|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..6~7~8~9~10..15..19..23..27..29~30~31 [Next] | ||||||||||
Saturn UK Inner circle 2658 Posts |
I agree with all of the last post, you summed it up very well.
www.saturnmagic.co.uk
#theshopwithstock Pleased to be different! FACEBOOK: www.facebook.com/saturnmagic.co.uk |
|||||||||
FrenchDrop Inner circle I can name that tune in 1647 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-11-25 22:14, Michael Peterson wrote: Quote:
All these posts about an effect that no one has yet is silly. Hm. Seems to be a significant self-contradiction here. You say it's silly to have all these posts about an effect that hasn't been released -- presumably because no one discussing an effect they don't have yet can know exactly how it works -- and yet you also say "this type of effect is not for you." So it's too soon to ask questions about an effect that's not out yet...but you're fine with pronouncing it unsuitable for some magicians. The fact is, the bulk of this discussion hasn't even been about Peter Eggink's "Haunted." It's morphed into a discussion of gimmicks, the value of tricks that end clean or can be cleaned up, and whether or not you're a failure as a magician if an audience member ever wishes he could examine the cards. All valid fodder for discussion while we wait for more concrete information about "Haunted." As always, anyone who feels a given thread is silly is free to ignore it.
"A great magician has said of his profession that its practitioners '… must pound and rack their brains to make the least learning go in, but quarrelling always comes very naturally to them.'” -- Susanna Clarke, Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell
|
|||||||||
Michael Peterson Inner circle is where I'm trapped, because of my 4071 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-11-26 09:29, FrenchDrop wrote: I know you get my point I was not contradicting myself.If gaffs & spectator management is a potential problem for someone when they perform,I do not see this effect being for them. We know there is a gaff involved,many are uncomfortable using gaffs & have not learned spectator management. And we wait. Mike |
|||||||||
PRINCE Inner circle 1448 Posts |
Even though I feel I have very good spectator management, I still feel uncomfortable using gaffs (depending on what it is). I would challange anyone who says they feel 100% comfortable performing a non examinable trick IN THE REAL WORLD. You will get people jumping on this saying something like... All the years I have been performing I have never been asked if they can examine the deck. This means I have good audience management' etc etc. what I say is carry on presenting your magic in this way, but I will say one thing... All the time you are doing this and performing like this, the spectators are wanting to look at the deck/coins etc. The majority of people are too polite to ask to examine props, but they surely are thinking that would love to 'have a look at the props'
The best part for me as a magician performing, is after the effect pause for a beat as they are trying to work it out. Its as if I can see into their mind, and at the time their brain reacts and tries to work this impossible puzzle out, by then coming to the only conclusion that it obviously must be some kind of trick deck/coin - that's when I drop the cards/ coins into their hands and say nothing. I have then broken that politness barrier and subconsciously and psycologicaly gave permission to inspect/examine the props - which is the 1st thing they do. If they didn't think the effect was achieved by using gimmicked cards/coins they don't/wont examine them. But what we find is that 99% of people think that it has to be something to do with the cards/coins either wise what they just witnessed is simply impossible - & the moral of the story is that this is what magic should be about - the impossible with no explanation. |
|||||||||
FrenchDrop Inner circle I can name that tune in 1647 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-11-26 15:23, Michael Peterson wrote: I don't know, man. No matter how you slice it, you're calling discussion of this as-yet-unreleased effect silly -- you say "all these posts" are silly, in fact! -- while making a pretty concrete pronouncement about it yourself. If that's not a contradiction, I don't know what is. I know you get my point, but just to clarify: I don't disagree with the statement you made about the effect. You may well be right. I disagree with your characterizing others' discussion of the effect as silly...immediately after discussing it.
"A great magician has said of his profession that its practitioners '… must pound and rack their brains to make the least learning go in, but quarrelling always comes very naturally to them.'” -- Susanna Clarke, Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell
|
|||||||||
Michael Peterson Inner circle is where I'm trapped, because of my 4071 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-11-26 09:29, FrenchDrop wrote: Considering you reiterated the point I was trying to make in the response you wrote,if that's not getting it,I don't know what is? Mike |
|||||||||
FrenchDrop Inner circle I can name that tune in 1647 Posts |
I reiterated the point you were trying to make? You just lost me.
"A great magician has said of his profession that its practitioners '… must pound and rack their brains to make the least learning go in, but quarrelling always comes very naturally to them.'” -- Susanna Clarke, Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell
|
|||||||||
Michael Peterson Inner circle is where I'm trapped, because of my 4071 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-11-26 03:41, Michael Peterson wrote: Quote:
On 2011-11-26 09:29, FrenchDrop wrote: Mike |
|||||||||
FrenchDrop Inner circle I can name that tune in 1647 Posts |
Oh, THAT point. From 13 hours ago.
Well, we disagree on what constitutes a train wreck. But of course, anyone who feels a thread has become a train wreck is free to skip it. To reiterate an earlier point of my own. Posted: Nov 26, 2011 5:09pm Double post'd!
"A great magician has said of his profession that its practitioners '… must pound and rack their brains to make the least learning go in, but quarrelling always comes very naturally to them.'” -- Susanna Clarke, Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell
|
|||||||||
Michael Peterson Inner circle is where I'm trapped, because of my 4071 Posts |
To reiterate an earlier point of my own
Quote:
On 2011-11-26 03:41, Michael Peterson wrote: |
|||||||||
Astrocity Special user 523 Posts |
PRINCE,
I think that there are a lot of different sides and factors to consider when talking about performing "non-examinable" effects in the REAL WORLD. It isn't black & white, or cut & dry. Let me preface my comments by telling you I have performed close-up strolling magic professionally (in the REAL WORLD) for literally thousands of spectators over hundreds of hours. I tell you this not to blow my own horn but to establish that my comments come from a lot of experience with all types of spectators in all sorts of situations. First you have to consider what type of performer you are. There are performers who are all about the magic, a bit more aggressive, what I mean by that is they work with a mindset of, "I'm going to show you something that will freak you out and blow your mind". From your previous posts, it seems you lean more that way as a performer. When your performance style is that style, spectators tend to be more likely to rise to that challenge and try to prove you wrong. For me, my performance style is more about making a connection and having some fun with the spectators and magic is the vehicle, or art form if you will, I use to accomplish that. Don't misunderstand that statement to mean I'm not performing strong magic that definitely leaves a strong impression on my spectators. I assure you that I am. Next you have to consider the spectators themselves. You will run across all types of people when performing in the REAL WORLD. There are shy quiet people, outgoing friendly people, there is the guy trying to impress some girl or girls by showing up the magician. There are people who are so focused on tripping you up and exposing your methods that they never actually enjoy the effect at all. There are people who just enjoy seeing an effect and don't care about how it's done at all. There are people who don't really care how you are doing it, they just want to mess you up just to mess you up. Then there are drunk people, people on drugs and just plain crazy people! The more you perform for people and the more types of people you run across when performing, you learn to read them quickly and that should dictate the types of effects you are doing for them. If they are "grabby" you should be doing an effect that there's nothing to "catch you with". I'll add one helpful tip, if they are drunk DO NOT let them hold the cards and don't put them on the table near their drink. I've lost a few cards and one costly card gaff to a drunk's spilled drink! The nature of the effect should be considered as well. What I mean by that is, what the actual magic is can dictate how clean you have to be. Take for example a haunted deck effect, especially a "hands off" one. By it's very nature, is screams out for the spectator to pick up the deck and look at it. It just cut itself and shot their chosen card out for goodness sake! That type of effect should take into consideration that you need to be examinable at the end. An effect like "Cataclysm", an effect I perform regularly in my close-up work, leaves you with an absolutely filthy dirty deck that can't be examined but I'm telling you, it does not matter and it's not that my spectators are "just being polite". The nature of the effect, the subtleties used in showing and handling the deck during the presentation and the fact that all the heat is on the photograph which IS fully examinable and left laying on the table for everyone to touch and handle at the end of the effect, all combine to leave the deck out of the equation at the end. That's why it's such a fantastic effect, the creator knew enough about performing, misdirection and routining to create it like that. And you want to talk about strong magic?...trust me, this one absolutely takes their heads off!!! I do all types of effects, ones that leave you squeeky clean, ones that are semi-dirty and ones that leave you in need of a bath you are so dirty. All of them work because of the nature of the effects and I'm not leaving people thinking about anything but what a great trick that was and how much fun they just had! The bottom line, or as you put it, "the moral of the story" is that EVERYONE knows these are tricks. As my good friend and mentor, Gerry Griffin always says "If these were REAL miracles we would be in church right now." people know the there is a gimmick, or a move or a combination of the two. I think the real moral of this story is that is you are doing your job as a performer properly, they shouldn't care how, they should just be enjoying themselves, having a great time and BEING ENTERTAINED. We are entertainers, performers and , in my opinion at least, it should be all about them and their experience. OK, one caveat to all that, sometimes the crazy people actually DO believe the magic is real, there's really nothing you can do about that!-LOL Sorry to Mr. Eggink and all "Haunted" fans, I know this thread is about the effect and the anticipation of its release. I just felt that the previous posts about being clean, not being clean, just plain smelling bad or whatever, bore a bit of examination. I too am anxiously awaiting this one. I've been searching for a good haunted pack sans IT myself for a long time. We can only hope... Hank |
|||||||||
FrenchDrop Inner circle I can name that tune in 1647 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-11-26 17:34, Michael Peterson wrote: :D
"A great magician has said of his profession that its practitioners '… must pound and rack their brains to make the least learning go in, but quarrelling always comes very naturally to them.'” -- Susanna Clarke, Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell
|
|||||||||
bowers Inner circle Oakboro N.C. 7024 Posts |
And so we wait with anticipation.
|
|||||||||
rowland Inner circle 1524 Posts |
Seven pages of speculation !!!!! ;-)
|
|||||||||
Potty the Pirate Inner circle 4632 Posts |
While you're waiting for "Hauted" to be released, why not try the classic method a few times, and remind yourself just how good it is? It still gets great reactions, is very simple, infallible (assuming you replace your IT every few performances), and the deck is fully examinable, and can be used after the effect for any other card tricks.
Best of all, the classic method is, in effect, free, assuming you have some kind of IT or even household t***d...it's never actually visible during the effect. I realise that other takes on the classic version seem attractive - but having bought "Eject", I would never seriously consider using it in preference to IT. I'm curious to read reviews of "Haunted" once it's finally released. Will it really be more practical for the worker than the mind-bogglingly simple classic method? Does it really make it so much more astonishing if the deck is not held in the performer's hand? Doug |
|||||||||
Scott Imler Special user Calgary, Canada 545 Posts |
Cheers to Hank I will keep this brief.Anyone who feels they are losing something by not letting a person examine a deck of cards has never performed the invisible deck. Probably the most successful selling full deck trick out there. It can not come close to being examinable. Again I have never been asked can I see the deck.
You can not argue the impact of this trick and say that because it can not be examined it loses impact! |
|||||||||
FrenchDrop Inner circle I can name that tune in 1647 Posts |
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, can we all at least agree that "No one has ever asked to examine the deck" is NOT the same as "No one has ever suspected a gimmicked deck"?
No, it's not necessary for a trick to end clean (or even be easy to clean up). The Invisible Deck is indeed an example of that. But. All other things being equal, ending clean is a tremendous advantage. Especially if, in the spectator's mind, sleight of hand is out the window as a possibility, and the only remaining explanation is a gimmicked deck -- which is naturally going to be the case with *any* Haunted Deck routine. Assuming "Haunted" delivers on its promises...why wouldn't you want that advantage?
"A great magician has said of his profession that its practitioners '… must pound and rack their brains to make the least learning go in, but quarrelling always comes very naturally to them.'” -- Susanna Clarke, Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell
|
|||||||||
Saturn UK Inner circle 2658 Posts |
I disagree Scott as already mentioned above some tricks ID being one does not draw suspicion on the deck.
All the person thinks when you have done ID this is that you have used some skill to turn their card over without them seeing, or you made them somehow pick that card. You can go on all day about your presentation skills etc but when you walk away lay people know their is no such thing as magic and if you could predict things you would not be there performing to them! The ability to do something amazing and freely let them look especially in the context of a haunted pack which does draw attention to the pack is very important. If it were not people would not have been claiming the like of Spooked etc to be the best to date. If examination were not important in this kind of effect we would all still be using the original method. You can argue that non examination loses impact, if two people performed the same thing the viewer will be more astounded by the version they could examine as the other person must have been using a trick deck. They would still think it was good in the non examinable form if presented well, but I'm talking minor details now that lift an effect higher than good or very good. Now I'm not saying they believe it was magic unless they are a believer, but the effect is much more powerful when recalled later when they talk with others if they say they checked it out after. They know you have a method but it makes it more impressive the harder it is to find. We are getting into detail here and I'm on a journey with my magic and only recently things I have been doing for years have been dropped for things that can be examined. Its not that I say every time here check it out, but if they ask sure they can look. I still do a few things where I'm dirty at the end but they are effects that don't draw attention to the item in the context of the routine. Extreme burn is one example the notes are shown so freely and they can see nearly all of them, with good control the heat is not on them it must have been another method ,the same goes for the ID. If this effect lives up to all that is claimed it really will be something I can see almost every working magician using. To answer Potty I believe the magic I perform should be as strong as possible, you can do a pack in your hands, on the floor, in their hands with you next to them or haunted with you the other side of the room and they can check out the cards (I assume). To me the later will be more impressive even though none of the others would be viewed as bad.
www.saturnmagic.co.uk
#theshopwithstock Pleased to be different! FACEBOOK: www.facebook.com/saturnmagic.co.uk |
|||||||||
Scott Imler Special user Calgary, Canada 545 Posts |
Ok I agree that that there is more heat on the haunted deck than the invisible deck . Point taken.
|
|||||||||
FrenchDrop Inner circle I can name that tune in 1647 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-11-27 05:36, themagiczone wrote: Exactly. People know there's no such thing as real magic; they know you're not clairvoyant, and they know you can't put a card in their mind and make them think they thought of it freely. Which is precisely why I think at least some spectators WILL suspect some kind of trick deck when you do ID. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do ID; it's a great effect. It just means you shouldn't kid yourself that no one wants to examine the deck. In a perfect world -- in my opinion -- you'd follow ID by switching the gaffed deck for a normal one and doing something that puts the deck in the spectator's hands. If that doesn't make him think "Wow, so it was a normal deck after all," it would at least get him thinking "Wow, if this deck is gimmicked, I have no clue how it was gimmicked." Quote:
You can argue that non examination loses impact, if two people performed the same thing the viewer will be more astounded by the version they could examine as the other person must have been using a trick deck. Yep! That's why, in these discussions about the value of ending clean, I always say "All other things being equal." Given two essentially identical effects, the one that ends clean (or can be cleaned up easily) has an advantage. I think it's a considerable advantage.
"A great magician has said of his profession that its practitioners '… must pound and rack their brains to make the least learning go in, but quarrelling always comes very naturally to them.'” -- Susanna Clarke, Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » "Haunted" by Peter Eggink (Paul Harris Presents) (2 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..6~7~8~9~10..15..19..23..27..29~30~31 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.08 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 < |