|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
Donny Orbit Special user 944 Posts 
|
I enjoy threads such as this where someone is critiqued and that person comes back with a professional reply. To me that seperates the men from the boys. I commend Oz on his reply. I do not have his DVD, but I have seen his work and in my humble opinion it is very good. The only post on here that I have found unnecessary is that of the poster Amazo. I am sure he doesn't know Oz personally, yet accuses him of trying to make a quick buck. I'm sure that is it considering the free lecture that he has given. I am also sure that you are right considering the amount of downloadable videos for your viewing pleasure on his website. It is childish to make such a statement without all the facts. As for what everyone else has said, that is why we are here. To debate the pros and cons of new items before we buy them, as long as we stay civil. Happy debating.
XX |
|||||||||
Ron Reid Inner circle Phoenix, Arizona 2733 Posts
|
Ozer4:
This review forumn is not meant to be "constructive"; its main purpose is to help people make buying decisions - to sort the good from the not-so-good. Afterall, Steve Brooks and friends have named this forumn "The good, bad, and GARBAGE". If it weren't for people like Matt, all we would have to go by are reviews from young, inexperienced people saying that this DVD is the greatest thing, correcting errors made by amateurs like Vernon, Slydini, and Nash. There seems to be a mentality among some that everything needs to sugar-coated, and that one should look for the positive, even if it's surrounded by mostly negatives. Sorry, but once you enter the marketplace, you're fair game. Just like the movies, I want to know if a Magic DVD is worth plopping down my hard-earned for. In this case, the knowledgable reviewer gives us a resounding "NO". If you've submitted your DVD to Magic Magazine or Genii, and the reviewers don't like it, you can expect harsher reviews than Matt gave, and to larger audiences. Ron Reid |
|||||||||
aby9plp Loyal user Montreal, Canada 255 Posts
|
MattSedlak's point was very clear! Oz clearly stated that he made variation of Red Hot Mamma because its an impossible trick! LOL LOL LOL that's like the most nonsense thing Ive ever heard!
Also, Oz said that the Matts review is non constructive because of that "insult"! LOL Matt had like a full page review with maybe ONLY 2 lines of that insult. Its not because of 2 lines that a post becomes non-constructive when the post is 45 lines long! I just think Oz felt bad because he KNEW that Mattsedlak was right!
-aka-
Phoenix |
|||||||||
|
therntier Special user 681 Posts
|
I think Oz's argument was that the two lines are non-constructive. In any post, regardless of the post, why should there be anything non-constructive.
|
|||||||||
|
JimMaloney Inner circle 1184 Posts
|
I have not seen the video in question, although I did attend the lecture at Michael Canick's. Personally, I didn't find anything to get terribly excited about. As Matt stated, most of the effects were personal variations. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't think there was anything significant added to warrant the release of the material. His technique was good, however, and he could competently perform the necessary sleights. Matt pointed out some logical errors in the construction of some effects, and I tend to agree with those. Another problem, for me at least, was the lack of any interesting presentations. There didn't seem to be any sense of importance in what he was doing, and this resulted in a lack of interest in what he was doing. I found myself checking my watch several times during the lecture.
-Jim
Books and Magazines for sale -- more than 200 items (Last updated January 17th, 2014. Link goes to public Google Doc.)
|
|||||||||
|
cardguy Inner circle Queens, New York 1171 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2003-08-22 08:54, aby9plp wrote: aby9plp, learn how to form an arguement, then start posting. Your reply is totally irrational. Having seen the DVD, I liked most of the material on it, especially his variation of the classic Hofzinser plot that uses the Zennith Alignment move. As far as the Spread Holdout (SAC) move, I understand where Matt Sedlack is coming from, but if you present the trick and make the spread logical then it works fine. Oz performed this for me personally and it fooled the heck out of me the first time I saw it. Overall, I think it's a really good DVD. -Frank
Frank G. a.k.a. Cardguy
|
|||||||||
|
aby9plp Loyal user Montreal, Canada 255 Posts
|
Well, Cardguy, you seem to belong to those rare people who liked that DVD.
Whats the problem with my reply? My reply is true and justified! Can you tell me who in the world would change a routine because its so good that it seems very magical? Huh? Answer that!
-aka-
Phoenix |
|||||||||
|
therntier Special user 681 Posts
|
I don't want to join the debate on whether the good or bad of stealing pips. However, there are many people on the Café who have given the dvd a good review. To call the rare wouldn't be quite truthful. Then, to go on and call your own posts truthful, that would be ironic.
|
|||||||||
|
joeKing Special user United States 979 Posts
|
I too do not want to get in on the debate, but I too have seen many good reviews of Stealing Pips on MANY different web sites the fact that people like MattSedlak posting his review like he did can only be taken by me as a sign of jealousy...I do not mean any offense by that I'm just saying that the more popular or attention someone gets the more people out there who want to put you down or do not want you to succeed...I'm for Oz on this one
~joeKing
|
|||||||||
|
cardguy Inner circle Queens, New York 1171 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2003-08-22 08:54, aby9plp wrote: 1 - Number of lines in a post has nothing to do with whether or not it's constructive. If you're going to argue about this, you have to point out what is being said, not how many lines there are. 2 - Saying that Oz agree's that his DVD stinks is just plain dumb. 3 - While Shot Caller may seem similar to Red Hot Mama, the premise is different. It starts out as a totally different effect, and ends with a transposition that is similar to the climax of Red Hot Mama. Oz reconstructed the effect to suit himself, and I myself think that it's a very deceptive variation. It isn't for everyone, but you can't please everyone. I have met and sessioned with both Matt Sedlack and Oz. Matt had every right to post his opinion, as does anyone else. Matt's style of card magic is totally different from Oz's, so I understand why he doesn't like the material. I, on the other hand, think that Oz shows some very clever thinking behind his card magic, and I know others that agree. As far as originality is concerned, his effects are variations of existing effects. They are his takes on things that already exist. Few effects today are totally original. To each his own. Now can't we all just get along?
Frank G. a.k.a. Cardguy
|
|||||||||
|
JimMaloney Inner circle 1184 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2003-08-22 11:40, joeKing wrote: Knowing Matt personally, I can tell you that he is not jealous. He is simply giving his opinion of the material as he sees it. He has high standards in terms of magic effects, and I think that's a good thing. -Jim
Books and Magazines for sale -- more than 200 items (Last updated January 17th, 2014. Link goes to public Google Doc.)
|
|||||||||
|
MattSedlak Regular user 162 Posts
|
I'll say I'm not jealous. That comment needs almost no reply, but I will say one thing. I have had numerous opportunities to publish my material, ranging from a Stars of Magic manuscript to marketed effects to a full blown book/DVD. There have been some times where I pursued the thought but I always decide against it. Believe me, if I ever do decide to release material I won't have to work hard to do so.
Frank is right that Oz's style of card magic is not my own. I have a much more traditional, less flashy style. That being said, I enjoy watching all kinds of magic done with cards. Just because I won't perform something because I don't like the material in question doesn't mean that I would have negative feelings toward the material. My problem with the material is that it is unoriginal. In many cases the routines have the same structure as older routines, with some "flash" added. If I change a double lift to a flourishy sequence where I'm flipping the double card around my body or I change a standard color change into the Bertram Change can I really call the routine my own? Some people feel they can. I don't and that's why I posted what I posted. |
|||||||||
|
Schaden Inner circle Purgatory 1253 Posts
|
Matt,
you said it so right. Everything on this video is like this.... Lee |
|||||||||
|
Review King Eternal Order 14446 Posts
|
Dave,
I do own this DVD. I just recieved it based on the video demos Oz does for Penqguin. I enjoy watching those, so I thought I would enjoy this.
"Of all words of tongue and pen,
the saddest are, "It might have been" ..........John Greenleaf Whittier |
|||||||||
|
vwc06 Regular user 123 Posts
|
I think reviewing a product honestly is one thing... but Amazo, joking or not joking, cheap shots aren't warranted. MattSedlak said a good piece about STealing Pips and although I like the DVD, unlike him, I think he expresses valid opinions. But I do not think it's constructive when you ride the coat-tails of someone else's nagative review on a product just to make a cheap pun. Oz is a nice guy who I've spoken to on several occasions and he is, among other things, a terrific card magician. Please take into consideration the amount of work he has put in to the craft and if you think he has been "exposed" that's fine... you should just type more than one silly pun.
No offense intended, Vincent |
|||||||||
|
Rcitgo Special user Emporia,Va. 738 Posts
|
Well I bought it and I have to say I liked it.I knew most of the stuff on it but what I bought it for was the amazing Bertram Colorchange.I wanted to add it to my colorchange arsenal.Yes I love colorchanges so it was worth it to me.
|
|||||||||
Bill Hallahan Inner circle New Hampshire 3229 Posts
|
Quote:
I thought magic was SUPPOSED to be impossible? The only "flaw" I ever felt existed in "Red Hot Mama" was the use of the Hindu Shuffle force with the spectators close to you. I've never liked the actual Hindu Shuffle itself, but that's merely a personal preference. Saying that you do not perform a routine because it looks impossible is foolish at best. The only argument I could see used here would be the Too-Perfect Theory. However, I don't even feel that would stand regarding this effect. That’s a fair opinion. However, I personally like Shot Caller much better than Red Hot Mama, but not for the reason Oz stated. I find the ending to be much more dramatic. It has gotten a great response when I performed it. I am going to have to figure out how to personalize this effect for me, but it’s not going to be easy. I really like the exact handling that Oz uses for this particular trick. Quote:
The rest of the DVD contains material that is entirely unoriginal. Most of the material that uses the Ribbon-Spread Holdout (I refuse to call it SAC) has already been in print in various places. Again, that’s a fair comment, but I find whether material is original to be irrelevant when I am making a purchasing decision for magic media. All that matters is that the material is properly credited and that I don’t already have it. Most of the Ammar card videos contain nothing but unoriginal material, but they are certainly a good purchase for anyone getting into card magic. To be sure, it is worth buying many of the original sources for the material on those videos, but if you tried to buy all of it, you would spend over a thousand dollars to purchase about 40 books. DVD’s with multiple tricks are a very good investment, especially if they contain detailed information about how to perform sleights, so that you can form your own tricks and presentation. With regard to the possible name mistake of the Ribbon-Spread Holdout, Oz certainly attempted to credit and name things properly on the DVD. I can forgive one mistake. There are even a few crediting errors on the original Ammar tapes that he fixed in the DVD versions that were released recently. These were fixed by overlaying text on the video momentarily which referenced additional comments that are at the end of the video. Quote:
Having, unfortunately, seen some of this material done in person I noticed that the construction of some of the routines are indicant of someone who performs under very controlled situations. All that matters is Oz’s performances on the DVD. It is fair to say that some of the routines on the DVD will require a working surface. Also, If you go to Oz’s web site, http://www.watchmagic.com/ then you will see that he has performed in restaurants, resorts, and at various celebrations. I suppose these are all controlled environments in one sense or another. I am sure there are several of these effects that he does not use when he performs in resteraunts. Quote:
I also wonder how logical it is to insert three cards into a deck only to immediately spread the deck on the table and remove the cards. Oz is apparently going to do another trick now that the deck is complete, albeit complete with the wrong color cards. The spectator doesn’t know what that trick will be. Then Oz finds the missing cards in the blue card box. This makes sense to me. I thought his act where he became surprised about the missing cards might have been slightly transparent, but this actually added to the entertainment value. I found this to be one of the most entertaining effects on the video. Quote:
During the performance of Perfecto at the lecture, a card was placed reversed into a face-up deck, outjogged, about 10-13 cards from the top by a spectator. Oz then took the deck back squared it up and spread it on the table. The reversed card was then closer to 3/4th of the way down. What's even worse it that the card was immediately removed from the deck and the face of the card finally shown! Maybe at a bar for drunken friends, a discrepancy like that would get by, but I know the people I've performed for in the past would have caught it in a heartbeat. I consider this your strongest criticism. I haven’t tried performing this yet, so for me the jury is still out. I would guess that people would be fooled by this, but there are certain people I wouldn’t let handle the deck for this trick. I have one friend who knows enough magic that he always picks near the top or the bottom of the deck. I find that most people will insert a card near the center of a deck, especially if you say to do just that. I also think that most people will not note the position of their card because they will not consider that relevant until it is too late, i.e. timed misdirection will be sufficient to muddy the waters. Quote:
Simply put, the variations here are a step back from what is currently available. Most of it is entirely unoriginal, and seen in person, poorly performed. I would consider that to be a valid criticism if you gave one or more sources that provide the same information for a comparable price with roughly the same ease of learning. The same comment applies to the material being unoriginal. I have never seen these specific tricks published anywhere else. I have previously seen the use of some techniques and gimmicks, but not these tricks. Your comment about seeing these in person is not relevant. People who buy the DVD will only see what is on the DVD. The effects are certainly well performed on the DVD. Quote:
If I change a double lift to a flourishy sequence where I'm flipping the double card around my body or I change a standard color change into the Bertram Change can I really call the routine my own? Some people feel they can. I don't and that's why I posted what I posted. If someone reinvents a trick or gimmick, or they modify an existing trick or gimmick, they have the right to present it as long as it is not owned. If the effect is owned, then they clearly can’t expose the method to other magicians. Other magicians will have to purchase it. If the effect isn’t owned, then they just have to credit the creator or creators. To my knowledge, Oz doesn’t give any owned effects away on the DVD. There is no other DVD source I know of that teaches all of this material. I think Oz has done the magic community a great service by creating this DVD. I have performed a few of these tricks and can attest to their strength. In my opinion, the Impossible Transpostion trick, The Bertram Color Change, and the Ribbon-Spread Holdout (SAC) move are each alone worth the price of this DVD. I do agree that if you already know all the techniques and gimmicks used on this DVD, then the DVD is not worth buying. Otherwise, I think it is one of the best card magic videos to come out this year.
Humans make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to create boredom. Quite astonishing.
- The character of ‘Death’ in the movie "Hogswatch" |
|||||||||
|
phantomace Special user 651 Posts
|
LOL, Everyone places different value on different things. Someone should send Bill several of these DVDs and an OZ poster for Christmas.
|
|||||||||
|
MattSedlak Regular user 162 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2003-08-22 18:56, Bill Hallahan wrote: I, like many others, would disagree with that statement. Unless you have explicit permission from the creators of the effects, you have NO right to release them, properly credited or not. Ammar received flak about this as well with the Easy To Master series. I suppose, having spent thousands of dollars on the books, I am a bit annoyed at seeing some of the better material released for a small price. However, Stealing Pips is not a compilation DVD. In Ammar's videos, the material was known to be of other people's creations. Oz claims the material on his DVD to be his own. Quote:
Oz is apparently going to do another trick now that the deck is complete, albeit complete with the wrong color cards. The spectator doesn’t know what that trick will be. Then Oz finds the missing cards in the blue card box. This makes sense to me. I thought his act where he became surprised about the missing cards might have been slightly transparent, but this actually added to the entertainment value. I found this to be one of the most entertaining effects on the video. After reading your comment, I went back to make sure I was clear as to what I saw. As I thought, the cards are inserted into the deck, SQUARED, the deck is then ribbon spread on the table, the cards are once again outjogged, and then Oz finds the other three cards. Now as I said before, I tend to be a perfectionist when it comes to magic, and I doubt that any layperson would ever figure out the method even though the handling is extremely illogical. However, this logic flaw is less obvious in IC3 then it is in Perfecto, where a more astute audience may be able to see through the effect. [quote] Simply put, the variations here are a step back from what is currently available. Most of it is entirely unoriginal, and seen in person, poorly performed. Quote:
I would consider that to be a valid criticism if you gave one or more sources that provide the same information for a comparable price with roughly the same ease of learning. The same comment applies to the material being unoriginal. I have never seen these specific tricks published anywhere else. I have previously seen the use of some techniques and gimmicks, but not these tricks. If you wanted I could give you a list of every effect on the DVD and where it appears in print. I don't really think it's necessary on this forum, though if anybody really wants to know PM me. Quote:
I have performed a few of these tricks and can attest to their strength. In my opinion, the Impossible Transposition trick, The Bertram Color Change, and the Ribbon-Spread Holdout (SAC) move are each alone worth the price of this DVD. Amazingly, these are the three things that are the least original on the DVD. The Bertram Color Change, and Nyquist's Ribbon Spread Holdout have been around for years. The concept of the Impossible Transposition, that of a transpo utilizing a duplicate card, is also old. Whether or not something is new to you should not be the criteria upon which originality is decided. If the effects is question had been buried in an obscure manuscript that commands hundreds of dollars to purchase, I could understand some miscredits. That is not the case here. Much of this material is easy to find. I also believe that before something is released, someone with a good deal of knowledge regarding the literature should take a look at it. I can think of a couple of people who would have done this for Oz had he asked. As it is, I believe my arguments to be valid. The material is unoriginal, poorly credited, and should not have been released. |
|||||||||
|
PyroDevil Regular user Canada 156 Posts
|
I completely disagree with this whole topic about how bad the stealing Pips dvd is. I think it's a good dvd with some very good visual card magic. Oz in my opinion did a really good job teaching the tricks to. Although his jokes and humour in the dvd were a little dumb (No Offense) He still was fun to watch.
I truely think Oz will be a true great magician someday! Hats off to you Oz Pearlamn! 
|
|||||||||
Posted: Aug 22, 2003 08:53 am 