|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
Pete Biro 1933 - 2018 18558 Posts |
Microastro... Palm off the pieces is hard? Uh, excuuuuuuuuuse me...
STAY TOONED... @ www.pete-biro.com
|
|||||||||
Magicmike1949 Special user 643 Posts |
Though your chances to perform it may be limited, if you ever get the chance, try Michael Ammar's The Iceman Cometh . I only had the opportunity once at a friend's house where I sneaked the deck into their freezer while getting ice for a drink. I removed it shortly before I was ready to perform. When I did the trick, the reaction was like Malini must have gotten when he reportedly produced a huge block of ice once. The audience will be dumbfounded, if you pull it off. The intercessor offers a different solution from Ammar's switch.
|
|||||||||
Hobbsy New user UK 49 Posts |
Anyone have any idea where I might get a copy of Dan Garretts Last Palindrome lecture notes from?
|
|||||||||
AlexWong Veteran user 371 Posts |
Intercessor website? Do enlighten me!
|
|||||||||
Craig Crossman Special user Palm Beach, Florida 523 Posts |
Quote:
On 2003-07-13 18:16, MacGyver wrote: MacGyver, Your remark puzzles me. I heard this from one other magician as well. Saying that "It's too impossible" or "it's too perfect" makes no sense to me. We as magicians DO the "impossible" or why bother? When I burn the very card before their eyes, everyone is blown away. If I were to add another element like an envelope, OF COURSE they will think I switched it our got it out of the envelope somehow! WHY do I want to give them an out so that they feel comfortable thinking that?? I WANT then to be uncomfortable, make them squirm, make them think "How the HECK did he do that??" No, I say BURN the card in front of them! THAT'S Magic! Quote:
On 2003-07-14 12:41, marko wrote: Marko, You're missing the point. The spectator holds on to the CORNER, not the CARD! I make the very point that THEY NEVER LET GO OF THE CORNER! That's part of the magic you can ONLY get with the Intercessor. Let's see you do a corner switch while THEY hold on to the corner... Get it now? |
|||||||||
Hobbsy New user UK 49 Posts |
I think the point is not about whether it is too perfect but whether it is imperfect. I think most of this is down to the routine and presentation you use and not down to the intercessor itself. If a routine leads the spectator to a conclusion about the method (even if that conclusion is incorrect) then there is a good chance it is imperfect. This could well be true if you simply tear off the corner and then burn the card only for it to appear somewhere impossible a second later. To me that leaves the spectator with nowhere to go other than concluding that it is a different card. I think what we really want is for the spectator to be baffled. That no conclusion (even the wrong one) is satisfactory. That each possible explanation they consider is flawed or leads to a dead end. If this is true the only conclusion left is that it really was magic! Achieving this is largely down to presentation but 'convincers' also help create those dead ends. The fact that the spectator can complete the tear is definitely one of those and, in my opinion, gives the intercessor something over the standard corner switch.
|
|||||||||
Erik Anderson Regular user Des Moines, Iowa 171 Posts |
The standard torn-corner dodge is a classic. It does the job very well. The Intercessor was a new approach that addressed a perceived (by some) shortcoming inherent in this method. But,as with so much magic, it is a matter of style and what YOU (not another magician) is comfortable with. After all, isn't that why so many different methods for the same effect exist?
I do not use the Intercessor to tear off a corner. I use it to uniquely mark a card for a stage routine with gambling theme. I'm not trying to "prove" to the audience that it is the same card. When they see a card produced later with the same unique folded notch, THEY conclude it is the same card. It is far stronger. If I try to convice them of something they will question it, but if they come to an assumption on their own they will never question it. Ironically, miscoes, today just happens to be (and I'm not making this up) World Intellectual Property Day.
Erik "Aces" Anderson
"I never let my schooling get in the way of my education." ~ Mark Twain http://www.acesanderson.com |
|||||||||
Hobbsy New user UK 49 Posts |
Erik, would be interested to know more about how you use intercessor in a gambling routine. I agree that if they conclude it is the same card for themselves (rather than being told) it is much stronger.
|
|||||||||
Erik Anderson Regular user Des Moines, Iowa 171 Posts |
Hobbsy,
I use the intercessor to "mark" a card with a fold over notch rather than tear off the corner for later matching. The idea grew out of difficulties in a specific routine I am doing. It's a routine I've done for years and it plays very strong. But I wanted to reinforce for the audience at the revelation that it was the same card without losing the strong points already in the routine. A signature would not work in this instance and taking the time to match a torn corner at the end (after the card is magically produced and revealed) slowed the routine to a crawl at the very end and became more of an anti-climax than a "clincher" that sold the magic. However, I found that a unique notch and fold that could be easily reproduced (via the Intercessor) visually sold the fact that it was the same card much the same way a signature would (using the idea that the card was being "marked" by the gambler ... exaggerated somewhat for such a large group) and didn't slow the end of the routine with a painstaking verification. And because I'm not trying to prove with overwhelming evidence that it is the same exact card (because the evidence is there for them to see for themselves) they buy the premise much more easily. To my knowledge, this is not an approach that has been done with the Intercessor before. If anyone knows differently, I would appreciate knowing to give credit where it is due. Keep in mind, I'm not saying at all that this is better than using a torn corner. Only that it is a better solution for me to solve a problem in this particular stage routine. Hope that helps.
Erik "Aces" Anderson
"I never let my schooling get in the way of my education." ~ Mark Twain http://www.acesanderson.com |
|||||||||
Larry Davidson Inner circle Boynton Beach, FL 5270 Posts |
If you can cull force a card and have access to rubber cement you don't have to switch corners after you tear off the corner and you can approximate the clean handling that the Intercessor permits.
|
|||||||||
Dave V Inner circle Las Vegas, NV 4824 Posts |
Quote:
On 2003-07-16 20:13, CardFan wrote: Intercessor site question was asked and answered here
No trees were killed in the making of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
|||||||||
Craig Crossman Special user Palm Beach, Florida 523 Posts |
Larry,
Why "approximate the clean handling that the Intercessor permits," when you can HAVE the clean handling... by just using the Intercessor in the first place? I'm not sure why so many try and put down this wonderful utility device by trying to use alternative methods. That being said... Look, I have no problem with trying to find other ways to do the same thing. In fact, that approach has proven to be successful many times in that I came up with a better way. But so far, when it comes to the Intercessor and what it lets me do, I have yet to see anything or any technique that replaces it with something superior. Bottom line is that if you want to have the spectator hold on to the original corner that THEY tear off, there is NOTHING that will let you do that as CLEANLY as the Intercessor can. |
|||||||||
Larry Davidson Inner circle Boynton Beach, FL 5270 Posts |
PalmBeachGuy,
There are positives and negatives associated with any approach. With the approach I offered, there's nothing to add to the deck or to remove from the deck at the conclusion of the effect. Some magicians would view that as a positive. I personally was not putting down the Intercessor as I think it's very clever and useful. At the bottom line, though, I wouldn't use the device myself (and I wouldn't use the alternative I offered) because I prefer a signed object to impossible location over any torn-corner object to possible location. Larry D. I mean I prefer a signed object to impossible location over any torn-corner object to "impossible" location. |
|||||||||
Larry Barnowsky Inner circle Cooperstown, NY where bats are made from 4770 Posts |
You are right.
|
|||||||||
Craig Crossman Special user Palm Beach, Florida 523 Posts |
Quote:
On 2004-04-28 18:16, Larry Davidson wrote: Yes Larry, but your approach does not allow the spectator to personally tear the corner off and hold on to it. As I said, only the Intercessor lets you do that. As for personal preference to signing as opposed to tearing, both have their good and bad points. One of the many reasons I prefer the tear is because it gets a bigger reaction when I do it. |
|||||||||
Larry Davidson Inner circle Boynton Beach, FL 5270 Posts |
PalmBeachGuy,
You're absolutely right, my approach doesn't allow the person to tear the corner off and hold on to it. The Intercessor does permit that, and some magicians would consider that a positive. There also, however are negatives associated with the Intercessor that are avoided by the approach I offered. As I mentioned, every approach has positives and negatives. A particular magician has to decide which particular approach he will use by judging the positives and negatives associated with various approaches and then choosing the one that has the highest positive balance for him. At the end of the day, what matters most is audience reaction, and if your use of Intercessor in an effect gets you better audience reactions than your use of other methods, of course you should use that product. There's no such thing as the "best" because magic is not one size fits all. What gets a strong reaction for me may not get such a great reaction for you and vice versa. For me, use of a signed vs. corner-torn object to impossible location gets me the stronger reaction. There are, however, certain object to impossible location effects where in my opinion it doesn't make sense to mark the particular object in any way...no torn corners, no signatures, no anything. In fact, I perform one such effect, and in the many years I've been performing, no other effect has gotten a stronger reaction for me so I use it as the closer in my stand-up act. Larry D. |
|||||||||
Craig Crossman Special user Palm Beach, Florida 523 Posts |
Larry,
I agree. By the way, I mostly do mentalism with cards. Yet I find myself usually closing my act with a routine that uses the Intercessor. Go figure. |
|||||||||
Carron Special user UK 958 Posts |
This may look like a random question guys but do you think it's safe to eat a card, I mean as a way of getting rid of it. I suppose if you chew it well with water it would be ok.
Saying this do you agree that it is grotesque for the magician to place anything into their mouth during a performance. this was intended as a suggestion not a proposition, let me know what you guys think. Tom |
|||||||||
Craig Crossman Special user Palm Beach, Florida 523 Posts |
Hmmmm... Eating the card? Perhaps with a little mayo or ketchup? No. I think I'll use my current method which is burning the card in front of everyone. Wait! A barbecue card with K.C. Masterpiece sauce? Nope. Just burn the little sucker and have done with it.
:) |
|||||||||
Hoelderlin Regular user Turin, italy 112 Posts |
Quote:
On 2003-07-13 18:16, MacGyver wrote: Not exactly: in the first case (the flushing one) the problem, etiquette apart, is exactly a problem of *"too perfect"*, but the effectively of the problem is under discussion (the "too perfect" is not a dogma, and has been criticized recently in a column of Visions Online, if I remember correctly); the burning version, instead, has a problem of *discrepancy*: if the card would have really been completely reconstructed, in the ashtray there should be no ashes; if there are, obviously it is a duplicate. It would be great, instead, if the magician would find a way to make ashes disappear.
Hölderlin (Massimo Manca) - Circolo Amici della Magia - Turin - Italy.
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Intercessor - any routine ideas?! (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 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 < |