The Oops! Deck

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Jv, Dec 24, 2009.

  1. Just stumbled upon a new release from, TheMentalPlayground-The Oops! Deck

    "A unique torn and restored card routine...and much more. They WILL remember this one! Your spectator will be left with a signed and restored card unlike anything they have ever seen. Oops! is not limited to T&R effects. There are unlimited routine possibilities. Oops! cards will open up a whole new dimension in card magic."

    Incredible, impossible, inspectable.....Oops!

    Effects Taught: Oops!----MisMade-----3WayChange

    "PLUS How to prepare your Oops Card!"

    http://www.thementalplayground.com/oops.html

    Thoughts?!
     
  2. These cards were a hit when they were released in the issue of magic magazine this time you get a full deck!!

    I've seen some funky ideas with this im sure theye are more to come.

    Definitely something to look at.

    Tom
     
  3. @minimagician I completey agree with you. With some creativity, you can definitely come up with some [crazy] good effects revolving around 'The Oops! Deck'.

    Also, just I was about to purchase 'The Oops Deck', I also found out-The Oops! Deck Contest!
     
  4. Cool thanks.
     
  5. The oops deck was release by Bill Pryor back in the 70's followed by Son of Oops. This is a different effect than the one under discussion.

    Why do people insist on stealing names of tricks?
     
  6. Mr. Henderson,

    I must say, you are incorrect.

    Bill Pryor's effect is named "Oops", with no mention of a deck. After reading its description, it is completely different in every way. It is a single effect, where as The Oops! Deck is not an effect, but rather a deck of cards.

    But, with all of these differences, I will not leave it at this.

    Now to ease your worries and concerns, I have placed a phone call to Mr. Pryor as well as an email. Once I get a response, I will let you, and everyone else, what conclusion we come to.
     
  7. Bill Pryors Oop's

    OOPS! - A delightful funny close-up effect with a sensational surprise ending. After a card is mentally selected from a packet of
    26 cards, a comedy of errors develops as you try to find the selected card. After removing six incorrect cards, including an
    alphabet, spot, and β€˜IT’ card, the spectator is asked to find his own card. The remaining 20 cards have blank faces and can be
    examined.

    SON OF OOPS - A complete routine - a packet of blue back cards is fanned face up and one is selected to be placed into an
    envelope. You explain it cannot be used as it does not have a blue back - it is blank. A second card is refused - it has a marked
    back. A third card is again refused - it has a red back. Finally an emergency blue back card is used and all ends well with a surprise
    ending.

    Basically what the Oop's Deck is, is a set of amazingly done gaff cards Seen Here

    The effects for the Oop's deck can be found here

    http://www.thementalplayground.com/oopseffects.html


    The effects are quite different within reason the only similarity i see is the name.:D

    Tom
     
  8. It is the similarity with the name that is the problem.

    Why give an item a name when another well known item (to well read magicians) already has that name? Why would I want to name a version of the sawing, "Asrah?"

    Why name your trick something that will automatically make someone else think of another, different item?

    And why name a trick in a manner which can only serve to confuse the historical and printed record?

    None of that seems like a smart thing to do.

    As to the idea of the "oops" versus "oops deck" difference - oops was a specially assembled deck which only performed one effect. I assure you, every magician in the world who has ever owned "oops" would think of it, and refer to it as the "oops deck." "hey - hand me that deck I do oops with!" Nope, not going to happen.

    I have received an email from Brian and he tells me that the person who named the trick didn't know about Oops (irony noted.)

    One search on askalexander, whaley, or a single email to any magician active on the scene 25 years ago would have found the answer. If one does not care enough about their work to take one second to check the originality of their title, it makes me wonder how much effort they would make to check the originality of their trick.

    Besides, if someone were creative enough to come up with a revolutionary new magic trick, shouldn;t it be a piece of cake to find a unique name?

    The historical and printed record is important to some of us. Replicating names of established tricks and renaming classics of magic do a disservice to that record and those in the future who may wish to access it.

    I care about this.

    Perhaps I am the only one.
     
  9. I agree that same named tricks shouldn't be...although I don't agree with your assumption that someone that names a trick the same, would not credit properly. Both Lee Asher and Jay Sankey had an effect called "Joking Around" - it happens, great minds think alike. Both those guys work hard to give credit where it is due. When it happens, all should be done to change the name, so that their is no confusion. This I can agree with, but Brad, I wish it was handled with less decontructive feedback. Your knowledge is often overshadowed by your approach.

    However, if I understand correctly Brad, you are also making a pitch for retiring similar sounding trick names, this is interesting. We should make clothed banners, and place them on rafters, have a ceremony to retire trick names. So, does this mean I can't name an effect Invisible...Blank...Tiger...Ghost...Stinger...or Marked...because those are all decks? What if I made a trick and named it "Ambitious Deck"...or "Triumphed Deck"...would that be a magical "no no". I can't even call a trick "ANYTHING" because of PH's Anything Deck? So, now I can't call it anything...what about Nothing? Can I call a trick Nothing? What about if it is a coin trick...but I make it a card trick? Oh god...the walls are closing in on me!

    In all seriousness, I think adding the word "deck" makes it different in this case, but if you think it is an issue...MISMADE DECK - BOOM, problem solved. If that is taken...call it TURD BURGLER for all it matters, because once someone reads about the deck, the name doesn't really matter.

    A few other questions Brad, should we consider a timeline on trick names, like the trademark on books (eventually become public domain) and even websites have to be renewed. A timeless trademark on all trick names? What if I publish a trick under one name, but then change it to another in the future...do I get both names? These are things I never considered until tonight. I may just publish a trick and call it "Every word in the dictionary...patent pending" in hopes I can capture all future names. Soon we will be calling tricks by a serial number. I call 69!

    I hope this doesn't read like I am trying to argue, I just don't understand the validity of your concern on the deck name....as it brings up other issues that I look forward to hearing a response on, and aftera ll - it is a deck of cards, not even an effect. As for the effect name being the same, that I can agree with.
     
  10. Why would you want your trick to have the same as another? Can you think of anything good which can come of that? Do you think it speaks to creativity? Do you think it shows respect and knowledge of the history of ideas in our art?

    To your examples: would a color changing deck trick called 'the triumph deck' help or hinder knowledgeable magicians in their study of magic? Does it give a clear idea of what it does, or does it mislead? Will it help people make a wise purchasing decision, or will you always have to add 'no, the color changing triumph.' Why then name it that?

    if a world class magician called his new coin trick 'triumph' do you think it would help students of magic reading reports of today have a clearer understanding of what he was working on and performing, or would it lead to confusion?

    Would the powers that be at theory 11 be happy if I put out a coin trick called 'exile'? What if I created a card matrix effect using a ripped card and called it 'torn?'

    Do these seem like SMART choices to you?

    To answer your question, some titles are ingrained in our collective history and to rename them or offer different concepts with the same name is both irresponsible and even stupid.

    If you want to put out a cards across and call it 'the invisible deck' (or a version of the princess card trick titled 'the ultra mental deck' you are welcome to - but don't be surprised if people who know about the others have opinions and choose to express them.
     
  11. Why would you want your trick to have the same as another?

    Not the exact same - but I don't think the Oops deck, and the trick Oops are the same. The word "deck" makes it different.

    Can you think of anything good which can come of that?

    Clarity of effect? Actually, there is invisible thread, deck, coins, palm aces - I think by adding the extra words, it changes the name.

    Do you think it speaks to creativity?

    "What's in a name? That which we call a rose
    By any other name would smell as sweet."

    I am more concerned with the effect, then the name. I like when names are distinct and speak to the effect - but I wouldn't rank it as something overly important. Actually, some of the best tricks have very boring and unimaginative names.

    Do you think it shows respect and knowledge of the history of ideas in our art?

    Naming the effect exactly the same is not a good idea - but naming it similar might actually be nodding to an old effect, so sometimes - yes. However, in this case, I don't think that was the case. Like I said before - even with vast knowledge and buckets of respect, people name a trick the same. One man can only learn so much...re-read the case of Sankey and Asher. I don't think either of them lack in knowledge of respect.

    Brad, I think your examples are weak, because they are comparing apples and oranges. When you look at the Oops deck, this makes sense to the gimmick. Calling a colour changind deck "triumph" when there is a historical understanding of what can be expected is odd. However, if I had a gimmicked deck, where I shuffled the cards face up and face down, and they all went back face down but one card...and it was moveless because of the deck...and I called it a "Triumph deck" - then yeah...I WOULD SAY THAT IS SMART...oh sorry, cap locks on, I don't want you to think I am emphasizing words to be condescending.


    To answer your question, some titles are ingrained in our collective history and to rename them or offer different concepts with the same name is both irresponsible and even stupid.

    I don't disagree with this - am I taking crazy pills? I must be. You seem to argue that the Oops deck, and the trick Oops is the same? Is this your point? If so, this is where I don't see eye to eye - if you are talking about a trick on the DVD called Oops, and the previous trick Oops - then yeah, the creator should change the name for purpose of clarity.

    Here is a question Brad - as you are so well read - have their been other times in history that tricks have become really well known, and they share the same name? In other words, has this happened before?

    Lastly, your last sentence seems to imply that I am for naming different tricks the EXACT same name as previously released tricks...WHICH I STATED BEFORE is not the case. Therefore, let me state again Brad, to make it really easy to read - "I don't think naming a trick the exact same as a previously released trick is good for magic - however, in the case of the Oops deck - it seems that the word DECK makes it different enough that people won't get confused".

    Maybe it is that I am not mentally challenged, and if I saw a trick with cards called INVISIBLE, I wouldn't assume it was an I. D. I would read, and research the effect...as responsibility in magic does not just fall on those that sell, but also those that buy and make tricks stay on the market. This is how we as a magic community vote. I am glad you brought the trick Oops to everyone's attention, I guess we can let them decide.

    Although I wonder, what makes you think that the word Oops is used in poor taste? Oops DECK to be specific?

    I am going to go practice Twisted Sister, I mean Twisted Arm Illusion, Twisted, Twisted Collectors, Twisted Hofzinger, Twisted Aces (no not the orginal) Redivivus, Twisted Appearance.

    Brad, don't take this as me being a jerk, but it seems if you ARE stating that Oops and Oops deck are the same - aren't all the above in violation as well? Looks like you have your work cut out for you if this is true!?

    Thanks for taking the time to answer - look forward to your response.
     
  12. #12 Sir FansAlot, Dec 30, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 30, 2009
    Post removed by user.
     
  13. #13 Sir FansAlot, Dec 30, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 30, 2009
    Post removed by user.
     
  14. #14 Brad Henderson, Dec 30, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 30, 2009
    Your point seems to be that there is a difference between the oops deck as a name and oops as the name of an effect. This may come from you never having owned oops.

    Oops is a trick that can only be performed with a single specially constructed deck. Also, the oops effect is (reasonably) the only effect one can do with that deck. Consequently - it IS the 'oops deck,".

    Those of us who were on the scene at the time this trick was making the rounds used the term Oops deck. For example 'hand me the oops deck.' One would not be known to say 'hand me the deck with which I perform the effect Oops'.

    As you learn in college,usage determines correctness. Someone who knew their history would be aware of this usage - or at the very least the name - before releasing it.

    I have been told by those involved they had no knowledge of the previous item before coopting the name.

    Shame, really.

    And if you need proof that this is an issue, you need only look at my example. The only reason I read this thread was because the title made me wonder if Bill had re-released his trick and I was curious how it would be received by a new generation.

    if the name created confusion for me, then I am sure it will for others - assuming they are aware of the previous item.

    My examples intentionally compared apples to oranges. If calling an apple the same name as an orange seems ridiculous, then naming an apple the same as a different apple should be even more so. both oopses are in the card genre. The name will create confusion among those who know. Of course, they may not be the target market.

    Finally, the name oops for the deck seems an odd choice. When I look at the two videos, neither demonstrated trick hints the least to the notion of an accident or 'oops'. I guess I am of the school where what you do with something is more important than what it is. Consequently 'oops deck' makes little sense based on the ideas presented.

    I say that because it covers the issue of descriptive names. There is nothing wrong with twisted arm and twisted ace. Both describe what is happening. However, if a trick became known only as twisted and someone else offered a different trick also named twisted there would be confusion between those two - in spite of what we do to arms and aces. Pedantry is fun, but it doesn't do much for one's argument. Oh well.

    Ultimately people will do what they want. Some people will judge these choices unfavorably, others won't care. Both should have the privledge of expressing them. At least now some future creator/trick namer may know that to some people this may make a difference and they may choose to think more than a moment about their title. The authors I know try to avoid writing books taking names from previous works. The screen writers I know try to avoid writing movies taking names from movies previously written. I guess magicians just don't care about what they do as much as these guys. That's all I can conclude from this discussion.

    Well, I've made my point. I don't expect many to agree or care. When one's world revolves around one's own needs and satisfaction its hard to care about things like the history of ideas and confusing future students and researchers. Like I said, this is important to me. Clearly I am alone on this.

    Anyway, I need to go practice my street magic now - though I don't know if I need a hat or ripped jeans.

    Brad

    Ps. Your shakespearean reference was a mistake. It was a 'name' that was the cause of a rilvary which split a community. Clearly names are important - important enough for some to kill over and powerful enough to lead to one's tragic demise. Context is everything, my friend.
     

Share This Page

Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results