Proteus

Aug 5, 2008
95
0
Agreed, there are so many easier methods that look just as good to a layperson.

Its not about how easy it is, the easier the better of course, but the sleights used have so many uses.Also Proteus looks a lot more natural than most of the methods out there.
 
Sep 1, 2007
655
1
Its not about how easy it is, the easier the better of course, but the sleights used have so many uses.Also Proteus looks a lot more natural than most of the methods out there.

Tell that to a layman, for christ sakes you can just control the card to the top, double lift and then do a change. Now tell me just how does the fishy looking showing of the middle card in the centre look more natural than that?
 
Apr 27, 2008
1,805
2
Norway
Tell that to a layman, for christ sakes you can just control the card to the top, double lift and then do a change. Now tell me just how does the fishy looking showing of the middle card in the centre look more natural than that?

For many reasons:

  1. Impossibility: If you are seen shuffling the deck, the spectator is more likely to believe you are somehow controlling their card, moving it, wherever.
  2. Cleanliness: The display is very clean, I don't see how you would think it is 'fishy' looking.
  3. Smoothness: The way Richman performed the control, it seemed as though it was one flowing,smooth and fluid motion, all expertly done and practised - instead of the usual fumble together with a twitchy pass :rolleyes: If he is aiming for a style of magic compared to the Buck twin's, then he has succeeded. He has succeeded because, in a fluid and convenient way, he has nonchalantly shown the card - all the while moving it as least as possible.

That's why he didn't use a normal control.

GW
 
For many reasons:

  1. Impossibility: If you are seen shuffling the deck, the spectator is more likely to believe you are somehow controlling their card, moving it, wherever.
  2. Cleanliness: The display is very clean, I don't see how you would think it is 'fishy' looking.
  3. Smoothness: The way Richman performed the control, it seemed as though it was one flowing,smooth and fluid motion, all expertly done and practised - instead of the usual fumble together with a twitchy pass :rolleyes: If he is aiming for a style of magic compared to the Buck twin's, then he has succeeded. He has succeeded because, in a fluid and convenient way, he has nonchalantly shown the card - all the while moving it as least as possible.

That's why he didn't use a normal control.

GW

A normal control? What's that supposed to mean? They all accomplish the same thing.

It's just a control that flows in this particular situation.
 
Dec 22, 2007
629
0
For many reasons:

  1. Impossibility: If you are seen shuffling the deck, the spectator is more likely to believe you are somehow controlling their card, moving it, wherever.
  2. Cleanliness: The display is very clean, I don't see how you would think it is 'fishy' looking.
  3. Smoothness: The way Richman performed the control, it seemed as though it was one flowing,smooth and fluid motion, all expertly done and practised - instead of the usual fumble together with a twitchy pass :rolleyes: If he is aiming for a style of magic compared to the Buck twin's, then he has succeeded. He has succeeded because, in a fluid and convenient way, he has nonchalantly shown the card - all the while moving it as least as possible.

That's why he didn't use a normal control.

GW

1) Not if you delay it by pattering and then doing the control. I see nothing wrong with a double undercut. Even if you didnt delay it, i doubt most people would notice.

Also, you could use a double lift as a control.

2) I agree for the most part. It has angle issues kinda, just like the rest of the trick.

3) A double undrercut or pass can also be done nonchalantly. A double lift is also very convenient, and much easier.
 
Sep 1, 2007
655
1
[*]Cleanliness: The display is very clean, I don't see how you would think it is 'fishy' looking.
Because it looked fishy. You would never display a card like that.

It was a decently performed trick, it just isn't a very strong effect considering the difficulty.

And I can tell you that there are a hell of a lot of controls that are cleaner and smoother than that. A clean pass, side steal or cascade control.

Face up to facts, Earick never invented tricks for practicality, he says himself that he does hard moves just for the sake of it. He's a self confessed move monkey.
 
Because it looked fishy. You would never display a card like that.

It was a decently performed trick, it just isn't a very strong effect considering the difficulty.

And I can tell you that there are a hell of a lot of controls that are cleaner and smoother than that. A clean pass, side steal or cascade control.

Face up to facts, Earick never invented tricks for practicality, he says himself that he does hard moves just for the sake of it. He's a self confessed move monkey.

And that's why I love his work...
 
Sep 26, 2007
591
5
Tokyo, Japan
1: I thought you did a good job. I know how hard the book is and anyone else that does should be able to give you your due props for it. Good job!

2: People... remember that some people practice magic for various reasons. Practicing so that you can give a performance is one thing, but practicing sleights because they pose a challenge, an adventure, is another thing. You could argue the same thing for the Clipshift. You could also use a side steal, etc...

So arguing that there are "easier" "better" or "more natural" controls, only applies if that is what the original poster was intending to practice. His post is about "Proteus," so give him feedback on his PROTEUS technique. I am probably assuming that the majority of you who are saying he should be using a different technique, can ONLY do those techniques, so you don't really have a valid opinion as to wether or not the bow to stern etc... techniques can actually be utilized. Liquidsn (a member on these forums and has a lot of By Forces Unseen videos on youtube) can perform these for laymen. But again, maybe he is not doing it because he thinks it is the BEST way to get the effect done for laymen, but maybe because he wants to challenge himself, compare reactions, research best situations, come up with the method that works best for HIM, etc...

People need to stop telling other people they should use different methods, acting like they are the know-all of magic. You can offer some simple advice like,

"that was really well-executed. now, if you were to perform for a layman, do you think that is a control/method that can be used effectively? I only really use a side steal, or cherry control. What do you think?"

That would have at least been a productive message.
 
Sep 1, 2007
182
0
Melbourne
You guys are leaving out the fact that it's more fun to do something hard too.. all you move monkeys should understand... hahaha...
You COULD just do (as you said) a control to the top and then the transformation, but where would be the fun in that... so boring..! Let's spice things up abit! - besides, it's on video, it's all in the name of fun and the art.

once again, nice job to the OP.
 
Apr 27, 2008
1,805
2
Norway
Yeah okay, sorry - i'm not in a very good mood for some reason unbeknowngst to me, so i'll say you guys are right.

nice video ;)
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results