No disrespect, Cameron, and no reflection on this new effect, but laymen who are friends with magicians and who have seen a lot of magic are not your ordinary laymen.

Very true. But I've gotten great reactions from tricks of this ilk (color changing backs and value changing cards) from non-friends as well. My point was, people who don't know about magic enjoy multiple phased effects like these, in spite of the theory that they are "too long" or whatever.

Well just take 1 blank blue backed card,then any 1 red back a green and do a simple move, most of us know how to do and BANG,i have slayed laymen more with a simple routine,that cost me nothing,just watching a friend do it then buying exspensive gimmicked card's and flashy gimmick's,one I still love to perform is Spectrum by Wayne Dobson,kill's them and no one has ever asked to see the card's ,so that's why I think this goes down well,of course just my opinion.

I will preface by saying I have (and love) most of Bannon's stuff...esp his "Fractal Series" of which Spin Doctor is my fave. I, too was not happy with the cards that it came with. It did not take long to "wear" them out...and you have to remember, I'm a hobbiest and not really showing this much. The finish becomes dull and soils easily. It also makes counts difficult and portrays you as an unkempt magician! (don't you just hate it when a magician uses dirty props...) I tried using fanning powder to no avail. Like others above, I hope the quality of the cards are better...I'm also a touch disappointed that he did not follow the pricing of his "fractal series"...$15 DVD with cards. But heck, Mr Bannon probably knows his fans will buy this anyway...fans like me to name a few

I can tell you that the cards that come with Fractalicious and this were produced differently than the cards that came with the original a Fractal Series. They are better quality cards and will probably last longer.

As some of you probably know, Big Blind Media prides itself on releasing quality material with high production values. At the same time, they are always good value for the money.

Having been privy to this for about a year since John showed me the original, I just thought I'd clear up a few points.

Firstly - the cards are perfect quality. I had issues with the 'Spin Doctor' and other sets of cards, but the cards provided with both Fractalicious and Sizzle are both perfect - I've used them for ages.

Secondly - 'Sizzle' does play for laymen, and magicians. I've used both versions for ages - but Sizzle is cleaner, faster, easier, has a stronger finish, and ends examinable. If you don't think it'll play for you, that's fair enough. But it plays for me, and the other guys who have played with it and given it quotes, and we've actually used it and tried it out. Just saying

Anyway, hope you guys enjoy it, and you can always catch me on the online chat at bigblindmedia.com if you have any questions.

Cheers

Liam.

Very mediocre routine. Nothing new here at all. Disappointed.

Shows how different we all are I guess! I'd have said 'Killer routine, totally new handling, and AMAZED!'

Different strokes for different folks

Liam.

Fizzle! I'm more disappointed in the price.Is this anything to do with the 'strength' of the sterling currency?
Almost 30 bucks for an okay packet trick!

Don't own Sizzle but I can say that the later versions of the Fractilicious cards do seem to be of a higher quality.
Not sure why the higher price of this. Fractilicious had several great packet tricks and included cards for nearly the same price.

I will be getting this & yes £18 is quite pricy but I know I will work it.

Also, I to love Alex Elmsleys "DAZZLE" & only saw it on dvd a few months ago.

Yes, it is different & very entertaining but so is "SIZZLE" The method & cards are provided & it is down to the performer to create the entertainment.

I thought about sourcing the cards & making up Dazzle,( the fact that the cards can't be looked at(actually they are looked at all of the way through the routine)so I mean examined, doesn't bother me as if you are a competent performer , due to the nature of the routine it doesn't matter. If every 2 seconds someone is examining what you are using,then you have MEGA audience management flaws & should not be performing for the public.

As a side note I ordered DAZZLE yesterday from Vanashinginc. With the massive postage charge I am paying $36.75 for it or in pounds £24.21pence.so SIZZLE is £6 cheaper.I WILL USE BOTH AT DIFFERENT TIMES.

Mike Donoghue

The criticism isn't that it has multiple phases. The criticism isn't that it's too long. The criticism that several have made is that it's confusing.

Summarizing the plot in words is no answer to that criticism because it's not the plot that makes it confusing. It's the handling and procedure that make it confusing. (Personally, I was confused before the magic even began because of the odd way in which the cards were laid out at the outset.)

I don't expect you to agree, but you might make an effort to at least understand the criticism.

To long? Not by a long way. Anyone that performs at all will tell you that.

Confusing? What's confusing? Organge back jokers change to green back jokers and so on then the jokers change to a royal flush. Yes, really hard to follow (sarcasm)

Only the beginners or the magicians who remained at that stage can say that a trick is too long. It's only their imagination, scripting capacity and acting ability that is too short

As many here may know, I've been studying quite a few versions on specific effects (cards and other close up effects) and several authors, John Bannon's take on effecccts always manages to end up in the short list of the best creator on effects, scripts ... and he is not a bad actor. So what dwarf does feel qualified to judge a giant? I certainly won't, I prefer to sit on their shoulders.

In my opinion Royal Scam is one of the best packet tricks of all time. It's easy to follow, logical, and has a surprising ending!!!! I love it!

Yes, I did buy Sizzle, because #1 I love JB's work, #2 I robbed a bank so I could afford Sizzle, #3 I wanted to know what everyone else thinks!

Sorry, but I don't understand that criticism. The plot is as straight forward as the original. The handling is not confusing. You are simply displaying cards using a variation of two counts that most magicians use.

I just don't see the issue. And most of the best card guys I know don't see the issue either.

But if it's not for you, it's not for you.

I have to admit, I am shocked at some of the reactions to this. Dazzle is a classic plot and I have seen many versions of it. As I stated before, this one is similar to the Walton/Colombini version which was my favorite. However, the problem that John solved was the ditching problem: In the Walton/Colombini version, you had to ditch each card after it was removed from the packet. It's not that I need to have all of the cards examined, but it's sooo nice to be able to remove the card from the packet and just toss it aside as opposed to put it in your pocket because you have to (those who know the Walton/Colombini version will know what I mean).

I'm just surprised that some of you aren't seeing what an elegant solution this is to the plot. It solves having to have extra cards and gaffs so well. Those of us who have played with a lot of packet tricks know that coming up with a clean version of Dazzle is a tough nut to crack. But I think John did a fantastic job of doing just that. I was so excited when I first saw this.

I also have a feeling that John's display might not be as universally known as I thought it was. It might seem odd to you as a magician, but I've been using it for years and it's never been questioned.

But, at the end of the day, it's just my opinion. And not everyone loves packet tricks as much as I do.

Okay, here's the Walton effect, "Restless Colors". (Not the best video but it's the best one I could find on YouTube). This is the version that John's mostly resembles. I like this effect a lot. But as I have stated, think John's has several advantages.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pE6tnGNUyk

I don't think anyone's judging Bannon here - they're judging the effect. And anyone is qualified to do that, maybe especially people not involved in magic at all. Didn't care for this one either after watching the demo once, for reasons others have already stated. It feels a bit like a patchwork medley, rather than a song unto itself.

Not Bannon's best effect. Maybe he should finish with the packet tricks now and move onto something else.

Sizzle has some similarity to Paul Gordon’s variation of Restless Queens entitled Bedazzling Colors as was indicated high in the thread. Bedazzling Colors has always generated great reactions for me. Each version has advantages.

Bedazzling Colors shows cards with the same faces and the original back color A which changes to color B and then C and then back to A, when the odd color is introduced to the pack. The finale ends with a royal straight flush. The patter is very tight and the presentation quickly gets to the finale.

Sizzle shows cards with the same faces and the original back color A which changes to color B and then C and then D. You get to see the Jokers repeatedly. You end with 2 climaxes - the backs displayed in rainbow color then the faces of the cards remaining in your hand change to a royal straight flush.

You get to see more color changes, Joker convincers and an extra climax with Sizzle, but although I don’t feel there is confusion I do think that the structure leads to questions. Why is the Ace face up? Why does touching the new colored back to the FACE of the ace change the color of the Joker backs? When you show the final color on the back of the Ace, why don’t you change the other backs to that color, too? The flow just stops there.

I’m not sure, but perhaps these little things are what make some feel there is confusion. Some may think that my questions are points that only a magician analyzing an effect would come up with, but they are what make catch the spectator’s eye and can prevent getting involved in the effect.

However, in spite of the above, I really like Sizzle. It is a great version. I think that the questions above are minor and overshadowed by the visual changes that eliminate the time to think or focus on these points. Hopefully we'll hear soon enough when others start performing it.

I would agree that the price represents a significant increase to similar packet tricks by John Bannon and other creators.