The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Ambitious Card versus Layman? (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3 [Next]
neemdog
View Profile
Loyal user
231 Posts

Profile of neemdog
Ambitious card is one of the few routines I do that people almost never try to guess how it's done because it's so impossible and so visual. On rare occasions people say things "Okay, so you're flipping it up when I'm not looking." You just smile and say, watch closely this time.
Jiceh
View Profile
Special user
France
742 Posts

Profile of Jiceh
Quote:
On 2013-08-04 11:48, neemdog wrote:
Ambitious card is one of the few routines I do that people almost never try to guess how it's done because it's so impossible and so visual. On rare occasions people say things "Okay, so you're flipping it up when I'm not looking." You just smile and say, watch closely this time.

Yes, when you do a good ACR, they don't try to find an explanation because all seems so impossible.
tomsk192
View Profile
Inner circle
3894 Posts

Profile of tomsk192
What ruins it is when people throw away each revelation. A good three phase ACR, with appropriate drama, is much stronger than seven thrown away revelations.
Vlad_77
View Profile
Inner circle
The Netherlands
5829 Posts

Profile of Vlad_77
Quote:
On 2013-08-04 13:55, tomsk192 wrote:
What ruins it is when people throw away each revelation. A good three phase ACR, with appropriate drama, is much stronger than seven thrown away revelations.


I couldn't agree more Tomski!
tomsk192
View Profile
Inner circle
3894 Posts

Profile of tomsk192
"It cannot be..... And yet!"
pepka
View Profile
Inner circle
Uh, I'm the one on the right.
5041 Posts

Profile of pepka
This trick is my money-getter in the real world. 90% percent of my work is strolling and I do it for every single group. In a formal show where I have time, I weave a story about Vernon fooling Houdini with this trick. My technique varies enough to repeat it. Mine comes to the top 3 times, then usually once to the mouth, and a color change. After that it ends up somewhere....wallet, box, shoe....wherever. I don't really how a spectator thinks how any of my effects work, they're all wrong....even if they were right, they're wrong. My favorite explanation, I cheated. In that case, I say "YES!"
Montana76
View Profile
Inner circle
I hope I one day reach
1178 Posts

Profile of Montana76
Quote:
On 2013-08-04 05:41, Bulla wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-04 01:53, Montana76 wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-04-29 17:19, Bulla wrote:
My ambitious card routine is only 3 phases long and the presentation is engaging enough that spectators don't focus on how the trick is done but rather relax and let themselves experience the magic.


Would you like to share what effects you have chosen?


I'll send you a PM so as not to expose anything here in the public forum.


Thank you very much.

I'm actually not currently performing ACR. The reason for this is that I learned the five-phase Oz routine and people do not tend to like it. I will trim mine back. Thank you all for you valuable insights. Hopefully I will gain confident and start performing it. I'm pretty good with one-phase revelations and I could end with one of these.

Sune:)
videoman
View Profile
Inner circle
6217 Posts

Profile of videoman
I usually will get "that's pretty cool, but how'd all those bunnies get in my hand?"
Jiceh
View Profile
Special user
France
742 Posts

Profile of Jiceh
Quote:
On 2013-08-04 16:32, Vlad_77 wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-04 13:55, tomsk192 wrote:
What ruins it is when people throw away each revelation. A good three phase ACR, with appropriate drama, is much stronger than seven thrown away revelations.


I couldn't agree more Tomski!

I agree too except maybe on the number of phases
I don't think an acr needs a lot of phases (5 seem a good choice as far as I am concerned) but 3 seem a little few.
In my acr, the method require having a pause after each revelation.
In addition, each phase must give the spectator something more than before.
The 1st phase demonstrates the effect
The 2nd phase confirm the effect in the spectator's mind
The 3rd phase : you can show that the card is not on top with a DL then makes it come back
The 4th phase can happen in their hands
The last phase is the final
You can also play and anticipate the spectator's reaction . You can construct your routine in a way that each phase give the spectator a different emotion...
tomsk192
View Profile
Inner circle
3894 Posts

Profile of tomsk192
Sure, five can be great when properly presented, as you suggest.
Erdnase27
View Profile
Inner circle
2505 Posts

Profile of Erdnase27
Quote:
On 2013-04-29 17:19, Bulla wrote:
My ambitious card routine is only 3 phases long and the presentation is engaging enough that spectators don't focus on how the trick is done but rather relax and let themselves experience the magic.


A routine is only magic when a spectator tries to figure it out and then says: "it is hopeless, there is no explanation. This must be real magic."

Only braindead (or psychopaths?) or incredible gullible people (which almost NONE of our spectators are!!) think from the get-go that something is magic. A routine is precisely magic because a spectator tries to analyse it, then gives up with the conclusion: "it must be magic".

Thus, in my opinion, saying that you don't let your audience focus on how a trick might be done, is a wrong standpoint. Ofcourse, you shouldn't let them analyse something for ages, but a audience DOES always analyse a trick or try to figure it out. This isn't good, nor is it bad. But whatever it is, it is exactly what a routine makes real magic.

Darwin Ortiz has a lot of this to say in his groundwork "Designing Miracles"
Jiceh
View Profile
Special user
France
742 Posts

Profile of Jiceh
Quote:
On 2013-08-05 07:00, Erdnase27 wrote:
A routine is only magic when a spectator tries to figure it out and then says: "it is hopeless, there is no explanation. This must be real magic."

Only braindead (or psychopaths?) or incredible gullible people (which almost NONE of our spectators are!!) think from the get-go that something is magic. A routine is precisely magic because a spectator tries to analyse it, then gives up with the conclusion: "it must be magic".

Thus, in my opinion, saying that you don't let your audience focus on how a trick might be done, is a wrong standpoint. Ofcourse, you shouldn't let them analyse something for ages, but a audience DOES always analyse a trick or try to figure it out. This isn't good, nor is it bad. But whatever it is, it is exactly what a routine makes real magic.

Darwin Ortiz has a lot of this to say in his groundwork "Designing Miracles"

Obviously, it's very difficult to find someone who think that we have real powers (that's not the case in mentalism).

They look for an explanation but this moment is not very interesting, because if it is longer, there is few magic (it looks more like a puzzle). They can try to figure how the trick works, but we have to make this moment as brief as possible. Instead we have to use methods that seems so impossible for them (but not necessary by a magician)that they stop looking for an expalnation (even if they know that is not magic). We have to give them something (ex : patter ...) more interesting that trying to find how it works.

You don't want them to focus in the method, but in the effect.
Bulla
View Profile
Special user
Honolulu, HI
673 Posts

Profile of Bulla
Quote:
On 2013-08-05 07:00, Erdnase27 wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-04-29 17:19, Bulla wrote:
My ambitious card routine is only 3 phases long and the presentation is engaging enough that spectators don't focus on how the trick is done but rather relax and let themselves experience the magic.


A routine is only magic when a spectator tries to figure it out and then says: "it is hopeless, there is no explanation. This must be real magic."

Only braindead (or psychopaths?) or incredible gullible people (which almost NONE of our spectators are!!) think from the get-go that something is magic. A routine is precisely magic because a spectator tries to analyse it, then gives up with the conclusion: "it must be magic".

Thus, in my opinion, saying that you don't let your audience focus on how a trick might be done, is a wrong standpoint. Ofcourse, you shouldn't let them analyse something for ages, but a audience DOES always analyse a trick or try to figure it out. This isn't good, nor is it bad. But whatever it is, it is exactly what a routine makes real magic.

Darwin Ortiz has a lot of this to say in his groundwork "Designing Miracles"


I completely disagree. They don't always analyze a trick. If you present your effects like puzzles then yes they will analyze it, but if you approach it with an attitude that you're just there to have fun and entertain them, you'll be surprised how often spectators will just go with it. If your spectators are constantly trying to analyze all of your effects then you might want to think about your delivery and presentation.
Jiceh
View Profile
Special user
France
742 Posts

Profile of Jiceh
Quote:
On 2013-08-05 13:55, Bulla wrote:
I completely disagree. They don't always analyze a trick. If you present your effects like puzzles then yes they will analyze it, but if you approach it with an attitude that you're just there to have fun and entertain them, you'll be surprised how often spectators will just go with it. If your spectators are constantly trying to analyze all of your effects then you might want to think about your delivery and presentation.

If you do a routine where there is more impossibility than entertainment, someone in the audience will try to figure how it works. Obviously, if you make them laugh all the long of your routine, yhey don(t even try that but you may forget to underline the impossibility of what they see.
All depends of the dosage between entertainment and magic
jcrabtree2007
View Profile
Special user
627 Posts

Profile of jcrabtree2007
No one has mentioned Daryl's handling of the ACR. Brilliant DVD (Ambitious Card Routine by Daryl)with a world class routine in it. He then goes to show you 40-50 revelations of the AC. that's more revelations than anyone would ever care to use,or should ever dare to you- but pick your favorite 2-3 of them and make magic.
Daryl's plot is simple. "Card magic can be summed up in one word- Control....Allow me to demonstrate". AS he says this, he shows a simple flourish (from a spread), has someone signs a card and goes into the routine. He has way more than 5 phases or reveals, but watch the dvd. Its very enteratining and he goes into a Monte routine and finishes it with his tied deck finish. Great routine.
Erdnase27
View Profile
Inner circle
2505 Posts

Profile of Erdnase27
Quote:
On 2013-08-05 13:55, Bulla wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-05 07:00, Erdnase27 wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-04-29 17:19, Bulla wrote:
My ambitious card routine is only 3 phases long and the presentation is engaging enough that spectators don't focus on how the trick is done but rather relax and let themselves experience the magic.


A routine is only magic when a spectator tries to figure it out and then says: "it is hopeless, there is no explanation. This must be real magic."

Only braindead (or psychopaths?) or incredible gullible people (which almost NONE of our spectators are!!) think from the get-go that something is magic. A routine is precisely magic because a spectator tries to analyse it, then gives up with the conclusion: "it must be magic".

Thus, in my opinion, saying that you don't let your audience focus on how a trick might be done, is a wrong standpoint. Ofcourse, you shouldn't let them analyse something for ages, but a audience DOES always analyse a trick or try to figure it out. This isn't good, nor is it bad. But whatever it is, it is exactly what a routine makes real magic.

Darwin Ortiz has a lot of this to say in his groundwork "Designing Miracles"


I completely disagree. They don't always analyze a trick. If you present your effects like puzzles then yes they will analyze it, but if you approach it with an attitude that you're just there to have fun and entertain them, you'll be surprised how often spectators will just go with it. If your spectators are constantly trying to analyze all of your effects then you might want to think about your delivery and presentation.


and I disagree with that statement. What makes magic according to you? Thus, if a audience is merely entertained, it is also a magic experience for them? There is nothing wrong with analyzing. All people do this. There is really NO sane human being that says without analyzing anything: "wow that's magic!". There has to be SOME analyzing to conclude that it must be magic. I am not talking about the puzzle mentality or whatever, just that everybody has to analyse a trick on some level to conclude they witnessed a magic experience.

When a painting falls from the wall, I won't automatically conclude that it must have been a ghost or an alien. Only after considering all the other options and after sustainable evidence I will conclude that. Ofcourse, that an magic effect shouldnt'be presented as a puzzle is 100% true, but that is an entirely different thing alltogether. All that I am saying is that analyzing is an internal part of our human intelligence. It is exactly what makes magic ... well.. magic Smile
Pop Haydn
View Profile
Inner circle
Los Angeles
3614 Posts

Profile of Pop Haydn
I think "impossible" is sufficient. They don't have to accept our stated, obviously false claim (it's magic, it's alien technology, it's a little known principle of mathematics), but they do have to agree that they can't come up with any other possible explanation, or else it isn't strong magic. Strong magic is not as dependent on performance as weaker magic.

We demonstrate the impossible, and lie about how.

What creates strong magic is getting people to agree to a sophistic argument which convinces them something is true that they know cannot be true. This logical trap is the experience of magic. It leaves people in a reverie of wonder and inductive reason.
Bulla
View Profile
Special user
Honolulu, HI
673 Posts

Profile of Bulla
When I perform I'm not necessarily trying to give them a magical experience. My style of magic leans more towards sleight of hand and skill. Sort of like a gambling demonstration. I don't want them to think its magic, but rather that what I do has taken me years of practice and that I'm extremely skillful. I want my audiences to appreciate the time and dedication that I have devoted to the art.

Of course there's nothing wrong with taking a different approach towards magic but it's just not my style.
Pop Haydn
View Profile
Inner circle
Los Angeles
3614 Posts

Profile of Pop Haydn
May I ask, Bulla, what is in it for your audience, other than the opportunity to admire you and your skill? What is it that you want to give them?

Would a pianist perform with the idea that he wants the audience to appreciate the time and work and practice that went into his work?
tomsk192
View Profile
Inner circle
3894 Posts

Profile of tomsk192
Quote:
On 2013-08-05 19:06, Pop Haydn wrote:
May I ask, Bulla, what is in it for your audience, other than the opportunity to admire you and your skill? What is it that you want to give them?

Would a pianist perform with the idea that he wants the audience to appreciate the time and work and practice that went into his work?


As a professional pianist for over 20 years, emphatically "no".
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Ambitious Card versus Layman? (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2023 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.06 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL