Hi

just for your opinion.
In a Big illusion show (1hour 45 ), Do you think that a Minicube can be in the same some (but far in the program ) that a ZigZag for example; and Assistant's Revenge in the same show than Subtrunk, all in the same show, but with a lot of effect between. Of course, the type presentation will be totally different;

I notice that Hans Klok, Christian Farla, Dani Lary, and others use illusions near in the same show.

Hi Stephane,

If I remember right I think you once asked already this question (maybe in a different manner) here on the forum ...

Best regards,

Oliver.

Yes, but not lot of answers. for Minicub and ZigZag (five way version in my show) it is not the same effect at my point of view. But I wanted to know different opinion.

Cheers,

steph

Hi Stephane,

You could probably get away with it but it would serve you better to just have one of that type of illusion. Wow!!! Almost 2 hour show? That seems a little too long. I mean I think DC standard show is only 90 minutes. Good for you being able to sustain an audience for that long. If I were you I would make two different 1 hour shows and alternate them. My longest show is 1 hour but for 1 hour they are engaged all the time. I use just 3 illusions and many filler bits like sidekick, Master Prediction, Rising card, Lemon game and Ring in Racquetball. It packs a lot smaller than a normal illusion show but everyone seems to love it. I guess what I am trying to say is that more illusions don't always make for a better show. If you have a concern if there are 2 similar effects than just take one out. I went to the Eli Kerr show and he entertained the audience for 7 minutes with just the Misled trick. Good luck with your show.

BYUDAD

BYUDAD brings up some very good points. Even though Minicub & Zig Zag are, strictly speaking, different effects, as are sub trunk & assistant's revenge, their plots are essentially identical.

#1 Assistant is placed in box & divided into pieces by means of shifting box segments.

#2 Assistant is confined in an "unescapable" scenario, and almost instantaneously they switch places.

My opinion is that they are not different enough to be included in the same program.

An audience may or may not be consciously aware of the fact that they are as similar as they are, but I believe you can deliver a more emotionally satisfying show overall by avoiding the duplication.

When I started doing illusions, I never noticed that I was doing some illusions with blades and swords. Like I was doing the zigzag and mismade lady which also were using blades. Then I also had the sword basket and the sword box which also used swords.
Then I was also doing the sword and chair suspension (with a harness) in the same show.
But I feel that as long as you make different plots or presentations for them, and seperate them, you could surely get away with it.
Wow, 2 hours show. I only do a 90 minute full show with a 12 minute break in the middle. So that's 2 x 45 minute show.

Hi
thans for your posts. Our show is 1hour 30 to 45 exactly, with an entract between.Some clients ask for a little somtime, and the market is different between the countries.

Personally I think using similar illusions in a long show is fine. Throughout the Eighties and Nineties I did a full evening show in three acts in Dinner Theatres and similar venues across the US. The full show was almost 2 hours long and I would do the Sub-Trunk to close the first act and the Assistant’s revenge as a mid-piece in the third. I would do the Zig-Zag near the beginning of the first act in front of the main and do a full theatrical treatment of the Mis-Made Girl to open the third act. I even closed the first act with an Asrah Levitation and I would close the third act with the levitation of a child from the audience.

The way to make these things appear more different is to present them in totally different ways. It has been said before but it bears repeating…It’s not the illusions or the tricks that are important. It is the performer and the performance. If you are just presenting one puzzle after another then your audience will notice their similarity. If you have written your script in such a way that the illusions serve to carry the story along (and are not the “stars” of the show), then your audience won’t notice the similarities and enjoy the total show and it’s vignettes as theatre.

For the past decade or so I haven’t done as many large shows in three acts. Many of the venues I used to play have closed due to economic reasons. It also seems that the audience hasn’t wanted to invest the time that is required to enjoy a full evening show…we all have had shorter attention spans. I do think this is cyclical and that the pendulum is starting to swing back in the other direction. Personally, I am looking for places to present at least two and maybe three acts of “Pure Magic”.

…of course, this is just my opinion.

—Dal Sanders

If you have to, you have to. It's ok. But if you have a choice, go with something different. It would be better.

Constantine

I have to ask are you doing the routines simply because you own the equipment? This is a dangerous fault among us that we have Just have to perform something in our show because we have the equipment. also your most expensive Piece does not have to be your featured rotuine just because you spent a ton of money on it. it is better to do a shorter program than repeat similar illusions. after a while the audience looks at it as same old stuff.
I recently watched a show by a promenent performer. half way through the show he performed a show stopper of an illusion. he Got a standing ovation for it. the did another 45 minutes. di d not get the second standing Ovation. The show could easily have ended at the first point. Just some food for thought.

The question is definite food for thought that goes beyond illusions. When I start the process of piecing together a set list, I look at similarities based on a number of things.

1) Are the effects similar? Examples: Would the audience see me, more than once, cut, burn, mutilate, or otherwise destroy something, merely to later restore it? Or...

Does the magician do little more than make things appear? Or...

Does he borrow something valuable, make it disappear, only for it later be found in an impossible location?

2) Am I doing different effects, but using the same or similar props? Example: A Cut & Restored Rope, Professor's Nightmare, and Rope Through Body might all register on the average audience as, "He did a rope trick".

3) Is there redundancy in the format of the show? Examples: Does the magician bring a volunteer to the stage for every trick? Or...

Is every trick presented with story patter, but without a consistent theme to the overall act?

I look for such similarities. I look at all these things (and more) in order to build a set list with maximum variety. I don't necessarily eliminate something based on it's similarity to something else. But, it prompts me to focus on making each effect stand out in other, non-similar categories, so that each piece is noteworthy by its own merits, and therefore less likely that the audience will recognize similarities.

Don't forget that we are on the inside track. We can notice subtle differences between things, as if they were on opposite sides of the universe. We are more able to recognize details. We can also "see" differences based on things the audience doesn't, i.e., the method, or mechanics. We must however, learn to see everything we do from the spectators' point of view.

There are two sides to the footlights. To be an audience, we'd need to stay on one side only. To be a magician, we must learn to exist on both sides.

A Zig Zag and a Kub Zag maybe not...but a Zig Zag and a Modern art ABSOLUTELY!!!, But that's not the case...In my opinion the combination of illusions that you describe are well...but another question...
How about a Temple Of Benares and a Dagger Chest in the same show?
Thanks,
Hansel!