While I figured out how he did it,*I didn’t actually see him do any of the movements. He did a good job.
*1 fake coin that can look like two, misdirection and rotating the glass.
hE HAS EXCELLENT CONTROL OF THE PALM, VERY EXPERTLY CONCEALED. hE BLENDS MAGNETISS, A SHIMMED COIN, AND A PROP TABLE QUITE SEAMLESSLY.
Maybe he can make your caps lock disappear.
Voi- LA.
I agree with the mentioned methods of how it was done. The hand through the glass was the most obvious because I have a much smaller version of pushing a pen through a glass frame this way. As for his personal dexterity and misdirection, he is wonderful at moving the coins between hands and front and back. Oh, and everybody sitting at the table is in on it. Even that was done well as all but the lady announcer looked like they might be audience members.
I’m kinda meh on a magician who needs not only the help of camera angles but also a room full of accomplices to pull his tricks. At that point, why not just CGI himself turning into a dragon or something.
Yeah I thought the point of close-up magic is that it can be done close-up. If the only way it can work is by having everyone in the room in on the trick, plus relying on camera angles, then who cares?
I didn’t get that impression at all. This was a very natural trick, plied multitudinous times, with great natural dexterity, and expert manipulation. Although I didn’t catch all that he was saying… I know it was humorous and incidental.
This was a very nice effect for everyone out in the main audience. And despite the trick coin, magnets and other trick hidden by the spoilers, it was very well executed. His manual dexterity while doing the coins are the start of the video was from thousands of hours of practice with his hands and eyes and talk.
It always sucks to know how it was done because it makes it sound so much simpler than it is to pull off. His performance was excellent.
Yes, it is all trickery, but we were more amazed when we didn’t know what it was. That is why amateurs don’t tell. Not because we are stuck up, but because it takes the fun out of it for the audience who don’t understand how difficult it is to hide these tricks from audience using performance.
I disagree. I like the challenge of puzzling the trick out and I’m not dismissive of the magician’s skill and preparation.
A while back, we deconstructed a David Copperfield trick and it was fun.
I wouldn’t say that just knowing how a trick is done takes the fun out of it. But I think the fact that, if the trick is done the way posted in the spoiler, that means that everyone at the table are confederates and are acting, and *that *takes the fun out of it. If he can actually trick people sitting next to him, that’s very cool and shows some immense talent. But if his act is completely dependent upon camera trickery & actors pretending to be amazed, that’s not so special.
Well the general audience was amazed and we all were till we found out how. But now we are less amazed because we don’t think that the peer pressure of the people around the table is a magic talent? Sorry, but that is a talent too. They need to be trained and are performing also.
Who says we’re not?
I also like knowing how it’s done. I also like to watch plays & musicals from the booth when I get the chance.
I don’t agree that knowing how it’s done takes all the fun out of it, but I will say that it makes one demand more of the performer than simply doing the trick.
I’m not a magician, but I’ve known a few and seen enough shows to have a pretty basic understanding of how most of it is done. But I can still be surprised by a good performance.
Example: I saw a show just last week with a magician and an assistant (though the “assistant” really did most of the work). They were pretty good, but the act didn’t have a lot of originality, except for a couple of illusions. In one, the assistant was tethered to a rope strung through a pair of small holes in a box with a glass front. Immediately I guessed that she’d end up in the box still attached to the rope and posited how it could be done. The barrier went up and, sure enough, there she was in the box. No surprise, so I was kind of ‘meh’ on that trick.
But in the other one, the assistant was bound with a series of ropes. Now, I spotted right away by the tying technique that she could easily get free, so I was expecting a pretty mundane escape trick. The magician raised the barrier and when he dropped it (fairly quickly, too) the assistant was still tied up, but was wearing the magician’s distinctive jacket under the ropes. That surprised me, and I therefore enjoyed that one a lot more than the first.
I guess my point is that the best illusions subvert the expectations of the audience, even – especially, perhaps – those who think they’re savvy to what’s going on.