|
|
|
|||
| Go to page 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
Serrodash New user Alaska 52 Posts 
|
I came up with an invisible deck handling without the gimmick deck. I've just started working out the kinks that come up while performing, but I'd like to post the basic idea and get suggestions / critiques. I know this kind of handling has been around before, but I don't know where it originated; if any historians could give me a history it would be very helpful.
Setup: Index in right pocket with the face of cards facing inward. Deck in box in left jacket pocket with cards facing outward. I have the deck closed and a card sticking out of where the box tucks in; this helps in quickly inserting palmed card. 1. Spectator names card 2. Retrieve and palm named card from index while misdirecting with other hand (I usually pull out a prop to be used at the end of routine, which for me is often Wonder's ringbox ACR finish) 3. With card palmed, grab deck in left jacket pocket while inserting palmed selection. 4. Holding deck out to audience use a Berglas technique and ask them what their card was again, done right it reliably creates the memory of the card being named after pulling the deck out. (Read Kaufman's book on such Berglas' techniques, getting away with this kind of misdirection takes allot of subtlety and doesn't work if clumsily blurted out) 5. Open deckbox and slide cards out into audience members hand (this way the performer never handles the cards), making sure not to flash the face up bottom card. 6. Ask them to cut the deck and let them find their face up card. It's important to make the cut forgettable, its pretty simple to come up with something in the context of that performance (ask a question, ask the spectator to snap a finger, wave a hand, or spread the cards < again, must be done carefully). This can be used with a resealing gimick, in which case, having inserted the card into the center of the deck, the audience can open the deck, and you don't have to misdirect away from a cut. But a full resealing setup, including cellophane, takes me upwards of 30 minutes to setup properly, so I can only do it once or twice a day unless I make a point to setup decks for a few hours the night before. I don't think this post reveals anything, the main aspects of the method are mentioned by name rather than mechanics. For instance, I didn't describe an index, simply said I was using one. If you like the handling, feel free to use it, I doubt this is very original, and the handling will have to be modified to have a place in any routine anyway. Thanks for the feedback |
|||||||||
|
Bandaloop Regular user Dodging attacks for the past 195 Posts
|
There needs to be a reason for the spectator to cut the cards when they're taken out of the deck. If you just say "cut the cards" it doesn't make any sense. Why would they have to cut the cards when, if the magic was real, all they would have to do is spread the deck to find their card face-up (or face-down)? So there needs to be a reason, which almost nullifies you wanting them to then forget about cutting the cards.
I would figure out a way to insert the palmed card into the deck just prior to pulling it out of your pocket. It eliminates the cut. |
|||||||||
|
Steven Youell V.I.P. 3866 Posts
|
Please do not take this the wrong way. It's an honest critique.
This methodology takes a devastating effect, complicated it and drastically increased the risk by adding sleights. The method adds nothing to the actual effect and IMO actually weakens it. In fact, since you're using an index and a gaffed card box seal, you've doubled the amount of gimmicks needed to acheive the effect. |
|||||||||
|
Serrodash New user Alaska 52 Posts
|
I'm working on that right now. The cut can be misdirected away from by saying "Now were going to find your selection, cut the deck and snap your fingers". It's an imperfect solution which drives me off the wall, but it works.
The solution I'm practicing now is to have the deck open in my pocket, so I can throw the card into the center. Then when I pull the deck out I pretend to pop open the box, while simply moving the lid open. The reason I don't open it in my jacket is that I can't spend more than a split second with my hand in my jacket pocket. |
|||||||||
|
Serrodash New user Alaska 52 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2013-01-21 19:10, Steven Youell wrote: I said a reseal gimmick can be used. Their is a huge difference in effect. The audience spreads the cards themselves, and the deck can be inspected. As said before, there is also a solution to the deck cutting problem. |
|||||||||
|
tomsk192 Inner circle 3894 Posts
|
If you have a card sticking up, working as a guide in a similar way to a 'palm' CTW, with the lid jammed against one side, it's very doable.
But why bother? It's not gimickless, you're using an index. Also, there will be a dupe in the pack so you won't end clean. The invisible deck is a worker. Really, it is. I promise. |
|||||||||
|
Serrodash New user Alaska 52 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2013-01-21 19:16, tomsk192 wrote: I usually do this as an opener for a signed card ACR. You're right though, it can't be used before any routine where the cards have to be fanned face up. The invisible deck works, but it makes the effect better if the audience can find the card face up themselves. Allot more work, but I think its worth the effort. |
|||||||||
|
Serrodash New user Alaska 52 Posts
|
Ungimmicked was the wrong word, I guess I just meant that the audience could handle the deck.
|
|||||||||
|
Bandaloop Regular user Dodging attacks for the past 195 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2013-01-21 19:19, Serrodash wrote: This is my opinion, not anything I'm putting across as cut in stone -- but I don't believe that just because it can be done in the audiences hands that it automatically makes it a better effect. The point of the invisible deck is the deck is in view before a card is named, the cards are spread with absolutely no funny moves and there's their card. It's just not aomething that seems possible in an audiences mind. Having them spread the deck in their hands, again in my opinion, doesn't make it stronger. |
|||||||||
|
Steven Youell V.I.P. 3866 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2013-01-21 19:14, Serrodash wrote: Serrodash, Thank you for considering my advice. I think you and I basically disagree on what makes an effect stronger. I do not believe that having a spectator spread the cards makes the effect stronger. Neither do I think that the option of having the audience inspect the deck makes the effect stronger. The reason I think that way is because I believe that if your audience is that suspicious of the deck, then the perfomer has not done his job properly. But I sincerly appreciate you taking the criticism without being offended. That's all... |
|||||||||
|
Serrodash New user Alaska 52 Posts
|
You might be right bandaloop,
I didn't think of it until I started using the Berglas technique in other effects succesfully The idea is that if you can pull the misdirection for the index hand out while the spectator names the card, when you pull out the deck, one can viably ask what the card was again. So my attempt, even if a failure, is to keep the benefit of the gimmick deck, while letting the audience do the handling. |
|||||||||
|
Serrodash New user Alaska 52 Posts
|
Thanks for the feedback Youell, I posted this here so it could be ripped apart. I felt that it needed a third party examination.
|
|||||||||
|
Bandaloop Regular user Dodging attacks for the past 195 Posts
|
All this being said, keep messing with it -- it might morph into something completely different. It's not a failure simply because you're thinking about ideas and experimenting with things and that's always a win in my book. Plus you had the guts to post it on here and brace yourself
|
|||||||||
|
tomsk192 Inner circle 3894 Posts
|
Serrodash, I hope you don't feel ripped, it seems like a good discussion to me. I also admire David Berglas.
|
|||||||||
|
Serrodash New user Alaska 52 Posts
|
No, I don't feel stupid. As I said before, I posted it here because I needed feedback and criticism about it. I grew up with an english scholar, so I can handle a red marks on my work, actually, I only let people see my work so they can mark it up.
|
|||||||||
|
tomsk192 Inner circle 3894 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2013-01-21 19:38, Serrodash wrote: Good for you: I can relate to that. The strongest use of a resealed deck, that I have come across is a signed selection appearing in a brand new deck. This plays soooo big. My two cents. But it seems to me that you must be attracted by the 'jazz' element of Berglas, as am I, being a jazz musician. Same goes for Lennart Green, and others. If you slip this in as you go along, and can ditch the dupe if necessary, then why the hell not? Go for it. Free flowing magic is great, but just as in music, the chops you got need to be convincing. Not super technical necessarily, but very well executed. |
|||||||||
BarryFernelius Inner circle Still learning, even though I've made 2537 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2013-01-21 19:14, Serrodash wrote: This has been a good discussion. By the way, are you planning to let them keep the deck? If someone actually looks at the deck carefully, isn't the deck going to have an extra card? And doesn't the presence of that extra card tip a significant part of the method? Have you looked at Mike Close's version of the effect? It uses the deck itself as an index. And you can give the deck to the spectator as a souvenir at the end, with no fear that they will have a clue about the method.
"To achieve great things, two things are needed: a plan and not quite enough time."
-Leonard Bernstein |
|||||||||
|
Serrodash New user Alaska 52 Posts
|
I haven't looked at Close's version, but it sounds great.
I haven't had any major problem with having a second card in the deck because I use this as an opener for an ACR routine. The primary risk here is that if I DL to prove the cards not on top, lets say, after a pass, that card is their selections value. But this, going back to jazz, is handled by then performing a transformation by which you throw the card down and reappear their signature. This hasn't happened to me yet because it is incredibly improbable, but moreso, it takes awhile to find a card in a deck unless you've practiced. If you let the spectator fan and shuffle, that's as good as a deck examination. Especially since a signed card ACR means duplicates are automatically ruled out as a method. you're right though, in some situations cooling off would be difficult |
|||||||||
|
tomsk192 Inner circle 3894 Posts
|
But not impossible: you're right.
|
|||||||||
|
Serrodash New user Alaska 52 Posts
|
This conversation has helped allot. I'm definitelly going to eliminate the need for the audience member to cut and think up a few alternate handlings before I take this out again.
|
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Ungimmicked invisible deck effect (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Jan 21, 2013 11:54 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.03 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 < 
|