Ammar's Out of This World PLUS

RealityOne

Moderator
Nov 1, 2009
3,575
3,847
New Jersey
It is on the DVD Easy to Master Card Miracles #9 which is available on Michael's website:https://store.ammarmagic.com/easy-to-master-card-miracles-9--dv.html

It is also in the book Best of All Worlds which appears to be in stock at Stevens:https://www.stevensmagic.com/shop/best-of-all-worlds-paul-curry-book/.

Although Ammar's handling (which incorporates elements from Harry Lorraine and Aldo Colombini) is good in that it only uses a part f the deck and that it is is impromptu, it still has the incongruence necessary to do the original effect. For that reason, I like John Armstrong's and Eugene Burger's versions better - they avoid that incongruence.

We live in a magic world that makes "impromptu" always seem better than whatever the opposite may be. It isn't. Even with a master such as Ammar performing this, there is the sense that he is fiddling with the deck. The moment the magician touches the deck, it goes from being impossible to being sleight of hand. When they touch the deck as much as in that effect, any spectator will know the did "something" even if they don't know what the something is. Also, it is unlikely that a spectator has their own deck.

There are a lot of good ways to get into OOTW set-up using a shuffled deck in use. A simple way is to use a stripper deck. Also, John Gustaferro has a great effect called "Either Or" in his book One Degree that would work. Roberto Giobbi's TNT in Card College Light also allows you to show a shuffled deck and get into OOTW set-up (which is diabolical since the spectator does the work for you) -- his version of OOTW called "Intuition" also is very good.

As for the prediction... I think it weakens the trick -- or better yet turns a miracle into a trick. Having 100% correct is amazing... having one off deflates the level of amazement. "Hey, let's clap for the guy that almost did something amazing." Then, the attention is turned to the magician's prediction, which of course is correct. However, that takes the glory away from the spectator and focus the attention on the magician. Worse, it gives more credence to the idea that the magician "did something" to make the effect happen... how else could he have predicted what would have happened? At the end, the audience thinks that they have been tricked... twice and that forfeits any amazement.

Finally, Ammar's presentation is typical "say-do-see" patter. He says it, does it and then asks the audience to see the results. There are a lot of ways this can be presented to make it meaningful by providing an explanation as to why the spectator can do this. In my opinion, the best presentation that I've seen is French Postcards by Chris Philpott (which uses John Armstrong's method).
 
Nov 3, 2018
536
414
As for the prediction... I think it weakens the trick -- or better yet turns a miracle into a trick. Having 100% correct is amazing... having one off deflates the level of amazement. "Hey, let's clap for the guy that almost did something amazing." Then, the attention is turned to the magician's prediction, which of course is correct. However, that takes the glory away from the spectator and focus the attention on the magician. Worse, it gives more credence to the idea that the magician "did something" to make the effect happen... how else could he have predicted what would have happened? At the end, the audience thinks that they have been tricked... twice and that forfeits any amazement.
It might also give the feeling that this prediction of being one card off is the magician's contingency plan -- in case something goes wrong, I'll just pull out this piece of paper to make it work anyway.
 
Mar 1, 2018
66
61
It is on the DVD Easy to Master Card Miracles #9 which is available on Michael's website:https://store.ammarmagic.com/easy-to-master-card-miracles-9--dv.html

It is also in the book Best of All Worlds which appears to be in stock at Stevens:https://www.stevensmagic.com/shop/best-of-all-worlds-paul-curry-book/.

Although Ammar's handling (which incorporates elements from Harry Lorraine and Aldo Colombini) is good in that it only uses a part f the deck and that it is is impromptu, it still has the incongruence necessary to do the original effect. For that reason, I like John Armstrong's and Eugene Burger's versions better - they avoid that incongruence.

We live in a magic world that makes "impromptu" always seem better than whatever the opposite may be. It isn't. Even with a master such as Ammar performing this, there is the sense that he is fiddling with the deck. The moment the magician touches the deck, it goes from being impossible to being sleight of hand. When they touch the deck as much as in that effect, any spectator will know the did "something" even if they don't know what the something is. Also, it is unlikely that a spectator has their own deck.

There are a lot of good ways to get into OOTW set-up using a shuffled deck in use. A simple way is to use a stripper deck. Also, John Gustaferro has a great effect called "Either Or" in his book One Degree that would work. Roberto Giobbi's TNT in Card College Light also allows you to show a shuffled deck and get into OOTW set-up (which is diabolical since the spectator does the work for you) -- his version of OOTW called "Intuition" also is very good.

As for the prediction... I think it weakens the trick -- or better yet turns a miracle into a trick. Having 100% correct is amazing... having one off deflates the level of amazement. "Hey, let's clap for the guy that almost did something amazing." Then, the attention is turned to the magician's prediction, which of course is correct. However, that takes the glory away from the spectator and focus the attention on the magician. Worse, it gives more credence to the idea that the magician "did something" to make the effect happen... how else could he have predicted what would have happened? At the end, the audience thinks that they have been tricked... twice and that forfeits any amazement.

Finally, Ammar's presentation is typical "say-do-see" patter. He says it, does it and then asks the audience to see the results. There are a lot of ways this can be presented to make it meaningful by providing an explanation as to why the spectator can do this. In my opinion, the best presentation that I've seen is French Postcards by Chris Philpott (which uses John Armstrong's method).



Have you seen Luke Jermay's presentation of OOTW? He uses a full deck and in my opinion it is the best presentation of this effect by far.
 

ID4

Aug 20, 2010
393
191
Looking for a tutorial for Out of this World PLUS by Ammar

Hoping to find a d/l version somewhere else..if grouped with other tricks that's a bonus.

A download version is available here:

https://llepub.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=106

It is grouped with 11 other tricks.

Where can I find Burger's version?

On video:

Exploring Magical Presentation

World Greatest Magic - Out of this World

duanebarry said:
Book references:

"Out Of This World" in Intimate Power by Eugene Burger

also reprinted in Burger, Mastering the Art of Magic, p.150 ff
 
Oct 2, 2018
144
125
Thanks for all the replies. Great info provided...

R1: Thanks for your invaluable insight. As a noob, I really gained some insight about the last reveal...about it lessening the impact. Now that I've had time to really watch Ammar's presentation, seems the audience is somewhat less enthusiastic with the prediction. I'll stick with the classic OOTW, it's seems to have stood the test of time for a reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RealityOne

Josh Burch

Elite Member
Aug 11, 2011
2,961
1,096
Utah
Have you seen Luke Jermay's presentation of OOTW? He uses a full deck and in my opinion it is the best presentation of this effect by far.

Jermay uses Michael Webber's version. He just uses 2 of his decks. That means he lets his spectator handle an $80 deck of cards! Super clean effect!

Peter Turner's version uses just one of Michael Webber's deck. There's a moment where the spectator feels like they are in on it as well. It's an interesting method.

Where can I find Burger's version?

Burger's totally still has the incongruence the way I look at it. He basically does the normal clean up. I don't like it. He teaches it all on his first Penguin Lecture. If you are going to go with this approach Dan Harlan's is better in my opinion. His is taught on his second Penguin Live lecture.

Personally I use a cull and like the clean up in the Art of Astonishment Volume 3. I think the clean up clears up the discrepancy in a much more effective way than the two above methods.

Lennart Green's clean up is alright, but you do the move in a funky spot. His 2 person version is great! So is Alex Pandrea's 2 person version. I love them!
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results