|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next] | ||||||||||
WitchDocChris Inner circle York, PA 2614 Posts |
The frequency with which I've seen volunteers throw away a signed card shortly after a performance really makes me question those points.
I think the routine has to be inherently meaningful and make the volunteer feel good to motivate them to keep the item. And in those cases, they are not keeping it because it's signed and it's "theirs", they're keeping it because it reminds them of a moment that made them feel good.
Christopher
Witch Doctor Psycho Seance book: https://tinyurl.com/y873bbr4 Boffo eBook: https://tinyurl.com/387sxkcd |
|||||||||
warren Inner circle uk 4138 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 9, 2018, WitchDocChris wrote: I agree, I think apart from effects like anniversary waltz, Drawn by Chris Congreave and any stickman routine then the chances are that the card won't be kept for long. |
|||||||||
GusGarcia New user 68 Posts |
Certainly depends on the effect. In most cases I’d say it’s not necessary but I do feel the card being signed invests the spectator into the trick, if for no other reason than they get to relax and not stress about remembering the card.
|
|||||||||
griffindance Regular user 145 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 9, 2018, WitchDocChris wrote: Oh, absolutely. An audience is not going to be happy with a magician handing out cards as their main gimmick. The magician has to do their work well in the first place. However there is never "just one thing" that makes a performance. Whether close-up, platform or stage magic a performance is a combination of many factors. Including a signed card to an effect should be used sparingly and only with those audience members who are most appreciative. |
|||||||||
davidpaul$ Inner circle Georgetown, South Carolina 3086 Posts |
Just because a spectator(s) may not keep a signed card does not mean it did not have a major impact and does not mean it should be used sparingly because we perceive them as possibly being unappreciative. We don't know what goes on in their minds and emotions. Yes, there are many
routines where an effect is very impactful with no signatures. Agreed. As I mentioned, when you sign something whether it be a receipt at a restaurant, or checking out at a store, a letter, whatever, it makes it official and provides value/ownership so-to-speak. For me, I most always have a marking, first name, symbol etc. Through experience and reactions I feel it adds that extra punch and level of astonishment. My opinion I do agree with griffindance that the interaction should be meanigful and entertaining for them to possibly want to keep a souvenir. If not who cares. It all about our audiences and providing them a Hopefully memorable experience.
Guilt will betray you before technique betrays you!
|
|||||||||
WitchDocChris Inner circle York, PA 2614 Posts |
Well, for me, I find that the idea of a magician having random objects signed for seemingly no logical reason, along with the cheesy jokes that so frequently accompany it, that it's become a cliche.
Christopher
Witch Doctor Psycho Seance book: https://tinyurl.com/y873bbr4 Boffo eBook: https://tinyurl.com/387sxkcd |
|||||||||
GusGarcia New user 68 Posts |
Couldn’ agree more to the cheesy jokes thing.
|
|||||||||
Melephin Regular user 103 Posts |
As was mentioned before, signing Card could be a great misdirection and also might add sense to silly Actions. For example, a lot of four ace routines, one takes out the four aces, just to loose them in the deck, just do find them again. Doesn't make sense. But if you take out the aces, to have them signed, put them back in, "Shuffle" and now find the card, it makes a lot more sense.
Also a signed card in the deck (ore even the four signed aces) prevents also from the conclusion, that you might switch the deck (of course you still can). Especially if you end your show with the deck in new deck order, although it was shuffled several times during the show. |
|||||||||
RiderBacks Loyal user 251 Posts |
Puggo is already probably on to this, but Anniversary Waltz is an excellent routine which depends upon a signed card...
|
|||||||||
davidpaul$ Inner circle Georgetown, South Carolina 3086 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 10, 2018, WitchDocChris wrote: Who said anything about having "random objects" signed? I asked numerous people at a restaurant gig last night regarding this topic and they all said that a card signed by them was by far more impressive. Especially in a CTIL routine. I learn from my audiences what works and what doesn't what has more impact and was is enjoyable for them. Their opinions are what matters.
Guilt will betray you before technique betrays you!
|
|||||||||
Claudio Inner circle Europe 1927 Posts |
I believe it’s a bit late to add to what has already been said, as pretty much everything has been covered, but notwithstanding here are my two cents:
Signing a card is necessary when it adds to the “degree of conviction”. Most of the time a Card To Impossible Location, such as Card To Wallet, will require that the selection gets signed, otherwise the duplicate concept will be used by spectators as an explanation (whether it’s the right one or not). However, as pointed out above, there are other means of identifying a selection, such as tearing off the card corner. In the version of CTW I perform, there’s no signature or any other mean of identifying the selection. However, after the very direct selection procedure: 1. The packet is not handled by the performer but shuffled and held by the spectator and 2. The deck is shown to be missing the spectator’s card. The impact is not diminished, I think, as a duplicate card would not make much sense in the above handling. I prefer this no-signature handling as there’s no waste of time. |
|||||||||
Rupert Pupkin Inner circle 1452 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 11, 2018, Claudio wrote: Showing 51 cards to prove the absence of one seems much less efficient than showing a single signed card. |
|||||||||
Mr Salk Special user Tied to 568 Posts |
Identifying the card that impossibly-locates is practically mandatory.
It doesn't matter how clever the actual method is if a 5 year could do the effect with a duplicate.
.
. |
|||||||||
Claudio Inner circle Europe 1927 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 11, 2018, Rupert Pupkin wrote: Good point, but in fact there's a dramatic tension here that I did not describe above. I ask the spectator to check the deck, no to prove that the card has disappeared, but to hand me their selection as I have failed (magician in trouble) in my endeavour. The card is not found in the deck but ... is produced from a wallet. From a handling viewpoint: whenever possible, I will spread the deck myself, ask the spectator to name their card and hand it to me. Granted, it's not the quickest CTW but I have weaved it in an interesting story (I hope). I used to perform a regular signed CTW but gave up as I found it tedious to carry markers and have the card signed. As I said, in my own experience, I have not noticed and lessening of impact, but I might be biased |
|||||||||
warren Inner circle uk 4138 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 11, 2018, Mr Salk wrote: Although not quite an impossible location effect I perform a very clean looking mystery card effect that gets really strong reactions and I don't get the spectator to sign their card but they definitely don't think it's a duplicate ( probably because it isn't ). I remember me performing it for someone at work and they insisted that I do it again for someone else because they had been telling them about the effect and how they just couldn't understand how the card put down before they selected a card was in fact their card, obviously I performed it again and got the exact same "no way" response otherwise I wouldn't be telling the story. Obviously the effect could be done with a signed card however I believe that I get really strong reactions without the card being signed and get to keep my deck in one piece so don't see the need. That doesn't mean I'm against the idea of the card being signed and as I've already said some effects do require the card to be signed and most definitely benefit from it as I've already said but sometimes I think it's just to satisfy our needs more than anything else. With regards to impossible locations if you perform some really strong magic beforehand and then perform a card to impossible location using a dupe as long as you can show very cleanly that the card has vanished from the deck then I believe you will still get amazing reactions because you have already conditioned them beforehand and so they just about think you can do anything. check out this very easy and simple card to wallet on the link as an example at 1 minute in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA5pIlf_koU |
|||||||||
Motor City Special user Metro Detroit Area 587 Posts |
Warren, that was a great reaction he got. I remember how I was fooled the first time I saw that effect. I believe it's originator is Paul Gertner.
|
|||||||||
warren Inner circle uk 4138 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 11, 2018, Motor City wrote: Yes you are 100% correct the effect is indeed Paul Gertners |
|||||||||
davidpaul$ Inner circle Georgetown, South Carolina 3086 Posts |
Venue and time is a factor. When you perform in a restaurant setting, performance time is at the mercy of the venue.
Interruptions are common. Maximum impact and entertainment value are essential. Try having a hungry spectator look for their card in a deck when the food arrives. Every magical entertainer has their own style, personality, skill level and MO. My MO is driven by experience and longevity in the business. Do what works for you, no, more importantly what works for your audience.
Guilt will betray you before technique betrays you!
|
|||||||||
fonda57 Inner circle chicago 3078 Posts |
If you do John Bannon's Tattoo You or Darwin Ortiz Signature Effect then the spectator signing the card is important
|
|||||||||
warren Inner circle uk 4138 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 12, 2018, davidpaul$ wrote: David whilst I understand where your coming from and you make some great points if you watched the clip I provided the card was shown to be missing from the deck in 13 to 14 seconds so it would in fact take you longer than that to take a pen out and get a card signed and if I were going for maximum impact I personally wouldn't opt for a card trick.....obviously I'm saying this just to show things from the other perspective. In the past I used to perform at TGI Fridays so I am familiar with working in a restaurant setting, as such I have done card effects where the card was both signed and unsigned and both always got great results. Whilst I agree that some effects definitely benefit from having a card signed I also think that it's not always needed, one effect I used to perform at TGI's without getting a card signed involved getting a card selected and immediately giving the deck to the spectator at finger tips and then have the card vanish from the deck and reappear in my sock. Part of the presentation involved the spectator spreading through the deck to look for their card which had vanished whilst in their hands and whilst I didn't get the card signed it played really well and I can't think of even one occasion where I didn't get the desired results and it's because of these experiences that I brought up the question. Will I continue to get cards signed you bet I will however I think that if presented correctly then you can get away with the card not being signed, thanks for your input it really is appreciated |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Does signing the card really add to the effect ? (31 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [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 < |