Magically

Aus

I didn't like this at all. I'll go ahead and say it, since nobody else has.

This is, I think, what happens when you take a great plot, method, and effect that is not designed to be performed on stage while surrounded by cameras (due to angle-sensitivity) and try to perform it on stage without changing the method. I am fairly confident this is not how she usually performs this effect.

This raises the question: Why not change the method to make it more stage appropriate? And I have a theory on this too. First, I know for a fact that Ekaterina is quite familiar with, and has great respect for, the new (very new) method I think she used. She is also almost surely familiar with the older, very well-known method, and I'd be very surprised if she can't perform it well. I also think the older, well-known method would have been the logical choice here from the point of view of effect presentation, it being significantly less angle-sensitive.

There is, however, a possible advantage gained by using the new method. First, P&T may not know of it as it's really very new (as in: this year new). Second, she may have been hoping that P&T would have guessed that she was using the old, well-known, method. If they had leapt to that conclusion, she would have technically counted as fooling them. (They hate this kind of attempt at fooling them, but it's not uncommon.)

This is all speculation, but it is speculation that does make a lot of sense. Supposing P&T are not familiar with the new method, why didn't they just guess that she employed the old, well-known method? Probably because the manner in which she performed the switch was so bad (from the point of view of either method) that they didn't have any clue if she was using a known method at all as opposed to something like brute-forcing it.

I *think* she tried to give them just enough to think she was not that good at performing the old method to get them to select that option, but in the end, she didn't give them enough to permit them to think that she was, in fact, using it. At any rate, that's where my money lies.

I don't know either the old or the new method but I missed something in the presentation that I can hardly describe
The real trick I liked very much but in the end was missing in the show the certain spice the real astonishment triggers
It's as always a matter of personal taste but I didn't like the whole setting, all participants seemed be lost on big stage !

It was just to obvious of a steal and switch. More thought should have been created into the actions necessary to accomplish the reveal.

I was expecting a Unicorn on the reverse side of card. What an emotional let down.

This was just filler for the show. It was nice to see Ekatrina back on television. I have been following her on YouTube for years. I like that P + T are showing these girls so much respect. They are really giving back to the magic community with these shows. It feels like star search days, but better.

Penn and Tellers Fool Us offers a interesting dichotomy in my opinion. In the face of most magic philosophy where the emphasis is on entertainment which rises the humble trick from a puzzle to be worked out to something to be enjoyed, this show sort of advocates for the reverse.

The solving of the puzzle (trick) in primary and the entertainment is secondary.

That's not to say of course that one can't complement the other or even add to the deceptive nature of the performance, it's just a reverse type of thinking that's often advocated for in magic. For this reason you could probably forgive EKATERINA on the lacklustre presentation since it wasn't really the focus of the show.

However this makes the lack of effort in the methodology more perplexing because it seems that she didn't make much of an effort there ether. This might lead some credence to TomBs claim it was a filler performance and therefore more of a throw away piece then an legitimate attempt but I find it hard to believe that with such a lifetime opportunity being offered performing with this duo (Penn & Teller) they would be lacking people knocking on their door that something like this would be required.

Stepping back to the metaphorical presentation for a moment, it came across to me as somewhat forced, cheesy and contrived. My estimation to why this was is that it wasn't clear in what way "hope" was associated with the balloon therefore the painting and allegedly Ekaterina's childhood memory. Each of these could have been explored in a little more depth. For instance she could have interpreted the painting as losing hope since the girl loses the balloon or finding hope since it could also be interpreted in a way of a little girl chasing a balloon (chasing hope), then relaying that interpretation into a personal acdedote that linked into this association. Instead the concept of "hope" and it's associated meaning to the balloon and the painting was just sort of thrown out there with little if any clarification. I think there was a real opportunity lost in adding emotional depth by not exploring these associations better.

Having said that I do think Ekaterina did a commendable job and no doubt fooled most if not all the lay people in the audience. I just feel it could have been done better on a few different levels.

Magically

Aus

The switch was obvious. The more important part -- and I'm surprised no one has addressed this -- was how she happened to have a nice (not hand-drawn) picture of a bicycle in her pocket.

That s***** was hard to watch. It's as clunky as something I would do. Knowing how good she is makes it even worse.

But with no pre show, having Allison's selection is baffling to me. I have no idea how that is even possible. I'm fooled badly.