RMR = Remade Mercury Remade

Discussion in 'Magic Forum' started by sklefgh, Mar 21, 2008.

  1. Hey,


    RMR= Remade Mercury Remade.
    RMR= Whole deck is faced down.
    4 Kings are used.
    One by one they turn face down.
    But how...?
    When the Kings have always been sitting in the deck.

    It has been almost a year ever since Ive gotten mercury (By David Kong), and throughout the whole i have been trying to use it but failed. I think the reason why magicians i know avoid using mercury is because of its dirtiness, and its dodgy handling, which make it a good camera trick but not a good life performance trick. So a month ago, i tried remaking the mercury, to form a whole new handling of the mercury to make it as clean and as mind blowing as possible, while making it a good street magic(i will be using it soon on street magic).

    However, i still chose to keep its flow as i find it hard hitting enough and its smooth, so here it is... my own RMR (remade Mecury remade), with a new impromptu way of vanishing cards into the deck. Enjoy.

    Feel free to leave a comment. I would try to change anything that i think it is appropriate. Enjoy. :D

    P.S Sorry for the poor graphics, i was trying to make it smaller, and by the way, after receiving a common question, the kings are the same kings seen, no duplicates.
  2. Nice.

    But it would have been better if you kept the deck in full view.
  3. The effect wasn't really remade, you just changed the ending. The ending was pretty good, but work on the rest of your performance.

    Also, not to be harsh, but your Asciano Spread was terrible.

  4. I agree with everything David said. Looked like a tiny variation of Mercury Aces to me, which is all it was. Mercury 1.01?

    ~The Emogician~
  5. Hey, thanks for the comments. Yea, i just changed the ending to make mercury impromptu. Also, i don't like how the 4 cards are shown at first in the original mercury, so i added a bit of my own handling. And regarding the remaking it, i think i added an extra bit as an subtlety to emphasize on the amount of cards.( Not trying to reveal anything)

    Yea, And that was le paul spread, and i did it with a side view to show more clearly on where are the cards, which i will not do in real life, because it was to give a clearer view to the camera.

    Thanks once again for the comments, and i just added parts of my own handling into mercury to make the handling more smooth and lesser restrain to the original one. And that is also the main reason why i chose to "remake" mercury, for the handling was not good enough, to my perspective.
  6. Although I still don't like Mercury (both the original version and yours, sorry), but I see that yours is an improvement. Nice work, keep it up.

    I would suggest that when showing the Kings to be face down in the middle of the deck, spread just once to show the kings are there. Don't spread it to show a face up deck, close the deck and spread again to show 4 face down Kings. It almost seems as if the Kings weren't there to begin with, and suddenly appeared the second time you spread.

    - harapan. magic!
  7. Lets hear some patter
  8. harapanong- Hmm, ok. I agree with you. Alright, i will try to improve my mercury more. Thanks for the advice.

    Hazerman15- Alright, i would remember to do that on the next post. Although i feel really wierd doing a patter without an audience response. But will do.=)
  9. Nice Job. I love it when people experiment. You don't have to create a miracle every time, but the more you work with it, the more you'll discover.
    You did lose one of the biggest points of impact, though - the transformation. I usually get the biggest reaction at that point.
    Remember, if you want to do a completely-zero set-up Mercury, you don't have to change the aces to kings - any other cards will do.

    - Redstreak
  10. Thanks for the comment. =) So what do you think is missing in the transformation? I mean, since every new item starts off with a mental image, what is it that you think would be better?

    And regarding using of different cards, i agree with that. In fact, some of my other friends told me the same thing too. But it is just that this specific effect has been ignored by a lot of magicians (from what i've collected) because it is dodgy, and that is the main reason why i wanted to change it. But dont worry, i will still continue to work on it till its much better, at least to a handling that i am very comfortable with. =)
  11. sklefgh:

    The specific effect has been ignored because of it being dodgy. However, I suggest that you study other effects with the "Twisting the Aces" plot, which Mercury is based on. "Twisting the Aces", by Vernon (I believe) is one of the most studied plots in sleight of hand card magic. Do look out for other versions that have better handlings and climaxes than Mercury.

    - harapan. magic!
  12. What's missing? The transformation itself.
    The routine should build up to a climax - when you have the same effect repeated four times, you end flatly. The transformation to kings (or any other cards) gives that final kicker, and gives closure to the effect. The aces in the middle are an afterthought - not necessary to the structure of the effect - but the transformation is necessary.
    You don't need any angly sleight-of-hand or duplicates or anything. I really just tossed those in for people who are interested. The handling that I personally use the most is the no-set-up version.
    I can easily find the kings secretly, while pulling out the aces, and I'm ready to perform.
    (If you want some more specific advice, feel free to PM me, and I can talk about the details more openly.)

    - David
  13. Ah ok.. got your point. Alright, i will re look into this once again. And i agree to the kicker as well, it just does not go well and end nice too. Thanks for the comments.

Share This Page

{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results