from there. You will be left dirty at the end, moreover, so it might not be right for all performance situations.

THE BIG TINY: Anyone familiar with Paul Gertner’s “Unshuffled” will immediately recognize the principle at play here. Essentially, a spectator writes his or her name along the edges of a deck of cards and then, after an apparent mix up of the cards into several piles, and the free selection of one of those piles, it appears that they have through their choices, arranged the cards in their piles so that their name is visible once again along the edges of the cards. This is another example of the popular “order from chaos” plot that is the basis for effects such as “Out of this World,” but presented in a novel way and making use of someone’s name, which is a nice personal touch. The mechanics of this one aren’t difficult, as it makes use of a little understood principle more than moves or slights, though a good false shuffle would come in very handy. It does render the deck unusable for further effects (though not for casual use such as card games) but I liked this effect best of all those on Disk One.

DISK TWO

LVL$: This is a new presentation of Las Vegas Leaper that incorporates an entirely new ending in which a bill appears in the spectator’s back pocket. I must admit my bias on the front end: I love Las Vegas Leaper. It is truly one of my favorite Paul Harris effects, and I never saw anything that I felt needed to be fixed. So I immediately looked on LVL$ with a critical eye. Basically, this adds a phase at the end in which five dollar bills are counted and then, after an appropriate magic gesture, are demonstrated to be only four dollar bills, the last one found in the spectator’s back pocket. This is a nice ending to the effect, by which the performer demonstrates that he can perform the traveling card effect with more than just cards. Money creates a more emotional attachment, and the ability to send money to someone’s back pocket is an effect that your spectators can relate to.

But there are compromises. The first is one of the primary advantages I’ve always found with LVL classic – that it is truly impromptu. This version is not. Furthermore, this version eliminates the vanishing sequences of the cards to make the vanish of the bill seem equivalent. I have always found those vanish sequences to provide many additional layers of magic to the effect, which I believe added substantially to the effect. More importantly, the spectator management and procedures required are more extensive and contrived in the new version than in the original. Some of the procedures required to make the effect work are simply not very well motivated. Substantial spectator management is also necessary to insure a successful outcome. Finally, the bill count at the end is not nearly as deceptive as the spectator count which is the heart of LVL classic, which I think takes away from the entire effect under the weakest link in the chain theory.

Ultimately, I can’t say that LVL$ is any better than LVL classic, but only that it is different. It is more well suited to a formal stand-up presentation. I think I will generally be sticking with LVL classic.

TUBULAR: The performer and the spectator each remove a bill from their wallets. The performer signs the spectator’s bill and vice-versa. Each rolls their bill into a tight tube. The performer takes the spectator’s rolled bill, places it next to his, and hands both to the spectator. When the spectator unrolls the “bills,” he finds only one bill, singed by both the performer and himself. They have fused together!

While this is a fairly simple and non-assuming effect, I really liked it. Everything is well motivated and the necessary misdirection is built right in. Also, it is very near impromptu. This isn’t a closer, but it’s great to know when you need a solid “quickie.”

CHENG’S RISER: Cheng is back with a visually stunning method of showing a card rising up through the deck from near the bottom to the top. Cheng first explains an “easy” method in which the rising card remains face down. But most will be far more interested in the version in which the rising card is face up. Like “Cheng’s Change” from volume one, this is more of a “Street Magic” effect in which an impossible visual feat is performed without reference to any larger routine, but if that’s something you’re interested in, and you’re willing to put in the work required to make this look good (more than Cheng’s Change), you will be rewarded with something that looks very impressive.

SS2: This acronym stands for “Seductive Switch 2.” The effect is presented as a demonstration of mucking at the poker table, in which a desirable card is switched for an undesirable one, only in this demonstration, the switch is to occur in the spectator’s hands. The performer displays three cards, a Jack, an Ace, and a six. The performer apparently takes the Ace and folds it up with the back out, demonstrating how a card must be prepared for palming. He then displays the folded card against the faces of the two remaining cards, showing a Jack and a Six. The performer turns the two cards face down and places them under the spectator’s hand. He then places the folded card into palm and touches his hand to the spectator’s hand, demonstrating the “switching technique.” When the spectator lifts his hand and looks at his cards, he sees that he now holds a Jack and an Ace. The performer unfolds his card, showing it to now be a six.

This is a great effect with an interesting presentation. The set up for the key display is a bit contrived, but it is very deceptive and unlikely to attract much notice. Unfortunately, you will destroy a six with each performance, but that is a small price to pay for a fabulous trick. This was my favorite item on Disk Two.

GROWING CARD: The performer places a face up Ace between two Jokers, slightly up and left jogged so its pip can be seen clearly. As the performer rubs on the three cards, the Ace appears to grow, extending from the lower right side of the card sandwich to the same extent at the upper left side. After the spectator is allowed a few moments to appreciate this oddity, the performer continues rubbing, as the Ace appears to shrink back to its original size. The performer then flips the cards over and displays them.

This is a cool visual effect, but without any real context or routine other than a quick stunt. Also, it uses a specially gaffed card so the cards cannot be examined after the effect. It is more in the nature of a quick one-note packet trick, making it another good candidate for the Street Magic guerilla magician.

Overall, I would have to admit that I was a bit disappointed with the first two disks of the True Astonishments series. Yes, there is some good solid magic here, but for my sixty dollars (the pro-rated price for these two disks), there are other DVDs with far more bang for the buck. So far, this has simply not been the revolutionary collection that I was expecting. But I have only just begun, and there are seven more disks to go. So off I go to watch more magic.
daghank
View Profile
Loyal user
290 Posts

Profile of daghank
Im wondering how many more dissapointed people we'll see,youre the first,I didn't get the set,yet. I guess I'm one of those who really expect ALOT from PH and TA so even by seeing one bad review(altough its just about 2 dvds) I get concerned about whether to but it or not.
Daren
View Profile
Inner circle
1872 Posts

Profile of Daren
I think this guy is seeing the effects through the magicians eye, perform them all you will be granted with astonishment, try it and see
Chris K
View Profile
Inner circle
2493 Posts

Profile of Chris K
Quote:
On 2009-02-11 12:33, Daren wrote:
I think this guy is seeing the effects through the magicians eye, perform them all you will be granted with astonishment, try it and see


I tend to agree. With that being said, there are only a few specific problems I have with his review. One example happens to be the New Leaf effect. I can't stress how much I disagree with the "I just can’t think of a situation I’ve been in within the last ten years that would have been appropriate for performing this effect". In essence, I can't remember a day in the last 10 years where I couldn't have performed this had I not been inclined. First off, you don't need trees, you don't need to be walking. You know what, that's his opinion and he's entitled to it. I don't particularly find New Leaf as amazing as some of the other stuff but my opinion is in exact opposite to his. Not that everything is perfect or anything like that.

I have some thoughts on LVL$ that I want to discuss with everybody on the TA forum (well, everybody who ordered from the Astonishment Project at least). I guess I will try to put a general review together myself. I am stating now that I won't bother going into descriptions of the effects since they are all over the place, merely reviewing the effects.
korttihai_82
View Profile
Inner circle
Finland
1797 Posts

Profile of korttihai_82
Thanks for the honest review. However I might add that you will get tons of ellusionist, Theory 11 and Paul Harris fanboys after you now Smile They simply cant take off their "fanglasses" and watch something put out by their "masters" with any sort or critisism.

I just saw few of the later disc with a friend and I wasnt too impressed either so I believe that you were just honest with your review.

Juha-Matti
daghank
View Profile
Loyal user
290 Posts

Profile of daghank
I guess my biggest criteria is the question about how linked the effects are,I am hoping not to get like 10 openers and tricks that you can do and have to run away when it ends with youre gimmicks in youre hands.
Even for the twilight angels trick from first dvd,its being said that there are four gimmicks involved so it makes me think that to perform a few tricks from the TA set,I might have to wear a jacket with its whole pockets full with gimmicks and extra cards. I hope I'm wrong.
Mercury52
View Profile
Inner circle
Kevin Reylek
2120 Posts

Profile of Mercury52
Most of TA is gimmick-free. You don't need 4 gimmicks for Twilight Angels, you just need one (a single playing card in your deck). You are supplied with 4 gimmicks if you happen to lose/destroy/give one away. Hope this helps. You can definitely be ready to do many TA effects without pockets full of gimmicks.

Kevin
Kevin Reylek
Chris K
View Profile
Inner circle
2493 Posts

Profile of Chris K
Lem's Review:

In order for this post to be any help at all, you need to understand my reviewing policy. I’ve discussed my reviewing policy before, but here are the highlights:

Only effects that have been performed for people will be reviewed. I can’t stand reviews based on what magicians “think”. It’s less than worthless, it’s misleading. Maybe (and that is a big MAYBE) somebody knows whether an effect will play well for them, but they can’t make that judgment for anybody else, esp. without any actual performances under their belt. Since I have not performed every effect, I cannot review every effect.

Next, my rating scale is not on a curve and it is hard. People who give average grades out of 9 and 10 (of 10) don’t understand what they are doing and while I am not going to explain it here, it reduces the value of their comments, in my opinion (and in basic math’s opinion as well). As such, an average magic effect gets a 5/10 from me, if it is real, honest to goodness magic, it gets 10/10. If it looks just like “real” magic and is a great effect, it gets a 9.

Finally, everything I say is merely my opinion. I have absolutely no problem if people disagree. Really. However, this is how I, myself, personally, just me, not necessarily you, feel. I will give my reasons why. If you say something I don’t agree with, I will tell you that, why I disagree, etc. That is the true essence of discussion. Ok, enough blah blah blah, moving on.

Disc 1:
Twilight Angels: No review. I think I like it but I haven’t performed it in public.
Backlash 2: No review. I might use some of the ideas in another effect but I haven’t performed it in public.
Cheng’s Change: No review. It’s a nice looking effect but I haven’t even started the practice that would be necessary to put this into effect. I also never owned the commercial, gimmicked version.

New Leaf: I was underwhelmed when viewing this the first time through. I thought the method was obvious. I was wrong about the method being obvious since 1.) I had worked out a harder method prior to watching explanation and 2.) Nobody has even considered/mentioned the method (I would guess 10-12 performances in public).

The limitations of this effect seem to be getting a lot of press, which, for the life of me, I just don’t get. You don’t need a forest, you don’t need a path, you don’t need to be walking, and you don’t need to only do it for a small group/one person. My favorite place to perform this is waiting for the shuttle to work from the MacArthur Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station in Oakland, CA. For people sitting down on the benches. All you need is something with leaves. Bigger leaves give a better effect but the leaves off the bushes behind the benches worked great. I’m not going to go into any more depth because this should be obvious to people who have the DVDs but I will simply point out that Bro did the effect for somebody sitting down as well, so I don’t get the whole “You have to be walking through a forest thing.”

My rating for this, based on when I watched it would have been maybe a 6 (slightly above average). My rating after performing it is 7-7.5/10. This is good (average tricks get a 5, remember) but I couldn’t appreciate it until I performed it. I recommend everybody ask if reviews are based on performances in front of real people (I think at least 90% of them are not).


PH’s Big Tiny: In the previous millennium, I took magic courses with a great guy named Gerry Griffin. He mentioned the <name withheld> effect that some reviews use to categorize this effect. Ever since he mentioned it, I’ve toyed with the idea, the principle, etc. but never found an approach that couldn’t be explained away by “quick hands” or the like (i.e., the magic takes place in hands of performer). This effect takes the principle and moves it to a different level, taking it completely out of the hands of the performer. I love it. I loved it when I watched it. In fact, I didn’t bother watching the explanation at first as I wanted to play with it they way I would accomplish it prior to being biased by watching the explanations. Turns out there was no difference anyway but it got the mental juices flowing.

I performed at a function on Saturday where I performed this as a quasi-closer after the dessert was served for the guest of honor (his mother participated in the effect). People left the party muttering to themselves (in a good way, just for the record). I performed several effects at the function (obviously) but the three biggest ones were Psyche (coin bend, Andrew Gerard), Neither Blind Nor Silly with OOTW ending (Sonata, Tamariz), and the Big Tiny. Great payoff and giving the deck away as a keepsake of the night is the perfect closer and a way to keep people from thinking it is some sort of “special deck”.

I didn’t use it but the ability to have the whole deck shuffled is a great addition and I’ll use it when the situation is right.. I really want to give this a 9/10 as I love it, but I can really only go 8.0. It goes through a deck at a time and I could see this being presented in a very transparent way by some, due to the ease and impromptu nature of the effect (i.e., there isn’t a whole lot of built in cover for the principle, as opposed to the <name withheld> effect).

Disc 2
The New Las Vegas Leaper: As with many other people, I love the original. It’s one of those things I do anytime, anywhere I really want to get into somebody’s head. This version combines it with one of the most requested “follow-ups” to any “objects across” effect, namely: “Well, can you <specifics withheld>?”

With that being said, there is a trade-off in terms of pure “impromptu”-ness. But that is ok due to the nature of the effect (you need something other than cards anyway). I’ve got a few personal issues with the presentation as given on the DVD but I put that into the category of “personalizing the effect”. Rating this is also pretty hard. If I give the original LVL a solid 8, then there are two rankings for LVL$. If the impromptu nature of LVL is relatively important to you, then LVL$ would drop to maybe 6-6.5 (above average but not spectacular). If impromptu is not critical, this goes to 8.5 (fills every need but maybe one or two things I would like to be different but aren’t or can’t be). I really hope people don’t do this and I am totally serious. This is one of those things that could easily be reduced to a bar bet, which would just be horrific. The one benefit, and something fair to share IMO, is that this version requires a bit more guts as well as a bit more audience management than the original. It should be totally transparent but I hope it keeps the hobbyists away from this. Yeah, I said it.

Tubular: I really like this one, I really want to review it, but I haven’t had the chance to do it in public yet. Darn it! Why can’t I review without doing it like so many others…<sigh>

Cheng’s Riser: No review. Looks cool and I have actually been practicing but this isn’t ready yet, even though I have customized the presentation.

Growing card: No review. Have not even looked at explanation. This goes relatively low on my personal importance scale. Looks nice just doesn’t fit with what I like to do.
AlluTallu
View Profile
Veteran user
Finland
396 Posts

Profile of AlluTallu
Thanks for your honest reviews Smile Looking forward to seeing your opinion about other discs as well.

-Aleksi
daghank
View Profile
Loyal user
290 Posts

Profile of daghank
Quote:
On 2009-02-11 14:03, Mercury52 wrote:
Most of TA is gimmick-free. You don't need 4 gimmicks for Twilight Angels, you just need one (a single playing card in your deck). You are supplied with 4 gimmicks if you happen to lose/destroy/give one away. Hope this helps. You can definitely be ready to do many TA effects without pockets full of gimmicks.

Kevin



I guess I misread some parts sorry,its just Im just done with reading over 30 pages of TA topics and comments so,a bit of confusion is normal Smile
danielellis_5
View Profile
Loyal user
Sheffield
211 Posts

Profile of danielellis_5
Is there a method for growing card that doesn't use a gimmick because I came up with a method that doesn't use a gimmick after the first time I saw it.

Dan
Best quote from a spectator"I know how he did that,it was sleight of hand"(spectator then sits back looking pleased with himself)
Chris K
View Profile
Inner circle
2493 Posts

Profile of Chris K
Quote:
On 2009-02-11 14:42, daghank wrote:

I guess I misread some parts sorry,its just Im just done with reading over 30 pages of TA topics and comments so,a bit of confusion is normal Smile


Truer words have not been spoken. This is why the back and forth here is so helpful, we all miss thing.
lumberjohn
View Profile
Special user
Memphis, TN
619 Posts

Profile of lumberjohn
I readily admit that I have not yet performed any of the effects on the True Astonishments DVDs. Feel free to assign whatever weight you deem appropriate to the review.
kissdadookie
View Profile
Inner circle
4031 Posts

Profile of kissdadookie
Lumberjohn, very thorough review but I think, honestly, that you should try each and every effect out on a actual lay audience before you decide on the effect being feasable or not. I'm not a PH fanboy (heck, I've sold my AoA books long ago, but I am a big fan of Deep Astonishment 2 and Lipsmacker) and I've never ordered anything from Ellusionist, I shop at my brick and mortar regularly and have been for years. I just know that there is sooooooooooooooo much good material out there that gets glossed over because one watches the instructions once, has personal issues with the methods, then totally skips the effect. That is NOT the way to approach magic. Yes, there are lots of absolute garbage material out there that is obviously just not going to work all that great in the real world, but there are also LOTS that seems silly in the explanation but in practice are actually very good.

One video in particular that falls into the "saw it, skipped it" category is James Brown's Fancy a Pot of Jam. The material on that video is extremely commercial and strong yet for many magicians, they looked silly and the video became more or less a underground hit instead of a mainstream one. So, all in all, please give all the effects a go in front of actual lay audiences and then come back with your findings.
Chris K
View Profile
Inner circle
2493 Posts

Profile of Chris K
Quote:
On 2009-02-11 15:49, lumberjohn wrote:
I readily admit that I have not yet performed any of the effects on the True Astonishments DVDs. Feel free to assign whatever weight you deem appropriate to the review.


That read a bit stand-offish, which is interesting since you are basically admitting you have no idea how the effects play out in real life. However, let me be very clear, unless I missed it, you never said you hadn't tried a single thing out in the real world.

As such, my comments were made in general. I stand by them so take them as you want but I never knew you fell into that category and even knowing now, it doesn't change anything except your admission that you, again, have no actual performing experience and still reviewed the tricks.

Your post makes me assume that seems all fine and dandy to you and that tells me a great deal, about your effects and how to treat any of your reviews in the future. This is my opinion, you have yours. Feel free to assign whatever weight you deem appropriate but it seems pretty black and white to me who's review is more relevant.
kissdadookie
View Profile
Inner circle
4031 Posts

Profile of kissdadookie
Harsh words Lemniscate but most of it I agree with as well. This makes me revisit the following point: just because you know a few tricks, it doesn't make you a magician.

This is independent from being a worker or a hobbyist, people need to realize that after they learn this stuff, they need to actually perform it for people, not just friends and family. Doesn't even matter if you fail miserably in your attempts, it just means you need to work harder at it, plus chances are that you'll probably never see that stranger which you've failed miserably in front of ever again.
lumberjohn
View Profile
Special user
Memphis, TN
619 Posts

Profile of lumberjohn
There is no question that experience with a particular effect provides insight into whether it is effective before a lay audience. But I don't think that necessarily means that we cannot have valid opinions about effects from seeing them performed and explained. This can be based upon many things such as our own experiences as a spectator of magic and from performing other effects to lay audiences.

I've seen that what may work for one group may not work for another. I have no doubt that all of the effects contained in the first two TA disks will deceive certain groups of people, but I also believe that some effects will fool a wider array than others.

I can also compare effects and demonstrate where one effect has more complicated or contrived procedures than another. Does that mean that the more complicated effect is necessarily worse? Not necessarily, but I've always found that all other things being equal, simplicity is preferable to the alternative.

There are general rules that apply here. Darwin Ortiz and Ken Weber, among others, identify many factors that make a magic trick more effective, most of which would be immediately apparent simply by watching the trick performed, even without any knowledge of the method. So I do believe that reviews can have value even in the absence of extensive performing experience with that effect. I sincerely doubt that the reviewers for Magic, Geniie, the Linking Ring, and so many other magic publications, have extensively performed every effect in every book or DVD they review. The fact that they are willing to provide reviews anyway indicates the position of those publications, as well as everyone that reads them, on the belief that reviews without extensive personal performing expererience are without merit.
daghank
View Profile
Loyal user
290 Posts

Profile of daghank
Lemniscate,
What you propose probably wont work for most people as in my opinion when people watch a dvd,if they don't like a trick or if they don't find it suitable for real life situations,they do now perform it,im sure that there are only few examples of people who actually give the 'not useful' tricks a shot.
lumberjohn
View Profile
Special user
Memphis, TN
619 Posts

Profile of lumberjohn
Lem,

By the way, I had no intention to sound stand-offish. I simply didn't want to mislead anyone into thinking that I had performed the effects. In light of the criteria you provided, I wanted to provide full disclosure of where I was coming from. I didn't feel there was anything else to say. I certainly didn't mean to offend. Nor did I intend to imply that my review was "more relevant" than yours. In fact, I was simply trying to put things into perspective for the readers. I thought that was clear, but if it wasn't, I hope it is now.
kissdadookie
View Profile
Inner circle
4031 Posts

Profile of kissdadookie
It obviously won't work for most people daghank because most people do not dare tread in unfamiliar territory. That's just a fact of life. Now, back to Lumberjohn's review.

Lumberjohn, just by your review of TWO of the items in TA makes me realize that you don't fully grasp what you are watching and learning. Specifically your comments about Cheng's Change and Riser. You viewed these as individual effects where in fact, THEY ARE NOT. These are just two very brilliant methods to achieve two very strong visuals to augment your existing card workd. The intention was never there for them to be individual effects. TA in a sense is very much like the books. Lots of ideas and bits and pieces that may be added to what you already do. If you don't understand this then you are not fully grasping what you have just dropped a hefty sum of money on.

This leads me to also believe that your opinion on something working in the real world or not to not hold any water since you have not even attempted to try it in the real world. This could be said about all the positive reviews for TA, most of those reviews were written without the reviewer having tried the effects out in the real world. I've only seldom reviewed items on the Café but each and every time I do review something, it's usually quite a bit of time after the item has been released. I usually buy things when they are relatively new but the reason I'm slow on giving my views on things for the Café is because I'm busy working out the kinks if there are any. This is the only valid type of review one can give.

To make things simple: you can't say that the food tastes bad until you've actually put the darn thing in your mouth.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Dvd, Video tape, Audio tape & Compact discs. » » True Astonishments Disks 1 & 2: Full Review (0 Likes)
 Go to page 1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next]
X
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.48 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL