|
|
Hansen Special user Down Under 653 Posts |
Hi guys,
I've just recently discovered this incredible effect by John Bannon. I absolutely love the effect itself, but I wasn't really taken with the patter/presentation. I just didn't find it gripping enough, and also where I live we don't have daylight saving, so that won't fly with folks around here. I've heard Larry Becker has his own take on this effect called "Power of Suggestion". I was wondering if any of you guys out there that perform this one use an alternative patter/presentation? Something not necessarily time-related even? Thanks, Jason |
Kjellstrom Inner circle Sweden, Scandinavia, Europe 5203 Posts |
You can try Larry Becker´s version: Power of Suggestion from the big book Stunners Plus.
His approach is more powerful and the concept is strong mental magic then just a card trick. The great dutch magican Ferry Gerats has a version that uses the perfect faro shuffle. Timely departure revisited + a plausible rationale for the faro-shuffle. That routine is very good. |
Picard Elite user 411 Posts |
I love this effect but also have a problem with the patter, don't like the original one.
I am really tempted to buy Larry's book now. I've still got good reactions with it and the way I've been presenting is this: I tell the 3 spectators that I would like them to select a random number together. I ask them to bring out some dice and when they say then don't have them I say: "Oh no problem, imaginary dice will be ok, too." I ask the first spectator to roll a die in his mind and remember a number he's got. Then I ask second spectator to roll a die in his mind, too. Then I ask them to whisper their numbers to the third spectator while I turn away. I now offer 3rd spectator 3 options: he can keep 1st spectator's number, he can keep 2nd spectator's number or he can keep them both in which case he adds them together finally arriving at their randomly selected number. (which will be 12 or less obviously) I now tell 3rd spectator to remove that number of cards from the deck (as a proof later because right now the number is only in his mind) and of course ask everyone else to watch and remember the number. Problematic thing with Bannon's original (at least for me) was fact that only 1 spectator thought of a random number (hour) and it was a bit illogical for other spectators to also have to think of the same number when they had nothing to do with it. In this way I have included everyone in the process of selecting a random number and that explains why each of them is going to be using the same number later. It makes sense to my sepctators, and so far it has worked well for me but I am still not perfectly happy with it and looking for something else in case someone has come up with something better. I'd be glad if someone else would like to share their presentations, thoughts, etc. for Timely Departure. |
Roger Kelly Inner circle Kent, England 3332 Posts |
Picard. I like that idea! It also gets rid of the possibility of the number 'one' being used - which I didn't like much.
|
Picard Elite user 411 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-01-30 07:41, Roger Kelly wrote: Thanks. You can, of course, simplify the whole thing and just ask 3rd spectator to add the numbers for example (without offering him three options), but I really like to make a big deal of the process to make it look completely fair and impossible for me to know the number (which is in fact true). Biggest advantage of this presentation for me is a fact that they all participate in selecting the number making it logical that they all use the same number later. Taking out and rolling imaginary dice also offers humorous possibilities. Even when I am not making any jokes people often find it amusing. |
leechiswell Regular user England 108 Posts |
I also loved the effect but found the presentation a little lacking. I like the idea of the dice very much, but am wondering. What reason do you then give to the dissapearance of the cards? (the original line about daylight saving did sort of tie in to the selection of the number in this regard).
|
Uli Weigel Inner circle Berlin, Germany 1478 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-01-31 04:04, leechiswell wrote: Well, as strange as it seems, but thought of cards, chosen with the help of invisible dice, don't disappear - they become invisible too! |
Einmaliger Regular user Germany 199 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-01-31 06:46, Uli Weigel wrote: Then you could make a dice appear and say: Now as the dice has become visible, the chosen cards become visible, too. I like this presentation. |
Ferry Gerats Regular user the Netherlands 190 Posts |
As member mimo67 asked me for a description of my version of Timely Departure, which was being refered to by Mats Kjellström. See his post in this topic from Aug 14 - 2009 I am giving it here.
Timely departure revisited + a rationale for the faro-shuffle. Especially of interest for those who start with the faro-shuffle. In the book Smoke & Mirrors from John Bannon, there is the trick Timely Departure. I liked the plot very much but not the method, as the technique made it necessary to count 3 times twelve cards at a moderate speed. I am never fond of counting a lot of cards. Certainly not when you can't do it quickly, which is the case in this trick, as each spectator has to watch the cards you are showing carefully. For me this procedure was an obstacle to making things entertaining. When I got interested in the faro-shuffle I realized that this obstacle could be eliminated by using the faro-shuffle. If you are not able to do a perfect faro-shuffle, keep on reading as with this trick some minor irregularities with the shuffle are easily adjusted. You also don't have to cut exactly 26 cards. If you cut the cards at 25-27 or 24-28 the trick will still work. Another thing that bothered me in the description, was the fact that after the selections are made, the spectators are instructed for no apparent reason to look through the face up deck to watch for their cards. I found it more logical and more entertaining that a reason is given for this procedure. So I altered the plot a little. The plot is now as follows. After three chosen cards have been returned to the deck and the deck has been shuffled, you state that you will be only able to find the cards, if the spectators concentrate on their cards the moment they see their card, while you are spreading the deck face up. Upon reaching the last card from the deck however, you must admit that weren't able to pick up any vibrations. Upon asking whether the spectators did really concentrate on their cards, they will inform you that they haven't seen their cards. Now you spread the deck face up and three face down cards are seen in the spread. So you remark: "How strange that all of you didn't see your card, as I can see them quite clearly, for here is your 5 of diamonds, your king of spades and your 4 of spades.", as you turn over the cards. This unexpected ending generates a nice response, as you turn defeat into victory. (A presentation could also be that you claim to be an expert on body language. You have reached in this field such a degree that you can do it with three participants simultaneously. As proof you are going to spot the moment when a spectator recognises his/her card, even though the spectators are requested to keep a poker-face at all times.) Technique. While spreading the face down deck, you give to three spectators each a bunch of cards. They do get seven cards each, but there is no attention given to the actual number. They are instructed to remember the bottom card of their packet after they have shuffled their cards. From the remaining cards in your hand, you take about half in your right hand. Now each packet is being returned upon the bottom half in your left hand. After this the cards from your right hand are apparently placed upon all the cards in your left hand, but since you make a pass at the same moment, the 21 top cards will be the cards from the spectators. Now you do an in(faro)shuffle. (The top cards becomes 2nd from the top). So the chosen cards arrive at the 14th, 28th and 42nd position, while from the spectator's point of view the cards are hopelessly lost. For getting the chosen cards upside down, we'll return to the original trick from John Bannon. You state that you will show all the cards and ask the spectators to concentrate on theirs, as outlined in the presentation. For this you quickly spread-count 13 cards and turn them face up on the deck. Now you spread those at a regular speed asking them to spot their cards. Upon reaching the last face up card, you secretly add the adjacent face down card (one of the chosen cards) to the bottom of the face up cards and put these cards in a heap face up on the table. This procedure is repeated twice, each time putting the face up cards (+ the bottom face down card) on top of the face up cards on the table. Then you turn the last cards in your hands face up, have the spectators look at them and add them face up to the bottom of the face up heap on the table. At this moment you are ready for the finale. What is lost in this version, is that you no longer can divulge the number of the hour the spectators are thinking of, but this drawback is for me amply compensated with a more economic handling of the trick. The concept of getting a card in a certain position, by handing out a (fixed)number of cards, having them shuffled and having them look at the bottom card before returning the packet to the deck, doing a pass, followed by a faroshuffle may have, of course, wider applications. Some notes on the faroshuffle. If you are not very proficient at the faro-shuffle and did intent to do the inshuffle but the result is an outshuffle, this is easily corrected by not counting 13 cards for the first face up bunch of cards you show but counting 12 cards instead. For the next two bunches of face cards you keep on counting 13 cards. Likewise if you end the shuffle with some cards on top of the top that are not interlaced, this can be easily corrected by altering the number of cards for the first bunch of face up cards, accordingly. Of course you will need some practice to do this quickly. If there are 1, 2 or 3 cards not interlaced at the bottom of the deck, this will not interfere with the outcome of the trick. Plausible reason for the faroshuffle. It has been said that you cannot convincingly claim to an audience that you are actually shuffling the deck with a faro-shuffle, since when you are normally shuffling a deck, you do not look at the cards at all, as with a faro-shuffle you have to look quite carefully. So to convince the audience that the cards are thoroughly randomized I handle it this way. I ask them: "Do you know how a shuffling-machine in a casino shuffles the cards?” They answer, they don't know. “Well I'll try to show you, although it is hard to do by hand." and go into the faroshuffle, explaining to them: "Look all the cards are shuffled from both halves one by one (spreading the elongated deck on the table), so there are no cards sticking together, there is no card that stays in the same position, every card gets other neighbours.” (If you've done accidently an outshuffle they don't realize that top and bottom cards maintain their positions.), therefore it is the most efficient way of creating maximum chaos." This they accept as a truth, knowing that is in the interest of a casino to have the cards well mixed. Moreover, those who have a simple shuffling-machine at home, will recognise that the cards are indeed shuffled one by one from the two packets in the machine. If there ever is going to be a sceptic, (You may meet someone with a mathematical mind, who, despite the fallacies given above, realises that shuffling the cards in such a strict way, will result in a strict pattern of the cards and that therefore the cards are not exactly being randomized.) you simply bluff: “Just look at wikipedia for shufflingmachines and you will see that I am right.” Stating that this shuffle is hard to do by hand, sounds plausible and justifies that you are looking at the cards and if you made a mess with the faroshuffle the first time it even justifies a 2nd attempt. Have fun with it. Kind thoughts, Ferry Gerats |
mimo67 Veteran user France 322 Posts |
Thanks SO much Ferry for answering positively to my request and sharing your routine with us, it's really a nice gift !!!
I'm better at doing the In-Faro shuffle than doing a pass, but it can be done otherwise or it could be an excuse to practise the pass ;-) The routine is wonderfull and really faster to perform than the original one. There are indeed some drawbacks, those you pointed out for sure, but I see another one : the cards were more or less 'thought of cards' in the Bannon's original version. Technically there's no difference to the magician but from the spectator's point of view perhaps this could be a little weaker ? I don't know, I just ask what you think about it... But I suppose you've done this for years now and that if you're pleased with the reactions so would we. I'll tell you after some performances anyway. Again Ferry, THANKS very much for sharing this with all magic Café's community ;-) Best regards mimo67
~~~~~~~~~~~~~MiMo~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
Ferry Gerats Regular user the Netherlands 190 Posts |
Dear Mimo67,
You are absolutely right that a strong point of the orginal version that the cards are thought of. But, although the spectators have a lesser degree of free choice with my version I think you’ll agree that the audience is convinced that they have made free selections and that there is no way that I could know their cards nor their positions in the deck after the shuffle. As stated, the original has for me the considerable drawback that it is too procedure-heavy and I think for laymen as well. So weighing these characteristics I favour mine, as it enables me to make the trick entertaining, but of course I am biased. Thinking about this matter it reminded me of the of Harry Lorayne’s foreword in Decksterity, where he indicates: “The days of counting a lot of cards are over as modern day audiences have shortened attention spans. But, unfortunately, too many ‘magician’ aren’t aware of it yet.” That was 1967. Regarding your remark that you don’t do a pass too well, I think that the deception in the trick isn’t harmed when you replace the pass with a simple cut of the cards. Anyway, it is of course, nice to hear that you like my version. Kind thoughts, Ferry Gerats |
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Timely Departure - alternative patter? (0 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.06 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 < |