|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next] | ||||||||||
davidpaul$ Inner circle Georgetown, South Carolina 3094 Posts 
|
Quote:
On Jun 14, 2018, Terrible Wizard ??? I didn't use a dupe. And yes, it would have been significantly less impressive and emotionally impactful. I'm going for emotionally impactful as well as memorable for my audiences. It's ALL about THEM. Bottom line. You obviously feel different and that's fine.
Guilt will betray you before technique betrays you!
|
|||||||||
Ricardo Delgado Loyal user 230 Posts
|
Kaubell, Yes!
The generic explanation is not enough. Especially if, from their point of view, appreciating the progression of chronological steps that lead to the effect, they can't make that explanation fit what they saw. I think that's why we are having a hard time discussing this. The method is not the only variable to this. And signing the card is not something that serves to all tricks. Even tricks with the same name but different methods/presentations/construction may be differently affected by the signature. I believe one of the Dani Daortiz's effect I posted before (not the "Mathemagical", the previous one, starting at 2:25) is a good example of how the signature should be used and how it adds to the effect. Signing the card is a tool. We just need to use it the right way. |
|||||||||
|
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts
|
Davidpaul:
When you say it 'would' have been less impressive, but also say you didn't/haven't used a dupe, are you going by expectation or experience? Because some on this thread have already noted that using a dupe, or not signing a card, has no noticeable variation in terms of spectator impact. Are you willing to run the experiment this week, doing your exact same card to wallet effect but not having it signed so as to compare reactions for us? Ricardo: At what point between 'generic' and 'highly specific' is it enough? For example, which of these is what you're aiming for: a) I know the exact methodology of the trick, but am impressed at it's execution b) I know how it was done, a p*lm and load, but don't know when or the exact details c) I deduce that a steal/load must have occurred, but am baffled as to when that could have happened without me seeing d) I deduce that a s/l likely happened, but am unsure because it didn't seem to happen e) I have no idea at all how it happened And would you prefer: f) I know how it happened. Real magic. |
|||||||||
|
Ricardo Delgado Loyal user 230 Posts
|
Terrible Wizard,
I'm aiming at something between 'd' and 'e'. Sometimes 'd', sometimes 'e'. And sometimes 'c' is good enough. I think 'f' is a mistake. Taking 'f' to the extreme consequences would mean eventually it's just the normality. Like in a fantasy world (like Harry Potter, for instance) magic is just the normal thing, as incredible as it can be the explanation is "It's just some spell". And if we do so much to change the spectators beliefs of what is real, how is that magic? He just accepts as being something real, and normal. That's pretty much what happens with the advances of physics and technology. And, maybe even more important, the 'f' approach has some serious moral problems to it. That's what psychics do, that's what "alternative medicine" practitioners do. |
|||||||||
|
davidpaul$ Inner circle Georgetown, South Carolina 3094 Posts
|
Terrible Wizard;
I' ll be entering my 17th year performing in several restaurants weekly. I think you are missing my point and my previous posts early on in this thread. My experimentation, experience and asking my audiences about signed cards solidified for me why I feel the way I do regarding this topic. Other working pro's can determine what best impacts their audiences on the levels they feel elicit a memorable and "WOW" experience.
Guilt will betray you before technique betrays you!
|
|||||||||
|
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts
|
Ricardo:
Cool  Do you think card to wallet is the kind of effect where e, or even d, is really possible? I'm not convinced that it is. Where would you put cups and balls or linking rings on that scale?
And does it matter where you aim?
davidpaul: Yes, maybe I am. Sorry. Can you clarify for me then: you're saying that you've done card to wallet with a dupe, and done it with a signed card steal/load, and the signed card gets much better reactions? |
|||||||||
|
Ricardo Delgado Loyal user 230 Posts
|
Not sure. In general, I believe it stays in the 'c', sometimes even 'b' on that scale.
On modern times, cups and balls and linking rings would be in the same range as the card to wallet in average. I'm not sure how to interpret the last question. If it's a question specific to my person, then it doesn't matter to anyone where I aim. If it's a question toward magicians in general, I think it does matter. To aim for each of those categories you described means having different objectives and thus, different method to accomplish. My belief is that the 'magical feeling' (in the general sense) of a performance is better achieved if we hit the spots near 'd' and 'e'. |
|||||||||
|
davidpaul$ Inner circle Georgetown, South Carolina 3094 Posts
|
Terrible Wizzard (quote)
davidpaul: Yes, maybe I am. Sorry. Can you clarify for me then: you're saying that you've done card to wallet with a dupe, and done it with a signed card steal/load, and the signed card gets much better reactions? [/quote] Case in point; I handed a lady a deck of cards and told her to pick any card she liked. I then handed her a choice of different colored Sharpies and instructed her to sign the card. She picked the Queen of Hearts and signed it on the Queen not on the border where it would be easier to see. Fast forward to the revelation omitting the interaction. When the card was revealed she was very surprised...BUT.... when she realized the card had her signature ( she didn't notice it initially) she blurted out " OMG this IS MY CARD" and was excitedly showing it to others at the table. That would not have happened if the card was not signed. We can philosophize what matters or what doesn't. What matters to me at least is the over-the-top reactions from the people who allow me to entertain them and what it takes to achieve that outcome. It comes with experience as well as experimentation. IMO
Guilt will betray you before technique betrays you!
|
|||||||||
|
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts
|
I'm definitely not into philosophising. That's why I want empirical testing: when doing the exact same trick with and without the signature, are the reactions markedly different? If you haven't tried the non-signature method then you simply don't know, even if your speculations are wholly reasonable.
|
|||||||||
|
Cain Inner circle Los Angeles, CA 1553 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jun 14, 2018, RiderBacks wrote: Someone could say the same exact thing about a card-to-box -- and they would be mistaken. Magicians need to be more aware of hindsight bias. It's like when Melania Trump was accused of plagiarizing Michelle Obama's speech at the Republican National Convention. Initially, a lot of laypeople were skeptical: "Don't all of those speeches sound the same?" "Given this is the biggest event for a prospective First Lady, and the fact professionals are paid to write those speeches, why in the hell would anyone risk copying an already famous speech?" But of course it was plagiarized. Spectators are filled with doubts about they've observed and what they're capable of observing. They also tend to think magician secrets are far more complicated and gadgety.
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!" |
|||||||||
|
davidpaul$ Inner circle Georgetown, South Carolina 3094 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jun 14, 2018, Terrible Wizard wrote: Really ??? Are you serious? The card could have been a dupe as far as the woman was concerned because she didn't notice her signature only that it was the card she picked. When her signature came into focus for her, that's when her reactions were over the top. I'll continue to have cards signed and you can do what you think best for you. Experience and proactive evaluation of the effects we perform and how they impact our audiences are our best teachers. I have plenty of examples but the above scenario is sufficient and common in my experience.
Guilt will betray you before technique betrays you!
|
|||||||||
|
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts
|
Yes, I'm serious. I'm a bit of an empiricist at heart. I prefer evidence and experiment to theory.
|
|||||||||
Mr Salk Special user Tied to 568 Posts
|
A signed-card locks the dupe-door.
Some audiences will never try the handle.
.
. |
|||||||||
Mike Powers Inner circle Midwest 2986 Posts
|
Succinct and to the point Mr. Salk.
Mike
Mike Powers
http://www.mallofmagic.com |
|||||||||
|
Cain Inner circle Los Angeles, CA 1553 Posts
|
One way to dispel the idea of dupes, and it's even effective if the card is signed, is to show that the selected card is no longer in the deck. Spectators are inclined to assume that if the card's not in the deck, it must already be, um, somewhere else. For a palm version this is effective because spectators assume the card has already been loaded away, when, in fact, it's hidden in the deck, and you're going to secretly palm and load it in a moment. I forget Ortiz's term for this in Designing Miracles but I want to say he called it "time displacement."
Dani DaOrtiz uses dupes for a card-to-wallet trick. In fact, he has a couple of clever ruses going on, but manages to satisfy what I regard as the important points: 1) the selection feels free (because to some extent it IS free); 2) the card vanishes (or apparently vanishes) from the deck, so it must already be somewhere else; 3) the wallet is established as the inevitable destination, so it's not a deus ex machina.
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!" |
|||||||||
|
Mike Powers Inner circle Midwest 2986 Posts
|
One ruse for card to wallet is to use Convincing Control to seemingly outjog the selection when it has secretly been moved to the bottom. Now you can bottom palm the card and load your wallet. The wallet now is on the table as you openly square the deck. It's more difficult to reverse engineer this since it seems that the selection was in view while the wallet was under spectator control. But the card must be signed in order to cancel the theory that a duplicate is in play. I'm a firm believer in the theory that signed cards close more doors than unsigned cards.
Of course very analytical specs will give up assumptions that lead to dead ends and try out a different theory. The sequence above is certainly not unassailable. Gaffs that are virtually inconceivable, like a CSB coin, can really bend people's brain. There's no way to figure out what happened without understanding the gaff. But this is getting off subject. Mike
Mike Powers
http://www.mallofmagic.com |
|||||||||
|
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts
|
I'm beginning to think that there's an inherent weakness with the card to wallet effect - whether signed or unsigned a spec who thinks about it will probably hit upon the right methodology, at least in a general sense. If you are happy to just entertain, impress and even temporarily puzzle spectators then this is a great effect. But if you're aiming for the high ground of, 'leave them no possible solution' then this isn't the effect to do that. I would place card to wallet in the same category as linking rings and cups and balls.
|
|||||||||
|
warren Inner circle uk 4166 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jun 15, 2018, Mike Powers wrote: Mike you always offer great practical solutions
|
|||||||||
|
Doomo Inner circle 2364 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jun 16, 2018, Terrible Wizard wrote: There are of course methods that will destroy that. For example having the wallet in the speccys hands till the reveal for example.
If you ever get to a point where words have no meaning, you're probably talking to a dog.
Remember! More Bang For LESS Bucks! It is the right way! www.rfaproductions.com |
|||||||||
|
davidpaul$ Inner circle Georgetown, South Carolina 3094 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jun 16, 2018, Terrible Wizard wrote: My observation and it's only an observation is that you don't perform for varied audiences on an ongoing bases or for any length of time. ( weekly, monthly,seldom ) You are thinking, in this case, Card to Wallet, in the abstract. You are NOT taking into consideration CTW as a routine" The interaction, the verbage, by- play, other people involved, the context etc. That's a mistake, because magic is more than something is shown, it dissappears, and ends up somewhere else. It's obvious regarding your thought process by reading your posts but untill you are out in the trenches performing for many personality types in varied venues on a consistent basis and learning through experience, you KNOW what works and what is truly perceived.
Guilt will betray you before technique betrays you!
|
|||||||||
| 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] | ||||||||||
Posted: Jun 14, 2018 01:35 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.05 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 < 
|