Fast Company DVD

Discuss the latest news and rumors in the magic world.

Postby close up dude » 02/10/09 11:41 AM

Has anyone seen the new Damian Nieman DVD "Fast Company"?

I hear it is made very well. Any comments on it?
close up dude
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 06/02/08 10:42 AM

Postby Richard Kaufman » 02/10/09 11:58 AM

I think this was reviewed in Genii a while back. If so, then the only thing I recall is that it has Tony Giorgio's Bottom Deal on it with neither credit nor permission.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20606
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Dustin Stinett » 02/10/09 03:24 PM

I did the review in the July '08 issue of Genii.

Save your money: Get the Steve Forte discs and/or the Allan Ackerman "Expert at the Card Table" set instead.

Dustin
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
 
Posts: 5799
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California

Postby close up dude » 02/10/09 03:41 PM

Can i read the review, what was so bad?
close up dude
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 06/02/08 10:42 AM

Postby Richard Kaufman » 02/10/09 03:50 PM

Sure you can read the review: buy the magazine!
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20606
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby close up dude » 02/10/09 04:05 PM

I do buy the magazine, I just don't stock pile them.
close up dude
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 06/02/08 10:42 AM

Postby Terry » 02/10/09 04:58 PM

close up dude wrote:I do buy the magazine, I just don't stock pile them.


Heathen - Repent and buy the back issue!!
Terry
 
Posts: 1244
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Kentucky

Postby close up dude » 02/10/09 08:28 PM

well the magazine isnt that good to but twice..............sorry
close up dude
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 06/02/08 10:42 AM

Postby Steve Cobb » 02/10/09 09:02 PM

close up dude... Are you that kid I saw recently on youtube that bought all the crappy magic... like Card College books among other things. Maybe....Reading.... The information delivery system is too slow for you. Try buying Genii three times... maybe that'll help
Steve Cobb
 
Posts: 50
Joined: 04/16/08 11:35 AM

Postby Richard Kaufman » 02/10/09 09:17 PM

Don't be nasty. At least he bought it the first time. He should have kept it.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20606
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Dustin Stinett » 02/10/09 09:38 PM

Heres a brief list, but I hope you understand that I cannot go into detail here:

  • Nothing new or original
  • Very brief demonstrations; not really a teaching vehicle
  • Virtually no crediting (the credit list at the end was created by and insisted upon by a friend of his. If not for that, there would have been no crediting*)
  • Little to no permission given for many items

Again, you are much better off going to the experts this guy merely parrots: Forte, Ackerman, Giorgio, etc.

And may I suggest that you hang on to a year or so of magazines. Keep them in a pile or in a magazine file holder (just a few bucks from Staples). When the new one comes pull out the oldest onetoss itand add the newest. They wont take up that much space and this type of thing wont happen to you again.

Dustin

*This bit of information came to me after the review, so it was not printed.
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
 
Posts: 5799
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California

Postby Doc Dixon » 02/10/09 10:15 PM

close up dude wrote:I do buy the magazine, I just don't stock pile them.


You mean it's actually possible NOT to keep old magic magazines??
Nah, I don't believe it.

Back to reading an old Hugard's Monthly ...

DD
Doc Dixon
 
Posts: 216
Joined: 04/16/08 01:45 PM

Postby Dustin Stinett » 02/10/09 10:36 PM

Doc, you are making me think of a friend of mine. He does not subscribe to any magic magazines, and not because he cant afford them (he can). Its because he cannot make himself toss them out or even give them away. If he subscribed to one, hed have to subscribe to the others. Then, once he has them, he HAS to keep them. But he cannot keep them because he doesnt have the space! So it was easier for himdiscipline-wiseto just not subscribe to any magazine.

I am now out of space and wondering what Im going to do (getting a bigger house isnt in the cards; Villa Duo Laxus will have to do).

Dustin
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
 
Posts: 5799
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California

Postby Bill Duncan » 02/11/09 08:55 PM

Nobody has heard of scanners?

Scan the stuff you want to keep and recycle the paper, if you don't have room for the magazines.

They're not BOOKS after all.
Bill Duncan
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: 03/13/08 11:33 PM

Postby Randolph G » 02/12/09 03:34 PM

close up dude wrote:Has anyone seen the new Damian Nieman DVD "Fast Company"?

I hear it is made very well. Any comments on it?


Per original post it seems like he was asking about the actual content of the DVD, unless of course he was talking about the physical aspects of the actual casing and DVD.

Although the contents may not contain anything new or original, it seems Mr. Nieman includes what some might feel to be the top 'techniques' used by advantage players. Sure one can find these 'techniques' in other books and videos, but it appears the sleights were hand picked specifically for these DVDs. These DVDs seem to be more geared towards the gambling aspect and the tips on the actual sleights taught in the DVDs contains the subtleties (visually) that make these sleights that more deceptive "at the table".


...it has Tony Giorgio's Bottom Deal on it with neither credit nor permission.


Is the Bottom Deal on the DVD actually the Giorgio Bottom or possibly a variant? Is there another source attainable at a reasonable price to learn this type of Bottom Deal other than this DVD? (I thought I saw some Giorgio Bottom Deal notes going for about $300 somewhere) Could it be possible that Mr. Nieman came up with the same Bottom Deal concept independently from Mr. Giorgio technique?
Randolph G
 
Posts: 74
Joined: 03/20/08 03:29 PM
Location: California

Postby Richard Kaufman » 02/12/09 03:42 PM

Forget this DVD: it's poor. Buy the set of Steve Forte's Gambling Protection Series--it's a thousand times better in every way.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20606
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Dustin Stinett » 02/12/09 04:32 PM

Randolph G wrote:Is the Bottom Deal on the DVD actually the Giorgio Bottom or possibly a variant?


Yes, it is Tony Giorgios deal. Technically, it is Tonys work and finesse of a deal taught to him years ago by an advantage player. The base concept isnt new, but the work Tony Giorgio put into it to make it the deal that it is today is his.

Is there another source attainable at a reasonable price to learn this type of Bottom Deal other than this DVD? (I thought I saw some Giorgio Bottom Deal notes going for about $300 somewhere)


No. Mr. Giorgios manuscriptwhich was $50 as I recallwas limited to give the move some exclusivity. Would it be nice if he reprinted it or released it on DVD? You bet. I wish I had a copy!

Could it be possible that Mr. Nieman came up with the same Bottom Deal concept independently from Mr. Giorgio technique?


No. The manuscript can be put in Mr. Niemans hands prior to his invention. He then released an anonymous underground video of Mr. Giorgios deal with no permission or credit. He then released this over-priced, over-produced, but under-achieving set of discs adding this lost video as a bonus.

You must understand that there is point of contention between Messrs. Giorgio and Nieman in regard to the original script for the film Shade. To make a long story short, it is alleged that the Giorgio Bottom Deal was not the first thing Mr. Nieman borrowed from Tony Giorgio. But that one Mr. Giorgio could successfully sue over. (And the films distributer discovered this, otherwise they would not have made settlement overtures to Mr. Giorgio.) The otherthe dealis merely the unethical theft of unprotected (and legally vulnerable) intellectual property. (And you might want to ask yourself, What has Mr. Nieman done in Hollywood since?)

Dustin
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
 
Posts: 5799
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California

Postby Dustin Stinett » 02/15/09 09:33 PM

It was brought to my attention that an anonymous poster over at the Magic Cafe was made aware of this thread and is making a stink about it as well as my original review of these discs.

Normally I do not address reviews of my reviews, particularly when those doing the whining hide behind anonymity. Its just a review after all; an opinion. These folks are entitled to their uninformed opinion. In this case, its not my fault that they cannot recognize other peoples material when they see it.

But Damian Nieman decided he would chime in to thank his supporters. (I was tempted to use the word sycophants here, but if they dont know a Martin Nash piece when they see it, then big words might confuse them as well. Plus I would think if they were such big fans, theyd at least know how to spell Mr. Niemans name properly.) One thing that I do not tolerate is being called a liar and I certainly will not tolerate a not so veiled threat.

I am not a member of the Magic Cafe nor will I become one for one answer to one or two wayward posts. So, since its clear that Damien Neimans [sic] supporters are aware of this thread, I will post some direct questions for Mr. Nieman here that perhaps they would like to ask him. (Ive included the answers so, like any good quiz, they too will know them when they test their quarry; if they have the balls to do so and Mr. Nieman answers honestlygood luck with that.)

On Fast Company (in General):
  • Is there material that is on the DVDs that is not yours that you used without permission from the people named in the review? (Yes.)
  • Did you ask permission from any of the named people other than Bill Malone? (No.)
  • Specifically: Did you ask permission from Tony Giorgio? (No.)
  • Did you ask permission from Steve Forte? (No.)
  • Did you ask permission from David Malek? (No.)
  • Did you ask permission from Martin Nash? (No.)
  • By your own admission, is the only person you cleared anything with Bill Malone? (Yes.)
  • Did the pages of credits appear at the end only because Jason England put in the all the work to research and write them and also insisted on their inclusion (otherwise no credit whatsoever would have appeared on this set)? (Yes.)
  • Do you believe getting a movie made in Hollywood exempts you from the standard protocols within the magic community? (Apparentlyand sadlythats a Yes.)
On the Bottom Deal:
  • Did you purchase the Giorgio Bottom Deal? Yes.
  • Does Tony Giorgio have you in his register as customer? (Yes.)
  • Did you show the bottom deal that you learned from that manuscript to Giorgio? (Yes.)
  • Did Giorgio approve that you had learned it? (Yes.)
  • Did you then release a video tape teaching the bottom dealafter purchasing the manuscript versus long beforethat was anonymous? (Yes.)
  • Is it the same clip that is on your DVD set? (Yes.)
  • Did you release this with Giorgios permission? (No.)
  • Were you entitled to release this information? (No.)
On the Movie:
  • Did you go to Tony Giorgios home and show him the script you were working on? (Yes.)
  • Did Tony Giorgio tell you that you had "stolen" the material from the Giorgio Letters in Genii Magazine? (Yes.)
  • Did he ask you to cease and desist? (Yes.)
  • Did you? (No.)
  • Did counsel for RKO contact Mr. Giorgio and try to settle? (Yes.)
  • Was it because RKOs counsel realized that the material was indeed stolen otherwise they would never offer to settle? (Yes.)
  • Is it possible that the head of counsel for a movie studio would contact a plaintiff to settle a lawsuit, unless said counsel for the movie studio realized that the threat of a lawsuit is real and that in fact the material was stolen? (No.) [Okay, I admit it; that was the same question as the previous one, just worded differently. Sometimes you have to do that with liars.)]
  • Although you did not get away with theft in Hollywood, did you think you could get away with it in magic? (Apparently, again, that too is a sad Yes.)
  • Are you only pissed off because someone actually had the temerity to call you out on your blatant and obvious theft? (Apparently thats a Yes too, since it led to a not so veiled threat.)

On the Threat:

I quote: And one of these days, Dustin and I will bump into each other in a dark alley...

Ooh! I can feel the tension in the air!*

I suspect thats the only place Mr. Nieman could do what hes implying: A dark alley. Of course, isnt that where most cowardly thieves do their best work?

Unless, of course, he was just planning to ask for his review copy of Fast Company back. In which case I cannot oblige: I gave it away. I could not, in good conscience, sell it.

Dustin

PS: Said Magic Cafe thread is here:

http://themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopi ... rum=188&22


*Detective Ray Hughes (Gregory Hines), Running Scared (1986)
At least I can credit my sources without helpand someone demanding it be done.
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
 
Posts: 5799
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California

Postby Richard Kaufman » 02/16/09 07:02 AM

Somebody on the Magic Cafe named Silverking states that because of the review he cancelled his "six-year" subscription to Genii. Well, we don't offer six-year subscriptions and we also don't refund subscriptions. So, he ain't tellin' the truth.

Just the other day someone told me that Dustin gained a lot of credibility in certain circles because he didn't fart around and gave Fast Company the drubbing it deserved. I have been accused of "yellow journalism" in publishing the review, yet no reason has (or could be) been given for what my motivation would be, so it's baloney.

What's interesting is that usually the Magic Cafe removes these kinds of threads very quickly and yet this one has been allowed to remain. Hmmmm. Does Damien Nieman advertise there? Is he a buddy of Steve Brooks or one of the moderators? (I don't know: just asking.)
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20606
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Brad Henderson » 02/16/09 03:37 PM

Silverking allegedly did the same thing with his Magic Magazine subscription when he did not care for one of my reviews. (How many people who threaten to stop subscribing really do - how many actually have subscriptions? Stupid children who think people heed such idle and unsupported threats!)

It's ironic: they bitch when someone makes references to methods already in print as "exposure" in a review that they feel hurts someone's IP; yet bitch even more when someone criticizes another for having done the same thing.

Apparently, according to SilverKing, we should be able to thow ethics out the window as long as this is the first time an idea has made it to video - who cares to whom it may belong! And check out C Loubard, he writes (and as I am not quoting everything "word for word", I know he will have no problem with it):


"Just to be clear on something, Damian doesn't have to credit anyone if he chooses not to. Its cool if he does, but is under no legal obligation. . . In this part of the world (gambling and cheating), I respect those who don't tip and/or those who give proper credit... the irony is beautiful; But, if you do tip and not give proper credit I could care less.

... I've never met bigger whiners than magicians. it really is sickening to hear and read all the bable from this world; "exposure this, credit that, my pass is better than his, so forth and so on" blah blah blah blah blah."

Thanks Steve Brooks for fertilizing the breeding ground your site has become.
Brad Henderson
 
Posts: 2459
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: austin, tx

Postby C. Loubard » 02/16/09 05:19 PM

Well, Brad I do mind. So, I figured I would come here to your little world and quote what I actually wrote, before the Nazis on the forum down the thread.

First and foremost I am not a magician. In fact, I hate magic. So your breeding ground point is full of hot air as it pertains to me. As for the rest of everyone else in the magic world, I could care less. In fact I could care less if magic existed or not. maybe it shouldn't and I wouldn't have to be annoyed by many a magicians mindless drivel.

If you search around you'll find I don't post anywhere else on that forum except "right and wrong" and "Not magic but still".


Next, here's my original post in its entirety

Just to be clear on something, Damian doesn't have to credit anyone if he chooses not to. Its cool if he does, but is under no legal obligation. Now, if he would have, word for word, used someone Else's explanation, he then could be in trouble.

The problem with Dustin is he couldn't see the forest for the trees. he couldn't put his prejudices aside and review it for what it was, obvious from his rant on genii.

he should have reviewed it in two parts 1) content of material 2) personal frustrations with the producers.

In this part of the world (gambling and cheating), I respect those who don't tip and/or those who give proper credit... the irony is beautiful; But, if you do tip and not give proper credit I could care less.

... I've never met bigger whiners than magicians. it really is sickening to hear and read all the bable from this world; "exposure this, credit that, my pass is better than his, so forth and so on" blah blah blah blah blah.

One thing I must say about Dustin and give him props for, I like that he reviews the good and the bad. Not very many magazines will print bad reviews. They rather not print the review at all. A tip of the hat to you for being that way, Dustin.


There you go, I stand by what I wrote, but I will man up and admit if I was wrong

... you can take that to the bank

C.L.
C. Loubard
 
Posts: 6
Joined: 02/16/09 05:02 PM

Postby JordanB » 02/16/09 05:56 PM

Dear god......It's "I couldn't care less". Not "I could care less". Please stop the madness.
JordanB
 
Posts: 103
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Arlington, TX

Postby C. Loubard » 02/16/09 05:59 PM

Actually, Jordan, you're correct. Thanks for pointing that out.
C. Loubard
 
Posts: 6
Joined: 02/16/09 05:02 PM

Postby Brad Henderson » 02/16/09 06:49 PM

C. Loubard wrote:Well, Brad I do mind.

C.L.



Wait, you "mind" that someone would reference YOUR ideas and published work (with credit even), but you have no problem when someone re-publishes the work and ideas of someone else (without credit). I assume that's as long as it isn't YOUR work?

Isn't this the dictionary.com definition of a "class act."

Brad Henderson
Brad Henderson
 
Posts: 2459
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: austin, tx

Postby Richard Kaufman » 02/16/09 07:11 PM

Madness envelops the world.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20606
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Brad Henderson » 02/16/09 07:16 PM

p.s. C. Loubard; Jason nailed it.

Brad
Brad Henderson
 
Posts: 2459
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: austin, tx

Postby Jonathan Townsend » 02/16/09 07:23 PM

Ya know, when you start adding fertilizer to a sandbox and then flood it with weak wine (whine) and/or water you get...

Richard Kaufman wrote:Madness envelops the world.


That reads like a Paul Harris approach to magic ala H. P. Lovecraft. Thanks.
Jonathan Townsend
 
Posts: 6644
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Westchester, NY

Postby C. Loubard » 02/16/09 07:44 PM

Well Brad, I apologize because I didn't read it that way. I'm sorry!!

As for my published works, I'm not concerned with getting credit. Copyright infringement, however, I do mind... Yes, I have published works in a whole other field. Yes my ideas have been used as instructional aid without credit, and no I don't care. You see, in my world saving a life means more than a crap load of magic. In my AO egos are checked at the god damn door.

...Apparently, not here.

legally, Damian did nothing wrong... or did he? That's all that matters to me. If he did do something illegal, then hell yes go after him.

Ethically and Morally, I couldn't care less (I almost did it again Jordan), as those are subjective and what may be wrong to you is not necessarily wrong to me.
C. Loubard
 
Posts: 6
Joined: 02/16/09 05:02 PM

Postby C. Loubard » 02/16/09 07:56 PM

I just noticed no god damn censor police. Unbelievable, there is some sort of first amendment belief on your planet.

...Even though "madness envelops the world", thank you Richard

p.s., Richard; Do you also believe in the second amendment?
C. Loubard
 
Posts: 6
Joined: 02/16/09 05:02 PM

Postby Dustin Stinett » 02/17/09 12:35 AM

I told someone this morning that I am done with this crap. But the PMs are flying. I cant help but wonder whats happening behind my back. In front of my back I have been accused of being in cahoots with Richard Kaufman in some sort of conspiracy to get Damian Nieman via yellow journalism among other things that call my integrity into question. It all makes my brain hurt.

Richard Kaufman featured Shade in his magazine and I have nothing against Mr. Nieman. I actually like Shade and purchased the DVD versus trying to weasel a free copy somehow. Why in the world would we conspire to get the man? I had great hopes for this set of DVDs. But then I got them.

Also, Richard Kaufman does not influence my DVD reviews; period. The only thing he does is tell me how many words I get. He has also, on more than one occasion, saved my ass from committing a random act of crappy writing.

So far I have also been accused of being so biased on the credit aspect of the DVDs that I let that prejudice color my view of the rest of the material.

In the past I have been complimentary of good material when I have slammed the same DVD for no crediting. So what changed in this case? Am I a Tony Giorgio disciple? While I have tremendous respect for Mr. Giorgio, his skill, and his accomplishments, we are not pals by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, we have had our differences on a few subjects. I will not lie to promote or protect anyone in this game, including Tony Giorgio. By extension, I will not lie to drag down someone, including Damian Nieman.

So what then? What prompted me to slam this set of DVDs?

Isnt it possible that these DVDs did not live up to their own claims and all I did was point that out?

I might regret thisand I know some of my friends will call me crazybut to find out the answer to the question above, lets all look at the review as it appeared in the July 2008 issue of Genii. This will also give anyoneincluding Mr. Nieman if hed likethe chance to comment. Perhaps well find out together how uninformed I am or how I have attempted to rebrand [sic] this review. Best of all, close-up dude, who started this thread, will get to read the review he wanted.

Thanks in advance for your time.

[NOTE: The review is in [color:#3333FF]blue font[/color]. My comments are bracketed and in a normal font color.]

[color:#3333FF]Fast Company
Damien Nieman $80 (2-disc set)
[/color]

[Well crap; I owe him an apology. Damned if I didnt misspell his first name back then (though it appears correctly later in the piecego figure). Maybe thats what hes all in a twist over? Nahhhhbut sorry, Mr. Nieman, just the same.]

[color:#3333FF]It is official: I've heard it all. Of the many reasons people have given to justify making a magic DVD, Damien Nieman, the writer/director of the film Shade, has come up with the most unique reason I've ever heard: "There's a writer's strike going on In Hollywood; so, not a lot going on at the moment." It's the only really original thing that can be found on this self-produced two-disc set.[/color]

[I stand by this statement. It is indeed the most unique reason Ive heard and indeed the most original thing on this set of discs.]

[color:#3333FF]Not surprisingly, the production values on this projectexcept for some "muddy" sound here and thereare outstanding: It's beautifully shot and looks like a film versus a "magic video." The camera angles are excellent and it haswithout any doubtthe best editing I've seen on a magic DVD. While extremely helpful to a good project, we in the magic biz do tend to judge the content of a DVD first.[/color]

[I presume were okay here. The DVDs are indeed wonderfully produced; some of the best Ive ever seen.]

[color:#3333FF]Mr. Nieman is an aficionado of sleight of-hand with cards; particularly work in the genre of the gambler. But in direct conflict with the marketing hype behind the set ("This is much more than just a demo of gambling sleights. This is a comprehensive instructional resource that explains these moves ... These DVDs deliver excellent study of some of the finest card artifice to date presented by one of the best pair of hands in the art ...") Mr. Nieman's technique and execution could never get by in a real game and he even states that he only performs "gambling demos." His is a demonstrative style, along the lines of a Martin Nash, but without the polish, the character, and, frankly, the skill. Some of these techniques are not done expertly at all, so what you get is a less-than-expert pair of hands demonstrating less-than-expert technique.[/color]

[Mr. Nieman himself admits that he only demonstrates this stuff. I agree. Should he try to move in a game with fast companyto borrow a phrasehed lose more than a poker hand. Could he move in a casual game with less than sharp players? Possibly, but in a game like that, his way-better-than-theirs technique would stand out like a sore thumb and garner more attention than anyone trying to take the money would ever want. So, I will again stand by what I said, he couldnt get away with his technique in a real game.

Apparently some want me to applaud Mr. Niemans technical execution. I did, though I freely admit I used my technique as a writer to avoid calling a lot of attention to it. The sentence [s]ome of these techniques are not done expertly at all implies, by extension, that some of the remaining technique is expertly executed. I cannot be held responsible for readers who fail to grasp this simple extension in logic.]

[color:#3333FF]As for being "comprehensive," the disc that covers technique (disc one, titled "Tools of the Trade") is a mere 67 minutes in length. On it he demonstrates (that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it) several pieces of card table artifice including "myriad" false cuts, shuffles (Push-Through, Strip-Out, Zarrow, and in-the-hands riffle), the Tabled Faro, hops, shifts, several palms, and the second and bottom deals. I will let the reader decide if all this material could be comprehensively taught in less than an hour by even a competent teacher. At one point Nieman admonishes the viewer to read Expert Card Technique for the work on the Tabled Faro because it is "much more thorough than I will go into" and admits that a two-disc set could be done on one technique alone: So much for "comprehensive."[/color]

[Where am I missing the forest through the trees there? Sorry, but who could possibly believe that this much material can be comprehensively taught in under an hour? I did not make up these claims I quoted! Mr. Nieman makes the claim that these discs are a comprehensive instructional resource (emphasis mine). If thats not hyperbole, then its just plain [censored]. I stand by my statement that not even a competent teacher could possibly teach this amount of material in a comprehensive manner in less than an hour. This material is demonstrative, not instructional as claimed.]

[color:#3333FF]The second disc ("Legerdemain," 69 minutes), which is comprised of classic gambling themed routines. [/color][Arrghthat sentence still makes me cringe: The word which should have been deleted. Oh well, [censored] happens. I take solace in the fact that even Richard Kaufman missed it.] [color:#3333FF]We are told that the routines "are Damian's own versions of these classics." Considering he asked for (and in many cases apparently received) permission to include the material that didn't belong to dead guys that he (again) demonstrates, it's pretty hard to buy into the whole "[t]hese are Damian's own versions" idea. In the cases where he "added" something to these routines, he at times credits unnamed friends who "worked" with himwhich gently leads me into the crediting issues that can be found on this set of discs.

Right up front, Mr. Nieman says that he does not "claim ownership" of any of the material on these discs. He just wants to share his "takes" on it. The problem is that most of that which can be called "takes" that go beyond the classic works such as Erdnase and Expert Card Technique, can be traced to the work of men like Steve Forte, David Malek, Gene Maze, Martin Nash, and Tony Giorgio. In a few instances, Mr. Nieman does credit Forte and Nash, but not always when he should. Maze does receive a brief mention in an all-text "bibliography," but Nieman never credits the others at all.[/color]

[Obviously this is where the whole crediting issue begins. He claims no ownership but then gets in a twist when hes called on not asking permission or giving complete credit where and when its due. Yes, from a legal point of view, no harm done. Ethically, however, hes on the outside looking in. And again, heand his fanshave a problem with me for calling him on it. Oh well; it sucks to be me I guess. Damian Nieman and a guy who remains anonymous dont like me. Join the club: I even have a touch of self-loathing; or so Ive been told.]

[color:#3333FF]There is very little verbal crediting during the demonstrations. Butand I admit that this is a personal quandary that might seem oddI found his delivery of it to have a name-dropping quality about it. Crediting is an issue I often belabor here and I normally applaud even modest but honest attempts. However, it's another thing to give credit not only for the apparent purpose of name-dropping and to do so in a manner that implies a relationship where noneother than being influenced via a secondhand sourceever existed. For example, I found out from two separate (and trustworthy) sources that Mr. Nieman never met Dai Vernon let alone knew or studied with him. Yet several times he implies a familiarity with Vernon that is, to me, just plain creepy.[/color]

[I admit in the second sentence of this paragraph that this is purely a personal thing and it is odd. But the few times he did credit people by name, it did give me the creeps because of the name-dropping quality it has. If you dont feel this way, fine! Im just voicing an opinion. And if I am correct that Mr. Nieman never studied with Vernon, then go back and watch the video; perhaps youll understand what I mean. If Im wrong, Im wrong. But frankly, Ill need to hear it from someone other than Mr. Nieman.]

[color:#3333FF]Most of the credits can be found on the aforementioned printed bibliography which is on disc two. Again, up front there is no claim of it being comprehensiveand it isn'tbut one particularly glaring omission stands out.[/color]

[We now know for an absolute fact that this bibliography was the doing of Jason England. He provided all the information and he insisted on its inclusion. Nieman had nothing to do with it and, had it been up to him alone, there would have been no crediting at all except for the aforementioned name dropping. I expect Jason is now unhappy with me, and for that I am sorry. But Jason deserves to be applauded and even thanked here. He knew it was the right thing to do.]

[color:#3333FF]In performing what he calls the "Squeeze-Out Bottom Deal," Mr. Nieman IS actually demonstrating a Tony Giorgio technique which was self-published in a limited (to keep it exclusive) 1996 manuscript. Given the falling out between the two men (Giorgio believes that the screenplay from Shade was based on columns he published in this magazine) coupled with this complete lack of creditNieman apparently didn't feel the need to drop Mr. Giorgio's nameit's a logical conclusion that Mr. Nieman did not have the permission to teach the deal. (Additionally, one of the "bonus" items on disc one, "The Lost Bottom Deal Tape," was an anonymous video released by Nieman without credit or permission sometime after he learned the technique from Mr. Giorgio's booklet.)[/color]

[I see no reason to reiterate the complete Tony Giorgio aspect of my argument here. That can be found in my earlier posts. I will say that I have been accused, by more than one person, that I have taken only the word of Mr. Giorgio and perhaps one of his friends in this matter. That is patently false. I did not communicate with Mr. Giorgio at all until he contacted me after this review was published in Genii. And as for Mr. Giorgios friend, what I spoke to him about first was to find out if he granted permission for the use of his material that appeared on these discs. That answer was an emphatic no. We did talk about the Giorgio Deal as well as some of the others whose material found its way onto these discs.

Of the other people I communicated with about thisand there were othersone is also an acquaintance of Mr. Giorgio (though he has never been implicated as a biased source). This person has never lied to me as far as I know. And he has no interest in doing so now. And I approached him to confirm if what I was seeing was indeed Mr. Giorgios deal as I believed. And it was he who suggested that I contact Mr. Giorgios friend noted above. So I already had confirmed what I was seeing before talking with the people that have been implicated in some nefarious anti-Nieman conspiracy.

Another source I approached is passionately disliked by Mr. Giorgio and the feeling is mutual. Can you imagine a better source? But he spoke what I believe to be the truth since he credited that bottom dealspecifically the finesse and little detailsto Tony Giorgio and it must have burned in his throat to do so.

So, to the best of my recollection, no one warned me that Mr. Giorgios deal was on this disc beforehand. I thought I recognized it and contacted some people about it (but not Mr. Giorgio for obvious reasons). Mr. Nieman said that all I needed to do was ask around. I did and I printed what I already knew and then confirmed.]

[color:#3333FF]I could go on, but I want to save space for some better discs for your consideration. But if you really want to know what all is on these discs, go have a look at the advertising. But trust me when I tell you that you should take the $80 these discs cost (for less than 120 minutes of material) and invest it into the source material from which Mr. Nieman has mined "his" work. Those sources are comprehensive and expert. This one is over-hyped, overpriced, and I am over-and-out.[/color]

[I stand by this too. Its overpriced, big time, for what you get. I think the complete review says why.]

[color:#3333FF]▪ Fast Company ▪ Damien Nieman ▪ Disc One approx. 67 mins., Disc Two approx. 69 mins., DVD only ▪ Multi-region ▪ Available from your favorite magic dealer. ▪ Dealers should contact Murphy's Magic Supplies, Inc. on the web at www.murphysmagicsupplies.com or by phone at (800) 853-7403 ▪ $80[/color]

[So there you have it: If you want to see a really well-made DVD, pay the $80. But I still believe that you can do better with your money.]

* * * *

That's it for the review and my comments directly addressing it. But I have some other thoughts to share if I may.

Why do I care so much about credit? Is it ego? Well, no because I havent invented much and I dont feel compelled to protect anyones ego.

I do feel compelled to try and protectto the best of my abilitythe historic record. That is important to me, as it should be to anyone who enjoys this craft. And when this vital information is left off a disc or out of a book then the person(s) doing so are committing a disservice to that craft. Someone watching/reading this work might come away with the wrong information and continue to spread this misinformation. Where is the okay in that?

As for permission, well, thats just plain old good manners. Integrity is valuable thing and, at the end of the day, sometimes its all you are left with.

Okay: I have given you all an unprecedented opportunity here. All I ask is that you be relatively civil when you take me to task (I dont mind a little sarcasm if/when I deserve it).

Thanks again for your time,

Dustin
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
 
Posts: 5799
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California

Postby Ryan Matney » 02/17/09 02:00 AM

As a point of curiosity, was the lawsuit over SHADE reported in any magic magazine?

This was news to me. But I did wonder at the time how he even got this movie made at all, let alone get the chance to direct it.
Ryan Matney
 
Posts: 738
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Hurley, Va

Postby C. Loubard » 02/17/09 02:17 AM

Personally, I haven't seen the videos, and until now ever read the review. My thoughts were based on your earlier posts, which were clearly, from every angle, based on personal prejudices due to lack of, or improper, crediting; moreover, you went on to bring up the whole RKO v. Georgio situation. Honestly, how in the [censored] does that play into a proper review of the dvds? Who cares? that's between DN, RKO, and Georgio-- Again, this was based off your earlier post not the actual review.

I admit I was wrong, based on presented information, for some of my rant. Indeed, you did seem to give a fair review, based on your opinion, by addressing things separately. For that I am "SORRY!" Honestly, however, had I seen that review instead of the personal attack on credits, I would have shrugged it off, never logged in and thought to myself more mindless bable from the magic world.

As for proper crediting in order to maintain historical integrity, you guys do as you wish. I can't, however, for the life of me, believe that either DN or Georgio invented that bottom deal. Folks have been around for thousands of years playing and cheating at cards. The only thing Georgio gets credit for is publishing it before anyone else. As for DN he doesn't owe anyone an apology if he doesn't see fit.

As for me, please pull my side arm and shoot me if you ever catch me trying to show one of you guys a magic trick.

And to believe I help train people so they can fight for your freedom to whine over stupid magic credits... un****ing real!
Last edited by C. Loubard on 02/17/09 02:24 AM, edited 0 times in total.
Reason: FYI: We draw the line at the F-Bomb here.
C. Loubard
 
Posts: 6
Joined: 02/16/09 05:02 PM

Postby C. Loubard » 02/17/09 02:28 AM

Roger that, Dustin! your house your rules
C. Loubard
 
Posts: 6
Joined: 02/16/09 05:02 PM

Postby Dustin Stinett » 02/17/09 02:36 AM

Ryan: I can't answer that. I don't believe it was widely covered because it wasn't widely known.

Mr. Loubard: Thanks for your thoughts, and thanks for your earlier words about some of my other reviews.

As for the deal, here's how it was described to me by about a half a dozen people (and not all Tony Giorgio fans): Tony gets credit for refining the move. It lacked some "elegance" that he brought to it. That's what made it "his." He's never claimed that the basis of the underlying deal was his.

What more can I say about crediting? That goes way back and I am certain for many it is/was an ego thing (can you say Marlo?). But for many of us, it really is just a history thing.

Dustin
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
 
Posts: 5799
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California

Postby Grant Carden » 02/17/09 10:08 AM

Damian's response from the Cafe:

----------------------------

Wow. I just saw the Genii thread and am amazed. Don't people really have better things to do? Unbelievable. I so didn't want to go into things...But since I don't hang on the Genii forums or post there - and they seem to be all ears about this little area, I'll answer some questions here.

Genii Questions asked...

***My answers.


Is there material that is on the DVDs that is not yours that you used without permission from the people named in the review?

***Not that I'm aware of or by any of the other knowledgeable people I had look at it before I put it out.

Did you ask permission from any of the named people other than Bill Malone?

***Yes. Those I thought I needed permission from.

Specifically: Did you ask permission from Tony Giorgio?

***Tony and I were once close and have long since parted ways. Why would I ask permission for something I had been playing with for a long time even before meeting Tony? He and I used to sit dealing to each other each trying to get bottoms and seconds by each other. And yes - this was before his bottom deal notes. We used to argue about who's bottom deal was better and more natural. By the way - it's a freaking move...not a routine and patter. That's like someone claiming the riffle shuffle or second deal. I don't remember DVDs always giving credit to Walter Scott every time they do a strike second deal (and by the way- guys were doing strike seconds long before Scott). My second deal is probably quite a bit different than they way Walter probably actually did it. Is it still his? And Tony wasn't the first one to do this type of bottom for ****'s sake! My bottom deal is just my version of a very old technique - based on all kinds of peoples takes on it and maybe even - some of my own work? Hey, Steve's GPS videos have basically the same move on there in the 80's! I guess Tony must have tipped it to Steve right? But oh my GOD - no credit is given on the GPS! Let's kill Steve!

***By the way...Where are the credits on the GPS or Richard Turner's DVDs or any of the other myriad of DVDs and videos...That's because they are moves people - not routines! Oh yeah...and where was Tony's credit to Steve since the GPS predated his notes by about 15 years or more. Don't remember any credits on Tony's notes at all come to think of it.

***And to quote Dustin, "Tony gets credit for refining the move. It lacked some "elegance" that he brought to it. That's what made it "his." He's never claimed that the basis of the underlying deal was his." ***Well if that is the standard for claiming ownership - My bottom is different - different grip - modified Erdnase, timing of the squeeze out, the take, etc. And I never claim ownership on the underlying moves on anything on the DVDs.

***Tony and I were quite close till the whole Castle fiasco thing (which this is collateral damage from)...and again really didn't want to go into it here. And as for the "Shade" theft thing...please. Anyone who would like the real story here - feel free to PM me - quite entertaining actually. Moving on.

Did you ask permission from Steve Forte?

***Yes. Got total permission from Steve for any and all the things that were his. You claiming that I didn't is totally FALSE and a boldfaced lie.

Did you ask permission from David Malek?

***Why would I ask Malek permission for anything?

Did you ask permission from Martin Nash?

***I've known Martin for years. What would I ask his permission about? For using a crimp card to cut to the aces? Didn't know that was his. His crimp? Seems like similar stuff has been around for a long time too. I explain about the way I make my crimp and how it's similar to Martin's Infinity, The Breather, etc. Right there on the DVD.

By your own admission, is the only person you cleared anything with Bill Malone?

***Um...no. Bill and any others I felt I needed to. The reason I made a deal about Bill was because my presentation is quite similar to his - Scarne story etc.

Did the pages of credits appear at the end only because Jason England put in the all the work to research and write them and also insisted on their inclusion (otherwise no credit whatsoever would have appeared on this set)?

***Um...again. No. Totally false. Where the h*** are you getting your info from? Jason volunteered to help with the credits as he does for quite a few of his friends. And even if your statement was true, (which it isn't) it's still on the DVD isn't it? What the **** man?

Do you believe getting a movie made in Hollywood exempts you from the standard protocols within the magic community?

***Wow. No.

Sorry about making a movie I thought the magic community would like. Last time I do that. A lot of bitter people out there. And "the standard protocols in magic" seem to be different for different people now don't they? I guess if I totally ripped off someone's video almost shot for shot in the late 1980's that would be fine right? (You know who you are.)

How many DVDs, videos, books do I have on my shelf - none of which give much if any credit. I believe that Fast Company's references and credits was much more complete and in depth than most. Now none of these past projects do I remember getting burned in a review like this.

I don't care about someone's opinion. If they like my DVD or my films or hate them fine. But to bring in outside stuff into a review that has nothing to do with the project in question is totally unprofessional.

As for the dark alley comment - humor a concept you don't quite get? I'll be more than happy to meet you in a brightly lit room any day.

I hope this at least sheds some light on subjects that have been brought up. Again - if you hate the DVDs fine. More power to you. I just felt that I had to answer some things out here. Now I hope maybe we can move on to more important stuff...like who really came up with Invisible Palm Aces. What a hobby.
Grant Carden
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 02/17/09 05:41 AM

Postby Jonathan Townsend » 02/17/09 10:52 AM

Or more concisely:
Grant Carden wrote:Damian's response from the Cafe:
... A lot of bitter people out there....[]
I don't care about someone's opinion. []
... What a hobby.

sigh
Last edited by Jonathan Townsend on 02/17/09 11:00 AM, edited 0 times in total.
Reason: ""You gotta come out with that smile, that air. That qu'est-ce que c'est ca"
Jonathan Townsend
 
Posts: 6644
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Westchester, NY

Postby Brad Henderson » 02/17/09 01:17 PM

It's so much easier for the unethical to try and "argue" at the Cafe as the greedy sycophants will always back whom they see as the magical Robin Hood.

They cafe kids don't like to come on the Genii forum. The adults know too much about history and stuff.

Brad Henderson
Brad Henderson
 
Posts: 2459
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: austin, tx

Postby Ryan Matney » 02/17/09 01:51 PM

If Giorgio won a lawsuit and settlement, wonder why Nieman didn't tell the judge the real story that is quite hilarious?

Anyway, moves should be credited as well as routines, if the provenance is clear.
Ryan Matney
 
Posts: 738
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Hurley, Va

Postby Dustin Stinett » 02/17/09 03:53 PM

Interesting: In the Cafe post that started all this, Mr. Nieman says that he asked Bill Malone for permission, but neglected to mention asking anyone else.

Now, when pressed, hes claiming that he asked everyone he felt he needed to.

And besides contradicting himself, he is now calling a friend of his a liar. Thats pretty sad in my book.

Its also interesting to me that he has nothing to say about my views of the quality of his material, just about crediting (and those amount to nothing more than excuses and counter claims).

And a clear threat is now humorous. No little smiley/wink thing, just a comment that he must think is funny. Okay, whatever. I missed that one. I wonder what hed like to do in the brightly lit room. (Never mindthats a rhetorical statement filled with loads of humor; kind of like his original comment.)

And his anonymous pet over at the Cafe keeps claiming things about Genii and me but offers zero proof except for his lies, innuendo, false assertions, and fabrications along with the fact that I didnt like this set of DVDs (obviously a heinous crime over there).

Im done with these guys.

* * * *

Here is another reason why permission is important (besides just being the correct thing to do; a concept completely missedand admittedly so, I might addby Nieman and his band-o-pals).

Let us say that you are a working performer. You work mainly for the laity and very rarely work for magicians. You have many pet effects and presentations that you have developed over the years. During one of those rare times you perform for those in the magic community, someone who believes (and openly admits) that asking permission and/or giving credit is not something that must be done, sees your material.

This person starts performing this material for magicians and then puts it on his overpriced set of DVDs without (of course) permission or credit (because he is of the character that doesnt believe it needs to be done).

Now you decide to release your effects and presentations to the magic community. Unfortunately there are many uninformed people who have never seen you perform your stuff who now believe that it is you who is using someone elses material. When you cry foul, they (anonymously) call you and those who support you the liars.

Oh well. Its just tough luck for you I guess. After all, asking permission and crediting isnt necessary. In fact (or so they think), its grossly flawed.

Knock your wheels off folks. But know that I will continue to call out those who do their least when in comes to crediting on their DVDs, just like I always have, and no matter who does it.

Dustin
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
 
Posts: 5799
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California

Postby Bill Mullins » 02/17/09 07:26 PM

It just amazes me that anyone would fail to see that crediting is a good thing, and that omitting crediting is a bad thing.

A good-faith effort is all that is required. If you at least try to give proper credits, and miss one or make a mistake, people will understand and give you the benefit of the doubt.

But if you don't try at all, and blow off the issue, and say it's not important, a reasonable conclusion to draw is that you are presenting something that isn't fully yours. That conclusion may be wrong, but it's still a reasonable one to draw, because this is what people who steal work do.
Bill Mullins
 
Posts: 2938
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Huntsville, AL

Next

Return to Buzz