RIOT by Dan Hauss - Details & The Dizzle - Friday, October 31st

[Deleted member 2755]

I really don't think that anyone who has not bought Riot has the right to bash it for it's method. Working a possible explanation for it does not mean that you have worked out the CORRECT explanation for it.

Riot looks EXACTLY like Fallen, but with no cover, in one hand, and has angles that are a heck of a lot better than Fallen.

For someone who hasn't bought it, there sure are some judgmental people here about it. I bought it... and I love it. In depth review coming soon.

-Doug

 

[Dizzi]

the only thing about it, is that it looks TOO perfect. Spectators THRIVE on magical moments. Therefore, you could use this method, but do some slight shaking with it.

 

[fridoliina]

I think RIOT sucks.

It needs a gimmick.

It looks super fishy if you shake it. I "figured" the trick out on the second view. (I made a plausible explanation for it. Spectators would do the same, then you would be stuck.)

If you just let it float up then it looks bad. (Not enough motion.)

Apparently not impromptu.

To expensive.

Just go and buy shifty!

In what way does it look "Super fishy" if you shake it? I cant see anything Fishy about it.

And so what if a magician came up with an explanation and figured it out? You know about how magic works and can figure things out because of that. In the last 5 years i have been serious about magic there are only a handfull of effects which i could not "figure out", still im doing magic everyday, fooling people with the simplest tricks there is.

Yesterday i even held the spectators single selection in my hand, said to them if i smash the deck with my hands like this, smashed the deck, and said, the whole deck jumps to my pocked and your single card is still here. THATS something fishy looking, and it still fooled them.

And what do you mean by stuck if them came up with an explanation? If you gets stuck by that, you have allot of work to do.

I dont want to sound negative but im just tired of seeing people say negative things about effects without owning then or trying them out.

Same thing happned when Exile was released, people were saying, "Oh its obvious how its done", "Oh i figured it out, so easy"

Well, if people are complaining about effects David Blaine uses to start of his speciall , then nothing will be good enough for theese people.

 

[4757joshua2]

In what way does it look "Super fishy" if you shake it? I cant see anything Fishy about it.

And so what if a magician came up with an explanation and figured it out? You know about how magic works and can figure things out because of that. In the last 5 years i have been serious about magic there are only a handfull of effects which i could not "figure out", still im doing magic everyday, fooling people with the simplest tricks there is.

I'm talking about a spectator, not a magician.

Yesterday i even held the spectators single selection in my hand, said to them if i smash the deck with my hands like this, smashed the deck, and said, the whole deck jumps to my pocked and your single card is still here. THATS something fishy looking, and it still fooled them.

And what do you mean by stuck if them came up with an explanation? If you gets stuck by that, you have allot of work to do.

I said you get stuck, not me.

I dont want to sound negative but im just tired of seeing people say negative things about effects without owning then or trying them out.

Same thing happned when Exile was released, people were saying, "Oh its obvious how its done", "Oh i figured it out, so easy"

Well, if people are complaining about effects David Blaine uses to start of his speciall , then nothing will be good enough for theese people.

Well, I'm not people. Exile looks pretty cool to me.

 

[copperfield 14]

I think RIOT sucks.

It needs a gimmick.

It looks super fishy if you shake it. I "figured" the trick out on the second view. (I made a plausible explanation for it. Spectators would do the same, then you would be stuck.)

If you just let it float up then it looks bad. (Not enough motion.)

Apparently not impromptu.

To expensive.

Just go and buy shifty!

I showed this to my sister she went crazy. Screw what magicians think. Spectators are the people you have to entertain. They don't like things to be too obvious like moving your hands up and down. This has no movement whatsoever. It's like putting putting a deck on the table and a card slowly comes out of it. Rather than having the deck in your hands and waving your hands like crazy then a card comes out. Riot is one of the best rising cards I've ever seen. It's impossible for a spectator too know what your doing since you never move your hand

 

[Dima]

Riot does look amazing but i'm not a fan of gimmicks so, not for me. That doesn't mean i'm gonna bash the trick since i haven't even got it or claim to have "guessed how it works".

Well done to Dan for creating a great looking, ambitious finale.

 

[4757joshua2]

Riot does look amazing but i'm not a fan of gimmicks so, not for me. That doesn't mean i'm gonna bash the trick since i haven't even got it or claim to have "guessed how it works".

Well done to Dan for creating a great looking, ambitious finale.

Who said they figured it out? Cuz it wasn't me.

 

[copperfield 14]

Who said they figured it out? Cuz it wasn't me.

Actually it was you

 

[Deleted member 2755]

Who said they figured it out? Cuz it wasn't me.

I think RIOT sucks.

It needs a gimmick.

It looks super fishy if you shake it. I "figured" the trick out on the second view. (I made a plausible explanation for it. Spectators would do the same, then you would be stuck.)

If you just let it float up then it looks bad. (Not enough motion.)

Apparently not impromptu.

To expensive.

Just go and buy shifty!

Spectators will think of an explanation for everything. There is no way around it. Read the first essay in Art of Astonishments Vol. 1 and you'll understand.

-Doug

 

[RikAllen]

Saying something isn't good, based on the fact that it is 'under-performed', is a bad excuse for not getting it.

They say it is simple, something T11 has never lied about (at least from my experience) and if it is simple to do, you can use your other hand in any performance wave or slow jedi mind trick-esk motion to have it rise. In the podcast they say you have complete control over speed, if it can be done faster, you can do it faster and work on a presentation that way.

One of my favorite effects right now to perform is Cliptrip by DG. It's simple, direct and slow. Someone un-bends a paper clip. You take it from them, hold it at eye level and stare. It slowly 'melts' down to a 45 degree angle bend, only being held by two fingers. You hand it to them immediately and smile.

And I understand people who don't enjoy using gimmicks, to each their own.

Dan Hauss has yet to disappoint me with both his creativity and practicality.

I think that's all I had to say...

-Rik

 

[Deleted member 2755]

In the podcast they say you have complete control over speed, if it can be done faster, you can do it faster and work on a presentation that way.

You can control the speed and its AWESOME! I go very slowly when I do it to let it sink in.

I Just got back from a friend's house. Showed Riot to 2 people. They both thought it was CRAZY!

-Doug

 

[praetoritevong]

Ok, let me rephrase a comment I made earlier into a question (which was answered by one person but I want more opinions - but thank you Kevin). How much room do you have to the added presentation? I don't really care for the method, I'm sure it's genius, as is the gimmick, and I'm not bashing at all. But imo, with no motion, it wasn't presented very well at all in the 1-on-1. A card rising with absolutely no movement of your hand whatsoever limits the impact of the effect in my opinion. So the question is, how much room do you have to wave your hand over the deck, and actually present it, unlike the 1-on1.

 

[Deleted member 2755]

Ok, let me rephrase a comment I made earlier into a question (which was answered by one person but I want more opinions - but thank you Kevin). How much room do you have to the added presentation? I don't really care for the method, I'm sure it's genius, as is the gimmick, and I'm not bashing at all. But imo, with no motion, it wasn't presented very well at all in the 1-on-1. A card rising with absolutely no movement of your hand whatsoever limits the impact of the effect in my opinion. So the question is, how much room do you have to wave your hand over the deck, and actually present it, unlike the 1-on1.

I'm not quite sure what your saying. However, it looks like your saying the effect doesn't look magical because your hands aren't moving. I disagree with that. That's how it makes it look magical. No sleight of hand could possibly be taking place! Your hand is not moving and the card just seems to rise. You don't even have to shake the deck like it was done in the trailer! You could just have the card rise. I think that is what makes it look great. I do shake the deck though when in performance because I actually think that does make it look more magical. However, the option is always there.

Check out this webcam video I just shot for here. http://s258.photobucket.com/albums/hh269/DSewell692/?action=view&current=Video434.flv I don't do the whole presentation or make it go all the way. I just did the basic card rise. (Apologies about the lighting. I turned off the lights because if I ever keep my lights on when webcamming, the light reflects off the cards and there is just a huge white glare and the cards aren't visible.)

I think this card rise is CRAZY!

I'm working on a routine right now to use the same gimmick, but make the entire deck just VANISH and only have the selected card remain. I'm so close.

-Doug

-EDIT- If you really want to have your other hand on top, you are always welcome to. The entire rise is done one handed as seen in the video I posted and in the preview. So if you wanted to do any sort of magical gesture or something, you can. There is nothing preventing you from doing so.

 

[cheaptrick]

This is a nice little effect, already used it as an acr ender, and got good reactions, I showed my cousin, he asked to see it again, 4 times in a row he still was baffled. I tweaked the gimmick slightly which has made everything about the effect much easier(the tweak was so simple I am surprised dan didnt make the gimmick like this)

As for my way of performing, I make the card rise slowly with a slow, moderate side to side shake.

 

[praetoritevong]

I'm not quite sure what your saying. However, it looks like your saying the effect doesn't look magical because your hands aren't moving. I disagree with that. That's how it makes it look magical. No sleight of hand could possibly be taking place! Your hand is not moving and the card just seems to rise. You don't even have to shake the deck like it was done in the trailer! You could just have the card rise. I think that is what makes it look great. I do shake the deck though when in performance because I actually think that does make it look more magical. However, the option is always there.

Check out this webcam video I just shot for here. http://s258.photobucket.com/albums/hh269/DSewell692/?action=view&current=Video434.flv I don't do the whole presentation or make it go all the way. I just did the basic card rise. (Apologies about the lighting. I turned off the lights because if I ever keep my lights on when webcamming, the light reflects off the cards and there is just a huge white glare and the cards aren't visible.)

I think this card rise is CRAZY!

I'm working on a routine right now to use the same gimmick, but make the entire deck just VANISH and only have the selected card remain. I'm so close.

-Doug

-EDIT- If you really want to have your other hand on top, you are always welcome to. The entire rise is done one handed as seen in the video I posted and in the preview. So if you wanted to do any sort of magical gesture or something, you can. There is nothing preventing you from doing so.

Hey mate - yeah that's exactly what I was saying regarding having some sort of motion.

I had a look at your video, and I dunno... I mean, it was a good performance, don't get me wrong, it just... It, as well as the 1-on-1 preview video, lacked... It lacked flair, it lacked any sort of showmanship, and it didn't lend itself towards the magician being credited for something magical. In my opinion, as a magician, it's amazing, as someone watching a magic trick... It almost looks mechanical, not an organic thing, i just don't feel anything watching it. It looks more impossible, yes, if you don't move your hand at all, but...

I dunno. It just doesn't feel like magic to me.

However, your point about shaking the deck is not lost on me - that's exactly the sort of thing I mean. Even giving the deck a slight shake looks much better than putting a card there into a deck in your hand and just watching it rise like a crane hauling a block of concrete up a building - except, if you're watching a crane, at least there's the potential for something mildly moving to happen (i.e. the concrete dropping x metres, hitting the ground and smashing into tiny little pieces with a loud bang)... Watching a still deck and still hand and some little thing rise feels mechanical and distinctly different, not a moving experience and in my opinion sells the effect (and it's a great effect) short.