Amarsir

Was this Whose Line After Dark? Considerably dirtier than usual. I let out such a sigh when Aisha announced "Helping Hands". After a few months' break I'd hoped they came to their senses before these were filmed. At this point, what else is there to say? We're all pretty sick of HH, but there it is. Rest of the show was fine. Wayne and Ryan were great in Weird Newscasters. The duet didn't do anything for me, but I didn't mind it either

Washcloth Animals I was right in the zone on this. Not only did I say a $10 price target, but I also valued them at 30-35% for $260k. (Daymond offered for 33%.) Great idea, nice guys, but they'll regret not compromising. (Nordstroms, while a great company, is in no way the correct partner for them. Toys R Us and Bed Bath & Beyond, at $10, and they'll be multimillionaires.) Dog Sling She annoyed me ... but I didn't hate her. I would have made her an offer only if I had an assistant I could get to handle it so I never had to actually take her phone calls. I think Daymond actually undervalued but they'll both do well. Ninja Cards I feel for the guys. After a licensing deal goes badly they didn't feel qualified to find another and thought maybe they'd try Shark Tank instead. With at least a six month break since they got the rights back,it did feel like they were lazy. But I think they could have talked their way out of it had they read the room better. Maybe they'll do what they need to. DrumPants First: any 80s kids remember Body Rap? http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zfEjTvxKt7g/UBCDU5PeIgI/AAAAAAAAE4w/FFzsodU9WA8/s1600/IMG_0129.JPG A web search indicates it was sold by Hasbro for $40 in the late 80s. Between inflation and better tech, $100 isn't a terrible price. But it wasn't exactly a household item, either. (And I wonder if their might be a patent issue.) Second, wow did that woman blow their shot. Compared to the dog sling lady she had the same "talk to much" problem but with far less awareness. All they had to do was come back and say "We like Daymond's valuation but we're not convinced that licensing is necessarily the best path. Robert would you go down to 15%?" Might not work, but probably wouldn't offend either. Instead it felt like juggling, and you don't juggle sharks.

I ran into someone trying to get into the show, but a bit put off by the Season 1 episodes. Season 1's not a strong memory for me, though I think Jennifer -> Arlene was an upgrade. (Lawrence -> Brett I'm not sure I could say the same.) It made me wonder what people think was the best season. In terms of the Dragons, I really liked the mix in season 8. Bruce was kind of boring when he first got there, but when David showed up and they started getting buddy-buddy I think it was just a fun group. But how does it compare to some of the Robert years?

Or the Mel Gibson movie. (But probably not the TV show it's based on. Before their time.) Probably because they have a proven customer base. Kevin could make his own, but he probably couldn't social network all those Moms in at the same cost. Being copied is a big threat when you're breaking in, but acceptable when established.

So I didn't realize this, but apparently the show is done for now. They only did a run of six episodes. However, SyFy considers it a success and picked up 6 more, starting in January. Which gives them time to change the format a bit, if they want. I wouldn't mind seeing some of the suggestions in this thread get put into practice.

Probably a wires cross with E17 Jeff Davis, which was shown on the 4th.

7 minute gag real, via Kevin O'Leary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT6Fo4nAqmw

I know they made money with it, but you'll never convince me that wedding van isn't ridiculous. If they're going by apartment and not setting up next to lunch truck for drop-ins, there's nothing the van does that couldn't be accomplished by getting out of a car and standing under a tree or something. (Unless I missed it.) Good-looking putter. Weird sob story, but good fit for ABC I guess. I'm sympathetic that it'd be hard to launch a sports product without an endorsement. (And I don't really like golf either. I had to play 3 times this year so I'm good for the decade.) I think Barbara was way off on her criticism of the Roominate. It's clearly girl-targeted, and if they went any more obvious it would start costing them sales to boys. I think the women were just in the right spot. (For background: Lego has spoken about the issue in the past, and they said that gender-neutral sets are bought 90-95% by boys. So they have to make explicitly girl-targeted sets to sell to that market, and they still don't sell as well as boy-targeted sets. I think the Roominate is very smart to come in sideways and present an image not of "construction set for girls" but "playset for girls, which by the way they construct." And it sounds like they're selling very well.) The mugs guy was interesting. I felt like those mugs would break pretty easily, and wanted to see a Shark slam it on the counter to test it. And my problem with the glasses was it sounds like the moisture catches underneath, leading me to worry about bacteria growing there in a place that's hard to clean. If he can address that maybe there's potential?

Apparently they partner with a charity called "Hannah's Socks", a nonprofit in Ohio/Michigan. And I get it. There's nothing unique about their socks, and someone paying $9 a pair just needs a reason to pick one brand over another. Social conscience is good marketing for that kind of product. As a non-parent, swaddles seem like a strange concept. I would not sleep well with my arms strapped down, I know that. I understand the logic as explained, but given my bias an elastic just seems more palatable than velcro straps. So they could probably make good money selling to ignorant people like me. (But it does seem really pricy.) Speaking of my own bias, I'm never getting manicure. No judgment on anyone of either gender who does, but to me it feels self-indulgent in a way that conflicts with how I feel I should behave as a man. Maybe that's a bias people are growing out of. But I just could not get that product. (Talented guy, though.) And nice job, phone charger guys. If there was any investor who could see through the over-engineering, the ridiculous price, and your utter lack of experience, they bailed at your "punch Herjavec in the teeth" comment. Way to blow your national TV shot.

It might be easier for the premiere, but will be an ongoing problem after reruns where it will certainly be broken up. Plus ABC lists it separately and next week's will be listed as 603. On the other hand, Previously admin agrees that together is easier. So that's fine, I don't care. Products for the second half will include:

The fact that there were a bunch of Pepsi tricks makes it better. It's clearly a combination of effects which cover for each other and make it even better. The only thing I didn't like is that they were very clearly pre-set props with Justin acting like they weren't. I don't believe one table had Pepsi when everyone else had water, and that it was served both in cans and glass bottles. Not a big deal, but don't stretch my disbelief before you even get to the magic. Very happy for those challengers who won. Great stage presence and humor, with decent tricks. Did anyone catch if they'd worked together before or this was their first meeting?

If you watch again, you'll see that when there was a big pause the video cut away from him to Jonathan Ross or to the audience. It feels like that's the stage director keeping with the action, but it's actually there to let him break it up into several videos so he doesn't have to anticipate timing. Although now that I think about it, there's still a risk that Ross makes a joke when the magician wasn't expecting it, or something goes wrong in the studio and they need to reshoot.

It's also raises a slight controversy. That performer (Manuel Martinez) didn't invent that trick. It was invented by someone else, who makes money by selling the technique to magicians. (Very common.) So when P&T revealed the method on television, they were effectively spoiling the secret of a guy who isn't even on the show. Not the only instance of that, and I guess it's a risk Fool Us takes. But something to think about. You're right, they gave away the numbered chips pretty thoroughly too. I consider that a broader kind of technique, comparable to revealing that boxes have mirrors. But they probably could have been more coy, by saying something like "We bet you didn't really have the number 408, did you?" Nice trick, though I imagine a ton of people must have wondered "why is that guy wearing sunglasses in the audience"? Daniels was a nice treat, and IMHO they could have ended the show with him instead of doing the helium gag. But that wasn't a bad trick either. And Farquhar's deck trick was great. I don't love how he had to pull the jokers out. It screams "covering for something" without actually giving away what it's covering for. I'd like to think there's a better way to integrate that. But still, amazing trick and he was so thrilled to have fooled them.

The two hours is a double ep. So we should probably make a 602 thread for the other.

Switching performers, does anyone know how Etienne Pradier fooled them? If it wasn't pencil reading and wasn't a stack, my best guess is that the envelope had 2 backs, the second one took an impression and he lifted it off when taking the deck. And then he had to peek and locate the card which is difficult but at least he had time. But that's a shot in the dark, I really don't know.

So what I'm hearing you say is that I understand the shows better than their casting agent does. They should work on that. :) OK yeah the performers don't really comply with my theory. But I still contend that the ideal competitor for one show wouldn't necessarily be ideal for the other.

Yes, that would work. Good thinking. The only issue is that he asks her if she wanted to switch anyone at the end. The implication is that he means switch where the guys are seated. (Which would be fine since they all have the same envelope.) But she could easily take that opening to say "yes, switch the meals on 2 and 3". That would be disastrous. But otherwise I guess it's pretty clean. We're working with the theory that all 3 envelopes are exactly the same and each has all 3 messages for all 3 tables. So you can switch them all you want and it won't matter.

Masters of Illusion is unwatchable (to me). Purchased acts by moderate performers acting like it's the greatest thing ever. I think I'd enjoy it more if they wouldn't act like I'm supposed to be impressed at every magic store prop they pull out. (I appreciate a good double lift. I don't appreciate someone acting like my eyebrows gave away what card I pulled.) The strength of the two P&T shows is that they know where they lie. Fool Us is about polish and professionalism. Ideally each act is unique and performed with perfection. Wizard Wars is about creativity. How can you apply the mechanics you know to the issue at hand? I think they draw from different competitors, too. Fool Us is for performing/touring magicians who want publicity for audiences. Wizard Wars is for someone starting out who wants a job building sets for a big name. They may also be great performers but the ability to do a slight is distinct from the vision of how it gets used. I enjoy both. But if push comes to shove, the higher production values and caliber of performers gives the nod to "Fool Us". And P&T are central to that, but more of a "lucky get" for Wizard Wars. So it will be interesting to see what will/won't get picked up for another season.

Lots of interesting info here: http://insidetv.ew.com/2014/09/18/the-sharks-of-shark-tank-on-season-6-were-nasty-to-each-other-now/ Apparently they've gotten better at closing deals than in earlier seasons. About 2/3 complete, with the other third dying in due diligence. Sounds like they're also hyping a lot of fights this year, for better or worse.

Use this thread to link to interviews, behind-the-scenes info, or other appearances by the Sharks.

Yeah, I might be misremembering the podcast, or crossing wires as to which trick he was talking about. (Penn didn't use names when talking.) My bad, I'll clarify later if I figure it out at some point. My premise is that the cloche was labeled in some way they could see and we couldn't.

The food trick I've rewatched a hundred times and Xantar's guess is as close as I can get. I believe what you're talking about is known generally as "Dual Reality". It's a risky trick for small audiences because they'll talk and everyone will know. It's risky for a TV audience because you're betting on some random guys not to misread and screw it up. But to me it sounds like a great method when your goal is to fool Penn & Teller. Provided you're willing to do such a huge gamble. Part of why it's so difficult is revealed by jumping to the end, this sentence: "Which leaves Jack sitting at table number 3 where he'll enjoy a pizza." In addition to the name and food, the sentence itself is crafted for the position. So I think if Einhorn went for this technique it would have to go like this: 1) Each of the platters is labeled in a way that's clearly visible to the person sitting there, but not to the audience. This is already difficult because of the very casual way he handled the platters - picked up with his left hand facing the audience but placed down with left in back. 2) The cards have ALL THREE messages written on each. There are blanks for <your name> and <name of food>. They'd look like this: 3) These are the instructions Einhorn recites to the volunteers: So he's telling them to read the message for them, at which point they insert their name and read "chicken tikka masala and pilau rice" or "a pizza" off the serving cover. That's my best guess. It's so risky because A) the guys would have no reason to be impressed at all, B) you're chancing them reading the wrong line, not seeing the food label, or getting creative, C) spotting the card or the label gives the trick away. But it would certainly work and no doubt fool them.

Penn elaborated in his podcast a bit. (He was of course going from memory a few years ago, but it holds together.) The judge (their long-time friend Johnny Thompson) is the reason M&W did win. When Penn said "false shuffle" instead of the more accurate "retained top stock", the judge (through earpiece) said "You don't have it". P&T both felt they did, and had merely meant "false shuffle" as in "not fully shuffled", not "false shuffle" as in the specific technique(s) of pretending to move cards. However, with Morgan and West not giving in and the judge having explicitly said "you don't have it", they felt compelled to give the win. In particular because the UK has laws regarding prizes and the judge had made his statement. So they didn't feel fooled, and I certainly agree with you guys that it was a weak trick. But for all technicalities, they did win. For what it's worth, "winning" is not actually as valuable as having P&T really like you, and Piff - despite not actually winning - has received a lot of support from them and has performed numerous times in Vegas and other US cities.

Challengers did. The rocking chair made of paper was the trick that put them over the top.

It occurred to me that maybe the reason they didn't go with a simpler model is because Penn & Teller can't be locked down for a second season. (Especially if Fool Us gets picked up, which it seemingly will.) That would at least explain why they're using so many people - so no one is irreplaceable. The maple syrup trick last night was really good. Even though I knew that's what they were building toward, it was still impressive. None of the other tricks were all that great, but I appreciate the skill involved even when I know the mechanics.