Theory11 Exposed... Again!

Mark · 08-12-2012, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Des

This was earlier in the thread, but I felt like something needed to be said about the definition of impromptu. I feel like the definition should be something like this (I welcome people to disagree with any of this):
No gimmicks (meaning nothing the spectator doesn't know about) or setup (even "on the fly" setup) and objects could be borrowed and performed with on the spot.
I'm not trying to make myself some magic god with the final decision on a definition of a word, but this is just something I've been wanting to get off my chest since I saw GPS and Ellusionist's ridiculous video on impromptu magic.

I'm not to keen on including "no gimmicks or setup" in the definition of the word, mainly because there are many gimmicks and setups that can be utilized in impromptu manners without any problem, like the 'Invisible Deck' for instance. But yeah, usually setups indeed are not impromptu.

I've planned on making magic definition videos so these may clear things up as soon as these will be released.

Des · 09-01-2012, 01:09 PM

I found two more things about Theory11 that ticked me off this morning. On The Wire, there was a review for Zach Mueller and Michael Stern's effect 'The Vintage Holdout' which started off like this:
"It's a brilliant idea, not sure if it's original, but no one really cares about that anyway."

WHAT!
Theory11 (and commercialized magic in general) has made a new generation of magicians think that crediting doesn't matter. Like, at all.

Second was the trailer for Andy Nyman's new effect 'Insane'. While it sounds like a good trick, and it's getting good reviews (although what else could you get on Theory11), does any one else find it wrong that it's such a hyped up trailer that he never actually performs the effect? Same thing with a couple of tricks on The Wire, people just camera cut through what the effect "looks like". That just shouldn't happen. It's so wrong.

09-01-2012, 01:09 PM	#2
Des Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 75	I found two more things about Theory11 that ticked me off this morning. On The Wire, there was a review for Zach Mueller and Michael Stern's effect 'The Vintage Holdout' which started off like this: "It's a brilliant idea, not sure if it's original, but no one really cares about that anyway." WHAT! Theory11 (and commercialized magic in general) has made a new generation of magicians think that crediting doesn't matter. Like, at all. Second was the trailer for Andy Nyman's new effect 'Insane'. While it sounds like a good trick, and it's getting good reviews (although what else could you get on Theory11), does any one else find it wrong that it's such a hyped up trailer that he never actually performs the effect? Same thing with a couple of tricks on The Wire, people just camera cut through what the effect "looks like". That just shouldn't happen. It's so wrong.