Mailbag #174
/
I love the absurdity of this “multi sauce” pack that comes with this effect. What are your thoughts on this as an EDC trick? —MIS
In my opinion, anything that doesn't seem like something you would carry around with you normally is terrible for an "everyday carry" trick. That's the metric I use.
Imagine someone said to you, "I need a quarter for the parking meter. Hold on." And they start emptying their pockets.
They pull out some bills, a credit card, their keys, a pack of gum. You would have no thoughts on that. That makes tricks that use these items perfect for EDC.
But if they pull out a little vinyl wallet with eight playing cards in it?
Poker chips?
Ketchup and mustard packets?
They'd look like a weirdo.
When performing socially, you don't want to start off unnaturally just based on the items you're using.
So no. This isn't good for an EDC.
Perform it at home, where you might have some condiment packets lying around from a food order.
Perform it professionally, because no one cares about the objects you use when performing professionally. They go into it assuming you're using strange stuff even if it's normal stuff.
But don't carry it with you and think you can roll into it "casually." No one's going to buy that.
The only potential I see for social performing is a one-phase thing where you just bring out the multi-sauce packet. "Have you seen these? I got them at that new diner. They don't like you to take extras because apparently they're pretty expensive. But I snagged one without them noticing. It's a multi-sauce packet…."
In this case, you're not some weirdo carrying around "normal" condiment packets to do a multi-phase trick with. You're a normal person carrying around "something weird" you found — which is much more justified.
I got Mosaic from Ellusionist and the reactions have been just okay so far. It seems like it gets more laughs than astonishment. Any idea why or suggestions on how to improve it?—DG
I actually wrote about this briefly in the most recent newsletter.
I think this is a case where the trick is so clever and polished—and it’s happening on a phone—that the only place for their mind to go is that an app or something similar is behind it.
If something visually interesting or unusual happens on your phone, it’s hard to get people to not just think of it as a “phone trick.” So while I think the trick generates a nice initial surprise, the nature of the reveal is so phone-centric they’re almost certainly going to fight against the mystery by shrugging it off as a “phone thing.”
It doesn't help that these types of photo mosaics are done by computers. So people already know your phone is assisting you to some extent. So their question will be, at best, "How did he know the celebrity I'd name?" Not, "How did he take pictures for the past two years in such a manner that when zoomed out they'd form the picture of the celebrity I would eventually think of?"
This is all a matter of personal choice, of course. For some people, the surprise factor will be enough to make this worth performing.
But I personally think the best apps make the phone feel a little more tangential to the effect than this one does.
I was wondering if you've seen this incredible 30-minute AI film called Holy Grail? It was made by one guy in 10 days and it's a historical sci-fi drama set in 1503 Florence. To my eyes, it's beautifully "shot" and "edited," and features a compelling lead "performance" by a charismatic "actor." It's the best integration of animation and live action I've ever seen; I mean, it's an animated film by definition but it doesn't look or read as such. And this is still early days; AI filmmaking will never again look worse than this.
Watching it was the first time I ever felt viscerally that traditional Hollywood filmmaking is toast. Within a few years it will seem unthinkable to spend $200-300 million to make a Lord of the Rings-type film, with hundreds of production people and actors when a couple of geniuses in their bedroom can produce epics for the cost of AI credits.
I have no idea what this kind of thing does or doesn't mean for magic. I'm inclined to think live magical experiences will only grow in value and preciousness when every visual experience imaginable can be manifested in the digital realm. But in any case Holy Grail is a hell of a yarn. —JS
Video available on YouTube
This video is age-restricted, so it can’t be played directly on this page.
Watch on YouTubeI agree with you on the magic front. I feel the advances in digital content have only made in-person magic a stronger experience.
As for the film, I thought it was a snooze, but I'm not the sort of person who would watch this if it was made by humans. So I'm probably not the best judge.
While it's impressive, I can't imagine anyone watching it who wasn't curious to see what could be done with AI.
They've got the spectacle down—and that's obviously going to change the way big Hollywood epics are made going forward. It already has, actually.
But the acting is still not quite there. I have a feeling it may never get past the uncanny valley stage. So I don't see it replacing actors. (To be fair, when I first started watching it I happened to skip forward to 3 minutes in where the lead "actor" says, "Holy shit we found it!" in this bizarre way. And all I could think of as I watched a lot of this was the poor guy who made it having to settle for certain "takes" because no matter how he prompted it, he was getting weak outcomes.)
One time I met a guy who told me that people would stop skiing in the real world because if they wanted to ski they could do it in VR at any mountain in the world. I told him he was a fucking moron. "You don't understand why people ski," I told him.
And I think the idea that AI will fully replace the human element in movies, TV, etc. is similarly flawed. Yes, it will be a tool for big epics. But that may backfire too. Look at the most profitable live-action films from the past couple months:
The Devil Wears Prada 2
Michael
Obsession
Backrooms
A character-driven sequel, a biopic, two small-scale/intimate horror pics.
What bombed?
Supergirl
Masters of the Universe
Mandalorian and Grogu
It may be that people are more interested in human stories than spectacle these days. Perhaps when spectacle becomes something someone can do in their bedroom, we care about it less.
Or maybe I'm just reading into things.
But it does seem telling this epic short film, showing the pinnacle of AI filmmaking, has, after two months, 2600 views. For whatever reason, people don't give a shit.
Over the same time period, Craig Petty telling you what's in his close-up case, has 3800 views.
Make of that what you will.