Some context: Our class was assigned a project where we had to use any art form at all to represent a chapter of our liking, from our Literature syllabus. I was naturally excited for it, but due to time restrictions, I could only manage to do colour changes which would represent what the chapter stood for (if anybody's interested, it's the essay 'Landscape of the Soul' by Nathalie Trouveroy). *** I was pretty satisfied with the final video (I did some colour changes, in case you didn't read the above). There was no flashing of any sort and my hands don't look tense. However, when I asked my father what he thought of the magic, he said (not verbatim) "Well, it's not really magic, is it? It's more about representing the story with magic." Meanwhile, there have been magicians of all levels of calibre who considered that 'typical' magic. It's easy to fall in the 'make the plot important and powerful' trap (which in this case was true because the Landscape of the Soul is a fascinating read), resulting in some solid work (my father thinks it's a great video with great content) but not necessarily solid magic. Do you think that colour changes are inherently magical? Is their general mechanics so obvious (it's either about adding or removing a card) that they become a classic case for the 'too perfect theory'? Do you think a story/plot behind them, adds (or subtracts) to their inherent "magical-ness"? The colour change is technically done well, and the story does seem to add to their meaning and make them stronger (clearly, that's what I always thought, until now). You could make a case for the plot being distracting from the impossibility of one card changing into another right under someone's nose, but then colour changes should have a motivation regardless. Did I break a Darwin's principle by making the story important? Or do colour changes fall victim to the Too Perfect Theory easily? Or are colour changes weak when done consecutively, regardless of the story/plot/motivation behind them?