Penn & Teller: Fool Us

[Mark James]

Nothing else makes sense.

Doesn't your woman being in on it make more sense?

[JimBentley]

That said, the bit I do therefore find odd is that it fooled P&T. Penn's big speech now looks almost put together to convince the audience further what an amazing trick it was, while throwing you off the scent, which all made it look like they've got a quota to fill and were trying to justify it.

I thought much the same when I saw it. OK, I don't know how they did it, but I'm not a magician and I expected that Penn & Teller - having worked in magic for so long and being so knowledgeable on the subject - must have seen this sort of lame shit dozens of times before and would pretty much say so straight away. I was gobsmacked when they said they'd been fooled and then even more amazed when they didn't ask to verify what was "written" on the pieces of paper. I can only assume that the guy doing the trick must have photos of Penn and/or Teller having sex with a goat (or multiple goats, or a combination of livestock) or something.

[Jon Corby]

Nothing else makes sense.

Doesn't your woman being in on it make more sense?

No! She was nowhere near the studio during filming or anything, she was probably making my dinner or sucking me off or something. How would she be involved?

(But yeah, even though that would make sense, but I don't think they would let something that weak past the adjudicator.)

[Michael Wallace]

Just caught up on this. Reckon that the woman being in on it is the most likely, but that either way it was a matter of stooges, so eh.

The last pair were fucking dreadful. If you watch the left hand of the guy who was holding the cards, it adopts a different position for every card. CF and I were watching it and were presuming there would be some amazing finish to make up for that 'trick' being so shit, but no. Couldn't believe it fooled P&T, since even if it wasn't his hand (which may have been obscured from their view by Ross's head), there are vocal clues he could have used, or even something actually subtle, like a facial expression. Seemed a bit embarrassing really - "oh wow, so you can tell what card your partner is looking at, great".

Thought the French dudes were awesome though, and generally quite enjoying the show. (Figured I should add that so I don't just sound like a moany old bastard.)

Edit: Actually, now I've re-read Jon's post, the point about him dumping cards on top/bottom seems a pretty likely option too (and explains the skipping through the middle of the deck). So yeah, I guess it's just a case of design a trick with loads of shit possibilities and if they only get one guess (is that in the rules?) then you'll have a good chance.

[Jon Corby]

Just caught up on this. Reckon that the woman being in on it is the most likely, but that either way it was a matter of stooges, so eh.

The clincher for me is the reaction of the guys on stage. If they were genuine, and were just reading word-for-word what was on the paper, they would be as astonished as the audience. They weren't. If they were plants, they would feign the astonishment. They didn't. Instead, they looked distinctly unimpressed, and a little uncomfortable - particularly the first guy, who is obviously the most important (and trickiest) and had to be begged a little to go along. Note also that they don't just open their envelopes and read - they are told to open their envelopes in plenty of time for them to process their instructions. Of course there may be some kind of "cleverer" coercion than simply this going on, but I think it's along those lines. Please watch it again, just the reveal, for the way he virtually begs the first guy to read "his" message.

I was therefore about to defend him on the "stooge" accusation, but you've just made me think that actually it does depend on what level of prepping took place off-camera. It may have been nothing, it may have been something subtle just to test if they were happy to be "an important part of making the trick work" (or something) - or it may have been quite explicit. It's a shame there was a cut there as it seems likely that it wasn't just dead time. He/his assistant at the very least were probably prepping the cards with the table/meal combinations. I did consider that the tables might be fixed with the meals (he is a little deliberate with the exact placing of the cloches, they are covered with a fairly long table cloth which could conceal some mechanism for introducing the food) but that probably seems a little excessive. Particularly as, if that were the case, the envelopes could all be in full view from the very start, and therefore probably would have been. We only learn of their existence after the break.

Couldn't believe it fooled P&T, since even if it wasn't his hand (which may have been obscured from their view by Ross's head), there are vocal clues he could have used, or even something actually subtle, like a facial expression. Seemed a bit embarrassing really - "oh wow, so you can tell what card your partner is looking at, great".

Exactly, I don't think it "fooled" them for a second, but the format of the show was they got one shot, and got it very slightly wrong (there was something underhand being done with the deck - otherwise why take them back at all from Ross - it just wasn't a full switch). He actually does the last few cards without his partner signalling, which presumably are the cards added to the bottom of the stack when they thought a full switch had occurred. No matter what went on though, it was lame. The trick as presented was unimpressive, uninteresting and easily achievable by a number of different methods.

Thought the French dudes were awesome though, and generally quite enjoying the show. (Figured I should add that so I don't just sound like a moany old bastard.)

Yes, I agree (although I did think the act dragged a little and lacked a finale) I love seeing magic performed, although I like to be sure of exactly what I'm seeing. This benefits the magician as much as it does me, because it means we don't/can't dismiss effects as being something "underhand" (stooges, edits, camera tricks etc) and so we are properly impressed when we see something, well, impressive. The format of this show gives me good reassurance that nothing underhand of this nature is going on.

(Although the tables/dinners edit has now made me disappoint for this reason. Although I could be completely wrong about everything, of course!)

[Gavin Chipper]

Corby, if they were just reading a card that said "[Your name] is sitting at table [number you're sitting at]", then what about the food? How do they know what they've got?

[Jon Corby]

Corby, if they were just reading a card that said "[Your name] is sitting at table [number you're sitting at]", then what about the food? How do they know what they've got?

Isn't that covered by this:

He/his assistant at the very least were probably prepping the cards with the table/meal combinations. I did consider that the tables might be fixed with the meals (he is a little deliberate with the exact placing of the cloches, they are covered with a fairly long table cloth which could conceal some mechanism for introducing the food) but that probably seems a little excessive. Particularly as, if that were the case, the envelopes could all be in full view from the very start, and therefore probably would have been. We only learn of their existence after the break.

?

There's actually only 6 combinations of tables and meals, and Nick (our magician) KNOWS absolutely the placement of each - he picked them up from the trolley and put them there! We don't actually know where the envelopes came from - they suddenly appeared after the "name badge and mic" edit, so it seems likely that they're either prepped with the correct meals during this break, or he simply has six groups of envelopes already set up and just selects the appropriate ones.

Edit: ah, wait - I don't think the paper simply says "insert your table number". I think there are three messages printed on the paper (remember all three envelopes/messages are identical, so it doesn't matter whether they switched them or not). They will say "If you are at table 1, this is your message: ", because the wording is markedly different on table 3 (it begins "which leaves...."). If you remember when Nick instructs the guys to open their envelopes (which is well in advance of them reading them, so they have a little time to acknowledge their instructions) he says something like "if you open your envelopes and have a look, you will find a message - a message for each of you." This sounds like generic fluff to the audience ("well, obviously there's going to be a message in them, duh") but it actually has a different meaning to the guys who are sat there looking at the paper.

[Jon Corby]

BTW, what was the deal with the "mentalist" dude with his "brick" prediction. P&T were (surprisingly) explicit in going "you had something (written most likely?) in your hand while you were doing that whole book thing in his face, is it really so simple and lame as just going "please say BRICK"? What else can it be? I didn't therefore understand his "he wasn't an instant stooge" defence, which Penn seemed to agree with?

Also, those Swedes did that stupid "look, I'm switching the cards off the tongs" at the end just to try and mislead P&T, which utterly ruined the impact of the trick. I did start to watch them again to see what might have happened, but then I decided not to. If I didn't see it first time around, they did their job. It did also make me think how much easier it must be to be part of a double act though - untaped guy had ample opportunity to prepare the card for the taped guy while we were all watching him chuck cards around and stuff. It must be so much more difficult to hide stuff when you're on your own.

And - a quick change act - wtf?

[Ryan Taylor]

BTW, what was the deal with the "mentalist" dude with his "brick" prediction. P&T were (surprisingly) explicit in going "you had something (written most likely?) in your hand while you were doing that whole book thing in his face, is it really so simple and lame as just going "please say BRICK"? What else can it be? I didn't therefore understand his "he wasn't an instant stooge" defence, which Penn seemed to agree with?

Sadly, I think that was the trick. He just had BRICK written there which is just shit.

Also, those Swedes did that stupid "look, I'm switching the cards off the tongs" at the end just to try and mislead P&T, which utterly ruined the impact of the trick. I did start to watch them again to see what might have happened, but then I decided not to. If I didn't see it first time around, they did their job. It did also make me think how much easier it must be to be part of a double act though - untaped guy had ample opportunity to prepare the card for the taped guy while we were all watching him chuck cards around and stuff. It must be so much more difficult to hide stuff when you're on your own.

I missed the start to this act but seem to remember Penn & Teller saying that it was a fake reveal which I thought it was. Because when he puts the scissors back into his inside jacket pocket something dodgy looks like it happens and he takes out a fake card. Unless this was another thing to throw them off the scent.

And - a quick change act - wtf?

Literally could not believe this had made it through the auditions. Did the title of the show "Fool Us" mean nothing to these people or the production team? It was never going to fool anyone in the toom or watching let alone frigging Penn & Teller.

It was at this point where I thought the show definitely needs changing. It's a good show because I think everybody does quite like magic tricks and there's definitely a platform for it on Saturday night but there are too many flaws with the format that we've hit on:

• - The best acts usually don't go through
  - People come on with tricks knowing they won't fool them
  - Some shit acts go through (like those facial hair freaks) by coming up with red herrings for Penn & Teller

I think that what should be done is get rid of the host, JR, altogether. Penn & Teller could host the show and still perform a trick of their own at the end but should just introduce the acts and comment on the job they've done. And to find out who goes to Vegas they should just do an audience poll or something to find which act everyone enjoyed the most and therefore they can go through. I mean those French guys the other week were brilliant (if a little long) but that is clearly far better to be showcased on a Las Vegas stage than some guy sitting 3 people down at a table and revealing that he predicted their meal.

[Mark James]

It's a good show because I think everybody does quite like magic tricks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haC8di4i ... re=related

I think that what should be done is get rid of the host, JR, altogether. Penn & Teller could host the show and still perform a trick of their own at the end but should just introduce the acts and comment on the job they've done. And to find out who goes to Vegas they should just do an audience poll or something to find which act everyone enjoyed the most and therefore they can go through. I mean those French guys the other week were brilliant (if a little long) but that is clearly far better to be showcased on a Las Vegas stage than some guy sitting 3 people down at a table and revealing that he predicted their meal.

Agreed.

[Peter Mabey]

I agree - Woss is totally unnecessary.

Come to think of it , that applies to every other show I've seen him on

[Michael Wallace]

What I find odd is his introduction "TV's Mr Magic!" (or something like that) - when exactly did that happen?

[Gavin Chipper]

Corby, if they were just reading a card that said "[Your name] is sitting at table [number you're sitting at]", then what about the food? How do they know what they've got?

Isn't that covered by this:

He/his assistant at the very least were probably prepping the cards with the table/meal combinations. I did consider that the tables might be fixed with the meals (he is a little deliberate with the exact placing of the cloches, they are covered with a fairly long table cloth which could conceal some mechanism for introducing the food) but that probably seems a little excessive. Particularly as, if that were the case, the envelopes could all be in full view from the very start, and therefore probably would have been. We only learn of their existence after the break.

?

Yeah, maybe. Seems the roles are reversed from your balancing/centres thread!

There's actually only 6 combinations of tables and meals, and Nick (our magician) KNOWS absolutely the placement of each - he picked them up from the trolley and put them there! We don't actually know where the envelopes came from - they suddenly appeared after the "name badge and mic" edit, so it seems likely that they're either prepped with the correct meals during this break, or he simply has six groups of envelopes already set up and just selects the appropriate ones.

This break can't have given him that much scope to do stuff because Penn and Teller weren't turned off, but yes, we don't know what happened.

Edit: ah, wait - I don't think the paper simply says "insert your table number". I think there are three messages printed on the paper (remember all three envelopes/messages are identical, so it doesn't matter whether they switched them or not). They will say "If you are at table 1, this is your message: ", because the wording is markedly different on table 3 (it begins "which leaves...."). If you remember when Nick instructs the guys to open their envelopes (which is well in advance of them reading them, so they have a little time to acknowledge their instructions) he says something like "if you open your envelopes and have a look, you will find a message - a message for each of you." This sounds like generic fluff to the audience ("well, obviously there's going to be a message in them, duh") but it actually has a different meaning to the guys who are sat there looking at the paper.

Maybe you're right.

[Phil Reynolds]

Please watch it again, just the reveal, for the way he virtually begs the first guy to read "his" message.

Just catching up with the last couple of weeks of this. The first time I saw the July 16 episode I interpreted that moment as Nick (the magician) not being able to remember Daniel's name and having to lean forward to read it off his badge. I've watched it again in the light of your suggestion and it still seems that way to me; he says something like, "Would you, please... Daniel... read out your message," and has to lean in to read the name before he says it - which makes it look like he's saying "please" into his face. I don't think this was actually deliberate at all. But I don't really know.

[Phil Reynolds]

BTW, what was the deal with the "mentalist" dude with his "brick" prediction. P&T were (surprisingly) explicit in going "you had something (written most likely?) in your hand while you were doing that whole book thing in his face, is it really so simple and lame as just going "please say BRICK"? What else can it be? I didn't therefore understand his "he wasn't an instant stooge" defence, which Penn seemed to agree with?

Sadly, I think that was the trick. He just had BRICK written there which is just shit.

No he didn't, which is why he assured P&T the guy wasn't an instant stooge. Teller immediately made the hand signal that indicated that they knew what device Colin was using (it's something called a Sanada Gimmick if you want to look it up), although it's not an essential part of the trick. However, while the guy wasn't a stooge and wasn't told what word to think of, his experience of the trick was different to the audience's. From posts made by Colin to magic forums it seems there was also another part to the trick which got cut, which helped to confuse things further as to what exactly was going on.

[Jon Corby]

No he didn't, which is why he assured P&T the guy wasn't an instant stooge. Teller immediately made the hand signal that indicated that they knew what device Colin was using (it's something called a Sanada Gimmick if you want to look it up), although it's not an essential part of the trick.

I'm quite confused now, Googling Sanada Gimmick brought up a device used to make little sponge balls and stuff disappear into the hand. I'm intrigued, but I don't really like just having things spell(MAGIC PUN INTENDED)ed out for me. I'll think about this some more but I might ask further questions

Loved Chris Dugdale on this week's show, for the hilarity factor. His trick was an utter nothing once he himself made his reveal (although I thought it was quite obvious there was something "amiss" with Leroy from the get-go). His blasting music and tensed up "COME ON"s for his finale were just so David Brent. Total nob-head The rest of the time he just reminded me of a really cheesy Capital DJ type, like Pat Sharp.

[Phil Reynolds]

I'm quite confused now, Googling Sanada Gimmick brought up a device used to make little sponge balls and stuff disappear into the hand.

Yeah, sorry, as I said it's not an essential part of the trick, just makes it a bit slicker (Colin claims to have a custom-made one costing £200 and incorporating a copy of his engagement ring). I only mentioned it to point out that I reckon that's what Teller was conveying by tapping his cupped palm, not that Colin had the word BRICK written on his hand as Ryan suggested.

Colin sells a DVD explaining how to do this trick, and several others that he's invented, for £40, although the version he performed for P&T included variations not on the DVD. (I haven't seen it, just read comments about it on a couple of forums, so I don't know exactly what he was doing but I have a reasonable idea.)

[Marc Meakin]

I've convinced myself that's (pretty much) what has gone on.

And you've ruined the magic for everyone else. I'm distraught.

And there aint no Father Christmas either,and god .....oops sorry I mean the tooth fairy, is a man made, imaginary entity.

[Jon Corby]

not that Colin had the word BRICK written on his hand as Ryan suggested.

I'm very confused now. Did the volunteer realise he was being complicit in saying "brick"? Does he know why he said "brick"? Would I have said "brick"?

[Phil Reynolds]

Did the volunteer realise he was being complicit in saying "brick"?

No.

Does he know why he said "brick"?

Yes.

Would I have said "brick"?

Maybe.

[Jon Corby]

(...answers...)

Haha, I'm even more confused now. I don't know if I phrased my questions badly, but (to my mind) if he knew why he was saying it, wouldn't he know that he was being complicit? (i.e. saying what the magician - sorry, mentalist - wanted him to say)

[Phil Reynolds]

if he knew why he was saying it, wouldn't he know that he was being complicit?

You didn't ask "did he know" but "does he know". I suspect he knows with hindsight why he said it, but didn't at the time. Like I said before though, I don't actually know the full details of how Colin achieves his effect - I know some of the details, and the rest is educated speculation. I know he used a Sanada Gimmick to conceal something in his hand; I know that the effect falls into a category magicians call "dual reality", where the trick is carefully constructed (and even more carefully scripted) so that the volunteer still perceives a magical effect, just not the same one that the audience sees. I believe it's likely that Colin also used the technique called "multiple outs", which P&T mentioned on the show a few weeks ago.

I thought the Canadian guy on this week's show was excellent - it was great seeing the expression on Penn's face of mild tolerance at this familiar effect turn to genuine delight when he realised that it could only have been achieved using a technique that was entirely new.

Speaking of tolerance, I generally don't have a problem with Jonathan Ross but I wish he'd stop (a) introducing P&T as "Penn and Tellaaaaaa" and (b) addressing them as "Mr Penn and Mr Teller" when he knows full well that Penn is the guy's forename.

[Jon Corby]

I thought the Canadian guy on this week's show was excellent - it was great seeing the expression on Penn's face of mild tolerance at this familiar effect turn to genuine delight when he realised that it could only have been achieved using a technique that was entirely new.

Agreed. I loved that trick, although because of the very nature of the presentation it's fairly straightforward to work out (roughly) what goes on (when seeing it for a second time!). One thing I'm not at all clear on though is - did Penn have a genuinely free choice of card? I'm guessing not, but would Penn fall for a classic force? And did Shawn even have an opportunity to relocate the card in the shuffled pack, or did he add another himself? Or am I completely off track?

This is also why I don't like acts where I'm not sure what I've seen, like Colin's. Something remarkably clever may have gone on (and you've got me thinking), but my instinct just tells me that the guy is saying brick because he's essentially been "told" to (or at least narrowed down to house, home, brick etc) and he didn't want to blow the trick. When he described the title of the book as something to do with P&T, I assumed his word would relate to them in some way and was surprised when it was something much more generic.

I was the volunteer for a mind-reading trick a few years back, which worked beautifully. I had a free choice of books, a free choice of page, a free choice of word, and I wrote nothing down and I handled all the items, and yet he got my word. (I'm not really interested in discussing how that was done btw, and I was a bit drunk at the time so I've probably got a lot of false memory going on!) Now if, instead of all this, the magician and I had essentially done some stuff together in secret, and he then guessed my word, it would have been rubbish. It would likely have been fairly obvious to me what had gone on, and everyone else would have just been going "um... so what did you do in secret first?"

So that's my thought process when evaluating the trick anyway. It's a bit poo if I'm not privy to everything, but am supposed to take it on trust that certain things haven't happened, when they might well have done. Like with the Swedes last week - if they usually performed the trick how they did on the show (with the "phony card switch" ending) but then said afterwards, "oh btw, I didn't just switch the card there", you'd have no reason to believe them, even though it was true.

(I'm so bad at explaining my thoughts.)

[Phil Reynolds]

I thought the Canadian guy on this week's show was excellent

Agreed. [...] One thing I'm not at all clear on though is - did Penn have a genuinely free choice of card?

I believe so. There are many well known (to magicians) techniques for making a freely chosen, signed card appear inside everything from eggshells to bananas. (The French guy this week did this a couple of times, making Teller's card appear first inside his wallet and later inside a Schweppes bottle.) But for a free card to get not just inside a brand new sealed deck but in the right position within that deck - that was really impressive.

This is also why I don't like acts where I'm not sure what I've seen, like Colin's.

But even when you think you are sure what you've seen, most of the time you'd be wrong...

I was the volunteer for a mind-reading trick a few years back, which worked beautifully. I had a free choice of books, a free choice of page, a free choice of word, and I wrote nothing down and I handled all the items, and yet he got my word.

That's known as a "Book Test" effect. Colin Macleod calls his trick "The Bookless Test" as a nod.

It's a bit poo if I'm not privy to everything, but am supposed to take it on trust that certain things haven't happened, when they might well have done.

I can only say that the best dual reality effects (of which I wouldn't necessarily say that this was one) are beautiful even once you know what's happened. To give an example from outside the field of magic: remember the restaurant scene between Bruce Willis and his wife in The Sixth Sense? He thinks she's grumpy because he's late for their dinner appointment; actually she's mourning her dead husband on their wedding anniversary. The scene is meticulously scripted, directed, shot and acted so that each interpretation of what's happening works. Dual reality effects in magic work in a similar way. The audience is Bruce Willis, the volunteer is Olivia Williams. Sort of.

[Jon Corby]

the volunteer is Olivia Williams.

So it was another prosthetic mask, like Chris Dugdale's? I knew it. I said that at the time.

[Jon Corby]

I can only say that the best dual reality effects (of which I wouldn't necessarily say that this was one) are beautiful even once you know what's happened.

I'll have to take your word on that, as I don't know any. At least, I don't knowingly know of any. If that makes sense. Maybe loads of the Derren Brown stuff that I (love to) hate works on this sort of level. To me, it's shit - akin to the magician and the volunteer leaving the room for a bit, and then (astonishingly) during that time agreeing on a word.

(I knew that other thing was called a "Book Test" btw, and I did a tiny bit of reading around it once, and I think the few examples I found involved forcing at least the page. Which is why I'm inclined to think there's some false memory going on. Part of the magician's skill I guess - and very cool if so. I'm kinda happier not to know really!)

[Ryan Taylor]

Wow reading all this has just confused me even more. I watched a Youtube clip of this Sanada Gimmick and it confused me how this was in the trick. I did notice his left hand is unnaturally cupped all of the way through and the fact that it hangs awkwardly by his side throughout the whole performance, nly ever doing things with his right hand. But I just thought this was to hide the word BRICK written on his hand. Confused.com.

[Jon Corby]

Some more thoughts on Shawn Farquhar's trick. These are mainly to do with the overall presentation of the trick, rather than techniques used, but I thought I'd just lay them out here so Phil can correct me on certain things ( ). I have watched the trick back a couple of times, although this is done from memory (i.e. without checking as I type) so I may be wrong about a few things.

The jokers and the premium cards. He uses the premium cards to show us what a freshly opened, previously untouched pack of cards look like (which includes 2 jokers, 2 premiums). Later, he claims to remove a single card from between Penn's hands, which is a joker. Didn't he already remove these from the pack earlier and put them in his pocket? I can't quite recall. As I can't recall clearly, he either did (and therefore introduced an unnecessary continuity error into his trick), or removed one and left just one joker in the pack, but certainly didn't draw enough attention to it. (Oh, and I guess the third option is that I'm a jackass and still haven't followed it all correctly after multiple viewings.)

Anyways, why remove the joker at all from between Penn's hands? Well, clearly it's this top card which is used to make Penn think he's being passed (and holding between his hands) an unboxed deck. I would also therefore posit that the joker isn't an ordinary joker, but probably has little fold down sides or something to resemble an unboxed deck. When Shawn removes it, he is quite particular about the way he holds it and shows it, with most of the card covered.

Now it's with the opening of the resealed box where the presentation gets a bit confused. Shawn mentions that there are no premium cards and no jokers, explaining that's because he removed them earlier and they're in his pocket. He then goes on to say how the seal etc. means it's a brand new box, untouched by human hands. This is inconsistent both with his claim of having already removed the jokers/premium cards, and also the whole point of the trick, being that they are the same deck from 30 seconds ago (which we all saw get touched plenty) and that he's magicked them back into deck order, into the box, sealed up, but with Penn's signed card reversed. The fact that there are no premium cards should be being used to hammer home the point that this isn't a new deck and is actually the same deck from earlier, so why does he not only omit to point this out, but actually say something to the contrary?

What is even the point of all this talk of premium cards? Does anybody really care once the other cards are all in order? Surely they could just as easily be there as not? Why draw attention to it? Well, Shawn cares. It's showing the premium cards from his pocket which enables him to switch the trick box back with the original (totally genuine) box from the start of the trick. Penn was allowed to examine the sealed box but certainly was not allowed to touch or examine the box once the seal was off. Penn is allowed to take the box away at the end of the trick which we later see him and Teller pondering over - but I'm fairly sure that wasn't the box the final cards fell from!

So anyway, just some pointers there on the overall presentation. It gets a bit confused towards the end whether it's supposed to be a new deck, or whether it's supposed to be the same deck from earlier in the trick. Clearly, it's meant to be the same deck, so I think he should have been a little more precise in making this clear, particularly with the use of the jokers and premium cards which all seems a little muddled up. With just a few changes everything would have made perfect sense, rather than being inconsistent and having seemingly pointless bits shoved in.

He really should have run all this by me first.

(Still love the trick btw, even though I'm nitpicking )

[Mark James]

Just been watching the trick again. After it's confirmed he has fooled P&T he takes a card out of his breast pocket and kisses it. It looks like a seven of diamonds but with no signature on it.

[Jon Corby]

Just been watching the trick again. After it's confirmed he has fooled P&T he takes a card out of his breast pocket and kisses it. It looks like a seven of diamonds but with no signature on it.

Oh yeah, should have mentioned that I think the seven of diamonds has to be a force. I just don't see any mechanism at all for being able to remove the correct card from the sequenced deck (if it was a genuinely free choice) in the time he had to do it. I have no idea how he forced it though. Super trick. (*which would have been perfect if he'd gone over the points above with me beforehand.)

[Mark James]

The jokers and the premium cards. He uses the premium cards to show us what a freshly opened, previously untouched pack of cards look like (which includes 2 jokers, 2 premiums). Later, he claims to remove a single card from between Penn's hands, which is a joker. Didn't he already remove these from the pack earlier and put them in his pocket?

Nope. He left one joker there, probably as you say to disguise the fact he's putting a sealed deck on Penn's hands.

What is even the point of all this talk of premium cards? Does anybody really care once the other cards are all in order? Surely they could just as easily be there as not? Why draw attention to it? Well, Shawn cares. It's showing the premium cards from his pocket which enables him to switch the trick box back with the original (totally genuine) box from the start of the trick.

So you have a problem that he's mentioning premium cards and yet you go on to explain how mentioning them is required to do the trick. Make up your mind.

and also the whole point of the trick, being that they are the same deck from 30 seconds ago

The point of the trick is that Penn's signed card is now in a sealed box. In terms of fooling them anyway. That's what they couldn't figure out. The rest of the deck is kind of irrelevant.

[Jon Corby]

Nope. He left one joker there, probably as you say to disguise the fact he's putting a sealed deck on Penn's hands.

That's what I mean - at the start of the trick, didn't he remove both the Jokers (with the premium cards)? I can't remember, I'll have to check again. Without checking, my thinking is that whatever he did he wasn't clear enough about it. I did add the disclaimer though that he might have been all these things, and I'm just being a dick for not paying enough attention.

Edit - yes, it was the latter. He did clearly say he was leaving one joker in and taking one out. I'm a cock.

So you have a problem that he's mentioning premium cards and yet you go on to explain how mentioning them is required to do the trick. Make up your mind.

No, my problem is with how the premium cards were mentioned. What was the point of digging into his pocket to find the premium cards which he took out earlier, while at the same time saying "this means that this is a brand new, unopened box, completely untouched by human hands"? It didn't make any sense. He should have been using the absence of the premium cards to hammer home the fact that this was the same deck that they were handling earlier, not saying the opposite!

[Jon Corby]

Having just watched it again, yeah basically my main gripe is that he shouldn't be describing the "re-opened" box as being "brand new, untouched by human hands" as he did the first time around. He should be stressing that it ISN'T a new deck, reinforcing this with the premium cards. It is actually a fairly minor slip-up in his patter, but obviously one that stung with me. Quite how I managed to write a 7,000 word thesis on it is beyond me. I think I was probably just trying to appease Neb.

[Mark James]

Yeah I see what you mean now. For me the confusing language is when he says that because he still has the premium cards in his pocket the deck should now be in new deck order. Why? Why would the deck being in new deck order be reliant on him still having the premium cards?

[Jon Corby]

Yeah I see what you mean now. For me the confusing language is when he says that because he still has the premium cards in his pocket the deck should now be in new deck order. Why? Why would the deck being in new deck order be reliant on him still having the premium cards?

Agreed - think that was the bit I was thinking of earlier, in that instead of using the premium cards to hammer home the point that this is the same deck as earlier, he says something nonsensical. There's no need for it, everything should make perfect sense and be consistent with what has (supposedly) happened. He definitely shouldn't be telling us that it's a new deck!

[Phil Reynolds]

I'm a cock.

I like cocks.

[Ryan Taylor]

I'm a cock.

I like cocks.

When I saw that you had the newest post in this topic I was looking forward to reading some more new stuff about how the tricks might be done. Instead it's a Kinky Phil post. Sort yourself out!

[Phil Reynolds]

When I saw that you had the newest post in this topic I was looking forward to reading some more new stuff about how the tricks might be done. Instead it's a Kinky Phil post. Sort yourself out!

I did write a lengthy, point-by-point response to Corby, but after I'd re-read it, double-checked the facts, edited for consistency and coherency, trimmed a couple of insupportable bits of speculation and removed the superfluous bullshit, that's what was left. I thought it was a model of lucidity.

[Charlie Reams]

When I saw that you had the newest post in this topic I was looking forward to reading some more new stuff about how the tricks might be done. Instead it's a Kinky Phil post. Sort yourself out!

I did write a lengthy, point-by-point response to Corby, but after I'd re-read it, double-checked the facts, edited for consistency and coherency, trimmed a couple of insupportable bits of speculation and removed the superfluous bullshit, that's what was left. I thought it was a model of lucidity.

Haha. I'm genuinely so pleased you're posting again.

[Mark James]

New series of this has started in the States. Saw the first three episodes on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4CUsk36z_Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiBCjuYycC0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=canCK2ZUQ0Y

Some good stuff and some unexplained mysteries like, what's happened to Penn? Why does he look unhealthier even though he's lost weight and why didn't ITV, or any other channel for that matter, pick this up?

[Jon Corby]

Cheers Mark, will watch these at some point (probably this week in my usual Countdown slot).

[Mark James]

No worries. 4th episode added today https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGgeyYbX7wQ

[Mark James]

What does everyone think of this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bnGxdoTJ6E

I remember hating his routine at the time and this hasn't really impressed me much. It probably goes on more than you'd realise on the show but I hate it when the magicians do fake moves that are intended to be obvious to Penn and Teller in order to fool them by actually using a different move. But then, not only does he do this, if we're to believe him, he doesn't call them up on it? Out of politeness? Fuck off. Now, I can appreciate it from his point of view that it could be cool to fool someone by making them think you hadn't fooled them but I think the producers, who have to be shown how the trick is going to be performed, should have been obliged to let Jonathon know P&T's guess wasn't correct.

[Gavin Chipper]

What does everyone think of this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bnGxdoTJ6E

I remember hating his routine at the time and this hasn't really impressed me much. It probably goes on more than you'd realise on the show but I hate it when the magicians do fake moves that are intended to be obvious to Penn and Teller in order to fool them by actually using a different move. But then, not only does he do this, if we're to believe him, he doesn't call them up on it? Out of politeness? Fuck off. Now, I can appreciate it from his point of view that it could be cool to fool someone by making them think you hadn't fooled them but I think the producers, who have to be shown how the trick is going to be performed, should have been obliged to let Jonathon know P&T's guess wasn't correct.

Yeah, it's a bit weird, but I don't think I particularly disbelieve him or anything. It seems odd as well that if he's come up with all these original tricks and seems quite well known in the field, they must have been aware of his existence, so you would have thought that they would have been suspicious about the "simple" tricks he was supposedly using.

[Zarte Siempre]

OMG, HOW DID I NOT KNOW THERE WAS A 2ND SERIES OF THIS. *binge watches excitedly*

[Mark James]

Another new series has just started, this time hosted by Alyson Hannigan. Here's the first episode

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeeY6CsIUt8