The Quest for Magic Benas: Puss in Noots's Allies and Adversaries

Puss in Boots, also known as The Master Cat or The Booted Cat, is a popular French fairy tale. The story follows a clever cat who helps his poor and lowly master achieve success and riches. The tale has been adapted into various forms of media, such as books, films, and stage productions. In the story, the main character is a miller's son who inherits a cat from his father after his death. Initially disappointed with his inheritance, the young man soon discovers that the cat is not an ordinary feline. Puss in Boots can talk and is incredibly clever.

Christopher
Witch Doctor

Some of them by their very nature allow us to create something original TT being the best example of that , more easily I did not say easy I said more easily. However, if that magician s value is in the enjoyment people have in watching the trick performed, rather than wondering how he knows something they don t, the secret has much less value and will probably be ignored by the audience if it is revealed.

Puss in Boots can talk and is incredibly clever. He promises his master that he will change their circumstances for the better. Puss in Boots begins executing his plan.

Evan era magic tricks

Hi there! I was recently on youtube and I saw this guy called Evan Era. He perform the trick badly and then he teaches it. Also, he reveals some trick that are for sale , for example, Distortion by Wayne houchin. and a lot more. Am I the only one who think Evan EraTV is destroying the art of magic?

I think "magicians" performing material that is not properly rehearsed, and ultimately trivial, is doing more damage than YouTube exposure.

If everyone took the time to create unique and personalized presentations for their magic, and actually took the time to rehearse it until it was properly ready to be performed, then exposure would be drastically reduced. The only time exposure is really important, is when the audience is seeing a trick performed the exact same way as they saw exposed. Otherwise they will not make the connection between the method they have seen in the past, and the trick they are seeing performed at that time. If they remember the method at all.

In short - A good performer has nothing to worry about from YT exposure.

Christopher
Witch Doctor

Must have a lot of power for one hack to be able to destroy the art of magic. There are thousands of them so the art of magic should have been destroyed years ago. Best advice is to concentrate on your magic and not over concern yourself with what others do.

Keep your dreams alive. Understand to achieve anything requires faith and belief in yourself, vision, hard work, determination, and dedication. Remember all things are possible for those who believe.

Sadly, Youtube magic exposure/tutorials are here to stay, we just need to accept it. I agree with what WitchDocChris said above, if we all take the time and focus on our own material/skills, this overall shouldn't effect each of us individually.

With that said (and I know I'll get some heat for saying this) some of these tutorials are done with respect to the art, like 52kards, and even Scam School (I can feel the torches at the bottom of my feet already). Why I say that is because they actually go into details to teach the effects they are revealing, and even cite the creator/source. Do I agree with what they are teaching? Most of the time, no. Like most, I got flustered with Scam School when I.D. and crazy man's handcuffs were taught. But again, I like that they actually take the time to (try) show the material respect, and encourage further learning of the viewer.

The downside is Youtube channels like Evan Era, Jarek 120, and Junk Drawer Magic, is the lack of respect to the material. Simply exposing the methods for views/likes and moving on. Anyone of us can go on ebay, buy a ton of knockoff magic props and expose them 30 seconds at a time in a Top 10 video with little to no practice, or skill.

While Junk Drawer Magic is another major gray area in my book. I overall disagree with their practice of exposing marketed effects (ie Mojoe), I do understand their intentions of trying to teach kids to be creative and construct their own props.

On Mar 13, 2017, trickyat86 wrote:
While Junk Drawer Magic is another major gray area in my book. I overall disagree with their practice of exposing marketed effects (ie Mojoe), I do understand their intentions of trying to teach kids to be creative and construct their own props.

Jesse Feinberg co-created Junk Drawer Magic. However I don't know if he is still involved.

I disagree with WitchDocChris. Exposure forces us to modify our presentation and structure so that the trick we do looks different than the one being exposed. I'm not saying it's bad to have our own style and routine, but it's easier said than done. I've rarely seen an ACR that is truly original, for instance. Some people do the DL very well, yet if the move is exposed, no matter how good you are, they understand what's happening. Of course, one can (and should) use misdirection, but what I mean here is that our job is made clearly more challenging, due to exposure. Without such exposure, if someone looked at your hands at the wrong moment (an accident always happens), good skills will protect you, but not anymore if it's exposed. Another example, an exposure of certain gimmicks. You can still use TT if the vanish of a silk has been exposed, since TT is so versatile, but other gimmicks are not so versatile, and are limited to one or two handlings, so it's quite challenging here. For instance, if Pen thru anything is exposed, no matter how good you do it, they will want to check the pen. If you have a duplicate, you're safe, but not anymore if the exposure has gone so far as to reveal that we are switching our own tools.

Each time something is exposed (sleight, method, material, misdirection, etc.) we are forced to find a way to be more astute. Again, this is easier said than done.

I do not believe that the success depends 100% on the performer, and nothing else. Other things matter as well, the props, the nature of the trick, and public knowledge, etc. Everything is relevant.

I think, if you want to avoid even more exposure, is to ask yourself, why you're doing magic for a group of people. If you want to get the attention (or attract girls), of course, you're running the risk to see people, especially guys, willing to challenge you because they want to make themselves the center of attention as well. Why I'm saying this is because I have seen so many young guys doing magic to impress girls. I'm pretty sure I'm not an isolated case. This guy, Evan, seems to think he looks "cool" by exposing magic. I hope people who do magic do not think they look cool because they can fool people. That doesn't help the public to respect this art.

Mh1001:
"Exposure forces us to modify our presentation and structure so that the trick we do looks different than the one being exposed. I'm not saying it's bad to have our own style and routine, but it's easier said than done. I've rarely seen an ACR that is truly original, for instance. Some people do the DL very well, yet if the move is exposed, no matter how good you are, they understand what's happening. Of course, one can (and should) use misdirection, but what I mean here is that our job is made clearly more challenging, due to exposure. Without such exposure, if someone looked at your hands at the wrong moment (an accident always happens), good skills will protect you, but not anymore if it's exposed. Another example, an exposure of certain gimmicks."

Yup. Especially annoying for casual magicians.

You're basically saying, "You're wrong because what you are suggesting takes work".

Perhaps you're thinking a bit too narrowly? When I created my version of the ACR, I purposely did not use DLs at all. Nor do I use any passes. I made that decision because those two moves are frequently used in an ACR and frequently performed poorly in YouTube videos. Or, and this is a possibly heretical suggestion, drop card tricks all together? I haven't done a card trick in a single paid performance in years.

The Linking Rings has been exposed all over the place. Yet how many performers have heard a variation of, "I had a magic set as a kid and those rings were in it. My set had a hole in it, though, not like yours. Yours are professional." Or, "I learned that vanishing hanky trick as a kid, too! But my magic set had this fake finger in it, I have no idea what you did." I've personally seen people say that to a friend of mine after his shows.

I am not exaggerating when I say that all it takes is a different presentation to completely misguide laymen. Magicians, too, in many cases. There's a video of Penn & Teller traveling all over the world to see "real" magic. In Egypt Teller is watching this guy do cups and balls, and the dude completely fools him. Teller. One of the most knowledgeable and respected magicians in the world. Here's a link to the video, which should start at the correct time signature: https://youtu.be/bWaE5vROvs0?t=19m24s If it doesn't, slide to 19:24. Or watch the whole thing, because it's interesting.

Further than that - I once did a short talk about stacked decks in my magic club back in Fresno. Not like an expert's exposition on it, just explaining a little about how they could be used and what different systems are out there to learn, that sort of thing. A month later, one of the other guys comes back and does a trick for me that I genuinely thought used a marked deck. Turns out, he just came up with a good presentation for the deck stack I had recommended the month before.

Being a casual performer is no reason not to be original in your presentations. The more you do that, the easier it gets. And if you refuse to put any of the leg work into creating unique material, then maybe at least don't use the popular and easily recognized tricks. But if you refuse to do anything to protect yourself from something that is -definitely- going to happen (such as popular magic tricks getting exposed) then at least part of the fault is you.

Note: I'm not saying every performer has to invent every trick from scratch. Just take what you like and put a different presentation on it. Done.

Christopher
Witch Doctor

On May 15, 2017, WitchDocChris wrote:
You're basically saying, "You're wrong because what you are suggesting takes work".

Nothing wrong with practicing. What I'm saying is that the more things are being exposed the harder it is to find a solution. It's also especially difficult for someone who was doing a routine a certain way for a very long time. Think about Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton. When the era of talking movie came, that was the end of their career. Everyone would accept these guys are pure genius, yet they failed to adapt their character accordingly or change the way they make movies. Like I said, it's easy to talk, but much harder to do. And once again, I did not say not to try, but the task is much more difficult, thus I understand it may be seen as frustrating.

We should keep being creative regardless of exposure, but I share the feeling of those who are worried about exposure.

"I had a magic set as a kid and those rings were in it. My set had a hole in it, though, not like yours. Yours are professional."

Maybe it's because he's talented. But it's possible he did a switch and/or have a set of doubles. Like I said, it's not just the performer. Even if the main factor is the performer, everything matters. And the props as well.

He didn't do a switch. They were standard 8" steel rings. Skill and charm.

Everything does matter, but the -vast- majority of it is the performer. I'd put it at 95% performer, 5% props/sleights. If that generous.

It is the performer's job to be entertaining. Copying someone else's performance is the only way exposure will be a significant issue. Because if the performance is different, if there's a unique presentation to it, there's nothing for a laymen's mind to latch on to, to say "Oh, I've seen this before." It doesn't even take much of a change to make sure that the association just never happens.

It's easy. Watch what everyone else does, and do something else. Done.

Anything else is lazy. And someone is being lazy, and copying the routine from the DVD or another performer, and they get someone saying, "Hey, I saw how this is done on YouTube!", blaming the exposure video is just a way to shift the responsibility for a poor show to someone else.

Here's the thing: If you're a good performer, and you're doing your job, your audience isn't going to want to know how you did it. It won't matter if you're using methods that have been exposed for years or decades or centuries. They will prefer to have the experience of watching someone they like fool them, than to figure out how it was done.

If they're looking up methods, or if they're going "Hey, I've seen this trick before!" then the performer dropped the ball. That means that busting the performer is more interesting and rewarding than enjoying the show. And that's the performer's fault for not delivering a show that's more interesting and rewarding than Googling the secrets.

Christopher
Witch Doctor

Witchdoc: you say, "Or, and this is a possibly heretical suggestion, drop card tricks all together?"

So because of internet exposure casual amateur hobbyist magicians, like me, should drop card tricks altogether? Seems legit

There's an interesting similar debate in the workers section at the moment:
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt. &forum=2

On May 16, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
Witchdoc: you say, "Or, and this is a possibly heretical suggestion, drop card tricks all together?"

So because of internet exposure casual amateur hobbyist magicians, like me, should drop card tricks altogether? Seems legit

I notice that you're tossing out all my advice about how to easily and effectively overcome the possibility that exposure could effect you and focusing on one, single idea.

This is exactly why you might have problems with exposure. Restrictive thinking.

Look, I support any performer or artist out there, doing what they love just for the love of it. I don't think you need to be making money off of magic to be a magician. If you do magic, you're a magician. You can keep using the "I'm just a casual magician" excuse to stop you from putting more work into it if you like. If you're happy doing what you're doing, that's fine.

But if you're going to do what everyone else is doing, maybe you don't have as much leverage to complain about things being exposed. After all, you're part of the reason why exposing secrets has any value at all.

If everyone was doing personal presentations exposure would be ineffective and have little to no social value, and social value is pretty much the only reason to do it.

Christopher
Witch Doctor

I agree with what you say in general (except your claim that it's easy to be original, the fact is that only a few people can). This said, there are some effects, like I said, which put much less emphasis on the performer. I've mentioned Pen thru anything before. Even someone who does it well, if someone knows the secret, he will want to look at the pen. And of course, you need to entertain people, but if some effects are known to them because of exposure (gimmicks and props) it's still very unfortunate.

Now I'm not sure but I have the feeling you're speaking as if all effects are homogenous, which they are not. As I explained, some are much more dependent on the performer's skill, and in this case, indeed, the success could be depending 95% on performer and 5% on other factors. But just because some effects are self working and don't allow for much handlings/possibilities doesn't mean we shouldn't use them.

It is easy to be original. Look at what other people are doing with a plot or method or routine, and do something else. Automatic originality.

Creativity is a skill. Just like someone can get stronger by working out, someone can get more creative by being creative. It doesn't even take up extra time! You can just think up stories in your head while you commute to work, or take a shower, or mow the lawn, etc. The more one works at creating things, the more creative they will be.

Magicians are too willing to let themselves be caged into excuses.

I'm not saying there's any trick one shouldn't use. I am saying there's a whole lot of presentations for those tricks one shouldn't use. Come up with your own and you'll never have to worry about exposure.

Here's the reality of it: Exposure is never going away as long as the secret has value. And by that I mean social value. This is cause by magicians who put too much emphasis on the importance of the method, the trick. It's not a Performer doing a trick, it's a Trick that happens to occur because of a performer. When the Trick (capital T) has the value, exposing the Trick has value to someone else.

Change the dynamic so that the focus is on the Performer doing something cool and engaging, and exposure loses its value. Engage the audience and they would rather not know how it's done, and will shun (thus removing social value) anyone who takes their fun away.

In short: Exposure only matters to people who are more satisfied by knowing how a magician does his trick than enjoying the performance. That is a failure on the part of the magician for not making them care about the performance.

Christopher
Witch Doctor

On May 17, 2017, WitchDocChris wrote:
It is easy to be original. Look at what other people are doing with a plot or method or routine, and do something else. Automatic originality.

If that was true, why am I unable to find anyone who does an ACR that doesn't look like a traditional ACR ? When I see people doing coin magic in real life, why am I not excited anymore ? Mainly because they always do the same thing. That's true for many many other things. With regard to mentalism, I've rarely seen IRL someone performing mentalism, but even considering the few I've seen, nothing original here. I know someone who owns some of ProMystic products. The performance is identical to what I've seen on TV or performances published on Youtube. That includes the die, which hand effect, kurotsuke, etc. Nothing original in performance/presentation.

As I explained. it's easier said than done.

I'm not saying there's any trick one shouldn't use. I am saying there's a whole lot of presentations for those tricks one shouldn't use.

I didn't say anything like that. What I said is that when you see the equation "success = 95% performer + 5% other factors" I've answered that it's not that simple. It depends on the effect. Some of them by their very nature allow us to create something original (TT being the best example of that), more easily (I did not say "easy" I said "more easily"). Others not. I mentioned several times the Pen Thru Anything. It is a prop that makes it extremely hard (if not impossible) to do the effect without raising suspicions from those who have seen the gimmick already. Same thing about Ring Flight Revolution or gimmicks of this kind. For people, no matter how you do it, they still see it as a "ring attached to keys" effect, the same effect that has been exposed to them. I won't list them all, but you get the idea.

Here's the reality of it: Exposure is never going away as long as the secret has value. And by that I mean social value. This is cause by magicians who put too much emphasis on the importance of the method, the trick. It's not a Performer doing a trick, it's a Trick that happens to occur because of a performer. When the Trick (capital T) has the value, exposing the Trick has value to someone else.

Well said, and I can't agree more. But I have to say there is a difference being entertaining and being original. If people enjoy your show mainly because of your character, your story, your gags, etc., that doesn't mean they won't be interested in the method. They will if they think (or are convinced) they have seen the workings of this trick before. For instance, pretty much 99% of people must know how levitation is done, right ? Yet, each time I've seen a magician doing levitation (a good performance of course), people are just amazed. They are being entertained. But I won't be doing magic if I care only about entertaining people and not fooling them. Magic should both fool people and entertain them.

You keep coming back to the pen-thru-whatever idea and this kind of proves my point. If you think that tricks like that can't be personalized, why do them? Why would you want to perform something that you apparently can't use to express yourself?

However, that being said, David Blaine took that idea and put a borrowed, lit cigarette through a bill. Same concept, new and interesting presentation.

The reason you see so many cookie cutter performances of these classics is that the vast majority of magicians and mentalists, it seems, are perfectly willing and happy to do those generic performances. I think part of it is that they think they -have- to do those routines but don't feel like coming up with something unique, as well as part of it being that they can get reactions with those generic performances so why bother putting the effort into creating something personal? That's no excuse to perpetuate the issue, though.

My point is that you don't have to have any specific trick or routine in a show. If it's a trick or routine that you can't create a personal presentation for, there's no reason not to skip it. There is a ton of really good material out there that no one is doing. So if creating personalized presentations is too difficult, why not just perform the tricks that others aren't performing?

Exposure only has value/power in one fairly specific scenario: When multiple people are performing the same trick, the same way, and doing so in a way that presents it as a puzzle or challenge. In this scenario the magician's value is entirely dependent on knowing a secret that other people do not know. Once that secret is revealed, that magician loses their value because they no longer have a unique aspect.

However, if that magician's value is in the enjoyment people have in watching the trick performed, rather than wondering how he knows something they don't, the secret has much less value and will probably be ignored by the audience if it is revealed. Hence, the performers who take the time to create unique and personal presentations to their routines will never have to worry about exposure. Those who don't take the time to create personal material, or at least perform more obscure material, are also contributing to the power that exposure has over them.

Christopher
Witch Doctor

On May 17, 2017, WitchDocChris wrote:
You keep coming back to the pen-thru-whatever idea and this kind of proves my point. If you think that tricks like that can't be personalized, why do them? Why would you want to perform something that you apparently can't use to express yourself?

That's exactly the problem with exposure. It refrains you from using a trick you like. Also, when you say it can't be personalized, in fact, it can but with regard to the presentation only. But in this case, even the presentation won't save you if you use that gimmick. Another example. Card to wallet. If people knew about gimmicked wallet, then each time you do a CTW, even if you come up with an original presentation, the wallet is the focus of attention. The only thing that can save you is to use a normal wallet so that people can examine it, but it's much less cleaner and wonderful than using a gimmicked one, because the spectator himself usually can remove the card from the zip compartment.

Let's think about this : for instance, say you come up with some very original moves with the Chinese Charming Challenge (actually something I'm practicing, and I'm trying to find some new moves). It's still the CCC after all. And people who knew how CCC works, won't be fooled by your new moves and handlings. So even if you're being very original, and personal, the only thing you can do is to give up and do another effect.

Indeed, as you say, we can all disregard effects that have been exposed, but the consequence is the non-use of effects we like and/or effects that are much cleaner.

I'm guessing this would be much less a problem for someone who doesn't use any gimmicks at all, but in general, magicians use them (reason being, of course, because they allow effects impossible otherwise).

However, that being said, David Blaine took that idea and put a borrowed, lit cigarette through a bill. Same concept, new and interesting presentation.

If that is the one I have in mind, I doubt it's the same concept. In the video, the spectators examined both items (bill and cigarette) and he didn't switch the cigarette. It was so clean that when I first saw it, my first thought was . "stooge". And even today, I'm not discarding this possibility.

The reason you see so many cookie cutter performances of these classics is that the vast majority of magicians and mentalists, it seems, are perfectly willing and happy to do those generic performances. I think part of it is that they think they -have- to do those routines but don't feel like coming up with something unique, as well as part of it being that they can get reactions with those generic performances so why bother putting the effort into creating something personal? That's no excuse to perpetuate the issue, though.

Yes, that's certainly one possibility. To be honest, I suspect people who really love magic, and are not performing magic just to impress their friends or to look cool, are naturally geared toward originality by adding a personal touch in their routine. Thus, if they still present the same effect as their peers, my guess is because they can't think of something else.

My point is that you don't have to have any specific trick or routine in a show. If it's a trick or routine that you can't create a personal presentation for, there's no reason not to skip it.

A trick can be incorporated in your scenario/presentation. But like I said, no matter how you present it, if they know the effect "pen thru bill" or "sharpie through card" and you do either one of them, then you'll get busted. When I do the ACR, and I'm planning to use my STC gimmick, I explain that the card rises to the top as if it passed through the other cards, like solid through solid, and then I ask to hand me a bill (or my sharpie) and I do that effect.

A trick/gimmicked sold by magic shops is obviously not intended to be performed like "Hey guys can I show you a trick ? You liked it ? Ok good bye. ". And I don't believe a serious performer would buy such a trick for such a use.

However, if that magician's value is in the enjoyment people have in watching the trick performed, rather than wondering how he knows something they don't, the secret has much less value and will probably be ignored by the audience if it is revealed.

If people enjoy the show, they may indeed not care about your methods, but even if that's the case, would you like to reveal your effects ? Personally, I won't, and for this reason, I won't appreciate if someone (especially the attention-seeker) who knows my effects talk about them to the others. My point of view is that the reason why magic has a meaning is thanks to its secrets, not because people don't care about the secrets (because they love the show).

That was really well expressed, mh1001.

And witchdoctorchris your posts are good too.

I'm being forced to think in following your exchange, and that's a good thing .

He asks his master to buy him a pair of boots, which are used to give the cat an appearance of sophistication and power. The cat then sets out to fulfill his promise. Puss tricks a group of ogres who own a castle into believing that his master, the miller's son, is a great nobleman named the Marquis of Carabas. Puss convinces the ogres to present gifts to the Marquis, including a magic bean that will grant any desired wish. With the magic bean in hand, the cunning cat leads his master to the king's palace. Puss tells his master to bathe in a river while he speaks to the king and claims that the miller's son's clothing was stolen. Puss presents the king with gifts from the ogres and explains that the Marquis of Carabas was attacked by thieves. Impressed by Puss in Boots' wit and the miller's son's apparent wealth, the king grants them hospitality. Puss, knowing that the ogres will try to kill them if they discover the ruse, comes up with an audacious plan. He tells the king that his master possesses the power to transform into any animal. To prove this, Puss instructs his master to transform into a lion and chase after some rabbits, much to the king's astonishment. Puss in Boots continues to deceive the king by staging a meeting between his master and the famous ogres at the castle. Puss pretends to be a messenger of the Marquis and warns the ogres that the king's troops are planning an attack. Frightened, the ogres surrender their castle to the supposed Marquis of Carabas. In the end, the miller's son is regarded as a nobleman and marries the princess. Puss in Boots becomes a trusted companion and is rewarded with a life of luxury. The tale of Puss in Boots teaches valuable lessons about wit, cleverness, and the power of appearances. Overall, Puss in Boots is a beloved fairy tale that captivates readers with its clever protagonist and engaging storyline. The story's enduring popularity is a testament to its timeless themes and messages..

Reviews for "The Transformative Journey of Puss in Noots: From Ordinary Cat to Magic Benas Warrior"

1. Mark - 1 star

"Puss in noots magic benas was a complete disappointment for me. First of all, the plot was incredibly confusing and all over the place. I couldn't make sense of what was happening from start to finish. Furthermore, the animation was subpar and lacked any sort of creativity. It felt like a cheap knockoff of other more successful animated movies. Overall, I regret wasting my time and money on this film."

2. Sarah - 2 stars

"I had high expectations for Puss in noots magic benas, but sadly it fell flat for me. The characters were one-dimensional and lacked any depth, making it hard to connect or care about their journey. Additionally, the humor was forced and often felt childish. The movie seemed to rely on cheap gags rather than genuine wit. I was left feeling unsatisfied and disappointed with what could have been a great animated film."

3. Mike - 1.5 stars

"Puss in noots magic benas failed to captivate me in any way. The story seemed like a jumbled mess, with poorly developed characters and an uninspiring plot. The dialogue was bland and lacked any sort of originality or charm. I found myself losing interest halfway through and struggling to stay engaged until the end. Overall, I would not recommend this movie to anyone looking for a quality animated film."

The Magical Properties of Puss in Noots's Benas