Price$34.50
Media TypeDVD
CategoryGeneral, Close Up
Date AddedFeb 18, 2015
Hacked
Kennedy, Brian
World Magic Shop
(Based on 2 reviews)
One of Ireland's leading creators - Brian Kennedy has finally released the work on his signature routine - HACKED The spectator clearly signs a playing card before their signature visually jumps onto a totally different card.
The signature vanishes from the first card and appears on a completely different card - before making the return journey for a kicker ending!
DVD and custom gimmick included.
Reviews
(Top ▲)
PROS
Very nice gimmick! Before getting this, I was speculating on the method. My mind wandered to much more complicated methods. This method is simple, practical, and effective. It also makes this routine a real worker where you are instantly reset.
The instruction is good. You get a made gimmick and Brian teaches you how to make a replacement gimmick.
The gimmick is sturdy and works well.
He also teaches the handling very well.
The routine can be performed surrounded and is suitable for close-up, walk-around, or parlor. Not so much for stage, I don’t think.
The setup and reset is easy and quick. The gimmick is a single card that can be brought into or out of play easily.
CONS
In the routine, they see their signature jump from their card to another card and back again. You can’t hand out the card where the signature jumped to.
VERDICT
Great gimmick, nice instruction, and very good effect.
Very nice gimmick! Before getting this, I was speculating on the method. My mind wandered to much more complicated methods. This method is simple, practical, and effective. It also makes this routine a real worker where you are instantly reset.
The instruction is good. You get a made gimmick and Brian teaches you how to make a replacement gimmick.
The gimmick is sturdy and works well.
He also teaches the handling very well.
The routine can be performed surrounded and is suitable for close-up, walk-around, or parlor. Not so much for stage, I don’t think.
The setup and reset is easy and quick. The gimmick is a single card that can be brought into or out of play easily.
CONS
In the routine, they see their signature jump from their card to another card and back again. You can’t hand out the card where the signature jumped to.
VERDICT
Great gimmick, nice instruction, and very good effect.
Suggestions
This gimmick and effect lends itself very well as part of an ambitious routine. I think there is also great potential to combine with the effect “Fax” by Loki Kross.(Top ▲)
Where to begin with this review? Let me start with the production value...
The video quality was pretty good for most of the DVD except for a few parts in the performance section, the reason for which I say that will be explained in a bit. The audio quality was not good - for most of the explanation sections the background music was not necessarily overpowering, just loud enough to make it hard to hear Brian because he was not using a lapel microphone. I have notice quite a few DVDs lately that have been shot very well but have poor audio because they are only using the built-in mic on the camera. The DVD menu was easy to navigate so no problems there.
Now for the ad copy. I am going to say that it is NOT completely accurate because the liberties that they took, which if worded differently 'might' have been awarded and overlooked, go too far. The whole ad copy is much too muddled and can potentially mislead someone who reads them into thinking that this effect does something that it does not, whether it was intentional or not.
The very first line of the ad copy states that you can "Cause a spectator's signature to transfer from one card to another whilst it is held in their own hands!" Well, yes, but what they do not clarify is that the signature apparently jumps off of (i.e. vanishes from) the single card they are holding and onto the previously unsigned card that YOU are holding. The way that the ad copy reads does not clarify what exactly happens and makes it sound like they hold the card that the signature appears on as well as the one that it vanishes from or any combination thereof.
The lines that follow the first one are contradictory - the first line says the signature 'transfers', the second line states that it 'visually jumps' and the last line says that it 'vanishes from one and appears on another'. Which is it? Well, the last one is the most accurate. You show their signed card and turn it face down, handing it to them. You show the second, unsigned card and hold it face up in your hand. You act as though you are taking the ink off of the card in their hand and wave your hand over the card you are holding, after which their signature appears on the card you are holding. It is not "visual" because it cannot happen without cover. Speaking of cover, because of the way this works, it does require quite a bit of cover on your part - only about a third (1/3) of the card that the signature appears on (the one you are holding) is visible. It also happens at waist level but if you change the handling, you 'might' be able to do this at chest level, but it would likely be awkward.
That being said, I think the ad copy ruins what could otherwise be a decent effect.
As for the gimmick, I think that is another part of the issue. The one that I received with the video was well-made, but there was still a visible 'line' where there should not have been one. In fact, there were two where there should not have been any. In the video Brian shows you how to make your own gimmicks if you ever need to replace the one you got with your initial purchase. He explains it very well but you may have a hard time understanding him as he is not using a mic and the background music, again, is just a bit too high.
That said, given what I know about what happens to playing cards when you use blades of any sort on them, I thought that the 'line' issue with my gimmick may have just been a fluke. I made four other gimmicks as carefully as I could (note: the gimmicks are not hard to make and only take a few minutes, even if you take your time on them). Well, even with that I still had the issue. Thinking that it may just be me, I consulted a few magician friends and showed them the signature transfer under various lighting conditions without them knowing what was going to happen or what the gimmick looked like. Every single one of the six that I showed this to spotted what, in their words, "...looked like a piece of gimmick." They were right.
Earlier I mentioned the lighting issue in the performance section of the DVD. This is where it comes into play. The lighting was not so bad that you could not see what was happening on camera, but rather, it was dimmer for a reason. I am thoroughly convinced that unless you perform this in a darker environment, there is no way to hide the lines on the gimmick that nobody should see, whether you use the one provided or you carefully make your own. Further insights: To clarify, after I made my own gimmicks, three of them only had one visible line instead of two, but one is one too many.
All those issues aside, does the method work? YES. It does work and it is very clever. I just wish there is some way to hide those visible lines but because of the way this works, I am not sure there is. I am sorry to be so vague but saying much more would start to tip the method. Perhaps someone out there will have better luck that I did or find some way to make that happen so that this can be used in any environment.
The other potential problem with this effect is that if you are clear in what you are doing, you may lead your spectators to confusing rather than amazement. In watching the first performance on the DVD, the pair of women that were participating seemed like they were more lost at the end of the performance, for whatever reason. It may have been performed to fast for them, they may be clueless people, who knows? One even stated outright that she was confused. The pair of women in the second performance seemed to follow it, but it did seem to take a few extra seconds for the effect to register. In short, if you do perform this, make sure you clarify the situation and perform it slowly enough. No, I do not mean slowly as in 'a turtle drudging through molasses in January' slow - hardly necessary - there is just no need to be Speedy Gonzalez.
On second thought: Perhaps because of the lower lighting in the performance venue, maybe the first two participants were confused because they may not have been able to see the signature clearly due to the lower lighting. YOU will have no problem seeing it on camera, but they might have - I cannot say because I was not there. This is just a thought.
All sound issues aside, Brian seems like a very nice guy and he did do a great job in teaching the effect.
For the overall quality of this product, I would say that $34.95/USD is too high.
If you like what you see in the ad trailer and do not mind only being able to perform this in darker-ish venues to help hide the gimmick, which may potentially reduce the visibility of the signature to audience members, then go for it, but beware that you may end up being disappointed. Then again, you may not because you may find that your gimmick(s) give you no trouble.
I really struggled with the final rating on this because on one hand, the ad copy is terribly conflicting and even though the gimmick is well made, I had trouble hiding it in normal (read: the most common) lighting conditions. On the other hand, it may potentially be my gimmicks (both the one that I received and the four that I made myself) that just are not made well enough, though they do work. This last part leads me to give it 3.5 stars.
The video quality was pretty good for most of the DVD except for a few parts in the performance section, the reason for which I say that will be explained in a bit. The audio quality was not good - for most of the explanation sections the background music was not necessarily overpowering, just loud enough to make it hard to hear Brian because he was not using a lapel microphone. I have notice quite a few DVDs lately that have been shot very well but have poor audio because they are only using the built-in mic on the camera. The DVD menu was easy to navigate so no problems there.
Now for the ad copy. I am going to say that it is NOT completely accurate because the liberties that they took, which if worded differently 'might' have been awarded and overlooked, go too far. The whole ad copy is much too muddled and can potentially mislead someone who reads them into thinking that this effect does something that it does not, whether it was intentional or not.
The very first line of the ad copy states that you can "Cause a spectator's signature to transfer from one card to another whilst it is held in their own hands!" Well, yes, but what they do not clarify is that the signature apparently jumps off of (i.e. vanishes from) the single card they are holding and onto the previously unsigned card that YOU are holding. The way that the ad copy reads does not clarify what exactly happens and makes it sound like they hold the card that the signature appears on as well as the one that it vanishes from or any combination thereof.
The lines that follow the first one are contradictory - the first line says the signature 'transfers', the second line states that it 'visually jumps' and the last line says that it 'vanishes from one and appears on another'. Which is it? Well, the last one is the most accurate. You show their signed card and turn it face down, handing it to them. You show the second, unsigned card and hold it face up in your hand. You act as though you are taking the ink off of the card in their hand and wave your hand over the card you are holding, after which their signature appears on the card you are holding. It is not "visual" because it cannot happen without cover. Speaking of cover, because of the way this works, it does require quite a bit of cover on your part - only about a third (1/3) of the card that the signature appears on (the one you are holding) is visible. It also happens at waist level but if you change the handling, you 'might' be able to do this at chest level, but it would likely be awkward.
That being said, I think the ad copy ruins what could otherwise be a decent effect.
As for the gimmick, I think that is another part of the issue. The one that I received with the video was well-made, but there was still a visible 'line' where there should not have been one. In fact, there were two where there should not have been any. In the video Brian shows you how to make your own gimmicks if you ever need to replace the one you got with your initial purchase. He explains it very well but you may have a hard time understanding him as he is not using a mic and the background music, again, is just a bit too high.
That said, given what I know about what happens to playing cards when you use blades of any sort on them, I thought that the 'line' issue with my gimmick may have just been a fluke. I made four other gimmicks as carefully as I could (note: the gimmicks are not hard to make and only take a few minutes, even if you take your time on them). Well, even with that I still had the issue. Thinking that it may just be me, I consulted a few magician friends and showed them the signature transfer under various lighting conditions without them knowing what was going to happen or what the gimmick looked like. Every single one of the six that I showed this to spotted what, in their words, "...looked like a piece of gimmick." They were right.
Earlier I mentioned the lighting issue in the performance section of the DVD. This is where it comes into play. The lighting was not so bad that you could not see what was happening on camera, but rather, it was dimmer for a reason. I am thoroughly convinced that unless you perform this in a darker environment, there is no way to hide the lines on the gimmick that nobody should see, whether you use the one provided or you carefully make your own. Further insights: To clarify, after I made my own gimmicks, three of them only had one visible line instead of two, but one is one too many.
All those issues aside, does the method work? YES. It does work and it is very clever. I just wish there is some way to hide those visible lines but because of the way this works, I am not sure there is. I am sorry to be so vague but saying much more would start to tip the method. Perhaps someone out there will have better luck that I did or find some way to make that happen so that this can be used in any environment.
The other potential problem with this effect is that if you are clear in what you are doing, you may lead your spectators to confusing rather than amazement. In watching the first performance on the DVD, the pair of women that were participating seemed like they were more lost at the end of the performance, for whatever reason. It may have been performed to fast for them, they may be clueless people, who knows? One even stated outright that she was confused. The pair of women in the second performance seemed to follow it, but it did seem to take a few extra seconds for the effect to register. In short, if you do perform this, make sure you clarify the situation and perform it slowly enough. No, I do not mean slowly as in 'a turtle drudging through molasses in January' slow - hardly necessary - there is just no need to be Speedy Gonzalez.
On second thought: Perhaps because of the lower lighting in the performance venue, maybe the first two participants were confused because they may not have been able to see the signature clearly due to the lower lighting. YOU will have no problem seeing it on camera, but they might have - I cannot say because I was not there. This is just a thought.
All sound issues aside, Brian seems like a very nice guy and he did do a great job in teaching the effect.
For the overall quality of this product, I would say that $34.95/USD is too high.
If you like what you see in the ad trailer and do not mind only being able to perform this in darker-ish venues to help hide the gimmick, which may potentially reduce the visibility of the signature to audience members, then go for it, but beware that you may end up being disappointed. Then again, you may not because you may find that your gimmick(s) give you no trouble.
I really struggled with the final rating on this because on one hand, the ad copy is terribly conflicting and even though the gimmick is well made, I had trouble hiding it in normal (read: the most common) lighting conditions. On the other hand, it may potentially be my gimmicks (both the one that I received and the four that I made myself) that just are not made well enough, though they do work. This last part leads me to give it 3.5 stars.