Peter Eggink's Cased - and why I think it's rubbish

Nov 20, 2007
4,410
6
Sydney, Australia
So if y'all are on Ellusionist's mailing list, you should have gotten an email about a new product they're putting out by Peter Eggink called "Cased" - basically a deck of cards melts up through the card box to re-case itself.

I happened to be on the computer when it arrived, so I took a quick look at it. I watched the trailer movie, I read the description, and then I sat back and thought about it for a moment.

I think it's dreadful.

Let me explain. I don't think the effect is dreadful, per se. This is not a criticism of Ellusionist, or Peter Eggink. I just think it lacks meaning or even potential for meaning, and pretty much ruins the best part of magic. The point is that the trick has no purpose.

Let's make one thing clear from the start: the effect is a stunt. It takes all of about 2 seconds, and that's the effect. It's the magical equivalent of charlier pass. Nothing happens before, nothing happens after. In a way, it reminds me of Fallen, which was a decent but angly ACR closer, but was basically released on its own. And that's how it's intended to be - it's intended to be, according to Ellusionist, either an opener or a closer. I have great difficulty deciding which it is worse suited for.

Firstly, let's take opener.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, for my opener, I will take out a deck of cards and put it back into the deck."

The logic of the effect here is absurd. I don't understand how it's meant to work as an opener. I just don't get it, because the effect doesn't make any sense and has no meaning on its own. What on earth is the point of taking a deck out, only to put it back in the case again? Good magic has meaning and purpose. The only thing I can think of is using it as an effect where the deck keeps reappearing in the box. Which is fine, except for one thing: the effect, again, is a stunt! It's a one phase, two second stunt that has no drama, it has no setup (in the dramatical sense), it has nothing because it was designed to be used in a vacuum. But this design works against it. Besides, if you want that sort of effect, pick up Greg Wilson's Card Stunts - he turns stunts into magic, something this effect could learn a lot from.

And secondly, let's take closer. You might we wondering what's wrong with closing by magically inserting your cards back into the box.

Honestly, I think that if that's the best closer you can come up with, you really have no clue. We're talking about your closer here, folks! The strongest trick in your arsenal! The one that ties your entire routine together, that finishes with a bang, that leaves your audience with a sense of meaning and coherence and you're putting your goshdarn cards into that box of yours?

Look, I don't know what all you guys do for closers. When I look for closers, I look for effects that deliver meaning - the one final moment that they'll remember. When that moment takes place, I want that image to burn into their memory as the fundamental essence of the time that was shared between us. That's what I'm aiming for. Call me crazy for wanting to aim for something other than a plain old magic trick. You've performed for the last 5, 15, 50 minutes, one magic trick after another. I don't need another to close. I want something organic, not something which looks to me like the magical equivalent of Britney Spears - a trashy spectacle. Magic isn't just tricks, magic should go beyond that.

And don't even thinking about performing a meaningful closer, and then ruining it with this... thing. It's like repeating the joke a second time.

So look, I really hate this thing. I think it's pretty much worthless. Don't get me wrong - I have absolutely nothing against Peter Eggink, and my opinion certainly does not extent to him. But, I feel like it's a stunt created to work in a void and that's not what magic looks like. Magic doesn't look like anything. Magic feels like nothing else. I don't think it's a bad effect per se. But it just doesn't go anywhere. More importantly, it doesn't take the participants anywhere.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Feb 4, 2008
959
2
I certainly didn't put as much thought into it as you but I too felt it was rubbish. I just kind of laughed it off. Perhaps I'm jaded. It is an effect created by a creator. That is not a good thing IMO. But I see so much of it these days. In the last 10 years there has been a rise of "professional creators." 1/2 the kids these days who get into magic these days do so dreaming of being creators and not performers. I am seeing a lot of effects that have lost sight of why we do magic and instead focus on how we can do magic. To much method first....then the effect.
 

Justin.Morris

Elite Member
Aug 31, 2007
2,755
870
Canada
www.morrismagic.ca
Great thoughts, and a great perspective.

I would say, in the context of a longer show, it could fit as an end to your card sequence as much as Sudden Deck could be used to open your card segment. But It could never be used as a show/set closer. It could be used as a quick 'stunt' that you do on the off beat, as if you always put your cards back that way. Just thinking out loud.

Great post.
 
Jan 1, 2009
2,241
3
Back in Time
Whats funny is that there already is a Sealed Card deck effect out there. Sure you don't re-seal the same deck, but both effects have much more meaning and more impact. I Know Shawn Farquar has one and so does Shane Black. Both essentially have way more meaning and impossibility to them.
 
Aug 10, 2008
2,023
2
31
In a rock concert
I dare you to post this over at E Prae :3.

But anyway, there isn't anything more that could be contributed to this point (in my opinion) clearly you made a point besides the one that you don't like this trick.

You gave quite some stuff to think about when sleceting and including a trick in your routine. Thanks man.
 
Nov 20, 2007
4,410
6
Sydney, Australia
I dare you to post this over at E Prae :3.

But anyway, there isn't anything more that could be contributed to this point (in my opinion) clearly you made a point besides the one that you don't like this trick.

You gave quite some stuff to think about when sleceting and including a trick in your routine. Thanks man.

Haha - I don't even know my password to the E forums, it's been so long, and I can't be bothered... But pretty much I'd just get banned and the thread deleted, so... Deaf ears :)

Justin - that's actually a good point, I will admit that I could see it being used for that purpose. That said, I'm just glad I'm not the only one who felt this way...
 
Peter is a clever guy with some nice ideas, But i feel that lately he has been lacking on the "creativity end" of the spectrum. First the Hawk came out. neat idea that looked impossible to some. Then Peter came out with Highflyer, which was basically the same idea. Justin Miller came out with Freedom pack, which was a neat ender to a routine, the pack into the box, Then here comes Peter with cased, the same idea different handling. I dont think he understands timing very well. I would have waited a year or so to come out with that. but then again thats what he does.
 
Oct 29, 2009
4
0
Hi all,

Since Will Draven posted this up over at Ellusionist on behalf of praetorivevong, I thought I'd post up my response here to keep the discussion going:)

Keep in mind this is directly copy/pasted.

First off,

A general comment (Not about you Will Draven, but a general rant)

I looked up the original article and the "I dare you to post it up on E" and "I'll just get banned" Blah blah mentality is exactly what is wrong with internet magic forums and the 'divisions' people are making based on companies.

I mean, seriously? If people are going to invest that much time of their lives into expressing hatred of another forum while being hardcore fanboys for no reason of another (which Ellusionist unfortunately has also), it makes me wonder what kind of people magic attracts.

End rant.

So, the second point relates to the topic. For praetoritevong's views to be posted via yourself, it has merit as an argument but also disregards any and all previous effects similar to what it is, even though they may be methodically different.

* Mark Lefler's "Cards into Card Box" - Ammar's ETMCM vol 5 or Encore III (Greg Wilson has a version called Heavyweight Boxing on his Card Stunts DVD)

* Paul Harris' Vanishing deck and/or Paul Harris' PH Breakthrough AKA Immaculate Breakthrough (sold as a manuscript, and in the AoA series).


Each of these have the exact same effect of the deck visually vanishing and/or penetrating the box at the same time. The Lefler/Wilson handling is used by Pit Hartling for his FISM act as an opener with a presentation which justifies the cards being taken out then penetrating the box and being taken out again.

For the Paul Harris Immaculate Breakthrough, no presentation is given in the AoA book (possibly in the manuscript, I don't own it), but the effect is essentially a deck penetrates the box to rest on top of it, and then penetrates the box again from the top to end up back inside the box.

Fair enough, not everyone is going to like this effect and it won't suit everyone. But as an effect, it does have potential for someone to adapt it to being a perfect point on their routine.

* As an example: After an ambitious card routine, the deck vanishes into the box except for the selection which is left outside of the box.


* Another example: Before going into a four ace routine, or a routine using only 4 special cards, the box absorbs the rest of the deck leaving the four aces or four requisite cards in the magician's hands.


* Another example: After an oil and water routine, the box absorbs all the red cards like a sponge, leaving only the black cards in the hand.



This is just three examples I've come up with off the top of my head which make for a strong effect when used in conjunction with another premise or effect, which makes it a valid addition to a routine as an opener, a closer or even something in the middle. The effect is not meant to stand alone, as it seems that's the view now that all marketed material 'should' stand alone, thus proving it's merit for being a marketed item. However, this is not the case. A tonne of material out there is meant to be used and appropriated accordingly to suit your own development, not to just use as described and hoping for the best.

Just some thoughts.

(EDIT: For Pit Hartling's performance, please see the Flicking Finger's DVD.)

Eddie
 
Jeez...I really hate magic sometimes. If I wasn't so addicted to it I wouldn't have to know that there were so many immature and ignorant people in the world...aside from myself that is. I was kinda' hoping I was unique.

No good as an opener. No good as closer. No good full stop.

What?

The mind boggles with the inanity of the entire post, which was obviously written just to sound intellectual but failed miserably.

If one can't come up with a decent presentation around what looks fairly sodding magical to me (on the trailer at least, I do not own this), then one has no business being in this business or in the business of writing posts on magic forums about somebody else's business. In fact, even though I wasn't going to buy this...I now am, based on this 'review' alone. As I believe what I've just typed: if one can't come up with a decent use for this, then we should simply stop and go and do something less interesting with out time.

Nude wrestling for example.


Also, "It's the magical equivalent of charlier pass. Nothing happens before, nothing happens after." has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever seen posted...anywhere. What about what happens 'during'? I had someone come up to me asking what "I did with those cards there?" No routine, no presentation...zippo. I was simply messing with a deck of cards waiting for a flight. Not magical?

Please.


God...what a waste of everyone's time.



Rabid
 
Jan 8, 2010
968
5
What's the point of linking rings? What's the point of linking cigarettes? What's the point in crazy mans handcuffs?

Cased looks really good, I don't know how it's done so it might not be practical but that's besides the point. Not a lot in magic has a point to it, you have to give it one. I guarantee any top magician would be able to add this to a routine and give it a reason to be done, if you lack such creativity then that sucks for you.
 

RealityOne

Elite Member
Nov 1, 2009
3,607
3,905
New Jersey
I look for effects that deliver meaning - the one final moment that they'll remember. When that moment takes place, I want that image to burn into their memory as the fundamental essence of the time that was shared between us. That's what I'm aiming for. Call me crazy for wanting to aim for something other than a plain old magic trick. You've performed for the last 5, 15, 50 minutes, one magic trick after another. I don't need another to close. I want something organic, not something which looks to me like the magical equivalent of Britney Spears - a trashy spectacle. Magic isn't just tricks, magic should go beyond that.

I agree with this sentiment completely.

I don't think it's a bad effect per se. But it just doesn't go anywhere. More importantly, it doesn't take the participants anywhere.

However, I disagree about the effect in that I see potential there. I'm not sure how many times in a row it can be repeated, but I can see using this as part of an opener where I take the cards out of the box, hold them in my hand while talking and they sink back into the box. I take the deck out a second time (as if I hadn't taken them out the first time), remember one additional thing I have to say and then look down, only to see the deck back in the box. After a momentary look as if I screwed up, I take the deck out again and quip "the third time is the charm." I then would have three spectators pick cards produce two of them in various ways (say pants pocket and wallet) and after looking in the first two places (say my front pocket and my wallet) I produce the box from my inside jacket pocket, shake it letting them hear one card and hand it to them to open, saying "the third time is a charm."

OK, so that may not be perfect, but that is what I came up with in 10 minutes. From the looks of it, it has advantages over PH's Vanishing Deck and Immaculate Breakthrough.

I dare you to post this over at E Prae :3.

Praetoritevong:

Actually I dare you... no, I double dog dare you... no better yet, I invite you to post at E anytime. Your knowledge and expertise would add to the knowledge and expertise that is already there.

Haha - I don't even know my password to the E forums, it's been so long, and I can't be bothered... But pretty much I'd just get banned and the thread deleted, so... Deaf ears :)

William posted the thread and he isn't banned and the thread hasn't been deleted or closed. Its the same at E as it is at Theory 11 - any intelligent discussion is welcomed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aug 10, 2008
2,023
2
31
In a rock concert
I looked up the original article and the "I dare you to post it up on E" and "I'll just get banned" Blah blah mentality is exactly what is wrong with internet magic forums and the 'divisions' people are making based on companies.

I mean, seriously? If people are going to invest that much time of their lives into expressing hatred of another forum while being hardcore fanboys for no reason of another (which Ellusionist unfortunately has also), it makes me wonder what kind of people magic attracts.

It is not haterd (well on my opinion). I just posted that because taking Ellusionist rules and guidelines into account, I think that it would be interesting to see a well stated opinion on a effect sold by ellusionist, and see their response to it.

I actually like Ellusionist a lot, actually I think that the level of matureness and good posts is better there than here. But let's be honest, some of the guidelines and rules there are a tiny little bit limitant, regarding comment son effects and tricks of that site.
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
I actually like Ellusionist a lot, actually I think that the level of matureness and good posts is better there than here. But let's be honest, some of the guidelines and rules there are a tiny little bit limitant, regarding comment son effects and tricks of that site.

We actually welcome dissent. Provided it's fair-minded and backed up with more than just rants and raves. The rules we have there are all in place because of the actions of others. If we have a rule against something, it's because some douche in the past did that and caused more trouble than it was worth.
 
Nov 20, 2007
4,410
6
Sydney, Australia
Well well, looks like we've got some real discussion going now. Alright, let's take a crack at this.

Eddie: To be honest, I don't really care what yours or anyone's opinion is of me or my mentality. However, I think it's a bit harsh to extrapolate intent based on a sentence. Quite frankly, I don't care enough about any magic forum to show loyalty. You clearly have not done your research, or you would have found a multitude of posts from me criticizing Theory11, Ellusionist, and any magic fad I find stupid. This is one of them. "Fanboy" has become the defence of the common imbecile who doesn't bother to go beyond their ignorance. If you think my criticism is limited by divisions you are sorely mistaken. I am here on Theory11 posting this because I happened to have accumulated a lot of time here, and a few friends as well.

Whilst I have seen people get banned and threads locked for lesser offenses than this, the truth is that I simply can't quite be bothered logging onto Ellusionist because of people like you, with opinions like yours, and who don't quite bother to put any thought into them. I don't passionately hate Ellusionist - but I do passionately hate the "fanboy" defence, where anyone with a bad experience of your website or your product or your forums must be a fanboy of some other competing site. It may be hard to fathom, but I really don't care. I have better things to do with my life than hate a product. I throw in my two cents if I feel that I can make a point of it, and then I move on. Because you know what? My life is rather busy right now. And if you think I invest time hating people or forums, then you're again mistaken. You may well have met fanboys. But don't categorize me as one because I have a negative experience with Ellusionist.

The second part of your reply also makes me wonder whether you read my original post at all, or whether it was copied correctly. I trust Draven, so I can only assume the former. In my post, I specifically mention Greg Wilson's effect as a counterpoint to this paltry effect. YES, it HAS been done before, and that's part of my point, if you would only read the damn thing properly. If you really want to use this plot, YES, it CAN be used effectively. Greg Wilson's was effective. It CAN be used effectively. But this wasn't it. I think you've either glossed over my post or misread it completely. Either way, I suggest that you read it again.

Formula: Thanks for the veiled insult. Next time, grab the cajones to spit it out directly. I pride myself on my creativity and if you had read any of my posts you would notice that. I don't necessarily disagree with the point of your post. But that shouldn't lower our standards when it comes to our creators. YES, I can take a bad trick and make it good. But why would you bother? I'd rather just point to the better trick, and make it even better. I spend much of my time here arguing that the trick is a very small part of magic. But you're deluded if you think that the trick is no part at all.

Let me finish by turning your quote on you. If you don't have the creativity to give meaning to your magic, to give meaning to linking rings or whatever it is that you perform, then... That's not my problem.

Rabid: I marvel at your audacity to imply my intentions from my post. Thanks - but unlike some, I don't need to criticise people, or post on a forum, to "sound" intellectual. I'd read you my "intellectual" qualifications, but I frankly don't give a damn whether you or anyone else think that I'm intelligent or not. Either you are one of the most arrogant, conceited people on Ellusionist to presume what I thought when I wrote this post, or you are the best damn mindreader since Kreskin, because you obviously don't know me at all. Some people may take amusement from posting on forums. Some people may well use magic as a social crutch. But don't assume that I or that everyone does. I don't know who you hang around, but I am perfectly confident in my intellectual and social capacities as a person and need neither your approval nor the approval of anyone on this forum to succeed in life. It is clear that you take any attack as a personal one (why else would you respond with a personal attack), but I don't function that way. So congratulations - take your ad hominem win.

As for your comment about the charlier pass, I think that you and I have a different definition of magic. A spectator being impressed at a one hand cut is not the same as magic. If you think it is... Good for you. I have no hope of changing that perspective. Go off and do charlier passes.

Finally, as to the "content" of your post, I feel that you've missed the point along with Formula below you. Sure, you may well be able to come up with a decent presentation. Maybe you're satisfied with decent. That's your choice. I am not. Let me repeat that.

I AM NOT SATISFIED WITH DECENT!

I don't want a DECENT goshdarn closer, and that's exactly my point! I don't think this is the worst thing ever created. Just look at some of Kevin Parker's material. But I do think that this does not excel at ANY of the parts that it is meant to excel at. Which in my eyes makes it WORTHLESS, because there are better things! As I said to Formula, YES, I'm sure that any talented magician could take a bad trick and make it good... But why would you bother? Take a GOOD trick and make it BETTER. Do Penn & Teller ever perform tricks they're not satisfied with? No! Why would you??

Again, if you're satisfied with decent then that is your artistic choice, but I for one am posting because for goodness sakes, I am NOT satisfied with being DECENT, I hate "decent" and I feel bloody passionate about this point! That's why I'm bothering to reply to this mess. So go ahead - buy it, come up with a decent effect. I honestly don't care what you do. I'm going to aim for the extraordinary.

RealityOne: THANK YOU. THANK YOU for a GENUINE attempt to engage with my post - an opinion that disagrees with my own but *shock horror* doesn't attempt to attack me, or call me stupid, or infer the intent of my post! Is that so goddamn difficult! Rabid, Sonicstabber, Formula... I don't understand why magicians are so damn insecure that criticism has to equal an attack. I use strong words for strong feelings. If you can't deal with opinions, my posts aren't for you.

RealityOne - yeah, I can see that working. I really can. Check out, as I've mentioned before, Greg Wilson's Card Stunts DVD if you get the chance. It's a wonderful product, with a wonderful effect along these lines. He takes the deck out of the box but the card box repeatedly reappears. Greg is funny and charming and interacts with the audience well. He takes a well constructed effect and a clever gimmick to do a great opener. In other words, it represents everything we are not given here. Here, we are given one phase, one moment, with no real meaning behind it.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that we should be handed EVERYTHING. I think it's great to give magicians room to make their own effect. But if you're going to give someone a skeleton, market it as that - a skeleton. If you're going to give someone bare bones, don't advertise it as the Thanksgiving turkey. And if you're going to be a professional company putting out what are advertised as professional level products, for goodness sakes I expect more than bare bones. I think that the release was poorly thought out and poorly executed and is a very far cry from what has been put out in the past.

As for posting on E... Keeping up with one forum is enough for me. My negative experience with Ellusionist continues. But thanks for the genuine offer. I appreciate your sincerity.

Now, if you'll all excuse me, I have a valuation to finish, and then a bar to visit. Good night!

P.S.

A thought.

There were two people who came over to T11 specifically from E to comment on this thread. Both were thoroughly insulting and offered little more than poor attempts at ridicule and ad hominem attacks. Rabid, Sonicstabber, you are EXACTLY why I did not post this at E. Rather than engage with my opinions like RealityOne attempted to do, Rabid attacked my personal character, Sonicstabber was extraordinarily presumptive, and exaggerated/ignored my arguments. Aren't you both moderators, no less? And you wonder why on earth some people have negative opinions of Ellusionist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aug 10, 2008
2,023
2
31
In a rock concert
We actually welcome dissent. Provided it's fair-minded and backed up with more than just rants and raves. The rules we have there are all in place because of the actions of others. If we have a rule against something, it's because some douche in the past did that and caused more trouble than it was worth.

Yeah it does makes sense if you put it in that way.
 
Oct 29, 2009
4
0
Praetoritevong,

You're beginning to sound like Harry Lorayne.

First, I didn't say you were a fanboy, nor did I remotely imply it. If anything, I was commenting on the mentality of "Us vs Them" which is generally people taking preference of one place over another and protecting their "brand" to above and beyond the need to. As I said, Ellusionist also has these people who will protect and support any product, even if they don't know what it is, own it or use it. I really dislike these people because they have no mind of their own, and cannot make the choice of filtering out what material they should learn and perform because they're too busy buying everything to find that "one trick" to rule them all. I stated it as a general comment, and I wasn't attacking you, so please do not make that assumption. I did not intend to offend you or anything.

Also, your statement that the fanboy argument is used by the common imbecile is pretty much stating that I'm an imbecile, which is a bit harsh and presumptive about me and my statements. That first paragraph was not intended for you, but just a general rant about the situation at large.

I posted this response for the same reason Will Draven posted this over at Ellusionist; to continue interacting on the discussion of the topic at hand. I did not come over and flame you, T11 or Will. I came over and posted exactly what I posted at Ellusionist because I thought it may help create a discussion at both places, and just thought that being a forum, discussion was welcome. When arguments resort to personal attacks like that, everything goes south and the topic becomes overshadowed by a back and forth.

Also, by posting over here, I thought it could have bridged some kind of interaction between the forums so we can discuss more things properly, and as R1 said, it would combine the knowledge and discussions at both forums and possibly make them much better.

Just a quick digression; if someone has a negative experience with a product or Ellusionist, it's no skin off my nose. I don't get paid. But I can tell the difference between someone who is posting a four line review consisting of "this sucks, don't buy it" compared to a more fleshed out review covering the expectations, what they received, and saying properly why the product did not meet their expectations. Constructive criticism is good, simple statements of opinion are worth sweet F.A.

So, after all that, I didn't call you a fanboy, or imply you were a fanboy. I didn't disregard your post as a 4 line rant of some unjustified opinion. I posted a response which read yours and showed my views as to why it COULD be a piece of good magic. Also, I wasn't being extremely presumptive about you. I didn't make any assumptions of you or your character. I made a general statement regarding how frustrating and pointless the Us vs Them mentality based solely on products and companies is kind of pointless. Again, not against you, but you know the type of people I'm talking about.

So, we cool on that?

Cool.

I did read your post and I did see the Greg Wilson reference, but I thought I would go one further and show other people who have performed this premise in their acts, and where the original came from i.e. Mark Lefler, and the use of it by Pit Hartling in his FISM act.

As I said, although methodically they are different, I can see how the effect can be put in place of the handlings that Pit, Lefler and Wilson were doing, and have an equal effect.

Like what RealityOne posted, there are some very worthy ideas possible using this as an opener, middle or closer in conjunction with another effect, or even with the proper presentation, like what he has shown with his example.

Again, no personal attacks on you, just a statement of opinion in this discussion on whether or not Cased could be effective.

Cheers,

Eddie

EDIT: Also, just a side comment on the fact that I'm a moderator. Because of this, I see the amount of posts and threads removed which are people creating accounts, solely to come onto ellusionist and talk trash, swear and pretty much troll every possible thread with stuff like "LOL OMG YOU GUYS SUCK LOLOLOLOLOL". Again, this isn't an attack on you or T11, but the fact that I'm a moderator means I see the amount of people who are THAT immature to go out of their way to do it. That's why I'm not a big fan of people choosing sides.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results