|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
magicfish Inner circle 7004 Posts |
Great thread, Charles. In Vlad's defense I think he was just cautioning us that we might be paid a visit by a certain member who's been a bit vociferous in pertinence to certain threads lately.
|
|||||||||
Medifro Inner circle Miami 1258 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-08-31 15:57, Charles Adams wrote: I misunderstood you completely then. I thought the idea was to rank their impossibility in a conceptual sense, as opposed order them to perform them as an act in a sequence, with the increasing level of impossibility as the unifying theme. Was that the idea of this thread :S? @magicfish: Beside the way you transit between the 2 decks, I totally agree that the method of Unholy Three is extremely good. For me, that Vernon move is the trick's Achilles heel. - Feras |
|||||||||
Cain Inner circle Los Angeles, CA 1550 Posts |
As near as I can tell, your answer looks something like this:
Quote:
On 2013-08-31 10:27, magicfish wrote: I'd more or less agree, apart from the scare quotes on "changed," which suggests something I don't think you intended. An intelligent member on this forum once said something like "The 'Shapeshifter Change' is good at fooling the eye, but not so good at fooling the mind." I've personally heard that move evoke guttural reactions, and we can add layers to increase its deceptiveness, but in the end, there are lots of other ways of accomplishing basically the same thing, which is how I feel about The Unholy Three. I suspect the kicker is heightened by "The Theory of False Solutions." Spectators are trying to figure out how the magician cuts to the mates in the blue deck. Since this is what the magician said he was going to do, and does three times, audiences have plenty of time to generate solutions. "Marked cards? Psychic abilities? Magnets?" They hit a barrier when the cards change. Yes, change. Of course, that barrier actually tips the method: he never found the blue mates. At this point, however, I don't think spectators much care how the magician found the blue cards because it's not nearly as interesting as how, or when, he stole the red ones. The signatures, I suppose, definitively prove the magician found the spectators' original cards. Methodologically the signatures may also allay fears of any manipulation in the opening phase, but I wonder if anyone leaves out the signing business. A person who thinks about the trick should quickly conclude that the magician had the three signed selections all along. This doesn't mean he'll figure out the entire method (in all likelihood he probably won't). If anything he'll probably gravitate toward a needlessly complicated solution -- the magician somehow located the blue mates, and then somehow switched them for the red selections, which he had all along. MagicFish, you talk a lot about conviction, but I don't actually see conviction that the magician changes the cards when he pretends to change them. There are no strong barriers on that front. Examples. In the Biddle Trick, the magician usually executes a false count and miscalls the selection, casually implying he had it. He may also execute something like a Tent Vanish to give the card's vanishing a magical moment. Carlyle's "Homing Card," a "case study" in DESIGNING MIRACLES, generates even more conviction by using a pseudo-duplicate. So what conviction do we have in The Unholy Three? Well... People do not really suspect the red cards have been taken because there's no reason to suspect they've been taken. Once they're finally flipped over, however, I think a reasonably intelligent person will backtrack, and strongly suspect that the signed cards were taken before the red deck was handed over. Which is what actually happened. Finally, on the Vernon Transfer. It's an excellent move, but every move is a move.
Ellusionst discussing the Arcane Playing cards: "Michaelangelo took four years to create the Sistine Chapel masterpiece... these took five."
Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes: "You know Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are even worse!" |
|||||||||
magicfish Inner circle 7004 Posts |
However, the signed cards couldn't have been taken before the red deck was handed over because as soon as they were returned separately, the pack went under the hand.
Surely we would notice red cards in the blue deck. Not only that, but we actually saw the blue backed cards laid down in front of us. Solution? Magic. Or at least the goosebumps and grin that go along with suspension of disbelief. Which is what we are all after. |
|||||||||
Cain Inner circle Los Angeles, CA 1550 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-08-31 19:47, magicfish wrote: This makes little sense. It sounds like you're indirectly admitting that it's easier for the magician to steal the selections while the pack's in his own hands rather than a spectator's. Quote:
Surely we would notice red cards in the blue deck. This is not much of a convincer... Quote:
Not only that, but we actually saw the blue backed cards laid down in front of us. Yes, we did see blue-backed cards, and yet they're now red. Where did they come from? The red deck. When did he get them? Probably before they were handed over. Can we hide three red cards among 52 blue ones? Yeah. Quote:
Solution? Magic. I'm doubtful.
Ellusionst discussing the Arcane Playing cards: "Michaelangelo took four years to create the Sistine Chapel masterpiece... these took five."
Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes: "You know Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are even worse!" |
|||||||||
magicfish Inner circle 7004 Posts |
You're doubtful? So you doubt Ortiz' statements about the effect being devastating to laymen and that its one of the strongest effects he's ever found for a lay audience?
|
|||||||||
magicfish Inner circle 7004 Posts |
With all due respect, if it comes down to your opinion vs. Darwin Ortiz', I think I'm going to go with Mr. Ortiz. Please don't take it personally.
Of course they don't think its real magic. But that's not what we expect. |
|||||||||
magicfish Inner circle 7004 Posts |
"This makes little sense. It sounds like you're indirectly admitting that it's easier for the magician to steal the selections while the pack's in his own hands rather than a spectator's."
Incorrect. It makes perfect sense. Such is the strength and beauty of Hofzinsers sleight. The selections are returned individually and separately and then.....nothing happens. That's the idea. The blue card cover on Vernon's transfer move is extremely deceptive. But I won't argue the merits of this masterpiece any further. I'll let Darwin's audiences decide - and they have. Good day gents! Thanks for the stimulating debate, Cain. |
|||||||||
Cain Inner circle Los Angeles, CA 1550 Posts |
As usual, the thread goes on your replies grow increasingly scatterbrained. You're reduced to mis-matching my comments to invented questions, and you ultimately surrender the argument on an appeal to authority. If only I could find a Vernon quote about the importance of independent thought...
I love some of Ortiz's tricks, while others I don't much care for (yes, I disagree that "God of Gamblers" is the second greatest gambling demonstration to appear in print). It should not need pointing out that the inventor (or engineer) of a trick is naturally biased. Rather than constantly reimagining "Poker Interchange," why doesn't Jim Swain just perform Ortiz's version ("The Cross")? As I said, I'm not in love with The Unholy Three. I'm certain Paperclipped has caused people to scream and run out of the room. The Shapeshifter Change has made people instantly react "Whoa!" But these are not, in my view, deeply fooling. Also, alternatives matter. If I'm going to use a red deck and a blue deck, then I'd rather perform Tamariz's "Total Coincidence."
Ellusionst discussing the Arcane Playing cards: "Michaelangelo took four years to create the Sistine Chapel masterpiece... these took five."
Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes: "You know Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are even worse!" |
|||||||||
tenchu Inner circle Europe 1117 Posts |
I won't deny that I am a big Darwin Ortiz fan. I am. And I don't have a problem with "The Unholy Three", but when it comes to "Beat The Dealer", also from Cardshark - I just don't get the routine at all.
Mike |
|||||||||
drmagico Loyal user 252 Posts |
I have performed Timepiece from Cardshark numerous times and it gets a great reaction
|
|||||||||
magicfish Inner circle 7004 Posts |
Drmagico, I'm glad you brought up Timepiece. It is a wonderful piece of magic . For me, there is a parallel with the Unholy Three.
In TimePiece, the actual engraving on the watch changes. It is astonishing. Just as the mates change to signed selections in Unholy Three. Also astonishing. Im sure those who would say Vernon's Transfer Move is Unholy Three's weakness would also say Tamariz' Crossing The Gaze is Timepiece's weakness - it isn't. Will the spectator suspect a switch of some kind? Perhaps, but not until after they have recovered from a most enjoyable magical experience. |
|||||||||
magicfish Inner circle 7004 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-08-31 20:16, Cain wrote: I won't rebut with name calling as you have done to me, but the above is an example of mismatching. I don't mind extending a debate if the post is composed with a rebuttal or respectful counterpoint. But when the cutting and pasting starts, that's when I exit the exchange. PS. The shape shifter change has absolutely nothing to do with showing a card front and back, laying it on the table slowly, and letting the participant lift it to reveal its magically altered state. I think Vernon said it was one of the strongest things you can do. The Shape shifter change, while fun, is hardly in the same category. |
|||||||||
Cain Inner circle Los Angeles, CA 1550 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-09-04 11:51, magicfish wrote: By "mismacthing" I meant taking a reply and then using it as a response to a question invented after-the-fact (search for "I'm doubtful"). Quote:
I don't mind extending a debate if the post is composed with a rebuttal or respectful counterpoint. But when the cutting and pasting starts, that's when I exit the exchange. False. Hell, you don't even exit the discussion when you say you're going to exit the discussion. Quote:
PS. The shape shifter change has absolutely nothing to do with showing a card front and back, laying it on the table slowly, and letting the participant lift it to reveal its magically altered state. I think Vernon said it was one of the strongest things you can do. I suggest you read for comprehension.
Ellusionst discussing the Arcane Playing cards: "Michaelangelo took four years to create the Sistine Chapel masterpiece... these took five."
Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes: "You know Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are even worse!" |
|||||||||
magicfish Inner circle 7004 Posts |
You did it again.
Don't let's be adversarial. Comprehension was always my strong point. I'll take your suggestion with a grain of salt. I'll continue you with you if you'll refrain from the personal attacks. If you're in agreement with these terms, what do you think about Timepiece? |
|||||||||
Cain Inner circle Los Angeles, CA 1550 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-09-04 20:31, magicfish wrote: That's distressing... I'm not sure what Time Piece has to do with this thread, or why you would care at all about my opinion on it (after all, I'm not Darwin Ortiz). I'd say the Dunning-Kruger Effect is more relevant.
Ellusionst discussing the Arcane Playing cards: "Michaelangelo took four years to create the Sistine Chapel masterpiece... these took five."
Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes: "You know Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are even worse!" |
|||||||||
magicfish Inner circle 7004 Posts |
I don't think I'm the only one who thinks Darwin Ortiz' opinion carries a bit of weight in the subject of sleight of hand with cards. The rave reviews and sales of Strong Magic and Designing Miracles are a good indication that I'm not. But I do enjoy your sarcasm.
But it doesn't mean I don't care about yours. Life is short and these are just tricks so there's no need for ill will. I'm sure you're a good person and my family thinks I am too. What is the Dunning- Kruger effect? PS. You'll be more distressed to know I was valedictorian lol |
|||||||||
Cain Inner circle Los Angeles, CA 1550 Posts |
Someone I know saw this discussion, said he never thought much of Unholy Three but loves Gambler vs. Magician, a trick I also like quite a bit. The two are similar -- cards are improbably produced, then impossibly transformed. I thought this was a provocative line of argument. Maybe we're unfairly misjudging something, so what gives?
First, I don't much care for the premise of Ortiz's trick: "I'm gonna find the selected cards from THAT deck in THIS deck." This strikes me as a needlessly complicated exercise. Unlike a lot of magic tricks poisoned by bloodless exposition, GvM has a fun story, one which also sets up the kicker ("surprising but inevitable" is the gold standard). Furthermore, the trick makes use of Hero-in-trouble, a venerable component of story-telling. But so far this board's discussion has focused on methodology, not presentation, so what about that "time displacement" stuff? Doesn't GvM suffer from the same so-called "problem"? I don't think so. In GvM the superficial illusion is that the mates changed after the magician produced the "wrong" card; discerning people will suspect the switch happened sooner, but that doesn't matter because the trick is presented as a ruse. If someone said "I bet you had the four-of-a-kind all along and only PRETENDED to mess up!" then I don't feel busted; all of that is implied by the performer. The impression I would get from most people was that the three face-down cards were switched all at once, probably because it "makes sense" to use sleight-of-hand a single time rather than risk it three separate times. Unirregardless, they're surprised, baffled and entertained. In The Unholy Three, however, the signed cards are in all likelihood taken after they're returned but before the deck is placed under the spectator's hand. If afterward a spectator says, "I bet you had the signed cards before you put the red deck down," then I think the magician is somewhat busted, the illusion partially dispelled. Now for those people who have no such suspicions, and honestly believe you transformed/switched/magicked the red cards in spite of a spectator's protective hand, then this probably does play like a small miracle. What I struggled to define earlier is the too-little discussed topic of high-variance vs. low-variance trick-reactions. Half-decent but "Too Impossible/Obvious" tricks are probably going to have a higher variance -- some believe the trick is absolutely mind-melting incredible, while there are others who more or less deduce part of the method.
Ellusionst discussing the Arcane Playing cards: "Michaelangelo took four years to create the Sistine Chapel masterpiece... these took five."
Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes: "You know Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are even worse!" |
|||||||||
Cohiba Special user Michigan 749 Posts |
I agree with Cain's analysis completely. We must be on the same wavelength because over the years, I think there's maybe been one time that I had a differing opinion.
I've always felt that The Unholy Three was way too easy to backtrack, regardless of the method. I actually agree that the methodology is very sound. But logically, the trick is weak - the kicker gives away the underlying secret of the trick. I also agree with the person who said the Psychotronic Card is the worst name for a card trick. |
|||||||||
magicfish Inner circle 7004 Posts |
I think you are both thinking like magicians. But you are certainly entitled to your opinions. We'll have to agree to disagree
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Rank Order Strength of Ortiz Effects (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 0.05 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 < |