What Do You Folks Think of This? Animate & Restore by Jesse Feinberg

[Richard Kaufman]

Animate & Restore by Jesse Feinberg. This looks interesting to me, particularly after reading the details below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjkaWoRt ... ture=share

www.PaulHarrisPresents.com

It's $40 and here are the details:

You received a weird, rare, possibly illegal Card Puzzle in the mail. You open the envelope and pour out four torn card pieces onto your normal deck.

And now for the STRANGEST THING youve ever seen...

Slowly, gradually, hauntingly, the pile of TORN PIECES COME TO LIFE! Each piece starts to CREEP and TWIST and TURN.. SLITHERING around like little critters on top of the deck... VISIBLY RE-ARRANGING

THEMSELVES into a COMPLETE CARD! Yes...THE CARD IS RESTORED, EXAMINABLE AND CAN BE GIVEN AWAY.

*A & R Gimmick is completely self-contained inside the envelope.

*Nothing attached to the body or deck

*Perform any time you feel like it.

*Normal deck is clean and completely unprepared.

*Re-sets in seconds

*Easy to do. No palming

*Make your own gimmick to Animate and Restore pieces of business cards, game cards, tarot cards or photos.

MAKE YOUR T&R COME TO LIFE WITH A&R

Complete with long lasting tyvec envelope, gimmick and DVD.

[Jonathan Townsend]

I like most of it. Not sure about having a pack in hand, but the basic setup with the envelope looks workable and sensible.

In your opinion would the trick lose something if you worked from just a pack for a selection? IE you tear it up, pieces go into the envelope - someone asks about the paper inside and you give them some nonsense words to read as the card pieces reassemble...

[Gary Kosnitzky]

This is what I think of this:

Why do magician's spend more time trying to fool other magician's into handing over their hard earned money rather than getting paid the old fashioned way by performing for paying audiences?

Quote from ad.
"VISIBLY RE-ARRANGING THEMSELVES into a COMPLETE CARD!"

I'm sorry that is not what I saw.

Blasphemously, this video was tampered with at 1 minute and 31 seconds, right smack in the middle of the restoration. This part was edited in a way to blend into the jumpiness of the whole video in general or maybe the whole video is purposely jumpy to camouflage that cut. This particular edit is so subtle as to be practically undetectable.

At 1 minute and 32 seconds, the card is obviously not complete or even appearing to be complete.
The lower left corner is sticking out an angle prior to covering it with the envelope, making it obvious that the card is definitely not complete. So not only is the card not complete as it says in the ad ,it doesn't even appear complete.

This ad totally misleads you.
The video tells the complete (no pun intended) truth.

You did this in 2006 Jesse and didn't get away with it.
What makes you think you can do it now?

[Kent Gunn]

How is what Jesse's doing different than selling sets of Indian Cups and Balls to unsuspecting magician who could use any cup with a knob on the top to do a routine? Shouldn't that guy just go do shows and not foist his product on magicians?

Oh, oh . . . I remember a really cool cigarette up the nose routine. I bought one and still use it. ( rarely it's still good to be a smoker ). The guy who foisted that on the unsuspecting magic public was NOT ACTUALLY PUTTING THE SMOKES UP HIS NOSE!!!! It was all a trick. I think that guy should simply go out and do shows too!

Seriously though, you must have had some awful run-in with Jesse. I've met him a couple of times. He seems modest and very, very creative. If you didn't like some item he came up with, how about going into those details?

Don't get the anger.

I ran into that cigarette up the nose guy in a shop in Vegas ca. 2004, I believe. That guy was really nice, did super-strong magic and seemed modest and very, very creative. . .

KG

[Gary Kosnitzky]

How is what Jesse's doing different than selling sets of Indian Cups and Balls to unsuspecting magician who could use any cup with a knob on the top to do a routine? Shouldn't that guy just go do shows and not foist his product on magicians?

Oh, oh . . . I remember a really cool cigarette up the nose routine. I bought one and still use it. ( rarely it's still good to be a smoker ). The guy who foisted that on the unsuspecting magic public was NOT ACTUALLY PUTTING THE SMOKES UP HIS NOSE!!!! It was all a trick. I think that guy should simply go out and do shows too!

Seriously though, you must have had some awful run-in with Jesse. I've met him a couple of times. He seems modest and very, very creative. If you didn't like some item he came up with, how about going into those details?

Don't get the anger.

I ran into that cigarette up the nose guy in a shop in Vegas ca. 2004, I believe. That guy was really nice, did super-strong magic and seemed modest and very, very creative. . .

KG

Kent,

Please re-read my post.
I am not talking about selling products versus doing shows.
I am not angry at Jesse. I've never met the guy.
Im talking about the video has been deceitfully shot and edited.

What you see is not exactly what you get.

Carefully watch the times at 1:31 when a small piece is edited out completely during the restoration and 1:32 where you can see that the card is not completely restored prior to being covered by the envelope.

I will ignore your other remarks for now since they are off topic and only meant to attack me for giving my honest feelings as the original post asked.

[Richard Kaufman]

I like the idea of seeing the pieces move around, but as I've mentioned before, the rapid camera movements and editing make it hard to evaluate details.

I was pretty surprised when I got the part where it says the deck is not gimmicked. I wonder how thick the gimmick is which sits on top of the deck that's stolen under the envelope?

[Ian Kendall]

If you pause at 0:38 it looks to be about five cards thick, which would be enough to hold four thin "you-know-whats."

[erdnasephile]

IMHO, the effect is not practical without a deceptive, motivated cleanup.

Adding the envelope back again to ditch the gaff seems suspicious on the video.

As others have noted, the editing on the video does not allow a critical assessment of the routine.

[Ian Kendall]

On the contrary, I think the routine is there to be seen;

An envelope is introduced and the 'puzzle' is shown. The gimmick is loaded onto the deck.
The pieces move around.
The envelope is wiped over the deck, presumably to steal back the gimmick, and the pre-folded card (which was loaded under the gimmick in stage 1) is shown.
You are clean. Once you get rid of the envelope.

[Richard Kaufman]

I hope moving the envelope over the deck at the end is motivated in some way. Otherwise I think it might be pretty cool.

[Tom Stone]

I still think it is bad form to go into a such detailed description of a method without the creator's permission. Had it been done in a book, instead of a forum, the reviews would have been negative.

[Gary Kosnitzky]

I like the idea of seeing the pieces move around, but as I've mentioned before, the rapid camera movements and editing make it hard to evaluate details.

I was pretty surprised when I got the part where it says the deck is not gimmicked. I wonder how thick the gimmick is which sits on top of the deck that's stolen under the envelope?

Richard,

I am a Casino Surveillance Specialist by profession.

I have been watching playing cards and dice for the last 35 years. I get paid to do that.
In my field I am even called upon to testify as an expert witness in court. I am especially trained to analyze video. My eyes have sent hundreds of bad guys to the gray bar hotel.

If you watch this frame by frame you will see exactly what I see.
What it comes down to is the emperor has no clothes because anybody could see what I see if they look at the video.

By eliminating a small segment of video at 1:31 seconds the trick looks flawless when it is not. Otherwise, why eliminate a portion of video that's only fractions of a second long?
If you stop action exactly prior to when the envelope is placed on top of the deck at 1:32 seconds, you will plainly see that the lower right corner piece of card is not properly aligned. Thus the card does not appear to be restored at all.

How this trick is done is inconsequential to me. The way the video required tampering tells me that the method is not reliable and this trick may have been released prematurely.

When folks buy this they will see that it just doesn't look as good in their hands as in the video and wonder why. It hurts me to know that some 15 year old kid is going to be disappointed after spending his monthly allowance on this. I know that disappointment oh so well. Don't we all?

[Gary Kosnitzky]

I still think it is bad form to go into a such detailed description of a method without the creator's permission. Had it been done in a book, instead of a forum, the reviews would have been negative.

Tom,

I agree with you.
The initial question posted was What do you folks think of this? not "How do you think this is done?".

I feel my point is going over people's heads.

If folks want to know how it is done, respect the creator and pay the price of admission.

[Jonathan Townsend]

? the video shows an incomplete restoration, a cut and then a discrepant action?

[Richard Kaufman]

Gary, laymen are not Casino Surveillance Specialists. They don't watch the way you watch. I really think it's highly unlikely a layman is going to say, "Hey, that card didn't completely restore!"

[Gary Kosnitzky]

Gary, laymen are not Casino Surveillance Specialists. They don't watch the way you watch. I really think it's highly unlikely a layman is going to say, "Hey, that card didn't completely restore!"

Richard,

That is a very condescending way to look at the laity.
It is always better to play to the highest common denominator in your audience.

I agree that that isn't that big a deal. You could alway do what they did in the video by covering it as fast as possible.
Very suspicious and not a very elegant move.
It is the deliberate cutting out the segment when a little red was showing through that perturbs me. That means when you do the trick the pieces will not always align,making this trick very unreliable.

This video has no integrity.
Remember integrity is just like virginity, when it is lost, it is lost forever.

[Tom Stone]

This video has no integrity.

It is an ad. So far there are no obligations to disclose the complete workings or handling of an effect in an ad. And as an ad, I find this video by far more honest than what is printed in the standard catalogue descriptions.

[Ian Kendall]

I still think it is bad form to go into a such detailed description of a method without the creator's permission.

On the whole, I would agree with you. On the other hand, is there anyone reading this forum who didn't know what was going on?

Also, because of the gimmicks (to which they admit) it's not something anyone could do without purchasing the item. And, we could be _completely_ wrong about the method.

[Gary Kosnitzky]

There are many other faults that have already been mentioned but it is that missing 0.1 second between 1:29 and 1:30 that bothers me the most because it was edited so well,so well it almost seems sinister, since no one sees it but me.
Those are my sentiments.
I hope I am wrong and only experiencing some mild side effects.

[Ian Kendall]

I saw it. I just didn't care. In the context of the rest of the handling, and the way the video was shot, it was of little importance.

As far as the spectators see, the corners move, and then you hand them the card. Magicians _know_ there is a switch (or at least, I hope they do...). It doesn't matter.

[Richard Kaufman]

Not only do we know there's a switch, but as Ian suggests, unless you are an uneducated primative, the means of causing the pieces to move is also quite obvious.

[Tom Stone]

On the whole, I would agree with you. On the other hand, is there anyone reading this forum who didn't know what was going on?

probably not. But if it is bad to republish someone else's effect in a book without permission, shouldn't the same go for posts on an open forum?

[erdnasephile]

I agree with RK...I also think that most audiences are not uneducated primatives.

[Steve Hook]

Sorry, Gary, but I agree with Richard on this one.

It's also likely that PH has had some positive influence on the routining that we don't know about, but I could be wrong. (That did happen once, back in '64...)

Either way, "much ado about very little" comes to mind re "...at 1:32 seconds, you will plainly see that the lower right corner piece of card is not properly aligned."

[Tom Stone]

There are many other faults that have already been mentioned but it is that missing 0.1 second between 1:29 and 1:30 that bothers me the most because it was edited so well...

To me, that looks more like a stylistic edit, to go along with the other " jitterish, destroyed, found footage" look. You can see plenty of jumps like that in the TVseries "The River".

[Doomo]

I normally do not get involved in this kinda shtuff... But Meester Feinberg has a long past history of what is politely called "YouTube" magic. In other words effects with less than trustworthy camera work... Do your own research... That is as far as I am going in this storm... But I fear Mr. K may be right on this one...

[Jonathan Townsend]

IMHO it's a match cut between two performances, a retake where a slight change in angle and timing leaves a just noticeable jump.

Trying to be frank without exposing here: it's not like the noticeable spots were removed or the filming angle hid the extending that motivates the parts.

[Richard Kaufman]

I don't think Paul Harris puts his name on crap tricks that can only be accomplished via video edits. So regardless of what Mr. Feinberg may have done before (and I don't know because I haven't seen it), this is probably better.

[Gary Kosnitzky]

I normally do not get involved in this kinda shtuff... But Meester Feinberg has a long past history of what is politely called "YouTube" magic. In other words effects with less than trustworthy camera work... Do your own research... That is as far as I am going in this storm... But I fear Mr. K may be right on this one...

Ahhh. Finally the voice of reason I have been waiting for.
Thank you Doomo, for a moment there I could have sworn I saw the signpost up ahead.
I have never met Mr. Feinberg but I will never forget his pension for making "less than trustworthy camera work".

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/view ... &start=300.

Leopards never change their spots.

Thank you Doomo, you have restored my faith in mankind and the Genii forum.

[Andrew Charles]

Hey Gary, I hate to break this to you because you've spent a lot of words tilting at this windmill, but the only reason you don't see the card "completely restore" at the point in the video you mention is BECAUSE there's a cut there. They're not hiding anything with that cut. If you look at the 58 second mark you'll see that, yes, the final corner does move into place.

[Kent Gunn]

Doomo as the voice of reason? I love me some wallets and Channel One. I can assure you his is not often the voice of reason.

I've often suspected he`s actually the voice in my head.

[Doc Dixon]

Doomo as the voice of reason? I love me some wallets and Channel One. I can assure you his is not often the voice of reason.

I've often suspected he`s actually the voice in my head.

No, Kent. That's me. Especially when the voice says, "Order the nachos."

[Edward Pungot]

I like it :)

[Richard Kaufman]

I think the visual nature of the effect is interesting. I want to get one and play with it. I'm intrigued. The thing about tricks like this is that if you add some sleight of hand to the gimmick and its use, you can do something unique.

[Pete McCabe]

Forget the envelope for the switch. Palm the restored (red) card and another (blue) card that matches the deck. After the pieces finish moving, "pick up" the restored card, secretly dropping both cards on the deck and removing the intact duplicate.

Just for the sake of argument, why do we assume that because we don't see the card restore itself completely in the demo, that it does not restore itself completely in performance? The video is hardly shot in a show-every-detail kind of way. Why are any of us so sure that the card doesn't restore entirely? And, given what we all think of the method, why wouldn't it? Clearly the first three pieces restore fully aligned. Why wouldn't the last one?

[Ian Kendall]

Pete,

If you do that you lose the 'end clean' aspect that is touted in the advert...

[Jonathan Townsend]

If you're going to justify having a pack in hand to start- you may need to do some sleight of hand at the start as well. Say you've got a few red cards on top of a blue backed deck. You do a face up free selection of a card which goes to the face of the pack for signature (maybe Hofzinser cull a red card under it). Then the pack is turned face down and cut a few times (sleights begin here). Next up getting the selection into position for the reveal after the animation.

Not trivial IMHO.

The animated parts of a card from an envelelope as shown in the video looks like an interesting half or two thirds of a routine. Getting that interesting part into a context that gives the card meaning... I don't know if that keeps the item in the beginner's section.

[El Mystico]

I can't see this becoming part of my regular repertoire, but, I can think of audiences this would fry...(OK I'm thinking of drunks, who might not be able to remember a card, but will notice parts of a card moving).
I'm with Pete on the switch, but suspect a big change in management is involved; I think movement of the envelope is involved in the animation; and without the envelope, it will require a lot of thought to set up the palm and the thread management. Not impossible, and worth exploring.
(People have commented about exposure on this thread, but my understanding is that Richard has no problem with discussion of methods here)

[erdnasephile]

Re: Pete's switch not being "clean".

IMHO, if the deck proper is established as normal via several effects beforehand, it doesn't matter if the deck itself is "dirty" immediately at the end since the audience "knows" it's normal.

With that in mind, why not just perform the animation (w/gaff) on top of a double-backer, followed by the FD duplicate.

TL at the end and hand the duplicate to the spectator. If one insists on having the envelope involved in the switch, the two-ton transpo principle could also be used to switch in the duplicate.

Clean up the deck at your leisure.

[Pete McCabe]

If you use the palm-based switch method, and if you have a piece of steel in your back pocket, and if the method involves what many people think it involves, you could clean up the deck by dropping your hand to your side while showing the restored card.

The more I think about it, though, the less I understand the idea of the routine. You are holding a blue-backed deck. Then you remove four pieces of a red backed card from an envelope. These restore quite magically. But what does the blue-backed deck have to do with it? Is there a blue-backed card that is chosen and signed and then restores into a red-backed card? This seems like it could be very confusing.