What is Theory11?
- Thread starter Magic Man4293
- Start date
- Status
Hei,
I share the same Ideas as Micheal. Although it is an awesome effect you can´t lie to your customers.
The point Micheal brought out, if you bought a car for 25,000 and lets say the actual card costs around 20,000 but the one your buying is supposed to have the best stuff in it what actually costs around 10,000 you think your getting a bargain. But when you recive the car, whoopsiday it has a motor that makes a nice sound, has 200 extra horses under it but the body is rusting, its has nothing inside etc.
The point is that if Dan White said "We put every piece out there before it comes out" is somewhat true. They do make alot of effort to make us understand whats going on with the thing but one of the picec they gave us "It goes in the balloon and you hand it out" is not true. Its makes the effect seem so much more different. Its a completly new effect on it own. You can actually think from that sentence that you can inflate the ball again and wiggle th phone around.
Im not dissapointed in the effect, its awesome but giving out that litlle word has made a comletly new effect from this.
Marketing and Business s****, but thats our world.
Theoy11 was supposed to be different, it has so much thing here but it all has a price.
Mikk
PS: Would love to hear DG, Dan White, JB say something. But i think this topic will go away soon because of over exposure and fighting the system.
I share the same Ideas as Micheal. Although it is an awesome effect you can´t lie to your customers.
The point Micheal brought out, if you bought a car for 25,000 and lets say the actual card costs around 20,000 but the one your buying is supposed to have the best stuff in it what actually costs around 10,000 you think your getting a bargain. But when you recive the car, whoopsiday it has a motor that makes a nice sound, has 200 extra horses under it but the body is rusting, its has nothing inside etc.
The point is that if Dan White said "We put every piece out there before it comes out" is somewhat true. They do make alot of effort to make us understand whats going on with the thing but one of the picec they gave us "It goes in the balloon and you hand it out" is not true. Its makes the effect seem so much more different. Its a completly new effect on it own. You can actually think from that sentence that you can inflate the ball again and wiggle th phone around.
Im not dissapointed in the effect, its awesome but giving out that litlle word has made a comletly new effect from this.
Marketing and Business s****, but thats our world.
Theoy11 was supposed to be different, it has so much thing here but it all has a price.
Mikk
PS: Would love to hear DG, Dan White, JB say something. But i think this topic will go away soon because of over exposure and fighting the system.
Yes.
For lack of a better example, look at the original Balducci. Or King Rising. Are you actually levitating? Of course not. Can anyone here claim to actually physically levitate?
Of course not. It's the illusion of levitation. My current favourite routine has me force a number. Yet the spectator feels they could've chosen any number between 1 and 52. And the spectator perception works for me.
Just to clarify, I can sympathise with you on some points, for example, wanting to give out the souvenir; on others, reading some posts like the one above, I feel you are greatly misguided.
You have to understand that all magical advertising describes the effect from the spectator's view. I think that's fair enough. I think it was just an unlucky coincidence that your expectation ended up not being possible because of practical limitations. The ad says the spectator can rip it out of the balloon.
If the spectator believes they can/did, then I believe the advert is correct to say that. I can understand it being misleading in terms of your expectations, and your purchase goal, but the advert I do not believe was misleading (incidentally, hence why I'd wait before buying anything..).
Put it this way: If a spectator believes that grass is red, the statement that "Spectator walks on red grass" is true for all intents and purposes, if our purpose is to convince the spectator that grass is red - even though we know for a fact that in reality, this belief is a fallacy.
If a spectator believes they removed a phone from a balloon, the statement that "Spectator removes phone from balloon" is true for all intents and purposes, if our magical purpose is to create the miracle of pulling a phone from a balloon - even though we know for a fact that in reality, this did not happen.
And generally to some other posters, this thread reeks of one of the biggest problems in magic - magicians who can't see magic from the spectator's point of view. Who can't see past themselves as the centre of the universe.
Last edited by a moderator:
I see some things from both points of views.
I was also a tad ticked off that I couldnt actually have their phone in a balloon and hand it off as a impossible feat, but its still a great effect.
1. Where does it say exactly "Then you can take the phone in the balloon and they can keep it forever and ever with the impossible little object. Its going to be a great souvinir"? It doesnt. So theres no false advertising on that part. It says they can examine everything, they can. Your own misunderstanding of the words.
2. "The spectator can rip out the phone" Yes they can. The hole I make in the balloon is way too small to actually take out the phone easily. The spectator always has to enlarge the hole in order to take out their own phone. So did they rip out their own phone? I would say so.
3. "All magic sites lie" That in itself is a lie. There are a few which lie *cough magic makers*, but majority dont. It may not tell you every step of the effect, but spectators never know. Describe an ACR. "performer takes the signed card, inserts it into the middle of the deck, snaps his fingers and its back on top." Now a simple double lift will suffice for this effect, but no one, not even a magician describes it as "magician shows signed card ontop of the deck, flips it face down on top of the deck, takes the card, inserts it in, and its back on top. Its not false advertising. Its called missing out the extreme details. Its not a lie, its called business. If people sell a car, the company doesnt point out the cons along with the pros. "OUR CAR CAN GO A TRILLION MILES PER HOUR! RUNS ON WATER! AND CAN HOLD 40 PEOPLE! IT ONLY COSTS 10 DOLLARS! Oh right. In order to refill the tank with water, it takes 100 hours and any bit of dirt in the water will make it a normal car." you never see that do you?
4. Finally, everything magic sites describe are from the audience point of view. Perform the bought tricks to real people and ask them to describe it the next day. What do they say? "He deflated the balloon into my phone and it was inside! He then bent down to bite the balloon to make a hole. I then didnt rip it out myself, i just took it out of the balloon" No... it would be more like "HE TOOK MY PHONE AND SLAMMED IT INTO A BLOWN UP BALLOON! I COULD SEE IT FROM ALL SIDES THERE WAS NO HOLES OR ANYTHING! IT WAS ACTUALLY INSIDE! I THEN TOOK IT OUT MYSELF! YEA! MYSELF! I STILL HAVE THE BALLOON! AHHHH! IT WOULDNT EVEN FIT OUT THE BLOW HOLE THING!" thats more like it.
5. As for tricks like Control or TNR. I have performed both quite a few times for laymen and gotten great reactions. Not once have they suspected of anything else of what they saw. Sure TNR isnt the most practical of tricks, but still works like a charm. Have you actually performed these effects? or have you just seen the method and stayed away from it? What you see and know isnt what the audience see and know.
I was also a tad ticked off that I couldnt actually have their phone in a balloon and hand it off as a impossible feat, but its still a great effect.
1. Where does it say exactly "Then you can take the phone in the balloon and they can keep it forever and ever with the impossible little object. Its going to be a great souvinir"? It doesnt. So theres no false advertising on that part. It says they can examine everything, they can. Your own misunderstanding of the words.
2. "The spectator can rip out the phone" Yes they can. The hole I make in the balloon is way too small to actually take out the phone easily. The spectator always has to enlarge the hole in order to take out their own phone. So did they rip out their own phone? I would say so.
3. "All magic sites lie" That in itself is a lie. There are a few which lie *cough magic makers*, but majority dont. It may not tell you every step of the effect, but spectators never know. Describe an ACR. "performer takes the signed card, inserts it into the middle of the deck, snaps his fingers and its back on top." Now a simple double lift will suffice for this effect, but no one, not even a magician describes it as "magician shows signed card ontop of the deck, flips it face down on top of the deck, takes the card, inserts it in, and its back on top. Its not false advertising. Its called missing out the extreme details. Its not a lie, its called business. If people sell a car, the company doesnt point out the cons along with the pros. "OUR CAR CAN GO A TRILLION MILES PER HOUR! RUNS ON WATER! AND CAN HOLD 40 PEOPLE! IT ONLY COSTS 10 DOLLARS! Oh right. In order to refill the tank with water, it takes 100 hours and any bit of dirt in the water will make it a normal car." you never see that do you?
4. Finally, everything magic sites describe are from the audience point of view. Perform the bought tricks to real people and ask them to describe it the next day. What do they say? "He deflated the balloon into my phone and it was inside! He then bent down to bite the balloon to make a hole. I then didnt rip it out myself, i just took it out of the balloon" No... it would be more like "HE TOOK MY PHONE AND SLAMMED IT INTO A BLOWN UP BALLOON! I COULD SEE IT FROM ALL SIDES THERE WAS NO HOLES OR ANYTHING! IT WAS ACTUALLY INSIDE! I THEN TOOK IT OUT MYSELF! YEA! MYSELF! I STILL HAVE THE BALLOON! AHHHH! IT WOULDNT EVEN FIT OUT THE BLOW HOLE THING!" thats more like it.
5. As for tricks like Control or TNR. I have performed both quite a few times for laymen and gotten great reactions. Not once have they suspected of anything else of what they saw. Sure TNR isnt the most practical of tricks, but still works like a charm. Have you actually performed these effects? or have you just seen the method and stayed away from it? What you see and know isnt what the audience see and know.
Michael,
While other members have already chimed into this thread with correct response, you make some very serious, unfounded accusations that I do not take lightly. Let's take it from the top. Your post begins with a complaint that you figured out another artist's creation based on watching it in a teaser video, I suppose planned to perform it based on that partial assumption, and didn't see any reason why you actually needed to respect the artist and purchase their creation. The flawed logic and spinning moral compass there speaks for itself.
If you were truly dissatisfied with your purchase, you need not fret, but instead click two buttons and request a refund, as we stand behind our products - unlike any other company - with a 100% guarantee. There is no quick sale, we stand behind what we do and if you don't like it, we're not happy. We aim to please, and you'd be surprised how much joy we get from reading reviews and seeing what people think about our products. It's what keeps us moving.
Your accusation of misleading advertising on Pressure is completely unfounded. You wrote "Saying the spectator can rip it out of the balloon is a complete lie." I urge you to take another look at every street performance in the Pressure video. In each, the spectator takes the cell phone out of the balloon. That is what they do, that is what they see, that is what they remember. What we wrote in the description is exactly what the effect appears to look like to every spectator that sees it. Exactly. If you misunderstood that description, or read between the lines to assume what was not there, we do apologize, but the description stands and the reviews speak for themselves.
Regarding Control - I honestly have no clue what you were referring to. In sincerity, it isn't even necessary to HAVE a preview video for Control. The spectator feels your pulse. It slows down. It stops. What else is there to see? What was left out? Absolutely nothing. We even posted a full performance in the Media section. We could not have BEEN more transparent, complete, and truthful. You are grasping for straws that are not there.
Regarding TNR - while your post at numerous points claims that you raise your concerns with respect, this showed the polar opposite. You refer to Mathieu Bich - one of the most prolific and respected creators of our time - a "one hit wonder." In addition to sounding ignorant, misinformed, and disrespectful, it takes a lot of experience, brilliance, and ingenuity to create like Mathieu does, year after year. From eXile to SympathINK to TNR to Spreadwave to Stretching to Eject. One hit wonder? A humorous accusation, at best. In truth, it's offensive. With all due respect, with all of your talk of advancement, artistic criticism, and innovation, the only thing I have ever seen you create in the past year is forum avatars. I mean this not in offense, but one must practice what they preach.
To downplay the creations of Mathieu Bich and the other creators that work night and day to support themselves and their families entirely based on their creations is disrespectful, regardless of your intention. TNR is not an easy effect. It's not labelled as such. It's also not the most walk-around friendly effect that we have produced. But the reviews speak for themselves, and even if it isn't your cup of tea, there are absolutely ZERO false advertisements, let alone the "granddaddy" thereof.
In summary, I do hope that the other members' responses have helped clarify your concerns. This is a site and a team that is more transparent than any other company out there. Should we hold ourselves to a higher standard with so many respected artists on our team? Absolutely - and we do. But we are not perfect. We will mess up from time to time. And we will fix it when we do. And we welcome feedback on it every step of the way.
But with product descriptions, these are always and will always be a clear description of exactly what the spectator sees, not what a magician would see nor what goes on in the mind of the magician. For that, you'll need to buy the product.
And if you're ever disappointed thereafter to the point where you regret your purchase with every fiber of your being - don't sweat it. But at least give us the chance to make it right. We've offered that guarantee since launch if need be, and we continue to stand behind everything we do.
I do appreciate your candor and feedback, and we take every grain of it into account. However, with the persistent negativity, extreme vulgarity, quite frankly racist remarks (even if made in jest - we deleted), and unprofessional conduct that has been present in many of your posts in the past few weeks - it is hard not to believe you are looking for a reason to frown on the mission, objectives, and intent of this team. If so, I would encourage you to take a step back for a moment, look in the mirror a little bit more, and see the bigger picture - we are making a difference, and we would love your help to continue doing so.
While other members have already chimed into this thread with correct response, you make some very serious, unfounded accusations that I do not take lightly. Let's take it from the top. Your post begins with a complaint that you figured out another artist's creation based on watching it in a teaser video, I suppose planned to perform it based on that partial assumption, and didn't see any reason why you actually needed to respect the artist and purchase their creation. The flawed logic and spinning moral compass there speaks for itself.
If you were truly dissatisfied with your purchase, you need not fret, but instead click two buttons and request a refund, as we stand behind our products - unlike any other company - with a 100% guarantee. There is no quick sale, we stand behind what we do and if you don't like it, we're not happy. We aim to please, and you'd be surprised how much joy we get from reading reviews and seeing what people think about our products. It's what keeps us moving.
Your accusation of misleading advertising on Pressure is completely unfounded. You wrote "Saying the spectator can rip it out of the balloon is a complete lie." I urge you to take another look at every street performance in the Pressure video. In each, the spectator takes the cell phone out of the balloon. That is what they do, that is what they see, that is what they remember. What we wrote in the description is exactly what the effect appears to look like to every spectator that sees it. Exactly. If you misunderstood that description, or read between the lines to assume what was not there, we do apologize, but the description stands and the reviews speak for themselves.
Regarding Control - I honestly have no clue what you were referring to. In sincerity, it isn't even necessary to HAVE a preview video for Control. The spectator feels your pulse. It slows down. It stops. What else is there to see? What was left out? Absolutely nothing. We even posted a full performance in the Media section. We could not have BEEN more transparent, complete, and truthful. You are grasping for straws that are not there.
Regarding TNR - while your post at numerous points claims that you raise your concerns with respect, this showed the polar opposite. You refer to Mathieu Bich - one of the most prolific and respected creators of our time - a "one hit wonder." In addition to sounding ignorant, misinformed, and disrespectful, it takes a lot of experience, brilliance, and ingenuity to create like Mathieu does, year after year. From eXile to SympathINK to TNR to Spreadwave to Stretching to Eject. One hit wonder? A humorous accusation, at best. In truth, it's offensive. With all due respect, with all of your talk of advancement, artistic criticism, and innovation, the only thing I have ever seen you create in the past year is forum avatars. I mean this not in offense, but one must practice what they preach.
To downplay the creations of Mathieu Bich and the other creators that work night and day to support themselves and their families entirely based on their creations is disrespectful, regardless of your intention. TNR is not an easy effect. It's not labelled as such. It's also not the most walk-around friendly effect that we have produced. But the reviews speak for themselves, and even if it isn't your cup of tea, there are absolutely ZERO false advertisements, let alone the "granddaddy" thereof.
In summary, I do hope that the other members' responses have helped clarify your concerns. This is a site and a team that is more transparent than any other company out there. Should we hold ourselves to a higher standard with so many respected artists on our team? Absolutely - and we do. But we are not perfect. We will mess up from time to time. And we will fix it when we do. And we welcome feedback on it every step of the way.
But with product descriptions, these are always and will always be a clear description of exactly what the spectator sees, not what a magician would see nor what goes on in the mind of the magician. For that, you'll need to buy the product.
And if you're ever disappointed thereafter to the point where you regret your purchase with every fiber of your being - don't sweat it. But at least give us the chance to make it right. We've offered that guarantee since launch if need be, and we continue to stand behind everything we do.
I do appreciate your candor and feedback, and we take every grain of it into account. However, with the persistent negativity, extreme vulgarity, quite frankly racist remarks (even if made in jest - we deleted), and unprofessional conduct that has been present in many of your posts in the past few weeks - it is hard not to believe you are looking for a reason to frown on the mission, objectives, and intent of this team. If so, I would encourage you to take a step back for a moment, look in the mirror a little bit more, and see the bigger picture - we are making a difference, and we would love your help to continue doing so.
I'll just throw my 2 cents in too:
In regards to pressure, I was in a similar place as you. I knew phase 1 if you will, but not phase 2. I paid $20 for that piece of information (which you so kindly give away).
Think about it. If the showed it in the demo, wouldn't it have given it away? That would be really generous. T11 is in the business of selling effects. Heck, they don't even need to put up a video at all.
It was not falsely advertised, you just had read in different expectations into the product descriptions. There the blame does not fall on T11. (perhaps they have changed the description?)
My advice? (I know no one asked) Don't impulse buy. That's a skill that will serve you well in life. I knew the first part of the effect. I knew that in order to get from that point to be able to hand it out there needed to be something more. After reading the reviews, I had it semi figured. I decided that for the effect that it would achieve I wanted that second piece of information. I paid up, and did not feel scammed at all.
(To throw it out there) I did find it interesting that there wasn't a routine put together with this effect. It was just a "hey wanna see a trick" style. A routine with it would have been nice.
j
In regards to pressure, I was in a similar place as you. I knew phase 1 if you will, but not phase 2. I paid $20 for that piece of information (which you so kindly give away).
Think about it. If the showed it in the demo, wouldn't it have given it away? That would be really generous. T11 is in the business of selling effects. Heck, they don't even need to put up a video at all.
It was not falsely advertised, you just had read in different expectations into the product descriptions. There the blame does not fall on T11. (perhaps they have changed the description?)
My advice? (I know no one asked) Don't impulse buy. That's a skill that will serve you well in life. I knew the first part of the effect. I knew that in order to get from that point to be able to hand it out there needed to be something more. After reading the reviews, I had it semi figured. I decided that for the effect that it would achieve I wanted that second piece of information. I paid up, and did not feel scammed at all.
(To throw it out there) I did find it interesting that there wasn't a routine put together with this effect. It was just a "hey wanna see a trick" style. A routine with it would have been nice.
j
Last edited by a moderator:
All I can say is that every T11 product I've bought, I've been pleased with. And I've roughly spent around 200 pounds, if not 300 pounds on T11.
After reading this whole thing - I say this.
OmG a Kool new Effectz0rs from t11 is Absolut bestest!!!!11!
Perhaps not so exaggerated, but bare with me here. Once you see something you like, you think.
Is it as good as it says?
What do other people think about it?
Reviews. They're posted underneath an effect page for a reason, and it ain't for decoration.
Whenever I make a purchase, I make sure it is exactly what I wanted. And I do this by listening to other people.
Gustav
OmG a Kool new Effectz0rs from t11 is Absolut bestest!!!!11!
Perhaps not so exaggerated, but bare with me here. Once you see something you like, you think.
Is it as good as it says?
What do other people think about it?
Reviews. They're posted underneath an effect page for a reason, and it ain't for decoration.
Whenever I make a purchase, I make sure it is exactly what I wanted. And I do this by listening to other people.
Gustav
I see it as something of a grey area. A line needs to be drawn somewhere, though I don't believe this was it.
Simply put, I just don't buy crap on release. I wait for reviews. Not just any reviews, but reviews from people whose opinion I value. And then of course there are just times when I'm flat out uninterested. The only thing I have ever purchased from Theory 11 is Control? Why? Because I look at all the card trick 1-on-1's and the Bucks' parade of flourishes and think, "When the hell am I going to use any of this?" Same goes for Pressure. I can't see myself ever performing it, so why waste my money?
JB,
If I figure out something that was put out I have every right to do whatever I want with it. You can buy a model airplane or you can build one with spare parts around your house either way you still have a model airplane. Also their are members who did get it right look at their posts. Some say they were expecting something a little bit different.
If you entirely understand my thread then you will understand that I love Pressure. After all I figured it out. But I was hoping that the spectator can rip their phone out off the balloon themselves, they can't. So I do not want a refund or would even ask for one.
Once again Control is a touchy subject I have performed it once or twice but I was expecting something different.
As for TnR. I wasn't calling Mathieu Bich a one hit wonder I was calling the effect itself a one hit wonder, as in you perform it once and wonder why it was ever released. It is a mockery of all things magic. I know magicians, pro magicians who bought that and never wanted to buy anything from theory11 again. It was that bad.
Lastly, I am glad that you like my avatars. Thanks
And you CAN NOT sell an effect on what the spectator might see. Daniel Garcia said they can RIP IT OUT THEM SELVES. That is the biggest misleading line in the whole pressure false advertisement ordeal. You say you want feedback but it is obvious you don't. And I am glad that you have decided to personally attack me in public. If you want me gone so much you have the power to do so. But now everyone will know they main reason you would ban me. Quite frankly JB the truth hurts, and you have taken the defensive because you are wrong. Stop trying to save your ass as a ceo of a company. And look at it from outsider eyes take advice. I now know, that you can't have theory with out the E. Unfortunately its your company at stake here not mine.
-Michael
YEAH you can.
this thread is going nowhere fast let me just interject my main points again.
1. Hype is a marketing technique
2. they can advertise whatever they want.
3. A+B doesn't always equal C
4. Trailers aren't performance videos, just a sneak peak. If a movie trailer shows and tells you the whole story, then what do they have left?
you are proving jb's point. the trailer shows exactly what the spectator should be seeing... do you perform control? if you do, does your spectators focus specifically on X? (they shouldn't, if you worked on your presentation) mine don't.
when i started out in magic i use to buy tricks because i have the urge to find out how it's done... that was a big mistake. because with that mind set... i'm often disappointed with thoughts such as "what?! that's it?!".
there will always be two main types of people who purchases magic products.
one type are those who has the NEED to know how slights are done, not because they want to perform it... because they just can't stand not knowing the secret.
the second type buys because they want to learn how to duplicate the effect to the best of their abilities so they can perform it for their audiences and astonish them. that is the ultimate goal for any magician right?
Last edited by a moderator:
I would say work on your performance of it. You can't just perform an effect willy nilly and expect the same reactions from someone who's put much work into it. Maybe that's the same issue you have with Pressure?
Or is it that you did in fact figure it out, and are pissed that you could have saved the money?
Lastly, I am glad that you like my avatars. Thanks
Mike, it is VERY possible to sell an effect based on what the spectator sees. That's what matters, afterall. Not the method. Not what actually happens. What the spectator sees. If you are in magic for cool methods, you are in for the wrong reason.
They can rip it out themselves. They may not make the initial rip, but they will most certainly have to rip the balloon to get it out. Again, if you work on your performance of it, the spec will never remember you making that initial rip. This just proves you rate an effect without even trying it on others. The value of your opinion on effects has just dropped for me.
In all fairness, Mike, you began by personally personally attacking Bich, first.
This shows just how much they do want to make things right, Mike. They could have banned you many times over, but they allow you to stay here. Be respectful. They invited you into their home, after all.
You also have taken the defensive. By your logic, you are also wrong.
Your original argument was that you feel ripped off. JB OFFERED to refund you and make it right, but you refuse to accept it.
Quit b****ing.
-ThrallMind
To nexus and nayost:
I am on my way out but let me interject something. If the trailer has to show what the spectator sees then why doesn't it show us Dan ripping the balloon out? Thats what the spectator sees, it might be different than what they remember but thats what they see. Plain and Simple.
-Michael
I am on my way out but let me interject something. If the trailer has to show what the spectator sees then why doesn't it show us Dan ripping the balloon out? Thats what the spectator sees, it might be different than what they remember but thats what they see. Plain and Simple.
-Michael
Michael, the thing is, they can rip it out. As Aaron Fisher said "It's all about pictures". Even though they may not rip it straight away, when they're explaining it and remembering it, it will be what they remember. Like most tricks, if the spectator remembers all of the steps, then they could easily put it together and figure it out. But luckily for us, they wont remember it all.
For instance, 5 Speed, it gets amazing reactions. YET if the spectator was to regurgitate each step, they'd easily put it together and go "Oh I know how to do that, wasn't that good at all".
For instance, 5 Speed, it gets amazing reactions. YET if the spectator was to regurgitate each step, they'd easily put it together and go "Oh I know how to do that, wasn't that good at all".
First, read my post right above the one you made here.
Secondly, magic is in the mind of the spectator. Would you complain that you didn't see Dan doing a pass during an ACR? It's all about what the spec thinks they saw.
You're running out of straws to grasp, Mike.
-ThrallMind
Okay I have complete lost hope in You and astyn. Micaheal.
I just realized, the only way I can care less about you and astyn is if I didn't acknowledge your existence at all.
I just realized, the only way I can care less about you and astyn is if I didn't acknowledge your existence at all.
Some of you are making no sense. Although i somewhat agree with what you are saying
Well they are not exactly going to sell you an effect on what the magician see's are they ? That would reveal the effect. And something was said about controll and the fact that the motions they make wasnt shown. Well they arnt going to film that are they ? its like showing 2 cards before you do a double lift !
Well they are not exactly going to sell you an effect on what the magician see's are they ? That would reveal the effect. And something was said about controll and the fact that the motions they make wasnt shown. Well they arnt going to film that are they ? its like showing 2 cards before you do a double lift !
I am absolutely shocked that no one is hearing what I am saying. It doesn't matter if they remember themselves ripping the phone out. What actually happened is what matters. For anyone who has TA and saw the explanation for Gerard's Warp knows that Paul and Bro both thought they saw the two pieces turn inside out at the end, which of course is no true. So what did Gerard do? Did he sell his effect saying the two pieces turn inside out at the end? No. Because they didn't. Saying that a spectator can rip the phone out themselves is a 100% lie. There should be no discussion on that matter.
-Michael
-Michael
- Status