(Close Window)
Topic: The Card Trick That Never Happened
Message: Posted by: Gambit Ice (Feb 7, 2011 07:30PM)
Let me know what you think please! I'm always looking to improve

Message: Posted by: silent shadow (Feb 11, 2011 04:54PM)
Excellent handling all round I can't think of anything to improve to be honest, love your spreads are so even.
Message: Posted by: edh (Feb 11, 2011 06:41PM)
Very good. It could use a bit more enthusiasm(sp).

BTW, are those Bee playing cards? If so where can you buy them?
Message: Posted by: huruey (Feb 12, 2011 12:35AM)
Hi there. It's a good start you have here. Some very clever thinking with the shuffling. :)

I have a few suggestions for you to consider:

- First of all, with such a presentation, the audience will clearly know that everything you are saying about the clock is rubbish, and so it would likely only fit with a humorous character that says these things tongue-in-cheek for comic effect. Based on your performance, you didn't seem to be this kind of performer, though I of course may be wrong not having seen you do it live. You might otherwise present it at a challenge to yourself, something requiring skill, an accident that you must fix or something like this. I don't know. The presentation didn't seem to work for you in this video, though.

- Secondly, you you might like to consider an alternative sleight to the shift you used which here involved you picking up the deck, turning sideways to turn it over, then putting it back down. You could instead use a cover pass of about quarter of the deck, which would have the added benefit of meaning you never have to turn the piles face down only turn turn them face up again. PM me if you need me to describe further.

- Thirdly, to me, the procedure doesn't have much consistency with the plot. By this I mean, you are trying to demonstrate going back in time, however, were you handed a deck of cards and asked to demonstrate this ability, it is unlikely you would come up with this procedure to demonstrate this skill, as it is very much designed around the method. I'm not saying scrap the procedure, or scrap the plot, but the two you have don't go together so well in my opinion. Going back to a shuffled deck makes sense, as this is how it came out of the box. Separating the colours could possibly make sense. Shuffling them face up and face down in their separate piles seems to have no rhyme or reason to me, though. Maybe if you had an intermediate effect in which this makes sense then the procedure would seem less random? This randomness also doesn't help with the clarity of the effect. The audience has quite a lot to remember (especially considering the size of the critical interval, see my next point) as they have to keep track of a lot of different properties for it to be impressive. It would help if the procedure was somewhat intuitive to the average layperson, with some kind of logical progression. Instead of separate, weird-shuffle, move-a-card, something more progressive might be separate, separate, separate. Or, begin separated then shuffle one way, shuffle another, then shuffle another (Shuffle hearts+diamonds and clubs+spades, then shuffle these two piles together, then shuffle the lot face-up/down?).

- Your "critical interval" (See Designing Miracles by Ortiz) spans an extended period where way to much happens. From 1:45 to 1:24 you are pattering away, and while this patter doesn't add so much to the meaning of the effect, it is damaging its effectiveness. Consider that the two decks appear to be face down for about a minute when they audience is supposed to believe that they are mixed, there is a big period in which they can forget HOW mixed they are, or think back to this period and think something might have happened. You want to make this period as short as possible. To do this, shrink the patter to only what will help the effect, and work out ways of demonstrating that the two piles are still mixed shortly before magically un-mixing them. It's the same even with the cards jumping from bottom to top. You'd probably want to shrink the time between putting them to the bottom and having them jump to the top. After you have gone back in time to un-mix the face up and face down, it would be good to throw in a convincer that they are both still red and black, because the last time you demonstrated that was way back before the extended patter.

- Finally, if you do decide to go with the back in time plot, if you could work in a deck vanish to box, or make the box appear around the deck, that could make a very nice finale :)

I hope I don't come across too critically, here. Just trying to make my suggestions clear. :P

All the best,

Message: Posted by: mdaniels (Feb 14, 2011 11:54PM)
I love it!!
Message: Posted by: Gambit Ice (Feb 16, 2011 08:24PM)
Thanks for the hefty response huruey! It is going to take me some time to absorb it all, but I have a feeling I agree with most of the points you made. You are absolutely right about how the false pretense of going back in time does not fit my personality. That presentation does require a bit more humor. I'll think about either adding some humor (crossing fingers!) or making a more believable presentation for the trick. I also completely agree with you when you say there is too much "dead time." Nothing remotely interesting happens until about half way into this lengthy trick. For that reason the trick is limited in terms of who the audience can be. The trick definitely works better for other magicians, or friends etc. Ill think about everything else you said and try to modify the piece. Thanks again for all the advice!