|
|
Go to page 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] | ||||||||||
balic2003 Regular user 118 Posts |
I really like this trick, but at the end when you show the jokers with the numbers at the backs I think most people know, that this has to be almost a "self-working effect".
Especially fellow magicians, but also lay people. I think maybe it´s better to have nothing written on the backs of the jokers and just to say the numbers without writing the numbers on the jokers and showing them. What's your opinion about that? balic |
|||||||||
double_lift Veteran user Platform 9 3/4 355 Posts |
Well, the "Undo Principle" is so subtle and the handling so clean that having the numbers written on the back of the jokers is what really fries their brains.
If they think of an arrangement or some kind of mathematical explanation, they'll do it with or without the numbers on the back of the jokers.
"There's a world of difference between the spectators not knowing how something is done and them knowing that it can't be done."
(Simon Aronson) |
|||||||||
Top Hat Inner circle We peed on you! 1077 Posts |
Somtimes to create a good piece of magic you have to withold information that you know. If you don't withold that information, the bubble bursts and the magic loses its power. This is a classic case in point. You already KNOW where the cards will end up, but to your audience this knowledge seems totally impossible to obtain. That is what makes the location so powerful. As soon as you show the numbers on the back of the cards, you burst the bubble by revealing that you knew (even before the trick started) where the cards would end up. The magic is poorer as a result.
It is MUCH better to end the trick without showing any written numbers, or giving any hint that you had the fore-knowledge. As a parallel to this, imagine a trans-location trick in which you force a card in a way that appears truly free, vanish it and then produce a duplicate (supposedly the same card) from a box on the table. If you ended that trick by opening an envelope with a prediction inside that revealed the name of the card, the bubble would burst because your audience would realise that you knew the card all along and therefore must have influenced the "free choice" and therefore could have placed a duplicate in the box.
TH
|
|||||||||
double_lift Veteran user Platform 9 3/4 355 Posts |
Hi Top Hat,
Well, in most prediction effects, it's obvious that you knew the outcome in advance and still they are amongst the stronger effects you can perform for lay people. In other words, I disagree
"There's a world of difference between the spectators not knowing how something is done and them knowing that it can't be done."
(Simon Aronson) |
|||||||||
Top Hat Inner circle We peed on you! 1077 Posts |
I'm not sure that you see the point. You can't make a sweeping statement like "prediction effects are among the stronger effects you can perform". That doesn't make sense. It is perfectly possible to have a lousy "prediction" effect. Context, design, structure, presentation makes a big difference to how an audience percieves a trick. It's a good idea to work towards giving the audience the strongest experience of magic in the tricks that you do.
TH
|
|||||||||
double_lift Veteran user Platform 9 3/4 355 Posts |
Of course that we must work in order to give our spectators the strongest experience possible. I agree on that.
The thing is that you said that "Prior Commitment" was a little weak because as soon as the spectators see the numbers on the back of the jokers, they know that we already knew the positions of the cards (that they chose in an ABSOLUTE FREE way). And I replied that many times it's obvious that we knew the outcome and the effect isn't less strong because of that. It depends on how you manage the situation and also on your patter and other things (as you probably know).
"There's a world of difference between the spectators not knowing how something is done and them knowing that it can't be done."
(Simon Aronson) |
|||||||||
spycrapper Loyal user Indonesia 295 Posts |
I think the revelation of the two predicted number is the strong point of Prior Commitment. IMO, if you just tell them the number their card lies in the deck, it would be "just a simple mathematical trick". The number on the back of the jokers is a special kicker..
just my opinion though.. Best, Ario A |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
It's not called Prior Commitment for nothing. It's a prediction effect obviously. In other words, I agree with DL.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Caliban Special user 727 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-01-22 07:15, Top Hat wrote: I would disagree. In the prediction example your argument makes sense because reavealing the extra information (that you knew which card would be chosen) immediately suggests a possible method (that you put a duplicate of it in the box). With Prior Commitment that is not the case. In the Aronson trick they cut anywhere and replace the packets themselves - without you even touching the deck. There is no way you could have known where they would cut. Revealing that you knew the positions in advance doesn't suggest the correct method - or give any kind of clue as to ANY method. Quite the opposite: It actually cancels out methods (such as the posibility that you glimpsed the cards they cut to, or estimated how many cards they cut off and then used that information to work out the positions). If you don't reveal the numbers on the backs of the jokers, I would say it's far easier for spectators to come up with a possible method - not the correct method - but at least some kind of theory as to how it might have been done. By showing the numbers on the back of the jokers you cancel out those wrong solutions without in any way suggesting any correct ones. |
|||||||||
Cohiba Special user Michigan 749 Posts |
I agree with DL as well. Maybe a re-cap before the revelation reminding them that you had no control over where they cut the cards would be good.
|
|||||||||
Top Hat Inner circle We peed on you! 1077 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-01-22 07:15, Top Hat wrote: The potential for an appearance of impossibility comes through your doing something with this secret knowledge (which as far as the audience is concerned you cannot possibly know). To show plainly that you already knew where the cards would end up is indeed a striking "prediction", but it immediately turns the prior handling of the cards into a mathematical puzzle to be solved. It blows the cover of what is otherwise a beautifully subtle idea.
TH
|
|||||||||
double_lift Veteran user Platform 9 3/4 355 Posts |
I'll tell you what, Top Hat
In case you ever perform the effect (which I doubt), just don't write the *** numbers on the back of the jokers. It'll very likely be another puzzle trick. And if you feel like testing the difference, try to perform it again with the numbers on the back of the cards and I'm positively sure that you'll see a much stronger reaction.
"There's a world of difference between the spectators not knowing how something is done and them knowing that it can't be done."
(Simon Aronson) |
|||||||||
Top Hat Inner circle We peed on you! 1077 Posts |
It's a puzzle either way. Better to use the secret knowledge to create a stronger effect of some other kind.
TH
|
|||||||||
JanForster Inner circle Germany ... when not traveling... 4190 Posts |
Yes, and that's why "Twice as Hard" is the strongest application of the "Undo Principle" - using a memorized deck. That's why I love it ("Twice as Hard") and perform it often. But that belongs in another thread. Jan
Jan Forster
www.janforster.de |
|||||||||
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-01-22 09:58, Top Hat wrote: A point with which Darwin Ortiz agrees. (See his Designing Miracles.) |
|||||||||
Cain Inner circle Los Angeles, CA 1550 Posts |
I believe Aronson presents four possible handlings, and I found the one with the numbered predictions the most appealing, which I think is in accordance with Aronson's preferences as well. The reasons I never got around to actually presenting the trick was due to the advance preparation and the counting. This is something I would strongly prefer performing in the middle of a set rather than at the beginning.
It's stronger with the numbers on the back because the spectators were allowed to freely cut (within ~1/3 of the pack). I am not entirely sure it screams "mathematical" either. Naturally, most people do not believe in "real" magic, accept that everything is a "trick" from the beginning, blah blah blah, but that's precisely what makes it so frustrating: how did you know? If I am a spectator then my first explanation probably has something to do with lots of duplicate cards in the deck. The Undo principle is subtle and deep. Quote:
I agree with DL as well. Maybe a re-cap before the revelation reminding them that you had no control over where they cut the cards would be good. Well, one thing you could do is that after the first cut is made, ask the spectator if he is pleased with his card. Say you will allow the option of replacing the card he cut to in order so he can see what would happen if he cut one less. Or he can add the next card, giving him the option of cutting just one more. Do this with the next spectator as well. That might disrupt the opening flow but it emphasizes the freeness, and what could have been.
Ellusionst discussing the Arcane Playing cards: "Michaelangelo took four years to create the Sistine Chapel masterpiece... these took five."
Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes: "You know Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are even worse!" |
|||||||||
JanForster Inner circle Germany ... when not traveling... 4190 Posts |
No, Aronson's favorite application is using the MD (read it) what is understandable...
Jan Forster
www.janforster.de |
|||||||||
erlandish Inner circle Vancouver, Canada 1254 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-01-22 07:15, Top Hat wrote: Agreed with this. It's one of my problems with Overkill as well. In the middle it seems like there's a multitude of climaxes, but really, they're all explained via one effect (you correctly predicted the card). |
|||||||||
balic2003 Regular user 118 Posts |
I´m really "between" this two thinkings, so I will try it next week on some friends with the numbers on the backs of the jokers and will tell you my experience with it.
Thanks for your answers, I appreciate it. |
|||||||||
Chessmann Inner circle 4242 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-01-22 07:15, Top Hat wrote: But by counting down to the number, it shows that you a) did have foreknowledge, or b) gained the knowledge after handling the pack I always felt that the magic is taking the spec from eliminating "a)" and thinking "b)" was how it was done, to realizing they were wrong about thinking "b)" was the method, and wondering how on earth "a)" could be possible.
My ex-cat was named "Muffin". "Vomit" would be a better name for her. AKA "The Evil Ball of Fur".
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Prior Commitment (Simon Aronson) (82 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.04 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |