The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » F.U.2 by Lloyd Barnes » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (186 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5..10~11~12 [Next]
Ceierry
View Profile
Inner circle
Europe
1353 Posts

Profile of Ceierry
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.
10S Star Sign Divination AVAILABLE WITH FREE EBOOK !
info@olivierboes.com
Kaliix
View Profile
Inner circle
Connecticut
1422 Posts

Profile of Kaliix
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
View Profile
Inner circle
Connecticut
1422 Posts

Profile of Kaliix
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:
Quote:
On Jul 21, 2019, Kaliix wrote:
I submit that there are likely dozens if not hundreds of effects in magic/mentalism where a routine builds up expectation, subverts that expectation into a joke, which then turns out to be cover for a reveal.

If so, you should be able to name at least ten examples. I can only name three: Asi Wind's "Gypsy Queen", Max Maven's "True Hue" and Harrison Greenbaum's piece. Name some more of all the "hundreds" you just submitted.
Quote:
I would submit that such a basic plotline sequence is in the public domain and not protectable.

No one have claimed it was. We are discussing a specific expression of that plotline.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel J. Boorstin
Kaliix
View Profile
Inner circle
Connecticut
1422 Posts

Profile of Kaliix
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:
Well, I like the Sankey Fine Print reveal, but the "F.U." aspect is not good entertainment IMHO (profanity does not particularly offend me, for what it's worth, it's just pretty weak humor). Maybe for an offensive heckler or drunken audience ... horses for courses I guess ...
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel J. Boorstin
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
733 Posts

Profile of TStone
Quote:
On Jul 22, 2019, Kaliix wrote:
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.


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
View Profile
Veteran user
309 Posts

Profile of JCheng
Quote:
On Jul 22, 2019, TStone wrote:
The Fine Print is more along the lines of "magician in trouble" plot.

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
View Profile
Inner circle
1222 Posts

Profile of Lseeyou
@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
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
733 Posts

Profile of TStone
Quote:
On Jul 22, 2019, JCheng wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 22, 2019, TStone wrote:
The Fine Print is more along the lines of "magician in trouble" plot.

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.


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
View Profile
Veteran user
309 Posts

Profile of JCheng
Quote:
On Jul 22, 2019, TStone 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.


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
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
733 Posts

Profile of TStone
Quote:
On Jul 22, 2019, JCheng wrote:
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).

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
View Profile
Loyal user
239 Posts

Profile of The Mysterious One
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
View Profile
Elite user
480 Posts

Profile of mantel
Quote:
On Jul 18, 2019, Lloyd Barnes wrote:

He took a completely immoral recording of Geraint Clarke, entirely without consent and posted it wholly out of context to support his narrative, in what I can only guess was an attempt to spark rage and out-cry. A grown man did this. Let that sink in.

Well, after doing some searching; Harrison explicitly told us on (this time) a legally recorded phone call (where all parties consented)that the earliest video he has is from 2009 performing it in a show.

Lloyd


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
View Profile
Veteran user
309 Posts

Profile of JCheng
Quote:
On Jul 22, 2019, TStone 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.


Fair enough.
Harry Patter
View Profile
Loyal user
227 Posts

Profile of Harry Patter
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
View Profile
Inner circle
Connecticut
1422 Posts

Profile of Kaliix
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:
Quote:
On Jul 18, 2019, Lloyd Barnes wrote:

However, David Sleaze, The Punk Magician (real name Greg Travis) performed a card effect where a card is chosen, he reveals it and THEN exclaims **** You to his spectator… in 1989. The year after I was born.

Again, although not exactly the same, it is similar.

Actually, it is far less similar than you deceptively let on. The well known 3 1/2 minute act of The Punk Magician has been purposely edited in your post to make it seem that the profanity shouted is integral to the card trick. It isn’t. In fact, the phrase is used at least 13 times on a handful of different “tricks” because it is integral to the character, NOT THE TRICK.

The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel J. Boorstin
Kaliix
View Profile
Inner circle
Connecticut
1422 Posts

Profile of Kaliix
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:
Quote:
On Jul 19, 2019, scott0819 wrote:
It’s not the same method.

That's irrelevant. You evaluate the piece as a whole. If you have to divide it up into tiny articifial components to make your point, it is a clear sign something is off.

Exchanging a free choice with a force isn't an evolution, but a devaluation. That's the obvious approach, and it is very reasonable to assume that approach was both tested and rejected by Harrison in his development.

The way to handle derivative work - when you want to incorporate someone else's work into your own - is to ensure that all permissions are cleared. They already had Harrison's contact info since last time; so why not contact him and obtain his permission, the way any other honest creator would do?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel J. Boorstin
Kaliix
View Profile
Inner circle
Connecticut
1422 Posts

Profile of Kaliix
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:
Quote:
On Jul 22, 2019, Kaliix wrote:
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.


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?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel J. Boorstin
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
733 Posts

Profile of TStone
Quote:
On Jul 25, 2019, Kaliix wrote:
The choice is hardly a devaluation.

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
View Profile
Loyal user
234 Posts

Profile of Lonnie_Lyerla
Quote:
On Jul 22, 2019, mantel wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 18, 2019, Lloyd Barnes wrote:

He took a completely immoral recording of Geraint Clarke, entirely without consent and posted it wholly out of context to support his narrative, in what I can only guess was an attempt to spark rage and out-cry. A grown man did this. Let that sink in.

Well, after doing some searching; Harrison explicitly told us on (this time) a legally recorded phone call (where all parties consented)that the earliest video he has is from 2009 performing it in a show.

Lloyd


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.



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
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5708 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
Quote:
On Jul 25, 2019, Kaliix wrote:
Have you ever seen Harrison Greenbaum perform?


Yes, I have, in person.

Quote:
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.
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.

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 (186 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5..10~11~12 [Next]
X
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2019 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.27 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