No, as you describe it, I don't think that it is an example of being "too perfect". It sounds more like an example of forgetting that a destruction isn't the same as a magical disapperance.Originally posted by Joe M. Turner:
but I think the routine just tries to go so far and is a good example of really being "too perfect." In the routine, he ends up destroying the corner, reproducing it, destroying it again, and eventually it ends up being reproduced *laminated*. I just think the routine blatantly tips the method.
No, the "too perfect" phrase is refering to a specific situation.Originally posted by Paul Alberstat:
Just what does it mean to be too perfect? That there is no possible logical solution? Gee, as magicians are you not supposed to produce miracles that are IMPOSSIBLE?!?!?!?
It is the other way around. The analysis part of the theory is flawed and incomplete. That is why the solutions sometimes is useful, and sometimes not.Originally posted by Nicholas J. Johnson:
I think the theory is correct but the solution is flawed.
But that can be overcome by applying Juan Tamariz' Theory of False Solutions (from his book The Magic Way).Originally posted by David Eldridge:
I think that a trick that is TOO good is a bad thing. The reason is because if a trick is so impossible that there is NO OTHER WAY to do it other than with a stooge or a duplicate, most spectators will assume that is the answer, corrrect or incorrect.
I have a sneaking suspicion that both Juan Tamariz (who I believe contributed the "spectator pulls of corner" touch) and Daryl (who said that it opens vast new avenues for exploration) can do an adequate corner switch, so maybe there's more to it than that.Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
I think that "Intercessor" will be of interest (as are many marketed gimmicks) to people who either don't want to practice a good corner switch, or just don't have the ability. "Intercessor" is designed to serve that audience! It is irrelevant to anyone who can switch two corners. If you can switch the corners, then I'm not the least bit surprised you don't like it. It's not made for you! It's like offering a wheelchair to someone who can walk--you just see no need for it.
It depends on what the effect is. If the effect is "My sleight of hand skills are incredible", then it would be a good idea if the audience believes that you've stolen the card out of the envelope - though, then it would be a good idea to also design the revelation to strengthen that idea.Originally posted by Brian Wendell Morton:
prefer to put the card in an envelope before it is burned, thereby giving the spectator a chance to think somehow the card might have been stolen out ... which makes the final impossible and improbable location that much more stunning.
YThis is a fantastic routine, Bill, and many thanks for sharing it. Looking forward to the next issue of the Bar & Grill, whenever you get around to publishing it.Originally posted by Bill Goldman:
bla bla bla bla.