Biddle with a twist?

Discussion in 'Magic Forum' started by Robert//Livingston, Feb 16, 2010.

  1. Good idea, here are my thoughts:
    1.) Patter would have been great.
    2.)Try and find a better force, maybe a more open one. Daniel Garcia has a nice back-hider bottom force on Symphony.
    3.) Make the counting a little smoother, both with the initial five on the deck and the "five" cards by themselves. Do more of an elmsly type grip instead of a biddle grip for the false count.

    Thats all I really have right now. Like I said, its a good idea, just needs some refining.
  2. I think for the climax, I'd show the selection first, then show the change in the back color. I didn't like showing red back before showing the selection, because the audience gets a little too ahead of you.
  3. Thanks for the tips guys.

    1. I like both the elmsey and biddle count's, but feel more comfortable with the biddle. Even if it didn't look like it.

    2. I don't know about showing the selection before the back, because then I have to show all the backs and then boom there's their card, which kills the other climax.

    3. Thanks Fezzik I'll look into that other force, by chance do you know the name?

    This was a spur of the moment kind of thing, and a one and done take with a little editing, but I do like the idea.

    Oh, Fezzik, what do you think of the bottom force Geoff uses in his Torn and Restored?
  4. well... you show pure blue back the whole time, so yes it'd be odd to see red back all of the sudden. But if you show the red back first, people will get the sense that will be their card, and that is something you would want to avoid if possible.

    I guess since I brought it up, I'll throw in another idea... How 'bout you should the card on the face, make them believe it's blue backed card, then do a color change? Just throwing some ideas for you to think about.
  5. I totally disagree. I think showing the selection first enhances the changed back.
  6. Ashrei, thanks for the cool ideas!

    Shawn, I think I didn't clearly say what I meant. In the original biddle you spread the cards face up, and there is one face down in the middle. If I did it the other way I would be showing all of the cards face down with the selected card popping out face up. So I don't get the "could this be my card" response, with the only face down card in the pack..

    Although doing it that way, I could have their card be shown and then say "but wait!" and show the different colored back.

    Which do you think would have more impact?
  7. Right but this is no longer the original biddle. In the original the climax was the "could this be" and now it's "it is my card... o but it's different!" so the differnt color should be the climax of the effect. When you revealed the different color back early we already knew that was the card and ruined the surprise ending of the different color. In this case though you want you spread the cards slowly for suspense and shock with the color.
  8. Ah I see what you're saying. Thanks for clarifying.

    Thanks for the advice. :D
  9. I have done similar things before. For some reason, showing the selection before showing the kicker of different back and etc., gives better reaction, at least for me. It kinda goes to the idea of giving audience one thing to swallow at a time. I do a similar (but different plot) effect often. I do John Guastaferro's Party Animal, a triumph routine where the selected card is the only card face up, and in the end the selected card has different back.

    People when they see their selection, they relax, at that point you are ahead of them, giving you an ample opportunity to either milk it or build it up some more before revealing the odd back.
  10. You could also hide that the back has changed and move into bizarre twist. That would separate the color change and hit harder becuase the card has been in view longer (increasing impossibility).
  11. I'll try to post a video of what I would do later on (I've got some other things to film first)
  12. Or maybe you should just stick to the original, because in fact I don't really see the logical point of the back changing. I agree that it's magical, but to me it doesn't relate to the rest of the trick. I think the Biddle trick is very well structured : starts like any pick a card trick, then the magician "fails" to find it, and then overcomes the difficulty by doing something completely impossible : you teleport their card from your hands to the deck they've been holding the entire time. What would be the point of having a different backer here ??

    In Strong Magic Darwin Ortiz talks about "twists" and "extra kickers", and to sum up he says that if it's not completely logical, or stronger than the original climax, or confusing then don't do it ; I think that making smth appearing in their own hands is stronger than showing that the card has a different back, plus I'm affraid it adds confusion : in the original ypou spread the deck face up, and then there's this face down card => "wow, could it be...?" (builds tension). In this new version, it's more like "wow, could it...wait, it's a red card ? Where does it come from ?"
  13. If you are looking for a different force you could use the dribble force. Although the Hindu force in my opinion is strong enough.

    Through a clever application of patter you could justify and make it logical that their chosen card changes color. But as of right now I agree with Houchini, you might be more confusing than magical.

    Thanks for sharing the video.
  14. I agree completely that the original biddle trick is great. But, why not add a variation to it instead of doing the same thing everyone else is? The trick is great, but a variation on it doesn't hurt the effect (if put the right way).

    I understand that I need to refine a few things, and rework the climax of the trick, but that doesn't mean I should scrap the idea all together.

    This adds to the impossibility by throwing in the color change, and it happens in their hands just like the original (I obviously didn't have a spectator there to hold the cards).

    Like already stated, this is not the original biddle trick, hence a different climax.

    I understand where you're coming from with the references from Strong Magic, as I am reading the book as well.

    I'll upload another video soon, hopefully rectifying any parts of the effect that will enhance it, and make the clarity stand out.

    Any other feedback would be great.
  15. I can understand that, but the biddle count with a packet (IMO) just seems too unnatural, an elmsly seems to be more natural.

    I'm gonna agree with everyone else and say that you should show the selection then the back. If you spread really slow, that builds up suspense, and you can say "All the cards are face down....except....your selection." Let that sink in. Then you can say, "now its pretty interesting that you would choose this card, because if you look on the back, its the only red card in the entire deck."

    Danny didn't really have a name for it, (I'm watching the DVD right now.) but he said its a cross between a bottom deal and a witchataw slip. Its fairly easy to do.

    If its like the side riffle one, then I love it. I do in my Carbon Paper routine. I couldnt think of a name so I didn't mention it. But that is a really good one.

    If you are going to be doing this version, which can be great with some refining, then you'll have to probably spread the cards on a table or something so the audience doesn't prematurly show the different back. With good audience management though, it would be possible to let them spread the cards.
  16. Thanks Fezzik, that force Geoff uses is awesome. I'm going to refine a little bit and then reshoot another performance ( with patter ) with all the changes suggested.
  17. #18 Sir FansAlot, Feb 17, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 17, 2010
    Before even looking at the "battle section" here. I'll look at the biddle section and figure out what to do.

    PS. You are doing battle section and posting something in another section of the forum.

    (If you want a biddle trick battle, do we ONLY have to use the biddle count throughout?
  18. Hey SirFansAlot, thanks for the post. Obviously it wasn't about a battle, or I would have put it in the battle section.

    If I'd have left out that one sentence you would have been happy?

    As to any other part of your message it had no relavance to the topic which I have posted, so please refrain from posting in this thread unless you have something to add to the topic.

    Thanks :D
  19. #20 Sir FansAlot, Feb 17, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 17, 2010
    Dude, all I was responding to was based off your original post. You want a biddle battle? Challenge ME! Or not. It's up to you.

Share This Page

{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results