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

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by praetoritevong, Mar 28, 2011.

  1. The comment about him sounding like HaLo... ouch. But Lorayne writes reeeeeally long essays sometimes. And is quite fun(ny?) to read at times. :D
     
  2. Hypocritical of you to say the least. And I think you've thrown in way more than just your 2 cents.

    If you did not like the effect, and think that it lacks purpose, why did you buy it in the first place?

    Another thing, I've seen your post count, and I think you should spend that time working on your magic rather than telling people they are sorely mistaken. And to be honest, if you don't care what other peoples opinions are, chances are, they won't care about your opinion.
     
  3. Just a note here:

    Please Please PLEASE! Learn to read.

    That is all. Thank you.

    On a serious note, please read again the thread, first of all, prae didn't even bought the effect, hell, the effect isn't even out yet! His point was, that he doesn't sees any point to this effect. There is no point in taking a deck of cards just to insert them (magically to the box again) or if you are using it as a finisher for your routine , well there definetly could be better things to finish off your routine.

    his point wasn't solely on this effect alone, he is sharing his view on how we should considerate our material and effects we buy when we construct a routine. We can't junst produce a castle for the fun of it. He is talking about structure, and how this trick fails at being either a solid foundation for a routine or a really powrfull one for a closer.

    Heck, the forums are in a really bad shape right now, is for guys like Prae that we have some level of decency and thoughtful and wise posts. I personally have learned a lot from that "high post count" that you are ranting about.

    If there is someone who has a high post count and doesn't contribute to the forums, it's me. Please learn to read and to be a little more thoughtful about people and their reasons for them posting before you post .
     
  4. Wow...that's a whole lot of discussion over something fun and meant to be an attention getter. We're doing magic, we're not doing complex open heart surgery here. Why does everything have to have such deep meaning as to change someone's entire belief system? We sure take ourselves too seriously sometimes.

    To me this is like Redline; just a "pre-opener" that will get people to do a double take, almost as if they're not sure if they really saw what they saw. It's just a pre-appetizer to get people's attention focused on you. So what? What's wrong with that?

    A whole lotta commotion for nothing.
     
  5. Valid point. The thing here is that you are not going to do your entire routine with a chapstick, from a card-magician perspective, Prae has correctly (in my opinion) pointed out why effects like this wouldn't work in a serious well thougth performance :).
     
  6. @ RD, I know what you mean, and I can see how you would think something like this would not fit into a well thought out routine. But heres what I think;

    I know that Prae says that this is neither a good opener or closer, but in magic, there are always applications, and presentations that could make even the smallest and most subtle thing seem magical. See Pit Hartling do this effect in his FISM video. Thats a prime example of good routining and presentation.

    And I agree with B_08, not every effect you do has to be dramatised, and have meaning, it could just be magic!

    But if your going for a different approach, I think Prae is right when he says that this effect lacks meaning. The truth is, most magic effects are the same, they lack meaning; Why does this card keep rising to the top? Why does this coin keep vanishing?

    It is YOUR job as a magicians to CREATE MEANING in the effects you perform.
     

  7. Sheesh...for someone who doesn't care or has better things to do, you sure do get yourself worked up, don't you?

    In all honesty - and in your defence - your post caught me at the end of a particularly bad day and whilst I stand by what I said and think, I really shouldn't have aimed immaturity and ignorance at you on an open forum as that was just rude...and I'd apologise for it...if it weren't for what you then went and typed. So i take back the apology that I was going to give you, but didn't.

    You marvel at my audacity to imply your intentions from your post? I didn't imply anything buddy, I stated my opinion, which was that you obviously wrote your post to sound intellectual, and in that, you failed. You've done nothing since to change that opinion of you, so I'll keep it. Telling people to re-read what you've written is good advice, I'd advise you to take it, and re-read what you've written.

    "There are two people who came over to T11 specifically from E to comment on this thread..." I can't speak for Eddie, but I would have seen this thread soon enough as I frequent both establishments. I would have answered the same, albeit potentially less abrasively if I'd come across it here later than I did.

    "Both were thoroughly insulting and offered little more than poor attempts at ridicule and ad hominem attacks..." Untrue. That was just me, Eddie was quite polite. I take offense to the 'poor attempts' bit too. I think I did pretty well in ridiculing you. Also I did engage with your opinions...you just don't like the way I did it, much in the same way that I did not like your original post. Am I to assume that you think you're allowed to do something and I'm not?

    The moderator thing is just plain pointless in this argument. What does it have to do with anything, anything at all? Do you mean that for some reason I'm not allowed an opinion as I'm a moderator on a forum? Bit odd. To me, flinging the moderator thing at me is as annoying and ridiculous as throwing fanboy at you, is to you. Insomuch, I reserve the right to level the imbecile and ignorant tag at you too. All's fair in love n' war n' all that.

    Re: the Charlier Pass thing...again, you like to state your opinion on what magic is, isn't, should be, but isn't it about what the spectator thinks? That was my only point when mentioning that person coming up to me over something that, to people like us, is so nondescript.


    Overall, you seem to be more off-balanced than I originally thought. The delusions of grandeur come off you like smoke from a stubbed out cigarette. Some sort of counseling may help you, I don't know. I don't doubt for one solitary second that you're more skillful, experienced and magically well read than me, it concerns me not. I'm open about my involvement in magic as a hobby and a passion, and that I have no desire to perform it for a living. I have a living, I do not need a new one. That being said, when one comes across an ego of such stature...it's only natural to want to push it over.

    Call me old fashioned, but if one desires to state an opinion in such a fashion as to aggravate others, then that person should be willing to take the good with the bad when it comes to people replying to them.



    Kind Regards and the warmest of wishes


    Steph
     
  8. This thread is actually going pretty well; a little friction in the discussion brings out everyone's analytical skills doesn't it?
    A quick note @Rabid: Prae is my good friend, and I can tell you without a doubt that he is not "worked up" for such a trivial matter. His style of writing is just like that. Our conversations constantly turn into essays even on Skype :) Just a note so you two can continue on without the little meaningless guesses at personal behaviour.
    Back on topic.
    I agree with b_08. CASED could potentially be just an attention-grabber or a casual off-the-cuff trick. But I really want to ask; Why reinvent the wheel? If it IS to be used as a quick trick, then why not choose from the myriad of similar effects created by renowned magicians already? Personally, if I want a quick trick to grab attention, I'd rather not carry around a gimmick just for that moment. Heck, I wouldn't even want to carry cards...but that's just me. Call me lazy or whatever, but so much ado for such a simple trick isn't really worth it. To each his own.
     
  9. Twas a joke...if a little half hearted I grant you.
    However, I'm not guessing at anything, merely responding to what's right in front of me.

    Now, tis' the truth that what i see in front of me could be completely different than what another sees...but if we all saw the same thing, life would be terribly boring, wouldn't it?

    Have a good day mate.

    Steph
     
  10. Wow, this turned into quite the "discussion". Too bad it wasn't all about the effect.

    I think RDC summarised the point well "He is talking about structure, and how this trick fails at being either a solid foundation for a routine or a really powerful one for a closer."

    I think I would still agree. Is the effect that the cards come out of the box or go in? When you pull the cards out in a magical way (Ie Sudden Deck), that can work. But if the effect is the cards going back in, I suppose you approach this like you pull the cards out and they jump back in by accident, and you repeat, but then you fall into the more clowning aspect (by this I mean that you are being controlled by the things in your environment, as opposed to being in control of the environment around you), which could work for some. Other than that I would agree that it lack a logical flow to pull the card out, only to have them jump back in. It is inherently opposite of what you are trying to do (take the card out of the box to start your routine).

    If on the other hand you could say "hey look at he card in the box" - and they watch them melt out of the box, then that would be a good opener. You would have their attention with few words, and they would say wow, this guy is good.

    Next he stated that this would not be a good closer - and he gave some very substantial reasons. (I already commented my thoughts on how this could work)

    He agreed that it could have a place within a larger show, but was not suited as a strong opener/closer based one the video/description.

    I appreciate that topics like this can encourage us to think about the material we choose for our openers/closers - and why.

    So does anyone think that this would be a brilliant opener or closer? Why do you think so?
     
  11. To be honest, here's my 2 cents. I think it's a cool opener, like b_08 mentions. Something to whet their appetite, so to speak.

    However, I'm not too keen on performing it, so my intuition tells me it's a waste. I only perform what I like to perform, as I do magic for me first and then my spectators.
     

Share This Page

Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results