We Remember The Magic Café We Remember
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..8~9~10~11~12 [Next]
kissdadookie
View Profile
Inner circle
4061 Posts

Profile of kissdadookie
Quote:
On Aug 6, 2019, RNK wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 6, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 6, 2019, RNK wrote:
And he's off......


Yup. Never stopped, I’m being consistent like I’ve stated. Unlike some others here. Yourself, obvious why you are in this thread. That in and of itself is pretty sad seeing how you literally came in this thread to do nothing else other than to jump on other people’s bandwagon to instigate things further.


Well, not to instigate but to warn Tom and others how you won't stop, almost like a child doesn't stop, very similar. And I am betting most people here have had enough of your repeating redundant posts on this topic. You seem to love arguing with everybody that disagrees with you. I hope you enjoy life more than you enjoy this!


You can be the judge then eh?

https://www.harrisongreenbaum.com/videos

That’s from Harrison’s own site. Second video there is his Last Comic Standing appearance where the Bible Harry Potter joke is featured prominently. If Tom was correct with his assumption that Harrison gave up the joke he stole, then that video shouldn’t be part of his current promo material on his site then should it?

How about it being a featured joke in his own FU routine video:

https://youtu.be/EZwEBtnbf7o

He stole a joke, never acknowledges that he has, and clearly still uses the material in some form. He now claims that Ellusionist stole his effect twice now. How does one reconcile that? Or would you agree that that is hypocritical and a double standard.
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
772 Posts

Profile of TStone
Quote:
On Aug 6, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
So the originator of the joke needs to come out and claim it for it to be stolen? Never mind that the joke was said by the comedian before Harrison years prior to Harrison using it and it was broadcasted so the evidence is there. Explain your reasoning and logic here.

I gave three examples on the reasoning.
Look, you are still anonymous, still inconsistent, still crap at plot analysis, still a thief apologist. You could have gained some respect by showing your work, but you opted not to. So it is pointless to continue.
kissdadookie
View Profile
Inner circle
4061 Posts

Profile of kissdadookie
Quote:
On Aug 6, 2019, mantel wrote:
How about a redirection kissadookie? Can you explain why Ellusionist put up the Original Video for the FU deck Performance and Explanation on Magic Stream for everyone no magic stream account required?

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s......y%3Dtrue


So I've looked at the link on an actual computer (looked at it before on mobile) and noticed that this is a Google cache page that you linked to. The actual page does not seem to be available anymore (click around for the video links on the page you linked, it takes you to a page not found error). So with that in mind, it would appear that they did pull the video. That link is for content that essentially does not appear to exist and is just a Google cache page for that page. I don't have a Magic Stream account so I can't tell you if it's actually there behind a paywall or not but my guess is it is not? Someone with a Magic Stream account can confirm.

The following appears to be what is actually available on the Magic Stream site though:

https://magicstream.com/catalog/lloyd-barnes

Notice how FU is not included there. Nor can I find it here:

https://magicstream.com/catalog/card-magic

It would appear that at this point and at the point of FU2's release, Ellusionist appears to have handled things properly and professionally in this instance. They've provided ample evidence and the counter evidence appears to be entirely anecdotal and without any actual substantiating evidence. Ellusionist should give credit for the FU gag (which they apparently do on the product page for FU2) and the disagreement and claim against them appears to be that Ellusionist stole an entire effect which is far from being an accurate description of what has occurred, this is so even if you take the whole joke stealing issue and put it aside for a moment.
mantel
View Profile
Special user
679 Posts

Profile of mantel
Quote:
On Aug 7, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 6, 2019, mantel wrote:
How about a redirection kissadookie? Can you explain why Ellusionist put up the Original Video for the FU deck Performance and Explanation on Magic Stream for everyone no magic stream account required?


So I've looked at the link on an actual computer (looked at it before on mobile) and noticed that this is a Google cache page that you linked to. The actual page does not seem to be available anymore (click around for the video links on the page you linked, it takes you to a page not found error). So with that in mind, it would appear that they did pull the video.


Yes, when I posted the link again yesterday, someone at Ellusionist finally did the right thing and removed the video and/or removed public access to the video.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4816 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On Aug 8, 2019, mantel wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 7, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 6, 2019, mantel wrote:
How about a redirection kissadookie? Can you explain why Ellusionist put up the Original Video for the FU deck Performance and Explanation on Magic Stream for everyone no magic stream account required?


So I've looked at the link on an actual computer (looked at it before on mobile) and noticed that this is a Google cache page that you linked to. The actual page does not seem to be available anymore (click around for the video links on the page you linked, it takes you to a page not found error). So with that in mind, it would appear that they did pull the video.


Yes, when I posted the link again yesterday, someone at Ellusionist finally did the right thing and removed the video and/or removed public access to the video.


They only took it down yesterday? Holy ****.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
kissdadookie
View Profile
Inner circle
4061 Posts

Profile of kissdadookie
Quote:
On Aug 8, 2019, mantel wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 7, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 6, 2019, mantel wrote:
How about a redirection kissadookie? Can you explain why Ellusionist put up the Original Video for the FU deck Performance and Explanation on Magic Stream for everyone no magic stream account required?


So I've looked at the link on an actual computer (looked at it before on mobile) and noticed that this is a Google cache page that you linked to. The actual page does not seem to be available anymore (click around for the video links on the page you linked, it takes you to a page not found error). So with that in mind, it would appear that they did pull the video.


Yes, when I posted the link again yesterday, someone at Ellusionist finally did the right thing and removed the video and/or removed public access to the video.


If that's the case, Ellusionist is most certainly in the wrong for that one. Let's try not to conflate that with the claims against FU2 though.
Mac_Stone
View Profile
Inner circle
Miami, FL
1126 Posts

Profile of Mac_Stone
The issues are related kissdadookie. This all started with the original FU Loyd tried to produce which was an open index deck and the FU card. After words with Harrison Loyd decided it would be better not to produce the open index deck but decided to continue producing the FU card.

So now with a forced card Loyd is producing a trick that frankly just is not as good as any card called for.

The original routine with the open index was available on magic stream until just yesterday apparently.
kissdadookie
View Profile
Inner circle
4061 Posts

Profile of kissdadookie
Quote:
On Aug 8, 2019, Mac_Stone wrote:
The issues are related kissdadookie. This all started with the original FU Loyd tried to produce which was an open index deck and the FU card. After words with Harrison Loyd decided it would be better not to produce the open index deck but decided to continue producing the FU card.

So now with a forced card Loyd is producing a trick that frankly just is not as good as any card called for.

The original routine with the open index was available on magic stream until just yesterday apparently.


I get you, the problem is related in that it all originated from the original FU deck, but it is unfair and nonsensical to conflate the two. FU2 is a distinctly different product which Harrison is claiming directly is his FU effect being stolen wholesale when in fact the similarity stops at the FU gag for FU2, unless one wishes to argue that one has ownership to a card prediction or basically a finding a spectator's card trick. Go after the Magic Stream bit directly (because clearly Ellusionist would be in the wrong for that one) BUT the focus and claims were made against FU2 which is really a separate release. Folks, be clear and specific with claims please, not being so does not help your case.

I actually did a little experiment with this. I showed laypeople that are not much in terms of being fans of magic (they enjoy it but don't go out of their way to seek it out, and these are people I generally have not shown stuff to, I do converse with them on many heady topics like systems of economics, history, societal policies, etc.). I believe 4 of them in total. Their reaction to the tricks themselves (didn't give them any background in the beginning about the controversy) and their conclusion was that the effects are different. I then showed them just the bit about the joke theft from the Ellusionist video. Then I finally explained what the controversy around FU2 is. Their response to this was that this is some truly petty controversy especially when the effects to them are completely different. They then practically uniformly concluded that it's a card trick, how can anyone lay claim to a card trick. I asked for further explanation of this and they explained that it's a find my card type card trick, how can anybody lay claim to the concept of finding a spectator's card or the use of FU in the routine especially when the effects to them had been perceived to be very different from each other.

I found that little experiment to be interesting and arguably the most objective view since those laypeople are not in any way shape or form invested in the industry one way or the other. Moral arguments fall flat there and so does ethical arguments against FU2, reason being the effect is perceived to be dramatically different from each other. If only behind the scenes do you see the two being the same but when looked at in practical real world terms, they are drastically different, what moral and ethical position do you have at that point? This really brings to question who are we performing for? One can make a great point that one perform's for themselves but then you come to the following dilemma: one can think anything they want in their own minds but this does not make what they think to be factually correct. So really, to say that FU2 is the same effect as Harrison's FU when perceived by the audience as two completely different effects, there is no valid argument there other than ego because at the end of the day that's what it is.

I would like to also say, yes, the FU2 is not that strong of a trick IMO. They are essentially selling gag prediction cards. I find it hard to even consider it to be them selling a person a effect. You're paying $15 for a pack of gag prediction cards, that's the product being sold really. I would also like to take this opportunity to point out a recent Ellusionist being a bit scheme-y move, the Pyro mystery thing they have going on where it's really just a liquidation of the Pyro pen. That is such a hot trash move.
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
772 Posts

Profile of TStone
You asked laypeople? What would be the point of that? What they think is completely irrelevant.
kissdadookie
View Profile
Inner circle
4061 Posts

Profile of kissdadookie
Quote:
On Aug 8, 2019, TStone wrote:
You asked laypeople? What would be the point of that? What they think is completely irrelevant.


So you don't perform for an audience? Or do you perform strictly for other magicians? The effect is the effect is it not? The effect is to be shown to others. End of the day the product is consumed by others, not yourself. What you think of a effect that has no audience is irrelevant.

If you perform a effect and your audience can't make heads or tales of it, but you think it's a lovely effect with incredible structure, creative expression, nuance, subtlety, etc. but the audience to your effect thinks it's about as good as staring at paint dry or worse yet, does not actually know what the effect is and is rather confused than entertained/appreciative/astonished, do you still think that is a great effect or even an average effect at best?

Of course it matters especially when the conflict here between Harrison and Ellusionist is that FU2 is a stolen EFFECT from him seeing how the thing in question is the EFFECT but the methods are nowhere near being the same. In this situation one can not claim the similarity being behind the scenes since methodology is not similar in the slightest. What you have left is the aesthetics of the effect, what is perceived. If what is perceived is seen as being night and day different from each other, what argument is there left other than one person laying claim to a ownership of something for the sake of claiming ownership to something, at this point it's clearly a petty argument driven by ego.

I would like to just acknowledge that I do understand your point from a philosophical and self growth aspect. Where catering to the audience can in some instances result in stifling one's creativity and one's own goals. However, what is being discussed is a case of possible theft. That is a topic to be viewed objectively, not subjectively. Anything can have a myriad of concurrent and conflicting subjective positions because of the nature of subjectivity. Subjectivity has no place in a discussion over a claim of theft. Your personal views on the importance and role of the audience is just your personal view on a philosophical question. We are talking about a theft of a effect here though. The effect is a product. The audience are the consumers. If the consumers see the two effects as dramatically night and day different from each other, then there is no theft of an effect unless you want to reduce it down to them both being a card trick.

Crying wolf one too many times lessens the impact when crying wolf when an actual wolf appears for which we now are going to have a huge problem. I am not against Harrison demanding some sort of resolution with Ellusionist but the problem here is the exaggeration of the claim then the proceeding bandwagon-ing of the pro-Harrison side trying to legitimize the exaggeration by more or less being the loudest ones in the room rather than take a measured look at the situation in an objective fashion. One of the laypeople that I showed the videos to actually came back commenting on how not only are the two effects incredibly different from each other but that the level of pettiness on display here surprises him as to why people even would want to get into magic if there's this level of pettiness going on. He also commented that people can't claim ownership for a find my card trick as there must have been people doing that for centuries (thus suggesting what the perceived effects in question are here, not some let me massage this thing philosophically and theoretically to fit a narrative of there actually being theft of an entire effect). He also sees the same kind of pettiness and bickering in the academic world (since crediting is also a big topic in academia). He ended his observation with essentially: what's next? everyone starts their show with a long list of credits before the show can start? If methodology isn't the question then your left with aesthetics. If the aesthetics are very different along with the methodology being different then you effectively have two different effects.
kissdadookie
View Profile
Inner circle
4061 Posts

Profile of kissdadookie
Here is a list of things in a similar situation as FU2 where a plot device is used that was seen somewhere else earlier (except in the following examples, I'm pretty sure that no crediting was given for the newer work, and there's a distinct lack of bickering over crediting):

The Boys (comic book series) - The superhero team here is CLEARLY lifted from the Justice League.
The Girl Next Door (film) - The concept here is CLEARLY lifted from Risky Business
Spider-Man: Far from Home (film) - The concept here borrows HEAVILY from Eurotrip.
Super-8 (film) - This is basically an homage to Spielberg
Bird Box and that other movie where you are not allowed to make a sound because of aliens or something - They BOTH are incredibly similar to Quiet Place, also, PLEASE don't watch the aforementioned two. They were terrible, just stick with the Quiet Place.

These are just off the top of my head more contemporary/recent examples where we have a newer work that clearly borrowed heavily if not lifted the entire concept from a predecessor. One would find it hard to argue that they should never have been made without the permission and blessing of what came before them. We overall don't argue that and thus they exist and continue to exist, all the whilst moving their respective art forms forward let that be in the sense of new creative explorations or even simply bringing attention to a certain type of movie or genre.

If the debate here has even the remotest validity (where the argument is, taking a plot device equates to stealing of the whole enchilada) then that position needs to be consistent with ALL creative works. Why is it not a problem to this extent in books and films yet it exists for this FU2 situation? There are authors that claim that they own a genre, etc. and we have historically seen that they usually lose in that battle because the audience/consumer does not believe and feel that the author is in the right there. The above examples I've listed are comparatively far worse OFFENDERS than the situation with FU2. Far worse, except it's not much of an issue really and making a huge heated issue over them, most would consider to be petty and nonsensical.
The Mysterious One
View Profile
Loyal user
259 Posts

Profile of The Mysterious One
Wow, I haven't checked this thread since my few meager posts days ago. It is very interesting reading and seeing the opinions from both sides of the debate, a very passionate debate for sure. I am shocked that Ellusionist had the FU video on their Magic Stream, in spite of the objections of Harrison I may add. This puts holes in Lloyd's argument of Ellusionist being professional and mindful to Harrison's previous (and recent) objections to the original FU deck project. I see Tom and Glenn and other valued contributors to the Café making strong arguments on plot on how E shouldn't release FU2 in spite of different methodology, etc., My question is where should the line be drawn if there are releases with the same general plot that use different methodologies?

Keep in mind...I am not trying to get anyone's blood pressure up; I am not trying to cause anger. I am sincerely curious and wanting to understand. I will use the card to impossible location plot as an example. There were various products based on Kennedy's Mystery Box that uses a clear box. First, I remember Regal's Clarity Box following by a bunch of items (Penn's Mystery Solved, Allen's Paragon 3D [an updated to Jon's Paragon], Dobson's 3Sixty) and also other products in opaque containers (Garcia's Mintbox, Kramm's Toibox, etc.) All of these are brillant in different ways; each of these magicians are very creative.

Why wasn't there the amount of outrage when these various products were released? The methodology is slightly different in these releases, but the plot is the same. Is the lack of outrage due to the card to impossible location being a wonderful, older plot that has existed in magic for centuries?

For clarification, I am using these products as an example and not hinting at all that somone should be at all upset at these products, associated magicians, etc.
false_awakening
View Profile
New user
69 Posts

Profile of false_awakening
Quote:
On Aug 8, 2019, The Mysterious One wrote:
... I will use the card to impossible location plot as an example. There were various products based on Kennedy's Mystery Box that uses a clear box. First, I remember Regal's Clarity Box following by a bunch of items ... Why wasn't there the amount of outrage when these various products were released? The methodology is slightly different in these releases, but the plot is the same


Yes, the ambiguity of the term "plot" causes confusion in this issue. I think gdw clarified this usefully a couple of pages ago:

"Traditionally in magic it refers to the general high level plot: card to wallet, ambitious card, mystery prediction, magician in trouble, etc. Magicians can have specific takes on these general plots. These are usually called tricks or routines. The individual trick can also have its own "plot." That is to say the specific arc of that trick, itself a take on a general "plot.""


Quote:
On Aug 8, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
If the debate here has even the remotest validity (where the argument is, taking a plot device equates to stealing of the whole enchilada) then that position needs to be consistent with ALL creative works. Why is it not a problem to this extent in books and films yet it exists for this FU2 situation?


I agree that a principle ought ideally to be held consistently, but in order for this to happen, shouldn't the application of the principle take into account the inherent differences across the categories of work you describe?

Books and films, in general, involve more variables than are found in a magic routine. This means a greater palette with which to modify a base idea, or obscure its having been "borrowed".
Music also: chord patterns repeat endlessly. But, if you use another song's chord pattern, along with the other primary elements of the musical "effect", such as melody, rhythm, key, tempo, etc., you're more likely to have problems.

Perhaps it is a matter of degree. Arguably there is less space and time in a magic routine for the plot (or specific "arc", as above) to be differentiated. Hence, the principle ideally is applied at a seemingly narrower, but relatively equivalent scale.
Similarly, successful musical copyright claims generally aren't based on chord patterns alone, nor successful literary claims on genre, because those scales of application are inappropriate for the spirit of the principle.
mantel
View Profile
Special user
679 Posts

Profile of mantel
Quote:
On Aug 8, 2019, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 8, 2019, mantel wrote:
Yes, when I posted the link again yesterday, someone at Ellusionist finally did the right thing and removed the video and/or removed public access to the video.


They only took it down yesterday? Holy ****.


that's technically correct (they removed the link at some point after July 17 but Ellusionist left the video on the sever unprotected until yesterday.)

In retrospect I probably shouldnt have posted it. But I was hoping it would somehow get kissdadookie back on topic and away from his circular arguments. But two posts later kissdadookie is back on another tangent writing about how movies share similar plots.
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
772 Posts

Profile of TStone
Quote:
On Aug 8, 2019, The Mysterious One wrote:
Why wasn't there the amount of outrage when these various products were released? .

...maybe because Bruno Hennig wanted others to do his trick? Maybe the point is about the creators’ rights to their work?
The Unmasked Magician
View Profile
Inner circle
If only I didn't have a wife and a kid I would have MUCH more than
1560 Posts

Profile of The Unmasked Magician
Tom, I really don’t like your way of using rhetorical questions and the word “maybe” to belittle someone that stated he is just curious. You seem determined to use all kinds of rhetorical and pseudo-intellectual Ciceronian tricks to put people down in this thread. Calling a really positive and mellow guy like Kallix a creep is way out of line. To me that just shows a lack of social skills on your part and it really puts me off. The fact that somewhere in the past you made some contributions to magic does not make your opinion more important. It just makes you ... old. 😉
Please check regularly if you are becoming the type of magician Jerry Seinfeld jokes about. (This applies to mentalists as well.)
The Unmasked Magician
View Profile
Inner circle
If only I didn't have a wife and a kid I would have MUCH more than
1560 Posts

Profile of The Unmasked Magician
Mind you, I am actually on the side of gdw in this argument. So it’s not about that. And take all the shots a E you want, that’s business. Just town it down a bit on Café Members that have no commercial stake in this, just a different opinion on a complex issue.
Please check regularly if you are becoming the type of magician Jerry Seinfeld jokes about. (This applies to mentalists as well.)
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
772 Posts

Profile of TStone
Quote:
On Aug 9, 2019, The Unmasked Magician wrote:
Just town it down a bit on Café Members that have no commercial stake in this, just a different opinion on a complex issue.

Hm... I’d say deplorable opinions on a simple issue.
One claimed repeatedly that there were hundreds of predecessors, were 100% unable to name or cite any of them, and still persisted in claiming there were hundreds of predecessors. Clearly a bad faith actor, with a clear intention of making it more difficult for creators to have control over their work. As if that wasn’t hard enough.

This time, the question was; how come people are outraged over a derivative of stolen work, when no one is outraged over derivatives of freely donated work? I.e. to the poster, there is no difference between stolen work and freely given work. Such contempt and disregard for creators and their rights does unfortunately not generate much cordiality at this end.
The Mysterious One
View Profile
Loyal user
259 Posts

Profile of The Mysterious One
Tom,

I see I got your blood pressure up, which wasn't my intent. My apologies. I was simply asking a question due to sheer curiosity and to further my understanding. You have made quite the assumption of my character by simply asking a question. I support creators, including you (own two of your books and DVDs). If one cannot ask questions without attacks, then what is the purpose of the Café?

I appreciate your time in answering my question. Thank you. I have learned a lot by your response (more than just the words you wrote).
The Mysterious One
View Profile
Loyal user
259 Posts

Profile of The Mysterious One
Quote:
On Aug 8, 2019, false_awakening wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 8, 2019, The Mysterious One wrote:
... I will use the card to impossible location plot as an example. There were various products based on Kennedy's Mystery Box that uses a clear box. First, I remember Regal's Clarity Box following by a bunch of items ... Why wasn't there the amount of outrage when these various products were released? The methodology is slightly different in these releases, but the plot is the same


Yes, the ambiguity of the term "plot" causes confusion in this issue. I think gdw clarified this usefully a couple of pages ago:

"Traditionally in magic it refers to the general high level plot: card to wallet, ambitious card, mystery prediction, magician in trouble, etc. Magicians can have specific takes on these general plots. These are usually called tricks or routines. The individual trick can also have its own "plot." That is to say the specific arc of that trick, itself a take on a general "plot.""


Quote:
On Aug 8, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
If the debate here has even the remotest validity (where the argument is, taking a plot device equates to stealing of the whole enchilada) then that position needs to be consistent with ALL creative works. Why is it not a problem to this extent in books and films yet it exists for this FU2 situation?


I agree that a principle ought ideally to be held consistently, but in order for this to happen, shouldn't the application of the principle take into account the inherent differences across the categories of work you describe?

Books and films, in general, involve more variables than are found in a magic routine. This means a greater palette with which to modify a base idea, or obscure its having been "borrowed".
Music also: chord patterns repeat endlessly. But, if you use another song's chord pattern, along with the other primary elements of the musical "effect", such as melody, rhythm, key, tempo, etc., you're more likely to have problems.

Perhaps it is a matter of degree. Arguably there is less space and time in a magic routine for the plot (or specific "arc", as above) to be differentiated. Hence, the principle ideally is applied at a seemingly narrower, but relatively equivalent scale.
Similarly, successful musical copyright claims generally aren't based on chord patterns alone, nor successful literary claims on genre, because those scales of application are inappropriate for the spirit of the principle.


Thanks false_awakening for the clarification.
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..8~9~10~11~12 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.3 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