(Close Window)
Topic: John Bannon - Sizzle
Message: Posted by: rmorrell (Nov 20, 2014 01:20PM)
As mentioned [url=http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=536485&forum=346&1]in this thread[/url] Big Blind Media have just released John Bannon's Sizzle, his super-charged examinable handling of Alex Elmsley's Dazzle, to be released on December 4th:

[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrdF7CuE-OA]Watch the Demo[/url]

[url=http://www.bigblindmedia.com/sizzle-packet-tricks-dvd/]Pre-order[/url]

SIZZLE - You show a packet of cards consisting of three red backed Jokers and an Ace Of Spades. One of the red backed Jokers from this group is set aside, and replaced with a blue backed Joker. Instantly the other red backed Jokers magically change colour to match the blue stranger. Then one of the blue backed jokers is removed and replaced with a green backed Joker; the other Jokers in the packet turn green as well. Impossibly this happens a third time as a purple Joker turns the packet purple.

The Ace Of Spades is then removed and shown to have an ORANGE back design. Even more incredibly when the packet of Jokers is spread out it shows that every card now has a different colour back.

This bewildering and jaw dropping series of visual changes will leave any audience shell shocked... and then you hit them with the motherload. The packet of Jokers is flipped face up to show that every card has changed leaving you with A ROYAL FLUSH IN SPADES!

No sticky stuff
Ends completely examinable
Simple handling / Easy to do
Comes with the necessary nine USPCC cards

Sizzle is a steroid stuffed version of Alex Elmsley's Dazzle - a routine considered by many to be the greatest packet trick of all time. John Bannon has taken Dazzle to a whole new level. Using just the nine playing cards (provided) you will be able to show an incredible amount of magic. The routine is easy to do (using only simple moves) and ends with a mind melting climax.

"This is Bannon at the very top of his game. The amount of effect he gains from brilliant construction and subtlety is sheer genius!" John Carey

"My absolute favorite version of Alex Elmsley's Dazzle ever. Elegant and so CLEAN!" Cameron Francis

"Best. Packet. Trick. Ever." James Went, BBC’s ‘Help My Supply Teacher Is Magic’

"If anyone could reboot Alex Elmsley's "Dazzle," it's John Bannon. What a fantastically constructed routine!" Andi Gladwin

"John Bannon’s work on packet tricks has been a game changer, and SIZZLE is the pinnacle of efficiency. So much magic for so little effort, and examinable at the end?! My mind is just blown!" Liam Montier

"In true Bannon fashion, Sizzle is elegantly structured and powerfully potent." John Guastaferro

"It seems like every time I break my "I don't like packet tricks" rule, it's with a Bannon effect. Sizzle is another broken rule to add to my collection." - Jeff Stone, MagicReviewed.com

"Sizzle is simply terrific. John has taken Elmsley's Dazzle plot to a new level, and there is not a single gaff (which is hard to believe when you see the number of startling changes), making this an examinable miracle!" Peter Duffie

"Dazzle on steroids = Sizzle" Raj Madhok

"Any fan of John Bannon will want to add little "Sizzle" into their next performance." Bill Malone
Message: Posted by: RNK (Nov 20, 2014 01:57PM)
I always enjoy Bannon's tricks! Though I do not like the fact that the specialty/colored cards wear very easy making the sleights/counts very difficult. If only they would offer replacement cards instead of having to purchase the effect again at full retail.

RNK
Message: Posted by: mike donoghue (Nov 20, 2014 03:41PM)
Allways wanted to get the cards for dazzle but never got around to it. Now I can get this and do it. Brilliant ! Everything JB puts out is fantastic
Message: Posted by: professorwhut (Nov 20, 2014 04:02PM)
I am a huge Bannon fan. AND BBM fan. I own almost everything he has put out.
I have lost track of how many Royal Scam DVD's I have, since I have to buy the COMPLETE set over and over again since there are no replacement cards.
The last time I needed cards I just bought several different colored decks and made my own sets.

Sizzle looks fantastic, I was willing to order it until I saw the price.
Especially when I know I will wear the cards out in a short time.

If replacement cards are going to available, I would go for it.
Message: Posted by: Cameron Francis (Nov 20, 2014 04:10PM)
Ask Owen. I'm pretty sure replacement cards will be available.

But I have to say, Card Shark manufactures the cards so they are of very high quality. Should last a good long while.

I LOVE Dazzle and this has to be one of the best versions I've ever seen. No ditching cards. Everything is examinable. I've been privy to this for a while now and have been dying for it to be released so that I can get my hands on the cards! :)
Message: Posted by: rmorrell (Nov 20, 2014 04:15PM)
If you look at the demo closely at the start it looks like a set that John has made up as it has two WPT cards and a Green Bicycle Card. I am assuming once you have bought this and learnt it you will probably be able to make it up from other decks with unusual back designs, as there are no gaffed cards etc. you just sacrifice using the Jokers, it looks like John's set was using Three of Hearts cards, so you could grab all of the same card like a low spot card from other random decks to make up your own packet and just change low spot cards instead as long as the faces are regular bicycle style pips.
Message: Posted by: Ray Tupper. (Nov 20, 2014 04:29PM)
[quote]On Nov 20, 2014, The expert wrote:
SOUNDS LIKE A PAUL GORDON TRICK [/quote]
I can't remember a Lorayne trick that sounded like this.
You must be mistaken.
;)
Message: Posted by: Fire Starter (Nov 20, 2014 04:29PM)
Wow that was great to watch ,a very nice visual card effect executed superbly.
Message: Posted by: Fire Starter (Nov 20, 2014 04:31PM)
Whoops double post,sorry.
Message: Posted by: Ray Tupper. (Nov 20, 2014 04:36PM)
"This is Bannon at the very top of his game. The amount of effect he gains from brilliant construction and subtlety is sheer genius!" John Carey

"My absolute favorite version of Alex Elmsley's Dazzle ever. Elegant and so CLEAN!" Cameron Francis

"Best. Packet. Trick. Ever." James Went, BBC’s ‘Help My Supply Teacher Is Magic’

"If anyone could reboot Alex Elmsley's "Dazzle," it's John Bannon. What a fantastically constructed routine!" Andi Gladwin

*it's ok. Ray Tupper
Message: Posted by: Calvin826 (Nov 20, 2014 05:36PM)
Like everyone else, I'm a huge john Brannon fan- but this is a confusing mess. Nothing seems motivated, weird handlings, and a weak payoff. For me, having the backs change to the multicolor versions at the end(as happens in most of his other packet tricks) is a much stronger finish.
Message: Posted by: sohaib (Nov 20, 2014 07:21PM)
This is cool,

And I'll buy it;
since I buy everything

but I still like Dazzle way better,
with Elmsley's cards,
with Elmsley's patter

I got the set from Vanishing Inc.,
and Dazzle is still, for me,
The Best Packet Trick
Of All Time
Message: Posted by: boinko (Nov 20, 2014 07:38PM)
A mess. Great visuals, but narratively -- a mess.

Bannon needs to edit. This is a messed up plot that gets boring quick. Magicians love it -- laymen? Yawn.

Technique with Bannon is gradually overtaking plot. John -- come on. You're one of the smartest -- if not the smartest -- cardmen out there. Edit this down. Streamline it. You've got the technique -- no one doubts it. But plot is what matters.
Message: Posted by: Knobz1 (Nov 20, 2014 08:17PM)
I didn't care for this either. It was confusing and I just didn't get that sense of magic or mystery too it. I wasn't impressed with it.
Message: Posted by: Cameron Francis (Nov 20, 2014 08:25PM)
Elmsley's trick is great. So is his presentation. And you could adapt a similar presentation with this one if you wish.

For all of those saying this trick is a mess... Really? The plot is pretty straight forward. You put a card with a particular color in the packet and they all change to that color. Then there's a nice surprise ending.

Kind of like the original Elmsley effect... You know. The CLASSIC.

Come on, guys. If you perform for lay people, you know they love color changing backs and kicker endings. People who say lay people don't like this stuff have clearly never performed this kind of magic for a lay person.

One of my lay friends who has seen a lot of magic loves tricks like these. "I like it when a lot of stuff happens to the cards," was his exact quote. This trick fits the bill.
Message: Posted by: Cameron Francis (Nov 20, 2014 08:31PM)
It should also be noted that this version of the effect is more akin to Roy Walton's version of Dazzle which Aldo Colombini sold for ages. It's a great version with a similar technicolored/kicker ending, but you need to ditch cards in the Walton/Colombini version, whereas in this version, you don't have to ditch anything.
Message: Posted by: genius (Nov 20, 2014 09:36PM)
I just learned that snoop dogg endorsed this product. His testimonial: this is da bomb, fo shizzle sizzle my nizzle. Smiley face.

Mindblowingly,
Charles
Message: Posted by: Joe Roberts (Nov 20, 2014 09:47PM)
[quote]On Nov 20, 2014, genius wrote:
I just learned that snoop dogg endorsed this product. His testimonial: this is da bomb, fo shizzle sizzle my nizzle. Smiley face.

Mindblowingly,
Charles [/quote]

Timely
Message: Posted by: Phil J. (Nov 21, 2014 03:39AM)
I already do Royal Scam which is easier to follower and ends the same. Sizzle means learning a whole new routine for very little reward.
Message: Posted by: dman11 (Nov 21, 2014 08:45AM)
[quote]On Nov 21, 2014, Phil J. wrote:
I already do Royal Scam which is easier to follower and ends the same. Sizzle means learning a whole new routine for very little reward. [/quote]

Exactly how I feel. Plus Royal Scam $12, Sizzle $27 !!
Message: Posted by: Ray Haining (Nov 21, 2014 09:43AM)
[quote]On Nov 20, 2014, Cameron Francis wrote:

One of my lay friends who has seen a lot of magic loves tricks like these. [/quote]

No disrespect, Cameron, and no reflection on this new effect, but laymen who are friends with magicians and who have seen a lot of magic are not your ordinary laymen.
Message: Posted by: Cameron Francis (Nov 21, 2014 03:49PM)
Very true. But I've gotten great reactions from tricks of this ilk (color changing backs and value changing cards) from non-friends as well. My point was, people who don't know about magic enjoy multiple phased effects like these, in spite of the theory that they are "too long" or whatever.
Message: Posted by: Fire Starter (Nov 21, 2014 04:40PM)
Well just take 1 blank blue backed card,then any 1 red back a green and do a simple move, most of us know how to do and BANG,i have slayed laymen more with a simple routine,that cost me nothing,just watching a friend do it then buying exspensive gimmicked card's and flashy gimmick's,one I still love to perform is Spectrum by Wayne Dobson,kill's them and no one has ever asked to see the card's ,so that's why I think this goes down well,of course just my opinion.
Message: Posted by: Kurtis Chin (Nov 21, 2014 04:48PM)
I will preface by saying I have (and love) most of Bannon's stuff...esp his "Fractal Series" of which Spin Doctor is my fave. I, too was not happy with the cards that it came with. It did not take long to "wear" them out...and you have to remember, I'm a hobbiest and not really showing this much. The finish becomes dull and soils easily. It also makes counts difficult and portrays you as an unkempt magician! (don't you just hate it when a magician uses dirty props...) I tried using fanning powder to no avail. Like others above, I hope the quality of the cards are better...I'm also a touch disappointed that he did not follow the pricing of his "fractal series"...$15 DVD with cards. But heck, Mr Bannon probably knows his fans will buy this anyway...fans like me to name a few
Message: Posted by: Cameron Francis (Nov 21, 2014 08:46PM)
I can tell you that the cards that come with Fractalicious and this were produced differently than the cards that came with the original a Fractal Series. They are better quality cards and will probably last longer.

As some of you probably know, Big Blind Media prides itself on releasing quality material with high production values. At the same time, they are always good value for the money.
Message: Posted by: Liam Montier (Nov 22, 2014 06:56AM)
Having been privy to this for about a year since John showed me the original, I just thought I'd clear up a few points.

Firstly - the cards are perfect quality. I had issues with the 'Spin Doctor' and other sets of cards, but the cards provided with both Fractalicious and Sizzle are both perfect - I've used them for ages.

Secondly - 'Sizzle' does play for laymen, and magicians. I've used both versions for ages - but Sizzle is cleaner, faster, easier, has a stronger finish, and ends examinable. If you don't think it'll play for you, that's fair enough. But it plays for me, and the other guys who have played with it and given it quotes, and we've actually used it and tried it out. Just saying :)

Anyway, hope you guys enjoy it, and you can always catch me on the online chat at bigblindmedia.com if you have any questions.

Cheers

Liam.
Message: Posted by: pegasus (Nov 22, 2014 07:07AM)
Very mediocre routine. Nothing new here at all. Disappointed.
Message: Posted by: Liam Montier (Nov 22, 2014 08:38AM)
Shows how different we all are I guess! I'd have said 'Killer routine, totally new handling, and AMAZED!'

Different strokes for different folks :D

Liam.
Message: Posted by: Markymark (Nov 22, 2014 10:38AM)
Fizzle! I'm more disappointed in the price.Is this anything to do with the 'strength' of the sterling currency?
Almost 30 bucks for an okay packet trick!
Message: Posted by: videoman (Nov 22, 2014 12:27PM)
Don't own Sizzle but I can say that the later versions of the Fractilicious cards do seem to be of a higher quality.
Not sure why the higher price of this. Fractilicious had several great packet tricks and included cards for nearly the same price.
Message: Posted by: mike donoghue (Nov 22, 2014 12:57PM)
I will be getting this & yes £18 is quite pricy but I know I will work it.

Also, I to love Alex Elmsleys "DAZZLE" & only saw it on dvd a few months ago.

Yes, it is different & very entertaining but so is "SIZZLE" The method & cards are provided & it is down to the performer to create the entertainment.

I thought about sourcing the cards & making up Dazzle,( the fact that the cards can't be looked at(actually they are looked at all of the way through the routine)so I mean examined, doesn't bother me as if you are a competent performer , due to the nature of the routine it doesn't matter. If every 2 seconds someone is examining what you are using,then you have MEGA audience management flaws & should not be performing for the public.

As a side note I ordered DAZZLE yesterday from Vanashinginc. With the massive postage charge I am paying $36.75 for it or in pounds £24.21pence.so SIZZLE is £6 cheaper.I WILL USE BOTH AT DIFFERENT TIMES.

Mike Donoghue
Message: Posted by: Count Lustig (Nov 22, 2014 03:04PM)
[quote]On Nov 21, 2014, Cameron Francis wrote:
My point was, people who don't know about magic enjoy multiple phased effects like these, in spite of the theory that they are "too long" or whatever. [/quote]
The criticism isn't that it has multiple phases. The criticism isn't that it's too long. The criticism that several have made is that it's [I]confusing[/I].

Summarizing the plot in words is no answer to that criticism because it's not the plot that makes it confusing. It's the handling and procedure that make it confusing. (Personally, I was confused before the magic even began because of the odd way in which the cards were laid out at the outset.)

I don't expect you to agree, but you might make an effort to at least understand the criticism.
Message: Posted by: Darius666 (Nov 22, 2014 05:24PM)
To long? Not by a long way. Anyone that performs at all will tell you that.

Confusing? What's confusing? Organge back jokers change to green back jokers and so on then the jokers change to a royal flush. Yes, really hard to follow (sarcasm)
Message: Posted by: Lawrence O (Nov 22, 2014 06:19PM)
Only the beginners or the magicians who remained at that stage can say that a trick is too long. It's only their imagination, scripting capacity and acting ability that is too short

As many here may know, I've been studying quite a few versions on specific effects (cards and other close up effects) and several authors, John Bannon's take on effecccts always manages to end up in the short list of the best creator on effects, scripts ... and he is not a bad actor. So what dwarf does feel qualified to judge a giant? I certainly won't, I prefer to sit on their shoulders.
Message: Posted by: magicHart (Nov 22, 2014 06:35PM)
In my opinion Royal Scam is one of the best packet tricks of all time. It's easy to follow, logical, and has a surprising ending!!!! I love it!

Yes, I did buy Sizzle, because #1 I love JB's work, #2 I robbed a bank so I could afford Sizzle, #3 I wanted to know what everyone else thinks!
Message: Posted by: Cameron Francis (Nov 22, 2014 08:00PM)
[quote]On Nov 22, 2014, Count Lustig wrote:
[quote]On Nov 21, 2014, Cameron Francis wrote:
My point was, people who don't know about magic enjoy multiple phased effects like these, in spite of the theory that they are "too long" or whatever. [/quote]
The criticism isn't that it has multiple phases. The criticism isn't that it's too long. The criticism that several have made is that it's [I]confusing[/I].

Summarizing the plot in words is no answer to that criticism because it's not the plot that makes it confusing. It's the handling and procedure that make it confusing. (Personally, I was confused before the magic even began because of the odd way in which the cards were laid out at the outset.)

I don't expect you to agree, but you might make an effort to at least understand the criticism. [/quote]


Sorry, but I don't understand that criticism. The plot is as straight forward as the original. The handling is not confusing. You are simply displaying cards using a variation of two counts that most magicians use.

I just don't see the issue. And most of the best card guys I know don't see the issue either.

But if it's not for you, it's not for you.

I have to admit, I am shocked at some of the reactions to this. Dazzle is a classic plot and I have seen many versions of it. As I stated before, this one is similar to the Walton/Colombini version which was my favorite. However, the problem that John solved was the ditching problem: In the Walton/Colombini version, you had to ditch each card after it was removed from the packet. It's not that I need to have all of the cards examined, but it's sooo nice to be able to remove the card from the packet and just toss it aside as opposed to put it in your pocket because you have to (those who know the Walton/Colombini version will know what I mean).

I'm just surprised that some of you aren't seeing what an elegant solution this is to the plot. It solves having to have extra cards and gaffs so well. Those of us who have played with a lot of packet tricks know that coming up with a clean version of Dazzle is a tough nut to crack. But I think John did a fantastic job of doing just that. I was so excited when I first saw this.

I also have a feeling that John's display might not be as universally known as I thought it was. It might seem odd to you as a magician, but I've been using it for years and it's never been questioned.

But, at the end of the day, it's just my opinion. And not everyone loves packet tricks as much as I do.
Message: Posted by: Cameron Francis (Nov 22, 2014 08:10PM)
Okay, here's the Walton effect, "Restless Colors". (Not the best video but it's the best one I could find on YouTube). This is the version that John's mostly resembles. I like this effect a lot. But as I have stated, think John's has several advantages.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pE6tnGNUyk
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Nov 23, 2014 09:59AM)
[quote]On Nov 22, 2014, Lawrence O wrote:

So what dwarf does feel qualified to judge a giant? I certainly won't, I prefer to sit on their shoulders. [/quote]

I don't think anyone's judging Bannon here - they're judging the effect. And anyone is qualified to do that, maybe especially people not involved in magic at all. Didn't care for this one either after watching the demo once, for reasons others have already stated. It feels a bit like a patchwork medley, rather than a song unto itself.
Message: Posted by: Jamie Ferguson (Nov 23, 2014 10:03AM)
Not Bannon's best effect. Maybe he should finish with the packet tricks now and move onto something else.
Message: Posted by: jcroop (Nov 23, 2014 11:06AM)
Sizzle has some similarity to Paul Gordon’s variation of Restless Queens entitled Bedazzling Colors as was indicated high in the thread. Bedazzling Colors has always generated great reactions for me. Each version has advantages.

Bedazzling Colors shows cards with the same faces and the original back color A which changes to color B and then C and then back to A, when the odd color is introduced to the pack. The finale ends with a royal straight flush. The patter is very tight and the presentation quickly gets to the finale.

Sizzle shows cards with the same faces and the original back color A which changes to color B and then C and then D. You get to see the Jokers repeatedly. You end with 2 climaxes - the backs displayed in rainbow color then the faces of the cards remaining in your hand change to a royal straight flush.

You get to see more color changes, Joker convincers and an extra climax with Sizzle, but although I don’t feel there is confusion I do think that the structure leads to questions. Why is the Ace face up? Why does touching the new colored back to the FACE of the ace change the color of the Joker backs? When you show the final color on the back of the Ace, why don’t you change the other backs to that color, too? The flow just stops there.

I’m not sure, but perhaps these little things are what make some feel there is confusion. Some may think that my questions are points that only a magician analyzing an effect would come up with, but they are what make catch the spectator’s eye and can prevent getting involved in the effect.

However, in spite of the above, I really like Sizzle. It is a great version. I think that the questions above are minor and overshadowed by the visual changes that eliminate the time to think or focus on these points. Hopefully we'll hear soon enough when others start performing it.

I would agree that the price represents a significant increase to similar packet tricks by John Bannon and other creators.
Message: Posted by: Cameron Francis (Nov 23, 2014 09:21PM)
The Ace of Spades activates the magic.
Message: Posted by: Knobz1 (Nov 23, 2014 09:23PM)
Well, I decided to have my gf watch the video of the effect being demonstrated. I told her I wanted her to watch a magic trick and at the end I wanted to know what her thoughts were. If she liked it and why or if she didn't like it and why not. She watched the effect once and only once. I then asked her what she thought. Her exact words were: "I don't know. I thought it was confusing. There was too much going on and I can't remember if he showed all the cards in the beginning. I remember seeing an ace of spades and some jokers but it looked like he had more cards that he didn't show. I don't know. It just looked weird."

Those were her exact words. My gf prefers to be left in the dark when it comes to my magic because she loves when I blow her mind and amaze her. She knows nothing about magic.

I just wanted an honest opinion from a layperson such as my gf and I wanted to make sure I wasn't overlooking anything myself because I too thought this effect was confusing. For what its worth I mean no disrespect to John Bannon. I love his work. Just didn't care for this effect. Hope this helps some of you.
Message: Posted by: Count Lustig (Nov 24, 2014 12:10AM)
[quote]On Nov 22, 2014, Cameron Francis wrote:
I have to admit, I am shocked at some of the reactions to this. Dazzle is a classic plot and I have seen many versions of it. As I stated before, this one is similar to the Walton/Colombini version which was my favorite. However, the problem that John solved was the ditching problem: In the Walton/Colombini version, you had to ditch each card after it was removed from the packet. It's not that I need to have all of the cards examined, but it's sooo nice to be able to remove the card from the packet and just toss it aside as opposed to put it in your pocket because you have to (those who know the Walton/Colombini version will know what I mean).

I'm just surprised that some of you aren't seeing what an elegant solution this is to the plot. It solves having to have extra cards and gaffs so well. Those of us who have played with a lot of packet tricks know that coming up with a clean version of Dazzle is a tough nut to crack. But I think John did a fantastic job of doing just that. I was so excited when I first saw this.[/quote]
I think the above provides a clue as to why you're so "shocked at some of the reactions to this."

Lay people don't know that "Dazzle is a classic plot" and they haven't "seen many versions of it." When they watch this trick, they won't know that it's "similar to the Walton/Colombini version." They couldn't care less about solving "the ditching problem." And they don't perceive effects in terms of "elegant solutions" or "tough nuts to crack."

In other words, lay people don't bring to an effect all the baggage that you're carrying around in your head. They simply watch an effect without preconceptions and they either get it or they don't. They can either follow it easily or they can't. It either strikes them as impossible or it doesn't.

If you can ever ditch the magician-speak and, more importantly, the magician-think, you may be able to see this and other effects without the distorting lens of your preconceptions--in other words, a little bit more like the way laymen see magic.
Message: Posted by: tomsk192 (Nov 24, 2014 02:33AM)
In any case, if it is indeed an 'elegant solution', although to me it is anything but that, I would love to know what the problem was in the first place.

Watch Alex Elmsley do his trick, script and all. That is entertainment; what I watched in this demo was fairly appalling in terms of presentation, let alone handling. That delivery would fail to entertain a convention of geography teachers. And it is utterly confusing. Why a bloody royal flush? What on earth does that add in terms of value? And the counts are awful; they make no sense whatsoever.

F-
Message: Posted by: Cameron Francis (Nov 24, 2014 05:47PM)
[quote]On Nov 24, 2014, Count Lustig wrote:
[quote]On Nov 22, 2014, Cameron Francis wrote:
I have to admit, I am shocked at some of the reactions to this. Dazzle is a classic plot and I have seen many versions of it. As I stated before, this one is similar to the Walton/Colombini version which was my favorite. However, the problem that John solved was the ditching problem: In the Walton/Colombini version, you had to ditch each card after it was removed from the packet. It's not that I need to have all of the cards examined, but it's sooo nice to be able to remove the card from the packet and just toss it aside as opposed to put it in your pocket because you have to (those who know the Walton/Colombini version will know what I mean).

I'm just surprised that some of you aren't seeing what an elegant solution this is to the plot. It solves having to have extra cards and gaffs so well. Those of us who have played with a lot of packet tricks know that coming up with a clean version of Dazzle is a tough nut to crack. But I think John did a fantastic job of doing just that. I was so excited when I first saw this.[/quote]
I think the above provides a clue as to why you're so "shocked at some of the reactions to this."

Lay people don't know that "Dazzle is a classic plot" and they haven't "seen many versions of it." When they watch this trick, they won't know that it's "similar to the Walton/Colombini version." They couldn't care less about solving "the ditching problem." And they don't perceive effects in terms of "elegant solutions" or "tough nuts to crack."

In other words, lay people don't bring to an effect all the baggage that you're carrying around in your head. They simply watch an effect without preconceptions and they either get it or they don't. They can either follow it easily or they can't. It either strikes them as impossible or it doesn't.

If you can ever ditch the magician-speak and, more importantly, the magician-think, you may be able to see this and other effects without the distorting lens of your preconceptions--in other words, a little bit more like the way laymen see magic. [/quote]


I can indeed see this from a lay person point of view. I am speaking to magicians, here, hence the "magician speak". I was simply pointing out what, in my mind, was nice about this version from the performer's point of view. Advantages from our perspective. To me, the EFFECT is the same as most other versions of the plot. Effect is what matters at the end of the day. But if we can feel more comfortable performing one version of an effect over the another, without losing impact, then we should, right? That was really my point.

But that's all I'll say about it. Obviously it suits some and doesn't suit others.
Message: Posted by: Calvin826 (Nov 24, 2014 06:00PM)
[quote]On Nov 23, 2014, Knobz1 wrote:
Well, I decided to have my gf watch the video of the effect being demonstrated. I told her I wanted her to watch a magic trick and at the end I wanted to know what her thoughts were. If she liked it and why or if she didn't like it and why not. She watched the effect once and only once. I then asked her what she thought. Her exact words were: "I don't know. I thought it was confusing. There was too much going on and I can't remember if he showed all the cards in the beginning. I remember seeing an ace of spades and some jokers but it looked like he had more cards that he didn't show. I don't know. It just looked weird."

Those were her exact words. My gf prefers to be left in the dark when it comes to my magic because she loves when I blow her mind and amaze her. She knows nothing about magic.

I just wanted an honest opinion from a layperson such as my gf and I wanted to make sure I wasn't overlooking anything myself because I too thought this effect was confusing. For what its worth I mean no disrespect to John Bannon. I love his work. Just didn't care for this effect. Hope this helps some of you. [/quote]


This is the most telling comment of the whole thread. I totally understand the need for a marketing push so retailers can remain profitable. But frankly, it disappoints me greatly to see top notch talent, whom I really admire, try to BS past the obvious truth as disclosed by Knobz1's little experiment.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but at some point it's like we are being told that 4+1=6, and it becomes insulting.
Message: Posted by: tomsk192 (Nov 24, 2014 10:41PM)
Try watching this:

[youtube]GrdF7CuE-OA[/youtube]

and then this:

[youtube]ck9LFEfZRGI[/youtube]

Now, [i]please[/i] tell me how the first one is in any way, shape or form a better piece of magic than the second. The cards can be examined? Ah, yes, that surely is a worthwhile reason to utterly ruin what was once a superb trick.

Let's think about each one as a piece of entertainment. The first not only seems to lack any kind of script, but we are even told that a joker will be "swapped out", which is a term I have only ever heard used by magicians. We are merely given a running commentary as to what is meant to be happening. Whereas Alex Elmsley charms his way through his original routine; the script is witty, it underscores what is happening visually, whilst gradually gathering a cumulative momentum ending with an impossible event. There are also natural cues embedded in Elmsley's script, something which is entirely lacking in 'Sizzle'.

Cameron states, "[i]Effect is what matters at the end of the day.[/i]" Is it? I don't agree. Indeed, just imagine somebody performing 'Sucker Silk to Egg' with the sort of monotonous running commentary which we are treated to in 'Sizzle'. Now go and watch Pop Haydn do it, and tell me again that "effect is what matters at the end of the day". Even if effect was the only thing that mattered, [i]which it isn't[/i], then again, just compare the two videos above. Elmsley gives us a very clear plot and a very clear handling, with a surprising ending which is still relevant to what has gone before; Bannon's is just a horrible mess both of handling and procedure.

And so, to sum up: the only, single, pale advantage of 'Sizzle', is that the cards can be examined. Well, 'durr', of course they can; that's what the ridiculous over-proving has been all about, the awkward and illogical handling all leads us to that point.

"Here!" says the triumphant magician, "You can look at the cards, they are all normal!"

Except everybody will have wandered off by then, and if anybody actually did stay and watch, they probably won't care anyway. Unless you are at a magic convention, in which case the so-called elegant solutions will be hummed and hawed over, ad nauseam.
Message: Posted by: charlie_d (Nov 25, 2014 03:05AM)
Thanks for posting that direct comparison, Tomsk.

I love BBM, the self working, impromptu, elmsley count, double lift and false shuffle DVDs are all absolutely excellent - I’d go as far as saying the best in the industry. And Bannon is a god. BUT… this is a significant step backwards from “Dazzle”.

Holding multiple cards as one when it’s not necessary is confusing. It leads to the obvious conclusion that we’re not seeing all the cards and - worse - endangers subsequent tricks involving doubles. The displays do not look fair. The performer is saying that something has happened, but not demonstrating that it has, which is going to be frustrating for the audience.

In the original, Elmsley casually and fairly (!) shows all of the cards on both sides. The patter is entertaining. The repetition is humorous. The finale is spectacular.

It just doesn’t need improving.
Message: Posted by: Chamberlain (Nov 25, 2014 04:22AM)
I'll preface this by saying that John Bannon has released some killer material, and I regularly perform his Spin Doctor at paid gigs (now that's a trick that gets great reactions)

Here's what I don't like about the effect:

The jokers should be black and white, the extra colours on the jokers are distracting. (minor point)

The initial display of the face down jokers has a discrepancy of the ace being sandwiched between all face down cards (0.50 in the video)

When showing the jokers changed colours, the over proving of showing each joker slows down the effect and distracts from the impact of the colour change (1.12 in the video)

Showing all the rainbow back colours with the ace isn't as strong as you've already shown the different colours and the audience are used to them (2.00 in the video)

The royal flush? would have been better as all ace of spades (2.15)

I was also thinking at the end that he'd turn over the leftover jokers to show they were all blank

End of the day it's not a bad trick, but if I'm performing for someone I'd rather use that 2 minutes and show something stronger
Message: Posted by: rmorrell (Nov 25, 2014 07:38AM)
[quote]On Nov 24, 2014, tomsk192 wrote:
Let's think about each one as a piece of entertainment. The first not only seems to lack any kind of script, but we are even told that a joker will be "swapped out", which is a term I have only ever heard used by magicians. We are merely given a running commentary as to what is meant to be happening. Whereas Alex Elmsley charms his way through his original routine; the script is witty, it underscores what is happening visually, whilst gradually gathering a cumulative momentum ending with an impossible event. There are also natural cues embedded in Elmsley's script, something which is entirely lacking in 'Sizzle'.
[/quote]

The point with any magic that you do is that you come up with your own script/reason/presentation don't expect to be constantly given a pre-prepared script or reason for doing the trick, 'youtube' magicians are so used to watching a DVD and copying the performers presentation that when they don't get a pre-prepared script along with the trick they complain! This was just a video demo, not a set in stone way of doing the trick, no one is saying you have to do the trick exactly as Liam or John does?!

I have pre-ordered as I love Bannon but I also appreciate the Elmsley routine, but the fact I don't have to do the hard count and sleights required in the Elmsley routine and I am not left dirty is a huge, huge plus.

As to script/presentation just off the top of my head I can already think of ways I can present this. For example I love Bannon's idea of showing people 'behind the curtain' so I can use this as a deck switch, I put my regular deck away talk about the current craze of these different decks that are being printed, and people that collect different back designs, and all the weird backs that are coming out, and that you have a sample of them here, just the Jokers, and then do the trick, and then even better it gives you a great excuse to use an idea from Roberto Giobbi's deck switch book to use the 'different deck' deck switch to ring in a cooler, as you bring out one of these fancy new designed decks, all setup in your favourite stack... not earth shattering I agree but took me a few seconds of thought.
Message: Posted by: inigmntoya (Nov 25, 2014 07:53AM)
[quote]On Nov 24, 2014, tomsk192 wrote:
Try watching this:
[/quote]

They hardly seem like the same trick. Quite a few more color changes in the Elmsley version. The spread of _eight_ face down cards all different really drives the point home.
The only thing that seemed odd/out of place there was at the end when he says "even the faces change", which makes no sense because the faces were always jokers?
Message: Posted by: tomsk192 (Nov 25, 2014 08:03AM)
[quote]The point with any magic that you do is that you come up with your own script/reason/presentation don't expect to be constantly given a pre-prepared script or reason for doing the trick, 'youtube' magicians are so used to watching a DVD and copying the performers presentation that when they don't get a pre-prepared script along with the trick they complain! This was just a video demo, not a set in stone way of doing the trick, no one is saying you have to do the trick exactly as Liam or John does?!

I have pre-ordered as I love Bannon but I also appreciate the Elmsley routine, but the fact I don't have to do the hard count and sleights required in the Elmsley routine and I am not left dirty is a huge, huge plus.

As to script/presentation just off the top of my head I can already think of ways I can present this. For example I love Bannon's idea of showing people 'behind the curtain' so I can use this as a deck switch, I put my regular deck away talk about the current craze of these different decks that are being printed, and people that collect different back designs, and all the weird backs that are coming out, and that you have a sample of them here, just the Jokers, and then do the trick, and then even better it gives you a great excuse to use an idea from Roberto Giobbi's deck switch book to use the 'different deck' deck switch to ring in a cooler, as you bring out one of these fancy new designed decks, all setup in your favourite stack... not earth shattering I agree but took me a few seconds of thought.[/quote]

Why on earth provide a demo at all, then, if the idea is for everyone to make up their own presentation? And thus, if you [i]do[/i] provide a demo, as is the case here, why do such a poor presentation? Would [i]you[/i] put your name to such a boring, unentertaining piece?

Perhaps you failed to understand what I was driving at? By showing these two films together, you not only see the benefit of a decent, [i]coherent[/i] script, but also a much better handling. And if the only way you can do this is by bottling out of the required sleights in favour of this inferior piece of tat, then it might be better not to bother with it at all...

It's rather patronising to assume that people want to be spoon-fed a script. But any decent routine, barring silent ones, will be scripted to begin with. The script is extremely important, although most of us will adapt a routine for ourselves; many of us come up with our own original routines, in fact. But as Whit Haydn would point out, it is worthwhile learning the routine as written, before deciding to rewrite it.
Message: Posted by: tomsk192 (Nov 25, 2014 08:11AM)
[quote]On Nov 25, 2014, inigmntoya wrote:
[quote]On Nov 24, 2014, tomsk192 wrote:
Try watching this:
[/quote]

They hardly seem like the same trick. Quite a few more color changes in the Elmsley version. The spread of _eight_ face down cards all different really drives the point home.
The only thing that seemed odd/out of place there was at the end when he says "even the faces change", which makes no sense because the faces were always jokers? [/quote]

You're right, it doesn't make sense! Perhaps one could say, "And now, not only do the backs change but they change from backs to faces."
Message: Posted by: rmorrell (Nov 25, 2014 08:35AM)
[quote]On Nov 25, 2014, tomsk192 wrote:
Why on earth provide a demo at all, then, if the idea is for everyone to make up their own presentation? And thus, if you [i]do[/i] provide a demo, as is the case here, why do such a poor presentation? Would [i]you[/i] put your name to such a boring, unentertaining piece?
[/quote]

Hmm maybe to show you what the trick looks like?! Kind of like reading a magic catalogue but more digital... of course the idea is that you take the trick and come up with your own presentation?!? how ever did we manage for hundreds of years with short method descriptions in books, where as a young magician you read the secret then had to spend time and effort and a little imagination to present it for yourself... ah I long for those days!

Of course it is nice to read a performers script and presentation or see someone present something on DVD but that is part of this huge problem where we have magicians that do an act that looks like a mixture of Michael Ammar, Daryl and Jay Sankey, because no body thinks about creating a presentation or script for a trick that fits their character and way of performing!

[quote]
Perhaps you failed to understand what I was driving at? By showing these two films together, you not only see the benefit of a decent, [i]coherent[/i] script, but also a much better handling. And if the only way you can do this is by bottling out of the required sleights in favour of this inferior piece of tat, then it might be better not to bother with it at all...
[/quote]

No I don't think I did fail, so you are saying that I can only do Dazzle if I do the Elmsley patter? The decent coherent script could apply to the Bannon trick, the script and presentation are completely separate to the method and mechanics of the trick, just because you are buying Bannon's method and mechanics, it doesn't mean you should or are entitled to get his or anyone's script or patter, or that you can't take the Elmsley script or come up with your own!

[quote]
It's rather patronising to assume that people want to be spoon-fed a script. But any decent routine, barring silent ones, will be scripted to begin with. The script is extremely important, although most of us will adapt a routine for ourselves; many of us come up with our own original routines, in fact. But as Whit Haydn would point out, it is worthwhile learning the routine as written, before deciding to rewrite it. [/quote]

Yes a decent routine, if you are buying a ready-made performance piece that heavily relies on a script, yes scripting is important but that is something you have to do for yourself, I can't be Whit Haydn, any more than you can, and yes maybe do the routine as written, but then please re-write it, this is the bit that most people never get round to doing, hence the clones... you seem to be contradicting yourself, you are complaining that the demo video doesn't give you a pre-made presentation that you can copy, but then you say you would adapt and re-write it anyway, so why not just come up with a way to present it for yourself if you like the trick.

If you can't think of a way that you can use the trick in your act that suits your character, then maybe the trick isn't for you, but don't make some sweeping statement that it is a bad trick or bad handling, just because it lacks a script or presentation that you can instantly clone.
Message: Posted by: tomsk192 (Nov 25, 2014 09:58AM)
It [i]is[/i] a bad trick with bad handling, in my opinion. I could think up any number of ways to present it, but that would be equivalent to polishing a turd.

If you can't see why it is poor, as shown in the trailer, then I really can't help you, and we should just agree to differ.

John Bannon has produced excellent material in the past; Smoke and Mirrors and Impossibilia are both great books, which should grace any magician's shelves. This, however, is rubbish.
Message: Posted by: Liam Montier (Nov 25, 2014 10:25AM)
Hi all,

Some of the elements that people don't like from the demo were my call - I'll see if I can get another demo shot for you guys, something with a bit more presentation, and faster moving. I concentrated on showing the bare-bones of the trick, and maybe I should have given it a bit more 'BOOF'. :D

Think I'll have to agree to disagree with you on the handling Tomsk192. Sizzle removes a dozen gaff cards, 8 half-passes (?!) and substitutes the difficult 'Everchange' count for the much simpler Ghost / Elmsley Count. Plus it leaves all the cards examinable. Rather than debate it, and bore all the readers of the thread, we'll agree to disagree :)

Watch this space for a new demo when I get chance.

Peace :)

Liam.
Message: Posted by: thehawk (Nov 25, 2014 11:31AM)
The demo itself is hard to follow and confusing and that is why a lot of people do not like it as a packet trick. If you want to bore somebody for a few minutes then this is the trick for you. There a lot better packet tricks out there. His Twisted Sisters was great but this one isn't.
Message: Posted by: doriancaudal (Nov 25, 2014 12:00PM)
"Confusion is not magic" - Dai Vernon.
Message: Posted by: videoman (Nov 25, 2014 12:24PM)
When it comes to packet tricks my preference is to use 4 cards. Just makes sense to me why you would use 4, possibly 5.
When you get to 6 or 8 or more, things begin to get muddled IMO, but I don't expect everyone to agree with that.
Plus, counts start to look odd to me, why wouldn't you just spread them all out which would be what you would do if you could.

There are more than enough great ones using just 4 so I don't feel any need to go beyond that but that is not to say that I wouldn't make an exception if one came along that really knocked me over.

But again, just my own rather strange opinion about it, and I freely admit that Elmsley's is a doozy but just not for me.
Message: Posted by: rmorrell (Nov 25, 2014 12:51PM)
[quote]On Nov 25, 2014, tomsk192 wrote:
It [i]is[/i] a bad trick with bad handling, in my opinion. I could think up any number of ways to present it, but that would be equivalent to polishing a turd.

If you can't see why it is poor, as shown in the trailer, then I really can't help you, and we should just agree to differ.

John Bannon has produced excellent material in the past; Smoke and Mirrors and Impossibilia are both great books, which should grace any magician's shelves. This, however, is rubbish. [/quote]

Now who is being patronising, it is poor in your opinion, that's fine, we will just agree to differ, a sweeping this is rubbish when you haven't even got the product or tested it for real live people with your own presentation says a lot.

As to it being confusing, I think I must be watching a different trick, you show some Red Backed Jokers and an Ace and after touching a different coloured back card to the Ace the other backs change to match, you end with all the different colours, and change the faces to a Royal Flush, how hard is that to follow?!
Message: Posted by: rmorrell (Nov 25, 2014 12:57PM)
I agree with Liam even in the Elmsley video you can see something is up when he is doing those half-passes, and that is Alex Elmsley doing it! If I did that handling I'm not sure I could handle all those half passes, and the everchange count is a lot less natural and harder than the Bullet Party Display. Several times in that video he has to come over and hold the packet in biddle grip in order to do the half-pass and you get a 'jump' in the packet where you pick up that something is happening, and you still have the turned over card element and you are still having to count the cards as a display, to me it just isn't as open and fair looking and it ends dirty.
Message: Posted by: professorwho (Nov 25, 2014 01:36PM)
Watching dazzle and sizzle one after the other I have to say I prefer sizzle. Not hard to follow at all, well no different anyway. I have the Elmsley lecture set and know how dazzle is done and personally I prefer having packet tricks that are explainable at the end because there are quote a few grabbers out there. Presumably the flush reveal could be an all ace reveal if you wished it to be going by previous Bannon packet tricks using the bullet party display.
Will I get it,i don't know. I use the packet tricks from triabolical a lot and am unlikely to add another to my repertoire but I do think it looks nice.
Message: Posted by: tomsk192 (Nov 25, 2014 02:00PM)
:vgoofy:
Message: Posted by: tomsk192 (Nov 25, 2014 02:47PM)
[img]http://supplychainbeyond.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/picEmperors-New-Clothes1.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: pierredan (Nov 25, 2014 03:27PM)
I love John Bannon. I have almost all of his effects. I watched the demo and could not follow what the effect was. If I need to watch it a second time to really grasp what is going on, maybe this is not a worker for me. And $27 for one packet trick is not cheap compared to his last fantastic Fractal offerings.
Message: Posted by: Andrew Zuber (Nov 25, 2014 05:07PM)
I viewed the demo with the sound off (I was in a room with people talking) and this really didn't play for me. As others have said, confusing and I couldn't really tell what was happening, what I'd seen and what I hadn't seen. I'm a Bannon fan, and I love the idea of backs changing colors, but this one isn't for me.
Message: Posted by: boinko (Nov 25, 2014 07:56PM)
Bannon's one of the best mechanics out there. But he should go back to basics -- and forget about all these colors and climaxes after climaxes.

Seriously, the best Shakespeare plots are the plots that are easy to understand. There's a reason Lear's the greatest play -- it's got a streamlined plot (among other things).

Bannon needs to think Lear at this point -- and forget about trying to be Christopher Nolan.
Message: Posted by: tomsk192 (Nov 26, 2014 07:38AM)
'Much Ado About Nothing' might be more appropriate.
Message: Posted by: sohaib (Nov 26, 2014 10:40AM)
The half pass in Dazzle is fishy only to Magicians

It's invisible to Lay People, even more-so if you
move the cards as you do it

Still, it would be nice to eliminate the half passes
and have the Original Routine still intact
Message: Posted by: Count Lustig (Nov 26, 2014 12:32PM)
[quote]On Nov 25, 2014, rmorrell wrote:
I agree with Liam even in the Elmsley video you can see something is up when he is doing those half-passes, and that is Alex Elmsley doing it!...[/quote]
Okay, you've convinced me; [i]both[/i] versions stink--but for different reasons. In the original Elmsley version, it's because you can't do that many half-passes in a trick without the audience realizing that something is going on. That's true even if you do the move well, which Elmsley doesn't. It's particularly bad that the move occurs at exactly the same point in each phase, making it easy for people to detect a pattern.

And then there's the endless repetition in the Elmsley trick. Some magicians complain about the Ambitious Card being repetitious. But with the Ambitious Card, you can introduce some variety. Here it's the same thing again and again and again and again.

Of course, the reasons that the Bannon version stinks have already been pointed out numerous times.
Message: Posted by: mike donoghue (Nov 26, 2014 01:01PM)
If Alex Elmsley was alive & did dazzle in front of lay people & John Bannon also did his routine on them the audience would be fooled & entertained by both gentlemen. Also, if magicians were watching they would immediately want to BUY BOTH ROUTINES. They don 't know about half passes or ghost counts. I am getting both daze & sizzle . After I hav worked both I post my findings on here. I will be honest. Mike donoghue
Message: Posted by: Count Lustig (Nov 26, 2014 01:16PM)
[quote]On Nov 26, 2014, mike donoghue wrote:
...[Lay people] don 't know about half passes...[/quote]
They will after seeing you do it seven times.
Message: Posted by: mike donoghue (Nov 26, 2014 02:28PM)
You would think so but I rather think they will be thinking of how the cards changed. Also if you do the moves how you would normally count cards there should be nothing to see. Never ever had an audience member say'hold on a minute r you going an Elmsley count etc etc. mike donoghue
Message: Posted by: Count Lustig (Nov 26, 2014 02:57PM)
[quote]On Nov 26, 2014, mike donoghue wrote:
You would think so but I rather think they will be thinking of how the cards changed. Also if you do the moves how you would normally count cards there should be nothing to see. Never ever had an audience member say'hold on a minute r you going an Elmsley count etc etc. mike donoghue [/quote]
I'm not talking about counts. I'm talking about doing a half-pass, [i]seven times[/i] in one trick, always at the same point in each phase, immediately before the magic happens.

You say that they'll be "thinking of how the cards changed." I say they'll have a pretty big clue as to how.
Message: Posted by: tomsk192 (Nov 26, 2014 03:13PM)
You are wrong, Monsieur le Comte; which is why countless magicians performed Dazzle for several decades, for happy lay audiences.
Message: Posted by: mike donoghue (Nov 26, 2014 03:49PM)
Well said tomski.
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (Nov 26, 2014 07:10PM)
I didn't see any half passes on first viewing and I do the half pass. For one thing I was just enjoying the presentation and for another thing at the moment of the half pass he isn't pretending to be doing nothing, he is pretending to "do the trick".
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Nov 26, 2014 07:28PM)
I missed the half passes too. Obviously something was going on, but I didn't catch that it was half passes - and as MMM said, he's never "pretending to be doing nothing." But at any rate, the cumulative effect of Dazzle is only partly the pretty changes - it's more of a running gag featuring increasingly ridiculous, tongue in cheek reasons why he can't do the trick. Maybe it goes on a just a wee bit long, and could use a kicker, but it's fast and colorful, amusing, and the changes make sense.
Message: Posted by: Count Lustig (Nov 26, 2014 08:54PM)
[quote]On Nov 26, 2014, MeetMagicMike wrote:
...at the moment of the half pass he isn't pretending to be doing nothing, he is pretending to "do the trick". [/quote]
If by "pretending to 'do the trick,'" you mean causing the magic to happen, you're mistaken. He makes it clear that it's placing a card reversed in the middle that causes the magic to happen, not that weird thing that you didn't realize was a half-pass.
Message: Posted by: Count Lustig (Nov 26, 2014 08:57PM)
[quote]On Nov 26, 2014, MaxfieldsMagic wrote:
...Obviously something was going on, but I didn't catch that it was half passes...[/quote]
Oh, well, okay then. Nothing suspicious about that.
Message: Posted by: tomsk192 (Nov 26, 2014 11:30PM)
C'mon; this is actually a piece of entertainment! It's not some interminable gambling demonstration ;-)
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (Nov 30, 2014 01:01AM)
Count Lustic typed:

[quote]If by "pretending to 'do the trick,'" you mean causing the magic to happen...[/quote]

No, that is not what I meant.
Message: Posted by: krowboom (Dec 4, 2014 12:09AM)
Wow. What a reaction to this trick. Tell me what you really think of it.
I find Sizzle to be almost identical to Royal Scam which I prefer because to me at least the handling is much easier. I do not like the Bullet count display. Royal scam always gets a great reaction so I am pretty sure Sizzle would also. After watching it a few times I was able to put together the cards and moves since I have several different colored decks thus saving myself $27. There is a discrepency at the end which I noticed and it bothered me. You are shown 6 jokers and 1 Ace at the beginning but wind up showing 4 jokers and a royal flush at the end (9 cards). Does this bother anyone else?
Message: Posted by: mike donoghue (Dec 4, 2014 03:32AM)
Got this & it's very easy to do.

Alot of visual eye candy(but if you have watched the trailer you know that).

Well produced with excellent sound, picture & teaching by both Liam & John.

Worth the £17.99 asking price. Also, there's a bonus trick on the DVD. It's good & easy to perform.

Similar effects by Bannon, Montier & Gordon are on tyhe market (& I have them) but I will give this ago in paid performances.

PS. I know from considerable experience that this WILL PLAY WELL WITH LAYMEN. In fact it will play well with anyone.

Mike Donoghue
Message: Posted by: inigmntoya (Dec 4, 2014 07:22AM)
Royal Scam (which you said you also do) has the same 7 to 9 cards discrepancy. It doesn't bother me at all and flies by because you never say how many cards you're starting with. It _may_ be more likely to get noticed with Sizzle as there's a more visible pattern at the start - 3 Jokers, the Ace, then 3 Jokers, and the main effect is three Jokers placed on the table being used to change a packet of three jokers and an Ace, so even without explicit counting some might notice.

[quote]On Dec 4, 2014, krowboom wrote:
Wow. What a reaction to this trick. Tell me what you really think of it.
I find Sizzle to be almost identical to Royal Scam which I prefer because to me at least the handling is much easier. I do not like the Bullet count display. Royal scam always gets a great reaction so I am pretty sure Sizzle would also. After watching it a few times I was able to put together the cards and moves since I have several different colored decks thus saving myself $27. There is a discrepency at the end which I noticed and it bothered me. You are shown 6 jokers and 1 Ace at the beginning but wind up showing 4 jokers and a royal flush at the end (9 cards). Does this bother anyone else? [/quote]
Message: Posted by: krowboom (Dec 4, 2014 07:35AM)
Although Royal Scam has the same descrepancy you are only shown Aces. To me having the Ace shown amoung 6 jokers makes the descrepency noticeable. For those who have performed the trick for audiences does this present a problem?
Message: Posted by: Darius666 (Dec 4, 2014 09:12AM)
Audiences never notice stuff like that. Have performed Royal Scan hundreds of times and not had it mentioned once, and trust me, people will say if that catch you on something.

Have done this a few times now and it's not been noticed. The impact of the trick is so strong that they wouldn't. Also I really don't see it as a dicrepancy in this trick. If you have just magically changed the backs and faces, it doesn't seem that unlikely that you magically made an extra card appear to complete your Royal Flush.
Message: Posted by: robvh (Dec 4, 2014 11:02PM)
I love John Bannon but this trick doesn't do it for me. You display a coloured back, bring it to the back of the packet, and then count two more from the back. So you've clearly shown that front card twice and are thus concealing something. The moves fail the "be natural" test. For me at least.

There seem to be some Dazzle fans here. Maybe one of you can help me (via PM so as not to hijack the thread). I'm a big fan of Razzle Dazzle (being a shorter, punchier version of Dazzle with a very natural handling). I've been wanting to replace my cards with "fresh ones" but Razzle Dazzle isn't sold anymore. Does the Dazzle set of cards contain all the necessary gimmicks to perform Razzle Dazzle?
Message: Posted by: TheFeds (Dec 6, 2014 06:41AM)
I'm a fan of the thinking and material of both Alex Elmsley and John Bannon. Elmsley had a fun and charming presentation for his effect and in this thread we can see that full presentation by the creator. I think it is important to note that we haven't actually seen John Bannon perform his own trick. We've seen a trailer version performed by someone else. Personally I think the trailer is lacking. More time was put into making the graphics look nice and not as much time was put into making the effect look nice. Which is disappointing as I can see the potential of the effect.
Message: Posted by: velcrowe (Dec 6, 2014 10:04PM)
All y'all crack me the hell up. Price & feel, certainly relevant concerns, but those acting like John f'in' Bannon, the architect behind Twisted Sisters & Duplicity, doesn't understand the tradeoffs inherent in ending clean vs. cleaner construction are ridiculous. His decades of packet magic construction are basically a doctoral dissertation on the subject itself, and he admits his preference for either in different contexts.

You don't think his riff that ends clean is worth it? More power to you.

You think the demo is boring? Feel free to play with the presentation.

You think it's DOA and terrible magic? You're being a contrarian for the sake of it.
Message: Posted by: krazykat (Dec 7, 2014 06:14PM)
Bannon has come up with some of the most clever card magic of the past fifty years.

However, he has fallen prey to what Darwin warns about in Designing Miracles: mistaking fulfilling conditions with good magic. This trick is a confusing mess. Preforming it for laymen will only reinforce this conclusion.
Message: Posted by: tomsk192 (Dec 7, 2014 06:19PM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2014, velcrowe wrote:
All y'all crack me the hell up. Price & feel, certainly relevant concerns, but those acting like John f'in' Bannon, the architect behind Twisted Sisters & Duplicity, doesn't understand the tradeoffs inherent in ending clean vs. cleaner construction are ridiculous. His decades of packet magic construction are basically a doctoral dissertation on the subject itself, and he admits his preference for either in different contexts.

You don't think his riff that ends clean is worth it? More power to you.

You think the demo is boring? Feel free to play with the presentation.

You think it's DOA and terrible magic? You're being a contrarian for the sake of it. [/quote]

Rubbish.

This is pants, plain and simple. All you've done is offer up some sort of beat hagiography. This trick is rubbish, not just in my view but in many other people's view, too.

Less interesting than a prolonged real estate dispute.
Message: Posted by: velcrowe (Dec 7, 2014 08:15PM)
"...prolonged real estate dispute" quite nicely sums up your trashing of a trick for multiple posts because it's not as good as some others.

But as your investment in making certain there's nothing possible to glean from this trick brings you to use "hagiography" in a sentence, I shall cower in fear, and hopefully find solace in not being able to find the limits of your tireless crusade. Wither, John Bannon! Sizzle has undone you!
Message: Posted by: mike donoghue (Dec 8, 2014 02:54AM)
The more I go on the Café, the more I realise that a lot of people have never performed routines on anyone but their friends & family.

Also, a lot of people comment about something they don't have & have never given a try.

I have tried this (not as mix & mingle without a table)but at one of my residencys & the reactions from layman were fantastic(not good BUT FANTASTIC). This involves going up to a table full of strangers cold(unlesss they are regulars) and perfoming before the food arives.

I also did a private party at Alwick Castle(where Harry Potter was filmed & part of the Christmas Day Downton Abbey). The party was for the Duke & Dutchess of Northumberland who live in the castle. Again the reactions for Sizzle were fantastic.

I urge people to buy this, learn to do it, think a bit about the presentation and actually do it on lots of different people and then put your findings on here.

It plays really well when I do it & it could for you as well.

Mike Donoghue
Message: Posted by: mike donoghue (Dec 8, 2014 02:55AM)
The more I go on the Café, the more I realise that a lot of people have never performed routines on anyone but their friends & family.

Also, a lot of people comment about something they don't have & have never given a try.

I have tried this (not as mix & mingle without a table)but at one of my residencys & the reactions from layman were fantastic(not good BUT FANTASTIC). This involves going up to a table full of strangers cold(unlesss they are regulars) and perfoming before the food arives.

I also did a private party at Alwick Castle(where Harry Potter was filmed & part of the Christmas Day Downton Abbey). The party was for the Duke & Dutchess of Northumberland who live in the castle. Again the reactions for Sizzle were fantastic.

I urge people to buy this, learn to do it, think a bit about the presentation and actually do it on lots of different people and then put your findings on here.

It plays really well when I do it & it could for you as well.

Mike Donoghue
Message: Posted by: Merc Man (Dec 8, 2014 04:50PM)
Watched the demo clip performed by Liam, and I can truthfully say that I never had a bleeding clue what was going on.

It is simply, in my honest opinion, yet another packet trick that is badly structured, confusing, unnaturally 'movey', pointless in it's aim and last but not least with a finale, that British Audiences anyway would be completely blasé about. A Royal Flush in Poker means absolutely zilch for the vast majority of people this side of the pond.

I do like a lot of John Bannon's work. But this appears just a re-hash of some previous plots. And I have to say, a very poor re-hash.

What, in all honesty, is Sizzle adding to previous packet tricks over many, many years - whereby faces change, then the backs change colour?

Sorry........I just don't get the hype. Honestly guys, I really don't. :hmm:
Message: Posted by: Darius666 (Dec 9, 2014 08:18AM)
As someone who performs Royal Scam almost everyday I have to say you could not be more wrong about the Royal Flush thing. People know exactly what that is and I have never had a poor reaction from producing it.

I think Mike hit the nail on the head here. Lots of people here that simply don't perform in the real world. Been using this loads and it kills.
Message: Posted by: 3ofclubs (Dec 9, 2014 01:00PM)
Some people like some things. Some people don't like some things. Does it really matter? 4 pages of matter?

Get over yourselves.
Message: Posted by: Merc Man (Dec 9, 2014 01:40PM)
[quote]On Dec 9, 2014, Darius DCLXVI wrote:
I think Mike hit the nail on the head here. Lots of people here that simply don't perform in the real world. Been using this loads and it kills. [/quote]
Well, I can assure you that I do work 'in the real world'. And I've found that if you want to really impress (not 'kill'........magic tricks really don't 'kill' people) a British audience that knows anything whatsoever about card hands, then producing a Pryle of 3's, as in a three card brag hand, appears much more impressive than a Royal Flush hand any day of the week.

I know this for a fact. I've tried both. In many environments and venues over 30+ years where you'd probably need to be wearing a nappy son.
Message: Posted by: Darius666 (Dec 9, 2014 06:12PM)
[quote]On Dec 9, 2014, Merc Man wrote:
[quote]On Dec 9, 2014, Darius DCLXVI wrote:
I think Mike hit the nail on the head here. Lots of people here that simply don't perform in the real world. Been using this loads and it kills. [/quote]
Well, I can assure you that I do work 'in the real world'. And I've found that if you want to really impress (not 'kill'........magic tricks really don't 'kill' people) a British audience that knows anything whatsoever about card hands, then producing a Pryle of 3's, as in a three card brag hand, appears much more impressive than a Royal Flush hand any day of the week.

I know this for a fact. I've tried both. In many environments and venues over 30+ years where you'd probably need to be wearing a nappy son. [/quote]

Well Grandad, perhaps your mates down the old folks home, who I'm sure like me wear nappies, know what Pryle of 3s are but the majority of people, you know, all us young whippersnappers know what a Royal Flush is. Perhaps you missed the popluarity of Poker in your most recent coma.
Message: Posted by: Markymark (Dec 9, 2014 06:37PM)
Having to watch 'Sizzle' again would put me into a coma!

There was a really great trick sold by Davenports years ago [for a fiver] that I think was called 'Rainbow Cascade'
It was by Roy Walton.
Message: Posted by: Merc Man (Dec 10, 2014 05:21AM)
[quote]On Dec 9, 2014, Darius DCLXVI wrote:
Well Grandad, perhaps your mates down the old folks home, who I'm sure like me wear nappies, know what Pryle of 3s are but the majority of people, you know, all us young whippersnappers know what a Royal Flush is. Perhaps you missed the popluarity of Poker in your most recent coma. [/quote]

Well, actually I showed this clip to the folks at the home. All of them were of the same opinion. They said "what makes this trick any better, or different, than Alex Elmsely's Dazzle Act, Oliver Makenzie's Drink Trick, Bruce Cervon's Dirty Deal, Ronnay's Sympathetic Cards, Joe Riding's End of the Rainbow, Mo Howarth's Chinese Poker, etc"? You see they may, like me, be older but they remember what has been produced many, many years before.

I may even ask the guys down my local pub tonight - most of them playing cards are in their 30's, yet always tend to play either Crib or 3 Card Brag. Maybe, it's a Midlands, or even a working-class thing? After all, from what you are alluding to suggests that most people in Britain know the game of Poker (oh you are seriously so very much mistaken).

So putting all that aside, maybe you can explain what makes this trick so wonderful and what stands out from so many others that are similar - apart from the fact that, from what I'm reading here, it simply appears to be popular because it's by John Bannon. If it was a creation of an unknown creator, you can't convince me it would be selling for £18 quid + postage; and nor would it be held in such high esteem.

If you like it then fair enough. But please don't try and stop others from having THEIR opinion - particularly when there are some of us old farts still around that have probably forgotten more about card magic, and packet tricks in particular, than you'll possibly ever know. :dance:
Message: Posted by: Jamie Ferguson (Dec 10, 2014 05:25AM)
Barry nails it again. :righton:
Message: Posted by: Darius666 (Dec 10, 2014 11:52AM)
[quote]On Dec 10, 2014, Merc Man wrote:
[quote]On Dec 9, 2014, Darius DCLXVI wrote:
Well Grandad, perhaps your mates down the old folks home, who I'm sure like me wear nappies, know what Pryle of 3s are but the majority of people, you know, all us young whippersnappers know what a Royal Flush is. Perhaps you missed the popluarity of Poker in your most recent coma. [/quote]

Well, actually I showed this clip to the folks at the home. All of them were of the same opinion. They said "what makes this trick any better, or different, than Alex Elmsely's Dazzle Act, Oliver Makenzie's Drink Trick, Bruce Cervon's Dirty Deal, Ronnay's Sympathetic Cards, Joe Riding's End of the Rainbow, Mo Howarth's Chinese Poker, etc"? You see they may, like me, be older but they remember what has been produced many, many years before.

I may even ask the guys down my local pub tonight - most of them playing cards are in their 30's, yet always tend to play either Crib or 3 Card Brag. Maybe, it's a Midlands, or even a working-class thing? After all, from what you are alluding to suggests that most people in Britain know the game of Poker (oh you are seriously so very much mistaken).

So putting all that aside, maybe you can explain what makes this trick so wonderful and what stands out from so many others that are similar - apart from the fact that, from what I'm reading here, it simply appears to be popular because it's by John Bannon. If it was a creation of an unknown creator, you can't convince me it would be selling for £18 quid + postage; and nor would it be held in such high esteem.

If you like it then fair enough. But please don't try and stop others from having THEIR opinion - particularly when there are some of us old farts still around that have probably forgotten more about card magic, and packet tricks in particular, than you'll possibly ever know. :dance: [/quote]

Seriosuly, don't give me that "I've forgotten more tricks than you will ever know line". It's complete BS. For a start you have no idea how old I am. I can tell you it's a lot older than you think it is. And you have no idea how many tricks I know and have forgotten, could be more or less than you. It doesn't really matter. I know people older than me that know less than me, equally I know people younger than know more, age doesn't come into it!

I'm not stopping you having your opinion anymore than you are stopping me having mine.

Completely disagree with you about the Royal Flush thing, so we will have to agree to disagree on that one, no point continuing to argue about it. All I can say is I've been producing a Royal Flush in various fashions for many many years and it has always got a great reaction, especially with Royal Scam which is proabably my favourite packet trick.

You are probab;ly right that this would not get as much attention if it were released by an unknown magician, but you could say that about a lot of tricks.

Is it better than Dazzle, that's a matter of opinion but when it does the same plot but removes half passes and adds a kicker finish I know what I would rather do.

I have been using this and it really does kill, no, not literally, it's an expression, perhaps getting getting killer reactions is a better thing to say. I will bow out now and leave it at that :-)
Message: Posted by: Merc Man (Dec 10, 2014 02:32PM)
Well it certainly wasn't 'Worker of the Week' on today's Wizard Product Review..............unsurprisingly for a lot of similar opinions as outlined above.

And just to add 'Darius' I may not know how old you are (despite the fact that you didn't make any mention of any of the aforementioned similar packet tricks from the 60's/70's); but my comments did not sink so low as to mention a medical condition that has affected many much younger than ourselves.

And my overriding question remains. What makes this version by John Bannon better than any other?

The term "standing on the shoulders of giants" springs instantly to mind.

P.S. He didn't give any credit either when he released 'Twisted Sisters'. The concept was originally the work of a Dutch Magician named Corvello, in the late 1960's.
Message: Posted by: TheFeds (Dec 10, 2014 08:34PM)
I think it offers a lot, but the question that each will ask is whether that is something that is of interest. Obviously for some that answer is no and for other the answer is yes. I'm not sure why there is the need that everyone else has to like/hate what I like/hate. If everyone liked what I like then we'd all be performing the same material and it would be boring as hell for anyone.

As much as I like Dazzle by Alex Elmsley, you are left with a stack of double-back cards on the table.

Some good points of Sizzle
* All cards are in play from the beginning - no need to introduce new cards or steal any out.
* All cards are normal, apart from the back design being different, and can therefor be examined.
* If the bullet party display is done well, it seems like a casual display of both sides of all the cards.
* It uses fairly simple sleight of hand that most would be able to accomplish.

As for the Royal Flush ending, I live where that would be the ideal ending, but like most effects there is no rule that says you can't change it to better suit your audience.

I really can't understand the level of hostility that can be shown for a discussion about a card trick. You'd think we were talking about taxes, or social programs.
Message: Posted by: Ray Haining (Dec 10, 2014 08:39PM)
Did someone mention social programs? I'll have you know ...
Message: Posted by: Russell Davidson (Dec 11, 2014 08:19AM)
Elmsley's Dazzle is the one for me. Those that say you're left with gimmicked cards on the table obviously have never heard of a pocket in which they can be put.

Plus, his routine makes sense whereas Bannon's is rather disjointed IMO.
Message: Posted by: TheFeds (Dec 11, 2014 09:46AM)
No, a pocket is not a difficult concept to grasp. However one of the nice features of having multiple colour changes is the display of the colour contrasts, so putting away the cards kind of takes away from the impact of the effect.

As for what Bannon's routine is and isn't, I can't really say as I've only seen Liam perform it. But I like John Bannon's work and I like both the plot and Elmsley's Dazzle. As for presentation, well, that would be my part so it would only be be as good as I make it.
Message: Posted by: lord_wallmotto (Dec 11, 2014 09:54AM)
I think that it is ok, but why would you want to performe an ok trick? There have been so many great packet tricks released over the years, many from Mr. Bannon himself so I don't really see the point in buying this as long as your not a hobbyist and is dying for a new trick to performe for your friends.
Message: Posted by: Ray Chelt (Dec 11, 2014 03:27PM)
Nope, for me , even though no gimmicks, it hasn't half the impact of Dirty Deal.
Message: Posted by: C.J.Magic (Jan 7, 2015 04:41AM)
The video demonstration was difficult to watch. Not having performed it, I can't say how a lay audience would react.

I perform Daryl's Odd Quad and people go postal.

Here is Daryl performing Odd Quad at the Magic castle. Just listen to those reactions:

[youtube]dgcCMvdFJUE[/youtube]
Message: Posted by: Poof-Daddy (Jan 7, 2015 07:41AM)
[quote]On Nov 25, 2014, Liam Montier wrote:
Hi all,

Some of the elements that people don't like from the demo were my call - I'll see if I can get another demo shot for you guys, something with a bit more presentation, and faster moving. I concentrated on showing the bare-bones of the trick, and maybe I should have given it a bit more 'BOOF'. :D


Watch this space for a new demo when I get chance.

Peace :)

Liam. [/quote]

Been about 6 weeks. Anywhere with the new vid? I really like John Bannon's work as well as Liam's but I still just can't get past this over Royal Scam. A couple shoehorned color changes added in just don't justify $30 worth of BOOF to me (as I already have Royal Scam).
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jan 7, 2015 03:26PM)
[quote]On Nov 20, 2014, Cameron Francis wrote:
Elmsley's trick is great. So is his presentation. And you could adapt a similar presentation with this one if you wish.

For all of those saying this trick is a mess... Really? The plot is pretty straight forward. You put a card with a particular color in the packet and they all change to that color. Then there's a nice surprise ending.

Kind of like the original Elmsley effect... You know. The CLASSIC.

Come on, guys. If you perform for lay people, you know they love color changing backs and kicker endings. People who say lay people don't like this stuff have clearly never performed this kind of magic for a lay person.

One of my lay friends who has seen a lot of magic loves tricks like these. "I like it when a lot of stuff happens to the cards," was his exact quote. This trick fits the bill. [/quote]
We get it. We just don't like it.
Message: Posted by: MueCard (Apr 6, 2015 10:48AM)
[quote]On Nov 25, 2014, Chamberlain wrote:

...The initial display of the face down jokers has a discrepancy of the ace being sandwiched between all face down cards (0.50 in the video)...

[/quote]

Regarding the ACE OF SPADES problem, which was mentioned for several times:
What do you you think of using an advertising card instead of the Ace? ("...in every deck there is an advertising card no matter of back design, may it be red, green..."). Then take your deck and force the the AC to complete the Royal Flush.