|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
Johnny Butterfield Veteran user 378 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-09-25 20:49, WizardB wrote: Heck I can barely please myself! What I mean to say is that in my humble opinion, an effect looks stronger the more impossible it seems. By not rolling down the sleeves for instance, the layman has all the explanation he needs for where the coins went, or where the cards came from (even if they didn't). It can go from "there was no way for that to happen" to "he put that card up his sleeve at some point when I wasn't looking." An Okito box might have a secret opening, a false bottom or some other bit of trickery that's responsible for the magic, unless it's examined. A coin could be a double faced, or some other clever gimmick, unless it's borrowed. The deck might have 52 copies of the six of spades, until you show that it does not. Perhaps 'empahsize the conditions' is not what I mean, more along the lines of 'eliminate any method that might occur to the spectator, and leave them no explanation.'
The current economic crisis is due to all the coins I've vanished.
The poster formerly known as Fman111. |
|||||||||
The Amazing Noobini Inner circle Oslo, Norway 1658 Posts |
I was reading MagicMarker's post on page two of this thread about the Ambitious Card: http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......start=30
He says: Quote:
"Each phase should knock down a theory that the spectator has. Try to lead the spectator to jump to conclusions just in time for you to prove them wrong. Applying this brilliant psychological principle to the rolled up/down sleeve question, the best solution would perhaps be to allow or lead the spectator to suspect that you are sleeving only to then, as you talk about something else, casually roll up your sleeves. This is not I think a case of making him look foolish. It is a cat and mouse game. An added dimension of impossibility to those who follow the bread crumbs. To those who don't, the magic trick is just as good. I also love the idea of putting the spectator in center. To me with my bad nerves, it also makes me worry a little less about having to perform miracles. I am prepared to let the spectator receive the applause. Even though people know inside that you are the one making it happen. It is another added dimension of impossibility. If you can make someone else successfully do a psychic prediction then you are really showing off very high skills but without being a showoff.
"Talk about melodrama... and being born in the wrong part of the world." (Raf Robert)
"You, my friend, have a lot to learn." (S. Youell) "Nonsensical Raving of a lunatic mind..." (Larry) |
|||||||||
Johnny Butterfield Veteran user 378 Posts |
Quote:
"Each phase should knock down a theory that the spectator has. Try to lead the spectator to jump to conclusions just in time for you to prove them wrong. What if they don't mention dupes until you're finished? They're convinced that you used a dupe and no amount of talking will convince them at that point. Maybe you used a dupe or two until they signed the card. Either way, they may have a theory that will be hard to disprove.
The current economic crisis is due to all the coins I've vanished.
The poster formerly known as Fman111. |
|||||||||
The Amazing Noobini Inner circle Oslo, Norway 1658 Posts |
Well, they don't have to mention it. If you set them up by doing something suspicious that makes them put two and two together and reach the completely wrong conclusion.
Let me explain in a different way what is meant by giving this example: The Spider Coin Vanish (Marlo) which leaves your closed left hand in a slightly suspicious pose after the coin was seen to be taken from it. The spectator thinks that he's got you now but it is a ruse. The coin isn't there. You made him form the theory of it being there and maybe feel like he got you. That playful concept could be valuable to all kinds of situations. You're not suppose to convince them of anything, only to allow them to form a theory and try to find you out. And then disprove it. Like I said, a cat and mouse game.
"Talk about melodrama... and being born in the wrong part of the world." (Raf Robert)
"You, my friend, have a lot to learn." (S. Youell) "Nonsensical Raving of a lunatic mind..." (Larry) |
|||||||||
mikemcclaskey New user 4 Posts |
Quote:
That playful concept could be valuable to all kinds of situations. You're not suppose to convince them of anything, only to allow them to form a theory and try to find you out. And then disprove it. Like I said, a cat and mouse game. Ursula Martinez's "Hanky Panky" is the perfect example of this IMHO. Google it, but be forewarned that it's NSFW. |
|||||||||
ViciousCycle Loyal user 210 Posts |
If a spectator calls me ‘clever’, I assume that something likely has gone wrong. Imagine being a chef. When the meal has been eaten, someone turns to you and praises you for being clever. And they give no response to the food itself. Even if their intentions are good, it can be a backhanded compliment.
I’m uninterested in appearing clever. It gets in the way of magic. When a spectator gets completely caught up in a trick like OOTW, they are actively taking part in a magical moment. If the spectator thinks of me as clever, they may put themselves into a passive role and thus distance themselves from the very magical experience I’m trying to create for them. |
|||||||||
DanielSkahen New user NY 64 Posts |
Its an interesting thought. In many ways, I think magicians ought to be to their tricks are chefs, serving the magic to their best ability and letting spectators delight in it without their involvement or interference.
On the other hand, I think the magician also has to be part of the magic to some extent. A chef's performance or presentation does little to change the flavor of his food, but a magician's performance and presentation are almost the final factors determining the flavor of his trick. I think creating a magical experience really comes down to a balance between the magician engaging in performance and the spectator engaging in a personal experience and interpretation of the effect itself. 2¢
- Dan Skahen
|
|||||||||
Philip Hilton New user Scarborough UK 35 Posts |
I'm an actor first and bring with me my training and this has been so good, because of course a magician is a character. The Nelms book is fantastic and one I love. I did find myself presenting shows which were of the kind "Here's a trick and another, here's a little illusion and here's another." lol and realised all of a sudden that I was leaving the actor at home. I then put my acting skills to work and now I script my routines, use costumes, masks and anything which will bring my magic to life. I work more for the theatrical moments and less on the effects (I do not mean that I do not practice, as I live and breathe the advice "Practice, practice, practice.") allowing the magic to flow in and out of such moments. This I find works perfectly for me. Music is also important I like a complete show, even if its only ten minutes, its still a stage, whether its close up, or full illusion and I like to cover all elements and senses if I can. Just my thoughts.
Cheers Phil |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » New to magic? » » Creating a magical experience vs. being an Annoyingly Clever Magician (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 < |