The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Help with Blizzard (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page 1~2 [Next]
Simon Bakker
View Profile
Special user
the Netherlands
587 Posts

Profile of Simon Bakker
Hello,

I have a question concerning Blizzard. I wanna perform a variation on this effect as part of a larger routine. I was wondering how you guys start out with Blizzard. The only way I can currently think of (without exposing to much)is to start with the box on the table and the deck spread out in front of it, so in that case I have to use it as an opener of my card set.

What I want is to just take a deck of cards out of my pocket and begin the routine. Somehow I haven't figured out how to do this. The instructions of the effect don't go in much detail about this. I also have the decks***l video by Chuck Leach but this DVD doesn't has any suggestions on this. To take out a box, put it on the table and then take a (loose) deck out of my pocket doesn't seem very natural to me.

Does anyone have suggestions?

Thanks!
Simon
Pavloter
View Profile
Special user
529 Posts

Profile of Pavloter
I think you over complicate it.
Pavlo
Sealegs
View Profile
Inner circle
The UK, Portsmouth
2604 Posts

Profile of Sealegs
One persons complicating things is another persons well thought out routining.

One strategy I have seen used very effectively is to start with a colour changing deck effect. At the conclusion of it, and without making anything of it you put away the now mismatched card case and bring out a card case that matches. It will not even register with 99% of the speckys but anyone who does clock it will think it perfectly reasonable to exchange a mismatched card case for a matching one.

Whether or not a colour change effect would tread on the toes of Blizzard effect is a judgment call. It might enhance it... starting with a full deck colour change and ending with a full deck white out.

Cheers Neal
Neal Austin

"The golden rule is that there are no golden rules." G.B. Shaw
Simon Bakker
View Profile
Special user
the Netherlands
587 Posts

Profile of Simon Bakker
How am I over complicating this?
Daegs
View Profile
Inner circle
USA
4290 Posts

Profile of Daegs
Quote:
Whether or not a colour change effect would tread on the toes of Blizzard effect is a judgment call. It might enhance it... starting with a full deck colour change and ending with a full deck white out.

Neal you are missing the whole point of blizzard as many do... the effect is not that the deck changes to blank, its that the entire deck consisted of 51 blank cards and the prediction before the trick started.

By proceeding this with any effect that shows the faces of the cards, the entire effect is lost and changed to a "change" effect, when that is the exact method...


Simon: Yes, you are, simply take out both at the same time either from different pockets or what I do is simply take the deck out on top of the box, set them down together (the deck on top of the box) and talk for a minute.... its just a card case, the audience won't pay it any more attention than you do.
Pete Biro
View Profile
1933 - 2018
18558 Posts

Profile of Pete Biro
Daegs is right. Blizzard is a stand alone. What I do is a few card effects, then move to something else, bowl routine, coins, whatever. Then bring out the Blizzard material and that is the closer.
STAY TOONED... @ www.pete-biro.com
nicky
View Profile
New user
67 Posts

Profile of nicky
What would be the maximum number of spectators you would perform this for?
Sealegs
View Profile
Inner circle
The UK, Portsmouth
2604 Posts

Profile of Sealegs
Daegs: you are right of course I have changed the effect to a 'change' effect.

I have not so much missed the point as changed the point but I do so deliberately. I think, for the specky, there is likely to be some confusion as to what the Blizzard effect actually is and by changing it to a 'change' effect that confusion is eliminated. ( it changes the effect yes, but I believe it has the same impact only without the confusion)

The confusion that I think is inherent in the effect is as follows: I believe the effect is supposed to be as you stated; ie("the effect is.... that the entire deck consisted of 51 blank cards and the prediction before the trick started.")

But if this is the case what is the spectator supposed to make of the magician pulling out the 4 of a kind and mixing them up, and then finding the prediction? During all this they are being effectively lead down the garden path... and it is a path they will then have to back track along before they are going to be in a position to be able to see the effect is as you described.

The proceedure that takes place with the 4 cards' removal and mixing is done in a manner that re-enforces the notion that the deck contains all the cards. This makes it far easier for the specky to subsequently make the assumption at the effect finale that the cards faces have vanished. Why would they not assume this; but rather assume that they were not there from the beginning? This asks the specky to take a much more convoluted path of reasoning. It's certainly not the path of least resistance with regards to their possible thinking at this point.

In order to see the effect as you have described the specky has to, when the cards are shown all blank, back track to the start of the effect and realise that when the magician removed the '4 of a kind' 3 of them were already blank at that time, and that the bit about finding the prediction amoungst the face down 4 was actually an effect of finding the chosen card amoung 3 blanks. And while how this part worked remains a mystery it's a separate effect and not really anything to do with the main effect...viz that the whole deck was actually was blank from the start except for, mysteriously, their card and that everything else was just acting on the magicians part.

I believe the specky will take the thought path of least resistance...ie oh!! all the cards have turned blank.

As for the method being exactly what happens... I disagree. The effect to the specky when I have performed it this way is that the faces of the deck have vanished and that is not the method.

As I said... one persons overcomplication is another persons thought out reasonings. These are mine for you to ponder, ignore, trash, think about, disagree with or maybe..... well you never know Smile

Neal. Smile
Neal Austin

"The golden rule is that there are no golden rules." G.B. Shaw
Pavloter
View Profile
Special user
529 Posts

Profile of Pavloter
The point is, this will be only real magic if you make it look like the only card they though of is the only card in the deck. In a way it is a invisible deck, you know I mean. You just to much concentrated on deck switch, but while they never need to be actually to focus on it.
Pavlo
Daegs
View Profile
Inner circle
USA
4290 Posts

Profile of Daegs
Well, I think that can be covered with simple presentation. I think spectators are naturally going to question whether you are really taking out the 4of a kind when you say you do, so I address it as I do it which further helps the end.

In fact, I reveal the 3 blanks and rest of the deck first and only turn over the named selection at the end. I've never had any confusion on whats happening, but then again that's in the presentation. In my mind, telling them the entire deck is pre-determined by their selection makes a very clear picture as long as its handled correctly.


The reason I don't like the change was as I mentioned, the "effect" then becomes how you changed 51 regular cards into blank cards, when in reality you did so by changing 51 regular cards for 51 blank cards... I think that if they really start to question "where did those regular cards go and when did he switch them" the method becomes a little more transparent(even if they don't guess actual method, they will realize that you exchanged the cards because you are telling them so).

With the prediction plot, they never suspect a switch and therefore the method becomes completely transparent... at least in my experience.

I'm willing to agree to disagree and that you probably have a good presentation for it, but I've done a lot of thinking and experimenting with both flavors and I find the prediction to be superior so I'd suggest re-working the script to get it logical for your audience and see how it plays again Smile
Simon Bakker
View Profile
Special user
the Netherlands
587 Posts

Profile of Simon Bakker
@ Neal Austin:

I agree with you on the point of taking out the 'four of a kind'. This never made much sense to me, and bothered me. IMHO, you telegraphing the message that al the cards TURNED blanc, wich is what I don't want.

that's why I thought of other ways. Some things that came to mind:
have a sealed prediction and after the spec names the card you remove it and have him open and read the prediction. Your prediction can be something like: Your thought will NOT be blanc. Or substitute the blanc deck for a deck of jokers. Now your prediction can read "you will not think of the/a joker" (I think this is an idea from an effect by micheal close).

Or if you don't wanna use it as a closer: have the spec sign the card; say that this will make the card unique to him/her. Say that that was necessary because the card was meant te be unique (show all other cards blanc).

Just some ideas.

Simon
Sealegs
View Profile
Inner circle
The UK, Portsmouth
2604 Posts

Profile of Sealegs
Daegs: I have performed many colour changing deck routines... if they were to leave the speckys thinking..."well he must have switched the deck when I wasn't looking", there would be no effect.

As it is the effect for the specky is; "Wow the whole deck just changed colour right in front of me"

I don't see why the Specky would think any different for Blizzard.

I agree that you can present Blizzard so it has the effect that it's designed to have but personally I see this as going through presentational hoops to get to a result that whilst different is no more impressive than having the faces vanish.

Each to their own though. Smile

Neal
Neal Austin

"The golden rule is that there are no golden rules." G.B. Shaw
Pavloter
View Profile
Special user
529 Posts

Profile of Pavloter
Quote:
On 2007-01-22 04:30, neal austin wrote:
Daegs: I have performed many colour changing deck routines... if they were to leave the speckys thinking..."well he must have switched the deck when I wasn't looking", there would be no effect.

As it is the effect for the specky is; "Wow the whole deck just changed colour right in front of me"

I don't see why the Specky would think any different for Blizzard.

I agree that you can present Blizzard so it has the effect that it's designed to have but personally I see this as going through presentational hoops to get to a result that whilst different is no more impressive than having the faces vanish.

Each to their own though. Smile

Neal
But it isn't colour changing deck effect.
Pavlo
Sealegs
View Profile
Inner circle
The UK, Portsmouth
2604 Posts

Profile of Sealegs
Pavloter... I'm not sure if you're making a joke, It's hard to tell with the written word whether something is meant tongue in cheek of said seriously. I'm guessing you're joking....I hope so! Smile

But in case you're not ...I'm using the colour changing effect as an analogy.

The point being if you perform an effect and the specky jumps to the method then there would be no effect.

My prefered presentation of Blizzard is that of a change. (hence the analogy with a colour changing deck effect) Most colour change deck effects do not employ the same general methodology as Blizzard, (none of the ones I perform in fact) so my point was that when I perform a change effect, such as a colour changing deck, the specky's don't have a method leap into their mind, be it right or wrong. They just see a gob smacking effect...ie all the cards changed.

I'm suggesting the same happens when Blizzard is performed as a change effect. The method is still sound. The fact that the actual method is the obvious way to achieve what happened is only obvious if you know the method or have performed the mechanics badly.

But it seems that Simon who made the original post is looking to do the effect as it was intended so it's all pretty mute anyway. Smile

Always interesting to hear another persons viewpoint though. Hopefully you feel the same. Smile

Neal

Neal
Neal Austin

"The golden rule is that there are no golden rules." G.B. Shaw
Pete Biro
View Profile
1933 - 2018
18558 Posts

Profile of Pete Biro
Last few times I've done it I don't do the three other cards, but just say, "I'll take out two other cards... and we'll do 3-Card Monte..." blah blah blah...

My favorite way, however, is totally different, in that I don't need to do a deck switch. I created this to fool those that have Blizzard (did it at the Magic Castle) Smile
STAY TOONED... @ www.pete-biro.com
joseph
View Profile
Eternal Order
Please ignore my
17290 Posts

Profile of joseph
I think I'll leave it just as Dean Dill suggests, but try what works for you.... Smile ...
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." (Einstein)...
misterblack
View Profile
New user
27 Posts

Profile of misterblack
I present Blizzard as an example of the way magicians force cards. Before they pick a card I do some spiel in which I refer to black cards, red cards, Aces being obvious, that kind of thing, just to plant the notion that I am trying to influence their thinking.

Once the 'four of a kind' are on the table, I have the spectator put their forefingers on two cards, and from there with the old 'magician's choice' routine, arriving at their selected card.

I don't explain it, but say 'you might well see how I led you to that choice' or similar. But then I use the rest of the deck being blank as the kicker in that I apparently manipulated them to that SINGLE card in the first place.

It seems to go over well, but I'm still experimenting.
Pete Biro
View Profile
1933 - 2018
18558 Posts

Profile of Pete Biro
After considerable thought.... read Dean's instructions again and see why he worked it out that way AFTER YEARS OF VARIATIONS, ETC.
STAY TOONED... @ www.pete-biro.com
misterblack
View Profile
New user
27 Posts

Profile of misterblack
Pete - who was that addressed to? Me? The original poster? All who have posted?
misterblack
View Profile
New user
27 Posts

Profile of misterblack
Pete - who was that addressed to? Me? The original poster? All who have posted?
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Help with Blizzard (0 Likes)
 Go to page 1~2 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.04 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL