|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] | ||||||||||
slyhand Inner circle Good ole Virginia 1908 Posts |
I tried it again (forth time) today and it worked great. I think some of it may have to do with how close the sigs are to each other. If they are way off in size and or placement I think it diminishes it a bit.
I am getting so tired of slitting the throats of people who say that I am a violent psychopath.
Alec |
|||||||||
PatrickGregoire Inner circle 2239 Posts |
You could always draw a line and ask them to sign their name on the line. Adds an extra similarity between your signature and theirs and you're pretty sure they aren't going to write longer than the line; they'll try and make it fit. You draw the line on the back, they sign on it, then turn the card over and tell them "just draw the line yourself this time and sign your name above it." That way you don't have to take the sharpie back just to draw a line. Could work. Not much extra work and a few built-in backups.
|
|||||||||
Chris K Inner circle 2544 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-02-24 21:43, PatrickGregoire wrote: Duuuuuuude, I really like this. Thanks for sharing. |
|||||||||
slyhand Inner circle Good ole Virginia 1908 Posts |
I will definitely use that next time. Good thinking.
I am getting so tired of slitting the throats of people who say that I am a violent psychopath.
Alec |
|||||||||
Scott Fridinger Special user Gloucester Pt, VA 893 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-02-24 17:45, Jack Tighe wrote: I do not believe that a spectator can reverse engineer the effect as written. I do think the effect makes no sense, and other then using a patter line of "now watch this, now look here" a.k.a. directive and boring. And the transformation of the signature is an extra kicker that does not add to the impact, it is pointless and cluttering. As far as it being astonishing, there are simpler clearer plots that are more astonishing. But this is getting pointless. I agree with Engali on everything he said.
www.JustGreatMagic.com
Sleight of Hand, Sleight of Mind |
|||||||||
kissdadookie Inner circle 4275 Posts |
I don't know how many people actually realize this, but the original Backlash stuck out like a sore thumb amongst magicians but for some reason, beyond logic, it has always been a classic reaction grabber with the lay audience. I like Backlash 2 better than the original handling for the sole reason that it's been streamlined quite a lot and the last phase is very good and just for the fact that it works makes me, as a performer, very happy because it is oh so deceptive. Again, Backlash and Backlash 2 are by no means a favourite with many if not most magicians, but for folks that likes to perform to actual lay people, it's a big hit with them.
I would say this is the equivalent of performing Pyro Perception. It took me a LONG time before I finally bought Pyro Perception. I had always felt it was pretty obvious how the blister gets there and makes it cute but not great. Whoa was I ever wrong, the darn thing gets VERY strong reactions (I've since then upgraded to Branded, LOVE IT). It's the magician tunnelvision syndrome, very easy to aquire but VERY difficult to get out of. Thus the importance of actually performing things for lay people, because they have a very different perspective then we do. Another comparison that can be made with Backlash and Backlash 2, it's kind of like a card to pocket. No real logical reason why the darn thing ended up in your pocket apart from the fact that it does, but laypeople love it for some reason. |
|||||||||
Engali Elite user 435 Posts |
Kissadookie,
When I think about what other card-to-pockets there are compared to Backlash, I'm compelled to use Carlyle's Homing Card. It is cleaner and, imo, more powerful for a lay person because of how it's structured. In the last phase they see their card go in the deck and they instantly pull it out of your pocket--that's strong. Aside from the final climax that we're just going to have to disagree to agree on, what makes the initial phases in Backlash better? The appearence to the spectators with Homing Card, when done right, is just that of Backlash--that you showed your hand empty and didn't palm the card. The fact that they can remove the card the second time around is even stronger. It's a classic. The one plus Bakclash has imo is simply that you don't have to palm cards, but it comes at the expense of directness in handling and effect. This may be comforting for magicians who don't want to palm cards. Not worth it for me personally when there are classics in magic that I do agree with design wise and have proven time and again to get great reactions. |
|||||||||
PatrickGregoire Inner circle 2239 Posts |
Engali, how do you know that Backlash 2 has a contrived handling? It's dead simple, very straightforward and the effect is crystal clear to your spectators. I've never understood how some of you are saying that the effect makes no sens and they won't understand what's going on. It's also NOT a card to pocket. It's a suggestion routine. You suggest that the card seems to reappear in the deck. Then you break the illusion by proving that it was never in the deck but really always in your pocket. Makes perfect sens and is VERY easy to follow along. It's not the same handling as Backlash. I know you don't have the set so you cannot know how the handling is.
|
|||||||||
kissdadookie Inner circle 4275 Posts |
I would say that they are two different effects with different feels. When I made the card to pocket comparison I was speaking of gaining a reaction from a simple effect that makes very little logical sense. If you couldn't understand my point, I apologize.
Now, with Backlash 2, I'm not sure if you've done it for the lay people yet but it's incredibly well routined/designed for the lay spectator. There's a vanish of a card that had just moments ago jumped back into the deck from your pocket (which they push into your pocket themselves) which if you think about it, makes absolutely no sense and the vanish is not a elegant one, YET this vanish is in the mind of a spectator a vanish that NEVER HAPPENED tells you a LOT about how well structured and how well received for the spectator this effect is. If you were to ask a spectator what happened, it is summed up as "I signed a card front and back, I put it into his pocket, it jumped out of his pocket, then he changed one of my signatures into his signature right in front of me." VERY VERY easy and NOT CONTRIVED. VERY direct for a multiphased routine/effect. This is what a good effect should get. Let alone the last phase with the signature morph is very deceptive AND there being a vanish that in the spectator's mind never happened, makes Backlash 2 very very very good. All of this of course are little subtleties that truly requires a magician to stop analyzing it from a magician's point of view and instead see it from the lay person's perspective. |
|||||||||
Engali Elite user 435 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-02-26 17:30, kissdadookie wrote: Interesting. So they cut out one phase? Instead of it going from the pocket to the deck, back to the pocket, and the name changing like in Backlash 1? So two phases? It jumps from the pocket to the deck and then the name changes? Hey, your opinion is yours, but I have a number of routines that are similar enough to this that don't have the final climax like in BL2 I disagree with design-wise and where the phases relate to each other. I was considering performing BL2 once I got the set without the final climax, but if it's just one phase prior to the final climax with the signature change...it doesn't sound like this one's for me. |
|||||||||
PatrickGregoire Inner circle 2239 Posts |
How many times do we have to explain the effect? There are three phases. The card jumps from your pocket to the deck. Then the card jumps from the deck back to the pocket. Then the signature changes.
|
|||||||||
kissdadookie Inner circle 4275 Posts |
It's not two phases Engali, it's 3 phases but the second phase is like something that never happened because I can assure you that with practically all lay people, they don't remember the second phase That alone is brilliant routining, the timing and pacing of it makes that awkward 2nd phase non existant. Folks are complaining how the final phase doesn't work but the weakest link I feel is that 2nd phase where the card jumps out of your pocket, back into the deck, and then vanishes from the deck again. The timing of the moment the card vanishes again is placed so well that this weak link basically never existed in the mind of a spectator which is brilliant. That alone is a big lesson to be learned by all.
The final name change is VERY strong by the way. This was also a idea I used when I had Wow (my whole routining for it was very good and it was worked around the fact that I want the Wow gimmick to be truly out of the picture by the end of the routine). |
|||||||||
Tom G Inner circle 2895 Posts |
I asked Paul about the backlash 2 plot..and his reasoning for the
signature change at the end. He's what he said. The card to pocket plot is the mechanical basic plot. But the emotional plot, the more potent plot, is that you and your participant are sharing a magical experience. So at the end when one name morphs into yours...the proof of your newly formed magical relationship is on the card..a sort of magical marriage. You started off as strangers..playing with a card...but now the relationship has been "consumated" proven by both your names now being on the card. It's perfect fairy tale logic. The same kind of emotionally thematic grace note that you'd find in a movie. If it was practical I'd have taken it the next level and had the signed card transform into a signed butterfly which flies away..as this would be yet another intensification of the emotional plot of you and the spec flying off together somewhere. The invisble emotional "fariy tale" plot is always more potent than the outer mechanical plot. And even beyond that. These are short intimate moments of astonishment. Not long, intricately plotted stories. Its perfectly fine to take a left turn and do an "off plot" climax, A comedian riffing at a comedy club will often do this. If I could make a rock vanish and re-appear then turn into a live goat it would certainly be worth sacrificing my vanishing rock plot line for the larger astonishment. If it makes you feel better...just pretend its a different effect that happens to use the same props. If you need an overarching plot through-line it's that astonishment can take some astonishing unexpected twists. Watch or read any good fantasy or fairy tale. Magical charactors will do all sorts of strange unexpected things to display their magic. Sometimes their effects are tightly themed to the story..other times its simply an astonishing display of the impossible. All of these rules have their place..but its also a very flexable thing open to how one wants to frame the experience. Hope this clears things a little, Tom |
|||||||||
Scott Fridinger Special user Gloucester Pt, VA 893 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-02-27 12:07, kissdadookie wrote: Then why do it at all? It isn't like the ambitious card were the phases are different, yet accomplish the same feat multiple times. If they don't remember what the second phase was, why do it?
www.JustGreatMagic.com
Sleight of Hand, Sleight of Mind |
|||||||||
kissdadookie Inner circle 4275 Posts |
Backlash 2 is already as stripped down as possible. It's a card to pocket, out of pocket, and a memorable signature warp at the end which is the highlight for a spectator. It's set up in such a way that the first big reaction you get is when they see the card appear back in the deck, this is VERY strong. The next bigger reaction is them seeing one of the signatures warp into yours. This is also extremely strong. The card vanish from the deck is the second phase which sets you up to remove the card from your pocket because this is the card you are going to do the signature change to and the patter is logical (it's a double take kind of thing, very much like the Blink Theory discussed on Jean Luc Betrard's No Smoking, either they catch it and it gets you that extra bit of surprise from your spectator or it flies by without any worries) for what is taking place. So in answer to your question dinger, the 2nd phase is really part of the mechanical aspects of the effect (as Tom has mentioned in the post before yours). Others would argue that there's better methods to do the second phase but as a whole routine, you're not getting much ROI for complicating the handling to make the 2nd phase more elegant and more memorable since this 2nd phase is relatively not important and no emphasis needs to be placed on it. Does this clear it up a big for you dinger? You can PM me and I can go into the concept further with you if you want. It's thought provoking ideas which is beneficial to think about and expand on.
|
|||||||||
Engali Elite user 435 Posts |
Tom G,
Thanks for the update from Mr. Harris. It helped clear somethin up for me--namely, why the theme of the effects changes. I agree that if you had a rock-to-goat transformation it might be worth giving up the vansihing rock theme to do it, but why not just start out doing magic with goats if you can? The signature change could easily have been the finale to a signature and/or ink-changing themed effect. As of now the handling seems to be a way to clean up the method that allowed the initial phases. Ortiz warns against this way of construction and I largely agree having thought it all out. I'm not asking you to answer all these questions--just kinda thinking out loud. |
|||||||||
Engali Elite user 435 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-02-27 12:50, kissdadookie wrote: So wait. Here in this post and two posts of yours ago you literally said that this IS a card-to-pocket effect. I would agree although an off-beat one. Whn I called you on it earlier and compared this to Carlyle's Homing Card, you said this in your last post: "I would say that they are two different effects with different feels. When I made the card to pocket comparison I was speaking of gaining a reaction from a simple effect that makes very little logical sense. If you couldn't understand my point, I apologize." Is it or is it not a card-to-pocket effect? It seems like you're waffling here. In my eyes, it's definitely an off-beat card to pocket. It goes from the pocket to the deck and then *from the deck to the pocket* the second time around. What else would you call this, an Ace Assembly? It's clearly a card-to-pocket. In my mind it was an attempt to create a non-palm ctp that was convincing--which is why the card is signed back and front. The final climax feels like a way to "clean up" the method and to tackle the challenge of giving the card away if the spectator requests it. That, to me, is why the final climax doesn't fit the theme of the effects. Personally, I'd do this effect in a heart beat if there was a way to give the spectator their card with both their signatures still on the front and back at the end of the effect--and if they could take it out of your pocket at some point. I think I'll stick with Homing Card for now...I don't like having effects that are too similar to each other in my repetoire. |
|||||||||
kissdadookie Inner circle 4275 Posts |
It starts off as a card from pocket back to deck and then a signature morph. The biggest impact for the spectator is the signature morph. In other words, it's a routine with a double super strong whammy. I made myself very clear on that. At this point you're now just trying to make your point valid and my point invalid. Very well, as I said before, you came on with a bias and pretty much very little can change one's personal bias. I've explained why the effect hits the way it hits and that it's very much a great one for the spectator and less so for the performer (it's hugely based on psychology and pacing, particularly the for the climax at the end). It's actually the reverse of what you are saying. You're thinking that the ending is not as important as what came before when in actuality the first phase and third phase is what is going to be getting the reactions from the lay audience. The second phase in my humble view is a means to get to the end. I'm sure I've made this point very clear by now so if you want to continue arguing this, I shall just leave you be since you're pretty much trying to convince yourself not to use the routine and in the bigger picture, more reasons for yourself to not pick up the set. $300, it's a big commitment, totally understandable. If you don't pick up TA, nobody is going to shun you, but when you try to create all these reasons for why you shouldn't be picking up the set, with those reasons being very easy to negate, then you shouldn't be surprised that you're getting the replies you're getting here or in the other thread that you're active on.
|
|||||||||
PatrickGregoire Inner circle 2239 Posts |
The card never vanishes... Seems like you guys are always forgetting the presentation of this effect... It`s suggestion. The card appears in the deck and then you tell them it`s not really in the deck. You show that there is indeed a face down card in the deck, but it does not have their signature and then you show them that it is not their card either. This is not what I consider to be a vanish. it`s totally an important phase in the effect. It proves, along with taking their card back out of your pocket, that it was just in their minds. Watch Bro perform it and you`ll see that he emphasizes that phase as much as the others. Yes, this is a card to pocket, but it`s not presented as such. It`s presented as a feat of suggestion. The card never really travels to the deck and back to the pocket, it seems as if it does. Besides, it would be more of a card to deck than card to pocket.
|
|||||||||
kissdadookie Inner circle 4275 Posts |
Let me chime in to Patricks comment. The presentation is DEFINITELY key. TECHNICALLY the card jumps back into the deck from your pocket and TECHNICALLY it vanishes from the deck to end up back in your pocket. However, as I've mentioned and tried hard to emphasize, this is something that the spectator will not remember as being part of the effect. It's TECHNICALLY in there and it's TECHNICALLY a vanish but as I've said, if a spectator was to sum up the effect it will most likely be "My signed card jumped out of his pocket into the deck and then one of my signatures morphed into his signature." Simple, direct, extremely powerful.
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Dvd, Video tape, Audio tape & Compact discs. » » True Astonishments indepth Disc one review (1 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] |
[ 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 < |