|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
neemdog Loyal user 231 Posts 
|
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 Special user France 742 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2013-08-04 11:48, neemdog wrote: Yes, when you do a good ACR, they don't try to find an explanation because all seems so impossible. |
|||||||||
|
tomsk192 Inner circle 3894 Posts
|
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 Inner circle The Netherlands 5829 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2013-08-04 13:55, tomsk192 wrote: I couldn't agree more Tomski! |
|||||||||
|
tomsk192 Inner circle 3894 Posts
|
"It cannot be..... And yet!"
|
|||||||||
pepka Inner circle Uh, I'm the one on the right. 5041 Posts
|
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 Inner circle I hope I one day reach 1178 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2013-08-04 05:41, Bulla wrote: 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 Inner circle 6217 Posts
|
I usually will get "that's pretty cool, but how'd all those bunnies get in my hand?"
|
|||||||||
|
Jiceh Special user France 742 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2013-08-04 16:32, Vlad_77 wrote: 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 Inner circle 3894 Posts
|
Sure, five can be great when properly presented, as you suggest.
|
|||||||||
|
Erdnase27 Inner circle 2505 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2013-04-29 17:19, Bulla 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" |
|||||||||
|
Jiceh Special user France 742 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2013-08-05 07:00, Erdnase27 wrote: 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 Special user Honolulu, HI 673 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2013-08-05 07:00, Erdnase27 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. |
|||||||||
|
Jiceh Special user France 742 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2013-08-05 13:55, Bulla wrote: 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 Special user 627 Posts
|
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 Inner circle 2505 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2013-08-05 13:55, Bulla wrote: 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 
|
|||||||||
Pop Haydn Inner circle Los Angeles 3614 Posts
|
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 Special user Honolulu, HI 673 Posts
|
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 Inner circle Los Angeles 3614 Posts
|
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 Inner circle 3894 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2013-08-05 19:06, Pop Haydn wrote: 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] | ||||||||||
Posted: Aug 4, 2013 03:48 pm 
| [ 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 < 
|