|
|
1tepa1 Inner circle 1281 Posts |
This a trick that I came up when I was experimenting with James Swains trick called the capitulating cards. The original trick is gimmicked and this version is not and uses only 4 cards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1Yb4XZDHAM Please try to look past my english. |
1tepa1 Inner circle 1281 Posts |
Comments, anyone?
|
Thomas Wayne Inner circle Alaska 1977 Posts |
Here's a question instead: What audiences do you perform for who know so little about cards that they would not notice you begin the trick with three RED aces (and only ONE black one)?
Until/unless you resolve that glaring flaw you have a trick that can only be performed for audiences who are entirely unfamiliar with cards. Unfortunately such an audience will be unable to find any meaning in this trick - making your opening three-red-ace Elmsley count a seriously fatal flaw for the routine. If you are unable to resolve this through handling alone you should consider going back to the gimmicked version. TW
MOST magicians: "Here's a quarter, it's gone, you're an idiot, it's back, you're a jerk, show's over." Jerry Seinfeld
|
1tepa1 Inner circle 1281 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-03-16 10:53, Thomas Wayne wrote: That was simply my mistake and it can be and certainly should be performed with 2 black and 2 red ace Elmsley count. But if you look past that what do you think about this trick? |
Thomas Wayne Inner circle Alaska 1977 Posts |
Okay... remember, you asked.
Unexpected changes in the card backs (and eventually one face) without any interesting presentation are not really my "cup of tea". I realize that I watch with the jaundiced eye of a magician, but I suspect even the most uninformed spectator will quickly realize that you are simply playing a sort of hide-and-seek with the cards - especially since you're displaying them in such an unnatural fashion. You see, the Elmsley Count is a neat sleight that can be part of a real fooler - used as the stand alone effect, however, it's not all that deceptive. There's only four cards, after all... why aren't you just just fanning them out and showing both sides? So even if the audience doesn't quite understand the mechanics they'll still instinctively know that your over-handling of the cards has something to do with how you're hiding certain backs (or faces) from them. By contrast, the nearly identical effect in Dingle's/York's Poor Charlie, or Elmsley's own Dazzle (for example) is supremely entertaining, and fools them as well. Ultimately it comes down to an entertaining presentation, along with a logical reason (assumed OR stated) for the handling - both of which your effect sorely lacks. TW
MOST magicians: "Here's a quarter, it's gone, you're an idiot, it's back, you're a jerk, show's over." Jerry Seinfeld
|
Einmaliger Regular user Germany 199 Posts |
You are showing the face of an ace (which is then on the face of the packet); then the back of the SECOND card from the face is shown to have its back changed. Doesn't seem to make much sense this way.
Also, I feel that the Elmsley looked quite cramped and hectic. I would strive for a more relaxed appearance. |
1tepa1 Inner circle 1281 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-03-16 21:04, Thomas Wayne wrote: I understand your point, but my intention was only show you the effect. And the reason for the lack of patter is my that I had to speak english wich isn't my native language. |
Lawrence O Inner circle French Riviera 6811 Posts |
Many magicians have performed face up Elmsley counts without ever being criticized for the top card coming twice and ending up back on the top (this second aspect being more a drawback than the missing display of one of the cards). John Bannon, amongst other magicians like Aldo Colombini, Larry Jennings and Alex Elmsley, have been creating effects with such a discrepancy without any non magician (and even some magicians) ever catching it.
I would however strongly suggest that you find another name for the tirck because Four Ace Trick already covers many different effects. Also a more contrasting back for the second card (instead of just a change in the brand name of the careds which spectators may not be as familiar with as we do) would probably improve on the effect. Now a "magician failure" approach for the last back changing color, would possibly be an improvement in the script by creating a suspense favorable to the appearance of the Joker. There is a gain in rhythm and time misdirection to gain here (IMHO) This is possbly more than just a presentational aspect. I would congratulate you sincerely for this quick packet effect.
Magic is the art of emotionally sharing live impossible situations
|
Thomas Wayne Inner circle Alaska 1977 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-03-17 13:02, Lawrence O wrote: Really? I'd love to hear how you can possibly claim to know such a "fact", as it would seem to require you to have polled every single spectator - lay and otherwise - who ever witnessed such a count. Certainly these discrepant effects must be ones I've never seen, as I have always criticized such a count every time I've ever seen one. Or perhaps what you mean to say is that YOU think such discrepancies are okay, and "go right by them" - meaning that you don't actually speak for everyone else. TW
MOST magicians: "Here's a quarter, it's gone, you're an idiot, it's back, you're a jerk, show's over." Jerry Seinfeld
|
1tepa1 Inner circle 1281 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-03-17 13:02, Lawrence O wrote: Thank you. I do need a bit more contrasting back to the second card, but it still needs to be red back for the third change. The reason for the four ace trick name is just becouse I havent figured out a good name for it yet, and I am not sure if I am allowed to call it mine since it is a combination of many tricks and it is similar to that James Swains trick expect this one is gimmickless and in Swains version only the backs change color. |
Lawrence O Inner circle French Riviera 6811 Posts |
Thomas, naturally I cannot speak for everyone else nor can you decide unilaterally that spectators that have liked these effects or got fooled by them were "audiences who are entirely unfamiliar with cards."
The success met by John Bannon's and other creators' effects using face up Elmsley counts demonstrates that I cannot be totally wrong but you cannot cast all the spectators that got fooled by such effects, even implicitly and politely, as idiots or, to quote you exactly, as "audiences who are entirely unfamiliar with cards." Would you say that all the people who got fooled by Tommy Wonder's cups and balls just because he was stealing the pompom and the bag in full view where audiences totally not familiar with the cups and balls? Thus there is also the misdirection and showmanship to include in the equation. Let's say that we disagree on this: difference of opinions are not a drama and I cannot decide conclusively any more than you can. :)
Magic is the art of emotionally sharing live impossible situations
|
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts |
I saw a junior performer at the Magic Castle years ago perform a face-up Elmsley count with aces, showing the ace of clubs twice. After the show, as we were leaving, I mentioned this to him and suggested that while a lay audience might not notice one of the red aces being repeated, they will ceratinly notice the lack of the spade ace (or, worse, two aces of spades). His reply was that he did, in fact, show the ace of spades.
Sigh. I hope that he's more mature now and can learn that when the audience tells him that his moves didn't deceive them, the fault is entirely his and he needs to work on his technique. Here, you close by saying that you were fooling us all along: that there never was an ace of spades. Well, we knew that from the start because we never saw an ace of spades. It's so strikingly different from the other three aces that we'd have noticed it. I would encourage you to slow down your Elmsley count considerably. I, for one, did not get the feeling that you were trying to show me four distinct cards. To the contrary, the speed of the count suggested that you were trying to conceal something, which, I'm sure, isn't the feeling you want to convey. |
1tepa1 Inner circle 1281 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-03-17 17:08, S2000magician wrote: Yes I know that the ace of spades isn't the best choice for the last ace, but I don't have that much loose cards laying around at the moment and this was all that I could get. I will try to slow down my count a bit. |
Thomas Wayne Inner circle Alaska 1977 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-03-17 15:59, Lawrence O wrote: And yet you seem to do EXACTLY that when you write "Many magicians have performed face up Elmsley counts without ever being criticized". I just found that statement so utterly ridiculous that I felt it needed to be addressed. I realize there are plenty of magicians who believe that any discrepant thing they do, no matter how transparent, will "go right by" a lay audience. I am not one of those magicians, however. The only face-up Elmsley I would consider doing in performance would have to meet one of the following conditions: 1) the exposed faces are nondescript number cards of the same color, or 2) the exposed faces are all Queens, or 3) the exposed faces are all the [i]same suit and value, or 4) the exposed faces are all blanks[/i] I would NOT do a face up Elmsley under the following conditions: a) all Aces (the center pip is way too prominent and easily recognized by most people familiar with cards) b) all Kings or Jacks (too many non-magician card players instantly recognize "suicide Kings" and/or "one-eyed Jacks"; I've never met anyone who could recognize specific Queens at a glance without seeing the corner pips, making them the court-card exception here) In the early 80's I learned Brother John Hammon's Your Signed Card from a subscription issue of "Richard's Almanac". The very first time I performed it, during the very first face-up count, a card-playing spectator commented, "You've got two Ace-of-Hearts." I put the trick away and only revisited it years later while I was playing with a pile of unused Jokers that was sitting on the corner of my desk. It suddenly occurred to me that the same trick performed with four Jokers eliminated all the visual discrepancies AND allowed for some fun, entertaining scripting. To this day I perform it with four Jokers. I honestly believe the face-up Elmsley count is way, WAY overused, and that a lot of magicians willingly fool themselves into thinking that an audience won't notice the discrepancy. In reality, I think that's the intellectual equivalent of blinking during a sleight - and is a great example of my contention that the primary audience most magic hobbyists fool is themselves. TW
MOST magicians: "Here's a quarter, it's gone, you're an idiot, it's back, you're a jerk, show's over." Jerry Seinfeld
|
vinsmagic Eternal Order sleeping with the fishes... 10957 Posts |
As a magician I have seen this plot over and over there is no wow factor in the routine IMO..face up or face down this is has been over done. if some how all the cards could of vanished and the joker remained this would of been a better climax
vinny TW and Lawrence both have valid points |
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » You Oughta Be In Pictures » » The four ace trick (0 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.05 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |