Why does anyone care that an angel moved on a card?
I don't do TA because I don't like to carry gimmicks if I can avoid it.
I don't do TA because I don't like to carry gimmicks if I can avoid it.
"Show me some magic..."
- Thread starter MKulik
- Start date
Robert, I'd like to point out what I believe is a flaw in your reasoning.
The hidden assumption you are making in your post is that presentations form the dressing of an effect, but it is the effect which is inherently interesting.
This is, I believe, a fallacy.
Effects are not inherently entertaining. One only has to watch a poorly performed classic to see this - a performance in which sleight of hand may well be up to scratch, but presentation is not.
It is a dangerous assumption to make, not merely because it is not true, but because it ignores more important aspects of creating entertainment.
All entertainment comes down to the entertainer themselves. A sloppy triumph in and of itself has no story, no plot, no action and no connection either. And these things don't just come from effects. They are not inherent in effects - they come from presentation, and furthermore from the performer. Christopher is right - why would the audience care any more about angels moving than a card changing? Well, they would only care for angels moving for the same reason that they might care for a card changing - because the effect has been given meaning. Because of the presentation. Because of a genuine, likable performer. These are reasons to care.
I suspect that you know these things. You hinted as much with your final paragraph - yes, there are many tricks with amazing stories. Do the amazing stories come with the trick? No, they don't! They are imposed presentations. At the heart of the effect of Twilight Angels is a naked mutant child that moves. That's it. There's no more story to that than a card that changes. But once you bring out its potential to create meaning, then you have a good trick. You are judging effects unfairly by comparing a DL trick with no presentation to a trick with a good presentation. You are also judging an effect ("It seems to short and not very climactic") based on a bad presentation you imposed on it.
Give an effect meaning, and it will be more powerful than one without.
My opener is usually a quick, powerful and simple trick. For example, controlling the selection to the top and double lift, then I give them a "wrong" card to hold on. Snap of the fingers, and "take a look". Blows away. But the suspence and feeling of "the trick didn't work" have to be there, of course.
I like to open with some of the following:
DVR - Tony Chang
Shinobi Control - Emran Riaz
MacMillan Switch - Jason England
(All of those are t11 1-on-1 downloads)
Or, some tricks from Dangerous (d+M)
My favorites are:
Focus
Breach
Bad Influence
Angle Zero
Heritage
Bad influence is probably my favorite, it's very simple and hits hard. (It's not available as a 1-on-1, but Dangerous is a very good buy if you have the money.)
DVR - Tony Chang
Shinobi Control - Emran Riaz
MacMillan Switch - Jason England
(All of those are t11 1-on-1 downloads)
Or, some tricks from Dangerous (d+M)
My favorites are:
Focus
Breach
Bad Influence
Angle Zero
Heritage
Bad influence is probably my favorite, it's very simple and hits hard. (It's not available as a 1-on-1, but Dangerous is a very good buy if you have the money.)
Prae - As always you are correct (I mean that in a good way 
).
I understand about good presentation of an effect and that it's the entertainer that ultimately affects the outcome of whether an effect will be good or not. The point I was trying to get to, even though I didn't say it clearly enough, is why would you settle for doing just a double lift and change rather than anything else in your repertoire?
As for the Twilight Angels reference, I used that specifically for Mike, because I know he performs this a lot, and I assume he has a great story to go along with it (as he's pointed out).
For you guys, substitute Twilight Angels for any of your working effects and ask yourselves "Would I do a DL/Reveal over this if I was asked to do magic?".
Sabor- May I ask how you use the MacMillian Switch as an opener?
).I understand about good presentation of an effect and that it's the entertainer that ultimately affects the outcome of whether an effect will be good or not. The point I was trying to get to, even though I didn't say it clearly enough, is why would you settle for doing just a double lift and change rather than anything else in your repertoire?
As for the Twilight Angels reference, I used that specifically for Mike, because I know he performs this a lot, and I assume he has a great story to go along with it (as he's pointed out).
For you guys, substitute Twilight Angels for any of your working effects and ask yourselves "Would I do a DL/Reveal over this if I was asked to do magic?".
Sabor- May I ask how you use the MacMillian Switch as an opener?
Hey, I was right too
Actually I do a DL/Reveal as an opener sometimes, for various reasons. First, it's quick and not terribly technical, so I can focus on a presentation. Second, it lets me guage how into magic the audience is. Third, I don't want to use the most powerful and/or technical stuff first, I want to build up to that. Fourth, all a DL and reveal requires is a deck of cards. Doesn't even have to be a complete deck. You can't do TA without the special something, and the cards have to match that special something.
Something like changing a card in their hands establishes you as someone that can do the impossible. It's a nice foundation that requires almost no work from you, aside from the performance aspect.
Actually I do a DL/Reveal as an opener sometimes, for various reasons. First, it's quick and not terribly technical, so I can focus on a presentation. Second, it lets me guage how into magic the audience is. Third, I don't want to use the most powerful and/or technical stuff first, I want to build up to that. Fourth, all a DL and reveal requires is a deck of cards. Doesn't even have to be a complete deck. You can't do TA without the special something, and the cards have to match that special something.
Something like changing a card in their hands establishes you as someone that can do the impossible. It's a nice foundation that requires almost no work from you, aside from the performance aspect.
R//L, thanks for replying to that. I definitely understand your point as well, and I was hoping you would reply. Something that I did think to add, but wanted to do so in a separate post as an entirely separate thought, is this:
Having said all that, it's sometimes said that there are no bad tricks, only bad performers.
This is undeniably false, although it is usually well intended, and makes a very valid point. The point, of course, is more or less what I said above. However, of course there are bad tricks. Some tricks are simply better than others. There's certainly a reason we study not only the performances of famous magicians but their effects too. What usually distinguishes the best is how they perform the effects; but without fail, of course they have blockbuster effects as well.
How one reconciles this with other points made above of course is up to the performer, and depends on many other things.
Having said all that, it's sometimes said that there are no bad tricks, only bad performers.
This is undeniably false, although it is usually well intended, and makes a very valid point. The point, of course, is more or less what I said above. However, of course there are bad tricks. Some tricks are simply better than others. There's certainly a reason we study not only the performances of famous magicians but their effects too. What usually distinguishes the best is how they perform the effects; but without fail, of course they have blockbuster effects as well.
How one reconciles this with other points made above of course is up to the performer, and depends on many other things.
You've kind of just listed moves there. That's kind of like saying 'I like to open with a double undercut or Zarrow Shuffle' Makes no sense. The moves need to be part of trick...
And just to add my 2 cents to the conversation. I like to start with 'Invisible Reverse' (always have my decks set for it). That way, i can lead into Twisting the Aces or Doc Daleys Last trick or some kind of Ace Cutting routine or poker deal.
Rev