|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
mesmer Inner circle 1186 Posts |
Yes I agree Think direct!
Study T.A waters book on Book test, or get MOABT or get Nocturnal Book test (do a search on this thread)or get peek performance by Richard Busch Think Direct! |
|||||||||
BlackSalt New user Canada 76 Posts |
fhood,
This is theatre. I love ALEXANDRE's thoughts on giving the cards context but why not involve the cards in your revelation as well? Ribbon spread the cards, face-up. As your volunteer concentrates on their "impression" of the page they randomly selected, have them remove three or four cards from the spread. Become very interested in their choice. "Hmmmmm. I see your first selection was a face card. The page you looked at must have contained an interesting picture. You chose a Queen. There must have been a rather attractive lady in that picture ..." A presentation like this will keep the cards in context and remove the few skeptical thoughts about forced cards. Be creative and entertain. Best regards, BlackSalt |
|||||||||
fhood New user Southern California 86 Posts |
Black Salt,
Thanks for the tip on further using the cards. I know that using a deck of cards to come up with a page number is a "round-about" way to select a page number. It does seem suspicious. However, I think patter along the lines of, "Rather than just have you (i.e. the spectator) pick a number at random, we are going to use a deck of face-down cards that you can cut to your heart's content before selecting two that are side by side. We use the deck to generate our number because often people, when asked to think of a number on their own, will pick a personally significant number such as their current age, the last two digits of the year they were born in, or their house address. We need true total random-ness in the number selection with absolutely no personal connection to the selected number." Or something along those lines! It sort of does make sense, too! As a further example, I was doing a card effect for a relative not long ago, and I asked her to name a card at random and tell me what it was. She chose the Queen of Hearts!! That's almost as bad as saying the Ace of Spades! By the way, I had her choose another indifferent card for that particular effect. It really didn't matter in the outcome of the effect what card was chosen, but often people resort to either one of those two "common" cards! Well, just some thoughts. Thanks for the input, though! All the best, Frank
Frank
www.88pianokeys.com |
|||||||||
Crippen New user Washington, D.C. 79 Posts |
Frank,
If I were doing your routine exactly as described by you, I would have had the cards out in play already and I would act as if using the cards to come up with the number was a fresh idea. I´d grab them and say "Hey, let's mix these up some more then just spread them out and pick one, no two cards to make a number....." This would work in my performance style. Do use your routine, I would have to have the audience think the card-picking was something I just thought of and not very important. Just my two cents. Have fun with the routine, Crippen |
|||||||||
Bill Cushman Inner circle Florida 2876 Posts |
Frank,
I think Crippen has some good points, similar to what I was trying to convey in my response to what Alexandre had written. When your script (I am trying to remove the word "patter" from my vocabulary and hopefully my mind) becomes so focused and takes up so many words to hide the means of deception I believe you are potentially entering dangerous territory. As I said above, you are drawing attention to that which you want to remain unseen. The use of a more subtle form of implication, both verbal and non-verbal, is far more likely to be effective in removing suspicion from the cards. See some of Kenton Knepper's work for more ideas on this. And, again, Crippen is essentially proposing the same thing. In this case, the non-verbal implication is acting as if the use of the cards just occurred to you. The verbal implication is saying, "let's mix these cards up some more." The operative word, re: verbal implication, is "more." This implies that they are already mixed without having to demonstrate this in any way. Or telling them to "cut to their heart's content." Much stronger, IMHO. I've always thought that when we tell someone to cut as much as they want you are telling them that they CANNOT shuffle, again via implication, but in this case working against you. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Please Comment on This Mentalism Routine (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.02 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 < |