Clutch by Oz Pearlman

Discussion in 'Product Questions and Reviews' started by ramosynthesis, Dec 20, 2008.

  1. I do not see how the argument is illogical. No-one said you had to follow Oz's patter. If I did so, please kindly point out where I did. However, any and every good routine bases its sleights around its presentation. Now, two points. Firstly, I object to the selling of an effect which in my opinion clearly is not up to standard given the little amount of thought Oz has put into the presentation. Essentially you're left with paying however much the price is to learn to *****. In the hands of Ricky Jay, I'm sure it would be an amazing piece; however that would be due to the performer, not the trick. Hence I'm not saying that a performer could not do well with it. However I still do maintain that the trick is not nearly up to standard - the two are not mutually exclusive.

    Secondly, the idea of providing a presentation along with a trick in a DVD is that you provide the optimum presentation to present the trick. Clever presentation misdirects, it helps to create impact, it helps magicians achieve their purpose of astonishment. This is true of just about any good routine - if you read Jack Parker's routines, he does not provide a full script. What he does provide is the basic outline for a presentation, which intertwine with the sleights to cover them up. Considering that completely changing Oz's presentation is a must, that leaves a lot more work for most magicians who don't know enough about presentation to bring it to the required level of competency to get a good effect out of this trick. That leaves most magicians essentially needing to completely re-evaluate their goals and create a presentation from scratch that suits them. This is not a bad thing - but for a marketed effect, this amount of detachment is unacceptable in my view.

    So I am not saying that you must use it, or that you have to use it exactly. I am merely saying that yes, I'm sure Paul Brookes was amazing, but evaluating the effect as an effect, I feel that it is inadequate, and that there are a LOT better things to spend your money on than this. And in comparison to any good book, this is truly rubbish. I get the same reactions with two or three of my Jack Parker routines - and I've only learned four out of fifty two so far!
  2. maybe it doesnt suit the theme you were going for- Hence the reason why your opinion regarding this certain effect by oz pearlman as weak. Comparing my ACR to Ineski's old footage we both do the same moves- He just does it faster at points and on a different pace, therefore i found it entertaining to my eyes.

    In relation to the topic at hand, we'll break it down on Two step answering process.

    Question: Did you say the effect was total rubbish?

    Answer: yes.

    Question: Did oz Pearlman tell you to follow his patter directly and make it seem like a 'look what i can do' sort of patter?

    Answer: no. Although he does not directly say "Please do not follow my patter and invent your own" im sure that his intentions were to publish the mechanics of the effect and the patter- but that doesnt mean that you cant alter it.

    If you're saying that the Effect is overly priced, then just say it. Im sure no one in their right mind would sell a technique to pirouette for $999. Unless its some god given Twirl Spin fan execution generation xtreme dananddavebuckpandorajacksontwelvetimestwototheextrememultipliedbytwopies.
  3. The "theme" he goes for is "Look what I can do. I'm so great." If that suits anyone, get out of magic, now.

    Correct! And so far you have failed to engage with my argument as to why the effect is rubbish.

    As I argued in my last post, this is not my point. Apparently, my points of intertwining presentation with patter and reasonable expectations from a marketed effect have been lost on you. Until you, and if you choose to, properly address my argument, I see no point in repeating myself.

    It is overpriced, but because the effect is rubbish, which again goes to my previous arguments which you seem to have completely ignored. So I won't repeat myself.
  4. Personally, i doubt im in the wrong by merely defending Oz's effect. However, it is quite pointless to argue with someone who refuses to listen.

  5. I agree. Hence, you'll forgive me for discontinuing this debate. I see no point in me re-iterating, for the third or fourth time, an argument you have avoided and failed to understand and/or engage with every time.
  6. I like the effect. Fact is I’m well aware it uses old sleights and is nothing inherently new about it, but the reality is that very few things haven’t been done before and magic is a lot about the presentation which can be changed to fit your style and how the audience reacts. There is no question this effect can be powerful when done by the right person to the right people in the right situation. Youre paying for the idea to which you can go from there. This shouldn’t have been such a contentious topic. Magic should bring people together as we all try to achieve the same thing.

Share This Page

{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results