|
|
hoodrat Veteran user Southern California 388 Posts |
Here is a neat routine I put together. I'd like some opinions on it about how it might be improved (if it can be!).
Here is the routine: A spectator examines a plain greeting card sized envelope. It is empty. They lick it and seal it. I place the envelope into the Envelope Change Frame (from Daytona Magic), and the spectator sees the envelope literally go into the frame which has a cut-out in the center. A second or two later, I withdraw the envelope from the frame telling them I forgot to have them sign the front. They do so, and I replace the envelope into the frame (now switched!) Then the spectator selects a card from a Svengali deck that is thoroughly riffle shuffled in front of them. They pick the card by giving me a number between 1 and 52. I count down to that card (i.e. the force card) which is their selection. I remove it, and then I show them that the card above and below their selected card are, indeed, different cards thus "proving" it was a totally free selection. I proceed to tear their selected card into little pieces. As the torn pieces are in my hand, I remove the corner piece showing the card index, and I have them initial that and hold on to it. The other pieces of the torn card are vanished using the classic (and easy!) Bhuddah Money Mystery Papers. I have found the Money Papers to be totally baffling to spectators every time I've done it!). When the Papers are unfolded, the torn pieces are no longer there. The spectator is still holding onto his/her torn corner which they initialed earlier. I point to the Change Frame, withdraw their signed envelope, and open it. Lo and behold, their selected card is found inside totally restored except for the missing corner that they are holding! The missing corner fits perfectly, thus ending the effect. Granted, none of the props in this effect could be examined, but do you think it's a good routine? I have only tried it out on one person so far, and they had a mild reaction to it. Of course, this person was a little "strange", so maybe they really don't appreciate a good effect when they see one. Or perhaps their lack of a totally astounded response is a good sign -- I don't know. Any comments or ideas?? Thanks! Frank |
NeoMagic Inner circle I have... 2017 Posts |
I like it just as it is... I'm sure it'll go down well. Let us know how you get on with other spectators.
See and download my latest free card-suits-themed desktop wallpaper | HERE
|
cycloid New user Calgary, Alberta, Calgary 10 Posts |
You are RoLLiN!:spinningcoin:
|
Skinny Man New user UK 72 Posts |
Always glad to be the voice of negativity, I'd have to point out that this isn't a 'routine', it's just one effect that goes on a bit.
A routine is a number of single effects that follow each other in some way that makes sense to the audience. In terms of the trick itself, I'd worry about none of the apparatus being examinable, especially if you've got nothing before or after it. Spectator's minds will be fixated on that one effect and will be able to deconstruct it pretty easily. Plus, aren't you going to ruin a Svengali deck when you perform it? Why don't you just force from a normal deck, which will be less affected by the loss of a one card than a Svengali would be? |
hoodrat Veteran user Southern California 388 Posts |
Skinny Man,
You are probably right -- I should "sandwich" this effect between two other minor effects. One effect before, and one effect after. I already have Svengali decks that are missing a few cards -- nobody notices that. I am also not performing this effect constantly. I only do magic now and then for friends and family. In reality, I might only perform this effect a few times a year. So the loss of a couple cards from a Svengali deck is no big deal. Your idea about forcing a card from a regular deck is good, but I do not know how to do that. That's why I like using the time-tested Svengali deck -- it's easy, apparently looks "real", and requires no dificult sleight-of-hand. Using a real deck of cards like you suggested would only have one advantage -- the deck COULD be examined by the spectator at the end of the effect. Perhaps it is something I'll consider learning and doing in the future. I did just realize that I could use a normal deck by having the spectator's card forced using the method from the great card effect called "Duo-Tech II". I love "Duo-Tech II" because it is basically self-working but very devious in it's method of forcing the card. If I used that method to force the card from the spectator's NORMAL deck, then their deck could and would be totally examinable (as it is at the end of "Duo-Tech II"). I think this may work.......! |
Reis O'Brien Inner circle Seattle, WA 2467 Posts |
I think it sounds cool! It's a bit long and involved but the right patter could keep it going smooth. I think the Svengali deck is a bit unwarrented, but hey, it's your effect! And the vanish of the other pieces of card may seem out of place in the big picture of the effect but I think it is a nice little bonus for the specs to witness. Now go out there and field-test it!
|
Geoff Weber Inner circle Washington DC 1384 Posts |
Hmmm, I think perhaps the reason your spectator had a mild reaction is that the plot was too cluttered. I have found when I try to put too many "moments" in a routine, they steal the spotlight from each other and can confuse the audience rather than building on each other. Think about what is happening in this effect. An envelope is empty. A card is selected, destroyed. vanished. Restored. and found in an impossible location. that's a lot of different elements for someone to wrap their mind around. Maybe if you try simplifying the plot. The easier it is to understand what is happening, and why that is impossible, the stronger the effect. The first thing I might suggest eliminating is the torn and restored aspect of the plot. I love torn and restored, but think you might do better by focusing on the card vanishing and reappearing in the impossible location. And using a Svengali deck as a force deck is just fine in my opinion, as that is one of the primary functions of the deck. David Copperfield uses a Pop-eyed Popper deck for his stage routines. If you are forcing and destroying the card, the deck can still be fully functional (albeit smaller) if you simply remove one regular card for every force card you destroy.
|
JimMaloney Inner circle 1184 Posts |
I agree with everything that Geoff said. I also have a few additional comments/questions.
1. What's the motivation for the frame? Is there a reason to have it there, aside from switching the envelope? Are there any other ways to switch the envelope without using a visible prop, or without any additional props? Would it be possible to NOT switch the envelope, but instead load the card into the envelope? How would that affect other aspects of the routine? 2. What's the motivation for the Buddha Papers, aside from vanishing the torn card? Is there a cleaner method for vanishing the card, perhaps a sleight-of-hand method? 3. There are many ways to force a card from a regular deck, many of them quite easy. A riffle force is a very good method and doesn't require much technical ability. (Can you hold a break while riffling one corner of the deck? Great! You can do a riffle force!) If you are going to frame this effect with other effects, using a regular deck will allow you keep the same deck for another effect, assuming one of those others will be a card effect. 4. Why an envelope? Is there some other place the card could appear? Perhaps a wallet, or a matchbox, or under the tablecloth! 5. Going along with what Geoff said, what's the basic effect here? Is it a torn and restored effect? Or is it a transportation effect? Which ever one you feel is dominant, focus on that. How does each moment in the routine support that basic effect? If there is something that doesn't support it, how can it be improved? Should it be eliminated, or just reworked? Hope that gives you some stuff to think about! -Jim
Books and Magazines for sale -- more than 200 items (Last updated January 17th, 2014. Link goes to public Google Doc.)
|
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Any Suggestions/Improvements for this Card Routine? (0 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.03 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 < |