|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5..10~11~12 [Next] | ||||||||||
Ceierry Inner circle Europe 1582 Posts 
|
3 pages saying the same. Lloyd already explained his version and posted on Facebook, as well as Geraint.
(IMHO, they actually explained too much.. I feel they didn't need to explain more in depth, magicians are going really CRAZY about this.. I actually start to think this is more a personal issue than the situation of the trick itself.. I would love to see the same situation with another creator, I'm sure this situation wouldn't happened.) Can't we just move along, drink a nice beer, and that's it..? It's not that this trick will actually kill any magician reputation or what so ever right? Credits are here, trick is here, what do you need more? What do you NEED to stop this situation? Do you need Ellusionist to stop selling this trick? But why? It's not even yours too!! I mean... this thread is really out of control guys.. Anyway, just my 2 cents, I'm not affiliated with E, neither Lloyd nor Geraint.. Have a great day, and enjoy the beach.
Author of 10S Star Sign Divination - olivier.ceierry@gmail.com for a digital copy.
|
|||||||||
Kaliix Inner circle Connecticut 1990 Posts
|
Again, thank you for an excellent response.
I agree with you that it is a particular expression of that plot line. I don't believe the general plotline is protectable. Building up an expectation for a reveal is standard stuff, shifting that expectation to a joke then using that for a reveal I think is similarly basic. So is Greenbaum's use of the F*#$ You insult original enough to warrant protection? I see a case to be made for both sides, I guess in the end, I just don't see telling someone one FU when they expect a reveal is that bloody original. And that is really what we are talking about here. Most everything else is different about the tricks. Interestingly though, why isn't the prevailing argument focused on calling this a copy of Sankey's Fine Print. The build up is the same, the reveal is the same, the concept is the same. Really the only difference is that instead of the joke being FU, it is the standard magician in trouble joke with the wrong card. It seems I agree with the Toms in principle, I just think they are focused on the wrong trick. I agree there are certain levels of abstractions that are fairly within generic/public domain. For example, if we abstract any effect enough, it would be nonsensical to say one can protect a trick where someone divines a selected card. But as you add more detail, more specifics, the more protection the expression should get. In this particular case, I think using the "FU" as the punch line / joke is particular enough that it is taking more than a generic plot line, but the particular expression of that plot line. I think reasonable minds can disagree, but I've seen much less that has called for proper approval/crediting. It's also weird that they changed the method (which generally deserves little or no protection in the arts), but kept the entire premise. There's very little protection in magic, and it's easy and common to misappropriate someone else's work (even through accidental or independent creation), and I think we should apply higher standards. [/quote]
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel J. Boorstin |
|||||||||
|
Kaliix Inner circle Connecticut 1990 Posts
|
We are talking about a specific plot line and I believe that you are incorrect. FU is pretty much of copy of fine print, not greenbaums FU effect.
I also believe that if I was allowed to post that question in this forum for people to respond to, I would get dozens of effects from magicians everywhere, particularly if they are incentivized to prove you wrong. The worst I can do is be wrong but that's about it. For you on the other hand... Quote: On Jul 22, 2019, TStone wrote:
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel J. Boorstin |
|||||||||
|
Kaliix Inner circle Connecticut 1990 Posts
|
It's weak humor used incorrectly and this trick in particular needs care in choosing exactly when to perform it, no doubt.
Used properly, with the right audience at the right time, it can be funny, even hilarious. But it's not for everyone that is for sure. Quote: On Jul 22, 2019, hotjacket wrote:
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel J. Boorstin |
|||||||||
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 774 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jul 22, 2019, Kaliix wrote: No, we are talking about a specific routine. A specific dramatic expression. Changing it from an actual free choice to a perceived free choice and claiming it to be a completely new piece is the old "but I do it with a blue backed deck!" argument - the dramatic expression is still the same. It is also a devolution from being fresh and interesting to being trite and predictable. That the devolution also make it more similar to other items, like Fine Print, isn't in favor of Ellusionists claim that it is original work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jIQjr_-gN0 The Fine Print is more along the lines of "magician in trouble" plot. A mistake is made, a prediction turns out to be wrong, but then the error turns out to be the correct in unexpected fashion. I've seen Max Maven and James Randi do more intriguing pieces on that plot, with written predictions that are wrong - but the predictions turns out to be ambigrams, and are correct once rotated 180 degrees. The mistake is not a part of Harrison's plot. The customized face of the card immediately tells you that there never were any intention to actually succeed. Hence, no "magician in trouble" vibes. Btw, you claimed there were hundreds of pieces that duplicates Harrison's plot. So far, I have not seen you cite or quote any. So, I guess it is a fair assumption to consider your claim to be wrong? |
|||||||||
JCheng Veteran user 313 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jul 22, 2019, TStone wrote: You mentioned Gypsy Queen as being similar to the FU plot (or same class). But Gypsy Queen is also a "magician in trouble" plot just line Fine Print. |
|||||||||
|
Lseeyou Inner circle 1271 Posts
|
@Lloyd Barnes
The force that starts @3:10 in the trailer is not mentioned in the instructions or did I miss anything? Curious about this but can't find where you guys mention it in the instructions... Thanks in advance |
|||||||||
|
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 774 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jul 22, 2019, JCheng wrote: Never seen it played like that. In Asi's video, he presses on, like everything happened the way it was supposed to, and are using the resulting puzzlement for the same purpose Harrison use the groan. |
|||||||||
|
JCheng Veteran user 313 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jul 22, 2019, TStone wrote: If you see the uncut performance of Gypsy Queen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg-UALCF59A The spectators at some point are thinking that the magician is in "trouble" (got the wrong card) but obviously at the end the trick goes well (just like Fine Print). |
|||||||||
|
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 774 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jul 22, 2019, JCheng wrote: What the spectators are thinking is irrelevant. You evaluate the work as a whole. There's no error, or acknowledgement of error, in the handling and scripting of the piece. Neither is there anything of that in the performance shown. |
|||||||||
|
The Mysterious One Veteran user 384 Posts
|
This will play with certain audiences depending up one's character (like David Sleaze, Amazing Jonathan, etc.) and the audience.
Amongst the debate in this thread, what I haven't seen is anyone mentioning the ad copy about this being a heckler stopper. Is it my imagination, but is performing this for a heckler at the first sign of disruption could escalate the issue and turn the audience against the magician? What concerns me are the inexperienced magician thinking that this will endear him/her to an audience and silence a heckler. It may just do the opposite and embolden a heckler to increase the rude, disruptive behavior and turn the audience against the magician. Again, it all depends on the performer, but those that do it well lesrned through experience. |
|||||||||
|
mantel Special user 922 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jul 18, 2019, Lloyd Barnes wrote: You’ve lost me as Ellusionist only cares about morals when they’ve backed themselves into a corner. Also Harrison didn't need Geraint’s consent anyway as New York is one party consent state. What did you expect Harrison to do? Sit back and let Ellusionist profit from what he believes is his intellectual property? Regardless of how you feel both phone calls were legally recorded. |
|||||||||
|
JCheng Veteran user 313 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jul 22, 2019, TStone wrote: Fair enough. |
|||||||||
MonsterMagic Special user 517 Posts
|
If a trick is close enough to another to cause this thread then I think that speaks for itself.
I watched Tom Stone lecture his Of Mice and Men routine many years ago, (International Magic Convention) I loved the premise, but I wasn't too keen on the method. I changed it. It uses no dice, I have more than six options, and everyone who joins me on stage gets a go. It isn't binary but the kicker is still Kill. Can I release it without consulting Tom Stone, I suppose I could in many minds. But I wouldn't, his routine was my starting point, inspiration and in my mind it the same trick. Is using 'Kill' in magic trick protectable, No. But it is morally wrong and it does nothing for our creative art to publish anothers work, punchline, kicker or premise as our own. |
|||||||||
|
Kaliix Inner circle Connecticut 1990 Posts
|
Have you ever seen Harrison Greenbaum perform? I ask this because your argument about FU being integral to the card trick and not to the character is laughable on it's face. Having watched Greenbaum perform and lecture, I can tell you that f$%k specifically and coarse, vulgar language is integral to his character and his act. He uses the F-bomb twice in this effect and says that the card he uses in his kid shows is shorter and just says c$%t. Greenbaum's character appears to be MUCH MORE similar to Sleaze's character than you would have us believe. An insult comic/magician who is corporate vs. punk rock but is doing a similar trick with FU as the punch line.
It sure seems like Greenbaum is copy of Sleaze. Quote: On Jul 19, 2019, Tom Cutts wrote:
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel J. Boorstin |
|||||||||
|
Kaliix Inner circle Connecticut 1990 Posts
|
Exchanging a free choice with a force is not a devaluation, it is a trade-off. By choosing to fairly force the card, the need for an index is obviated, as is the need for a switch. The prediction need not be handled by the magician and can be revealed by the spectator in their hands. The routine can be less cluttered, with no need for books or multiple envelopes.
The choice is hardly a devaluation. Additionally, even though the participant in Greenbaum's effect has a free choice to name any card, Greenbaum curiously brings out a deck, shuffles it, cuts it, handles it on stage for minutes and looks through it for the named card but never actually uses it for anything (other than perhaps as cover for a hidden card). I don't see the advantage of a freely named card if the magician is going to introduce cards to cut and play with but not actually use for anything. It muddies up the effect. Quote: On Jul 19, 2019, TStone wrote:
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel J. Boorstin |
|||||||||
|
Kaliix Inner circle Connecticut 1990 Posts
|
Greenbaum's FU effect is exactly the classic magician in trouble plotline. What was the card in the envelope if not for a prediction? Greenbaum's comic rant after the FU card is revealed is specifically about how the spectator thought he could do the effect, which was to correctly predict his card, with Greenbaum exclaiming, you think that trick is f'ing possible, FU!
Copyright protection extends to ORIGINAL works of creative expression. The magician in trouble plotline is standard and can be used by anyone, as Greenbaum does here. Greenbaum's specific interpretation of that plotline, his act so to speak is absolutely protected. Greenbaum's specific act has not been copied. No Harry Potter book, No free choice, No envelopes, No index, No switch, No handling of the reveal by the magician, No peeled of sticker reveal. The only part that was "stolen" was his use of the FU insult to cover the magician in trouble plotline. Saying FU to someone is in no way original. It's been used as a retort for almost everything for centuries. Using it to insult someone who thought you could do something you lead them to believe you could do isn't original. If you think for some reason it is, Greenbaum wasn't even the first to use it in a card trick. Quote: On Jul 22, 2019, TStone wrote:
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel J. Boorstin |
|||||||||
|
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 774 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jul 25, 2019, Kaliix wrote: That was a lot of words you had there. But noticeable missing among them were any kind of citation of any of the hundreds of routines you claim Harrison's piece duplicates. Please name 3-4 of all those hundreds, Kaliix. I'd like to compare them myself, and make sure your claims are sincere and honest. |
|||||||||
Lonnie_Lyerla Special user 508 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jul 22, 2019, mantel wrote: Agreed. And even if it were a state that didn’t allow recording someone without their knowledge, Technically, it doesn’t matter what state he’s in because It’s federal law from my understanding. The supremacy clause would come into effect since state law would conflict with federal. Anyone can record anyone as long as they are a part of that conversation or have full permission from someone who is involved in that conversation. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) |
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5930 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jul 25, 2019, Kaliix wrote: Yes, I have, in person. Quote: Your statement is patently inaccurate because...drum roll please... I didn’t make that claim. Something can be both integral to the character AND integral to the trick. AT THE SAME TIME. This is true of Harrison’s effect. Not true of The Punk Magician. So show me where I said the phrase was not integral to Harrison’s character. I expect you will have as much difficulty backing that claim up as you are having with Mr. Stone’s challenge posed for you provide evidence of your claims.
I ask this because your argument about FU being integral to the card trick and not to the character is laughable on it's face. But I’m sure you convolute and argue the definition of “integral” and oversimplify things in an utterly invalid attempt to have people believe your untruths. |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » F.U.2 by Lloyd Barnes » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (187 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5..10~11~12 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Jul 22, 2019 09:45 am 
X
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.06 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 < 
|