Thanks for explaining your thinking concerning the design of the illusion kh-magus.

I'm sorry to tell you wrong, but wireless speakers exist already in the sound technology.

Anyway this may just be details. It looks like a very interesting illusion concept and I'm sure that a lot of people will get this illusion to give their Modern Art and / or Origami a rest.

Oliver.

I see nothing wrong with the speaker theme, metaphor or not. It's a music video, hence a music theme.

The video DOES point out the shortcomings of viewing this illusion from above...

Primavera looks like a fun and talented group.
Craig is spot on. Mr. Steinmeyer has a wonderfully crafted monologue for this illusion. It is smart and funny.
ClintonMagus, It really isn't a short coming. Actually, If Primavera had followed the instructions, the speaker they removed and placed on the floor should have been placed on top of the prop. The girls entrance and exit from the box was not as described in Jim's book either.
I'm still waiting to see someone perform this Illusion as scripted.

I was really hoping to see this illusion in action. I guess I am disapointed. When I first saw pictures I saw a boring illusion. When I saw the video. I felt very distracted by the white walls in my room as it had more action and excitement then the illusion I was watching. I am being honest here. This is not at all Jims best work. This is like going backwards. I know Jim can do better. But this I do not see is worth the money that is being asked for.

Sorry for those that like it. We are all entitled to our opinions. I thought sharing this to some of my lay friends would change my mind. They saw no magic at all. It was boring not from the presentation. Just the effect itself There is no WOW factor that todays audience is demanding.

Looking forward to Jims future work. Hope something better comes next.

Best,

The Mirror Images, have you read Jim's book?

None of the tricks and illusions in the video were at all "developed", so Trouble, unfortunately, wasn't as effective in this context as it would be in a stage show with a compelling presentation. I am still fascinated by the possibilities. It might not be his best illusion, but I'll bet you it can be effective and puzzling with the right presentation.

I'm with you on this bet! It has much potential.

Nice illusion ,
really deceptive,
shurely need to be performed as well,
Marcus

Thanks for sharing that video

I must agree with Illucifer. I loved trouble when I read that concept at "Technique and..." but now I feel Dan's changes at table can't be seen as an improvement at all.

About presentation: Clearly Primavera are not magicians, they are singers and that video shows. There is not magic at this video, the box opens whitout any apparent reason, no cutting, no imposibility, just an strange "visual" thing.

The magic is (are) (a) prop(s). No more. No less.

The principle created by JS is new and has a lot of potential I think it is deceptive and my opinion that the problem lies in the coloring of the illusion let alone the back round , it is not the design not the effect , trouble is a fantastic new illusion daniels production is fine but the coloring has taken away a lot . I would love to see the illusion made buy bill smith or grig dickens and performed by a magician .not a dancing group .i also think that the illusion should be done slowly and step by step .

It isn't concerned with the trouble illusion...
Please misunderstood Primavera...

Certainly, It didn't work well this time.
But, they are not just a dancing group, but they are magician, too.

http://www.youtube.com/user/MAGISTATION

I have not. But still it does not to me to excite me at all. The lay people that I have shown this to are bored. Some times things sound great on paper till it is made. This is a case of where it may sound great on paper but once built and performed it falls flat. And that is ok. The method behind this maybe new and innovating. Maybe this we can take to make something that wont fall flat.

The illusion really doesn't make sense. Maybe I need to read the book. But when visually looking at it the top box looks very think so the girl looks like she is there. So I am very unsure where the magic is. She is cramped up in one of the spaces with her hand out the top. Seems troubling to me? So again it isn't convincing and neither impressive to me.

Best,

I'm sorry.

wrong: Please misunderstood Primavera...
right: Please do not misunderstand Primavera...

Where can we see the illusion in action ?

Mirror Images---You still have not seen the effect "performed". Considering the attacks you guys endure when Jack Murray roughly demo's one of your creations I would think you would understand this.
READ THE BOOK. See what it is supposed to be. Might change your mind. The opinions of lay people with no background to imagine the possibilities are not credible. Imagine showing a Van Gogh or Picasso painting to someone without the ability to understand it ( especially if the two were not famous). Further imagine what the response would be upon seeing one of the rough demos of your ideas.
Gotta keep an open mind!! To dismiss it across the board based on this video is not fair.

Amen, Mr. Dickens!

I have everything that Jim Steinmeyer has written, and I think there is more "workable" stuff (including Trouble) in Technique and Understanding than in anything else he has published. I wish that I could find a video of a real illusionist performing Trouble.

What I like about Jim's stuff is that, even if a particular illusion or other effect does not appeal to you, there are many techniques and presentation ideas that can be applied to other parts of your act. Also, if you can't understand the effect completely fromt he description, Jim is always available to walk you through it until you do.

Craig, That was brilliant. You have a way with words. Mirror-images I can of course understand how you would feel that way after seeing this presentation. I do echo what Craig says. It is not fair to blame the inventor or builder for a performance that misses the mark. The girls are talented, not their fault but this was simply not the proper choice for their performance style or for the music video. Perhaps when KH-Mugus saw the ad he thought it was a cut-em- up trick.. And it's not. In my opinion it a more intellectual piece and perhaps people who have read the book understand this. Just imagine a "Walking Sawing" being performed to music in this very same manner.. it would fall flat as well. In the right hands however, the "Wakling Sawing" is a solid piece of great entertainment. I think It takes a seasoned pro to pull it off. This Illusion may not be for the week-end performer or birthday party act but I see it for the full time pro who will take the time and talent to deliver it properly as Jim intended.

I'm a huge fan of Steinmeyer, and have nothing but respect for his work, (I've even told him so in person) but I have to agree with The Mirror Images here. I love the methodology of this illusion, but it fails for one main reason: it's not a puzzle. And when you're trying to go for a puzzle effect like the Wakeling Sawing or Origami, that's a big thing to miss the mark on.

I think this is a case of a lot of magicians fooling themselves into believing it's deceptive, like a card magician who thinks that a bunch of fancy flourishes and cuts help him...they don't, they just tell the audience that you are so good with cards that you could probably make ANYTHING happen with them. And with that, the magic dies a little.

Remember if the audience THINKS they know how an effect works, they might as well know, because the effect is meaningless at that point.

What a layperson sees when viewing this effect is a wall, blocking their view. The shape isn't broken up. In fact, it only gets larger as a visual object as the girl is supposedly getting smaller. The two things don't align.

To be a successful illusion, it must take the assumption that the audience is bound to have, when they say "look at that bulk" and dismiss it, in the same way that the mirror is dismissed in Origami. In the latter, the mirror is seen as the "obvious place" for the girl to be, so it's all turned on it's side and those who thought they knew how the effect worked are left even more dumbfounded than everyone else.

This effect, for all of it's brilliance and simplicity, leaves the audience with an obvious answer to the question, "where is the girl?" (No rational audience member actually thinks she's being split into pieces)

As it stands, the effect is like a 3 act play where the 3rd act has been omitted. It needs something else! And no matter how much a girl tries to make it "look" like a tight fit before and after, the literal bulk of the prop is never addressed and thus leaves most audiences scratching their heads as to where the effect is.

That center bulk MUST be eliminated in some surprise fashion for this to be made into a good illusion.

Feel free to disagree, but this effect still has some work to be done on it before it's ready for primetime in my mind.

-Nick

Nick, I have to disagree with you When a lady is sawed in half, surely you don't think the audience REALLY thinks she is sawed in half do you?? No "rational audience" ever believes you're really doing magic. Your example with the mirror on the Origami: The mirror is not there to lure the audience into thinking the girl is behind it. That's Nonsense, the mirror is insignificant. But let us go with your example, if Origami is a good Illusion for you because the table gets turned around and your audience doesn't see the the girl behind the mirror, WOW, pretty cool. So for Trouble, if the audience thinks she is in that "bulk" as you call it *all 6 inches*, then the illusion gets turned around showing that there is no bulk and that the pieces are separated, same thing is it not?.. So forgive me if I am missing your analogy. Nor is the object is getting bigger as you say, it's getting SPLIT APART , an extremely big difference.
It is similar to one of magic's most popular effects the Cube Zag in that respect, It has to be turned around to be convincing. ( That is why we turn our hands from back to front to do card flourishes) The audience should not be scratching their heads because the patter leads them through the effect. So Nick, have you read the book lol!