Craig,

I agree with you. I have not seen this the way it was intended. But when I got excited to share this with some friends from the big hype of this illusion it feel very short for me and even shorter to no appreciation to the audience we perform these effects to. And I do look forward to see the effect performed the way it is intended.

But I really don't see anything in this effect. It is a box that splits that still looks like the girl just is sitting in the box and holds her hand thru the top. Not sure what the effect is or anything. It is still sooo unclear.

I have HUGE respect for Jim. I have to say he is a brilliant designer and creator.

Thanks guys for listening and love to hear more.

Best,

I'm not sure how you can try to disagree with me, by saying EXACTLY what I said. I said that a rational audience doesn't think a woman can be cut up. Which is exactly how you tried to contradict my point. I'm confused...

What I was saying is that a logical audience, knowing that dismemberment and vivasection is impossible (Well, highly illegal and unethical anyway) will logically seek to see WHERE she could have gone instead. It is the performer and designer's job to eliminate all possible methods of hiding. And I feel that this design fails in that primary way.



Okay, clearly you don't understand the illusion if you think the mirror is insignificant. It serves a few roles, not the least of which is to draw all the heat. Even Steinmeyer has acknowledged that. The other reasons for it...well, this is an open board, so I'll be leaving them out.



That's exactly the problem, though. The box isn't getting "split apart" it's being hinged open in very selective ways. When I designed something, if it was about making a part of someone appear to be cut off, or to make it look like they could fit into an impossible space, I would do what I called the "daylighting test" if you could see daylight through the prop, you effectively made the space look smaller, if you couldn't see daylight, visually the prop will look bigger, because instead of taking it apart, you are enlarging its cross section.

Take a look at this image:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/F......uble.jpg

The top shows a box being split apart in silhouette, (How the mind registers an illusion) the second shows Trouble, which, because of the hinging actually does nothing to break the shape up and only makes it look larger in the audience's mind (Especially if viewed straight on).

I've shown this to a handful of laypeople (Just the image...though a few asked to see the video too) and not a single one was fooled. They saw a giant blob of a prop and thought "Well, there's a good spot to put her!"

It's like having an assistant disappear from a tabletop with nothing underneath, but a solid red backboard attached to the back two legs of the table. Everyone will just assume she jumped down behind the giant cover-y thingy.

I will say, as I've said before, the methodology is brilliant, but the effect is not. It's a puzzle illusion with no puzzle.

If the third block from the left drops down suddenly as a kicker (Think Palanquin illusion for method) then it would definitely help to make this thing a puzzle, and reduce the visual silhouette of the illusion, but as it stands, it just looks like a mildly uncomfortably place to store your assistant to the audience.

Feel free to disagree, but it just isn't a deceptive piece to me, or any of the laypeople who I've shown this to.

-Nick

This piece will fool the pants of of you....trust me...Keep your eyes out for this one!
Best Wishes,
James

Mirror Image, and Nick.. Neither one of you have read Jim's book yet you offer your opinion. Both of you say you respect Jim yet you come on a public forum and offer an uniformed opinion. That is not respect but to the contrary, highly disrespectful to someone who gives the MOST to our art. Both of you call yourself Illusion designers , obviously you have a hidden agenda.

I am suspending my ban on the Green Monster for this one and only post.

I also had trouble ( pardon the pun ) understanding this illusion until I finally did read Jims book explaining it properly. How much do I appreciate it??? Well I just bought one. Trouble is a performance piece. It is not a " toss on some music and dance around while making a girl vanish" illusion.

This video was NOT the way it was intended to be performed. I could see that in the first few seconds of it. Let a real performer do it as intended then base your opinions on that. I think the Wakling Sawing is a perfect example to use here. I hated that illusion when I first saw it. C'mon...... look at those boxes.... much thicker than a thin sawing.... how could it be a good illusion. Then I saw it performed as a performance piece instead of a quicky sawing effect. Marvelous!

Trouble is a bit of theatre, a bit of presentation and a bit of magic all rolled up into one. It will take the audience on a journey of storytelling instead of just slapping them with " where did she go".

Ok.... that's my two cents based on both my first opinion of it and my learned opinion of it. Time to scrap the green of the bottom of my shoes and head back outta here.

Best,

Tim

Hmmm...okay, now if Tim says he likes it, I'm not so sure anymore. I still don't like the giant silhouette it leaves, but I'm open to investigating further.

Darn you and your ability to make me rethink my position!

Also, no hidden agenda, Howard, I got out of illusion designing a while ago. The reason it still says it under my name is because I haven't been here in FOREVER and quite frankly I'm too lazy to change it.

But just to allay any further questions of my agenda, I'll change it now.

-Nick

Who built it for you , is it the same as the one that primavera has .

I guess he won't answer. (A long story and I can understand his reasons of avoiding the café.)

For your question: I think (that is in this case very close to: "I'm sure") Tim has a Daniel Summers version.

Btw. Tim you are still missed so sadly. Thanks for your qualified last input. Always appreciated.

I like the concept and the illusion too I think it has a good Potential ,

like many also I have that book,

but anyway I don't think is right ask the people(even magician ) if they have that book or not if they read it or not,

who said " I don't like too much " is just referring about the Effect and maybe the performance ,

shurely there is something missed even in my opinion.

you can't ask your Audience if they have that book or not they are spectators and you can't ask it,

exactly like those magicians whitout that book are also spectators,

I can agree at the first impact Trouble is not.......... don't forget also the first impact is the most important one for our real audience.

Me neither.

Best,

Las

That's the deciding question for this illusion. You can't understand it without! All the background thoughts there are pointing you in the correct perormance situation and setting. Following that direction this illusion is completly different in the impact!
This illusion isn't useable for a >only music backed< presentation.

PS: Nothing personal, but the video performance is nearly in contradiction to the explanations in the book.

What a GREAT idea for a Trouble routine: "Can I have a show of hands from those of you who own Jim Steinmeyer's book, Technique and Understanding?"

Nice Idea ClintonMagus,
funny!!!!

Such a moronic reply deserves one more post....

The audience doesn't need to have read the book because they would be seeing it as it is SUPPOSED to be presented.

BTW.... to all my friends here I miss. You can always find me and a lot of others at magictalkforum.com

Best,

Tim

Timothy the effect the plot and the concealing system are the same whit or whitout presentation ,
do you really belive your audience is just following your presentation ? can realize they are looking for the secret?

Marcus, "plot" is part of presentation. And presentation matters. In fact, it's the most important part. With proper presentation, you can turn an ordinary cardboard box into a miracle.

Ever see Harbin's original presentation of Zig-zag? Much more effective than many of the "improved" versions out there today. Watch it and see if you understand why:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMN9h4ppIbI

That's why Red Skelton could just come out on stage, do nothing, and the audience would be rolling in the aisles...

I'm hoping to see a version built exactly according Steinmeyer's original drawings. I think Craig Dickens was building one.

Craig, is this true?

Last year I had hoped to have time to build one on spec, but got sidetracked with real orders and the development of my own, soon to be released new illusion. At this point, unless actually commissioned by someone, it is unlikely I would build one.

The video seems to be offline now. I did not get to see it, sadly. Since reading Trouble description in the book, I have been waiting to see how someone would perform this piece. If the video can still be found somewhere else, please indicate. Thanks!