(Close Window)
Topic: Freak...
Message: Posted by: Michael Paul (Jan 16, 2009 11:46AM)
Hello everyone. I publishing an effect of mine called Freak, which is a sort of open prediction. It will be released on theinvisiblethread.com this week. The effect as the spectator sees it is: Magician takes a single card out of his pocket and places it face down on the table. Spectator then closes her eyes and thinks of a card. The magician turns over the tabled card so that it lays on the table face up. Then, and only then does the spectator name the card... and everyone freaks out, because she names the card that lays face up on the table. Or... in a one on one situation, the spectator closes her eyes and thinks of a card. You turn the card on the table over, and she never speaks the name of the card... she simply opens her eyes and freaks out, as the card on the table matches her thought of (unspoken) card.

I'm sure you are quite aware that "as the spectator sees it" is not the same as what actually happens. So let me tell you what actually happens, and at the same time, inform you that you can use this special technique to turn any "select" a card routine into a "think of a card" routine... making this not just a "one trick wonder", but a principle you will use all the time!

What actually happens:

1. Magician places a single card onto the table in full view.

2.Spectator is given a pack of cards and asked to peek at any card. She doesn't have to show anyone else the card, there is no force, she doesn't need to speak the card, or pull it out of the pack. You never see the front or back of the card. If she is dissatisfied with the card she peeked at, she can peek another, until she gets one she likes. She then hides the pack away (or keeps it as a souvenir) without you ever touching it.

3.Spectator closes her eyes and focuses on the card, which is then turned face up in full view of the audience.

4.Spectator is then asked to name the card she is thinking of... she calls out the name of the card that was in full view the entire time.

5.Everyone loses their minds.

There is no reset, or angle problems. No dual reality (spectator loses her mind just like everyone else). No crimp work, the method is 100% sure fire. No force, the effect can work with a different card every time.

This will be an e-book, with very detailed descriptions AND thoughts on performance. It will include embedded video, making the routine easy to learn. This one is a worker (like every trick I've ever published, I use it on a regular basis to earn a living). It will be priced very low as well (I know that times are tough).

I do look forward to blowing your minds with this!!! Anyone doubting the above routine description can search reviews of my previous work here on the Cafť. They are filled with comments about my honesty, customer service, quality of work and value.

Get ready.
Message: Posted by: bryanlonden (Jan 16, 2009 11:54AM)
[quote]

No force, the effect can work with a different card every time.
[/quote]

Whoa, you got me there. I'd have to say I've been looking for this type of effect for awhile, but wanting something appropriate for walkaround. I've heard nothing but good about your material, so I'm sure this will be fantastic! Looking forward to it!
Message: Posted by: jordanjohnson (Jan 16, 2009 12:03PM)
Sounds like a winner Michael. Sounds like it has so many applications. I do like the fact that the card is turned face up even before the spectator names the card. Nice touch.

And for those of you not familiar with his work your missing out!
JJ
Message: Posted by: Michael Paul (Jan 16, 2009 12:14PM)
[quote]
On 2009-01-16 12:54, bryanlonden wrote:
[quote]

No force, the effect can work with a different card every time.
[/quote]

Whoa, you got me there. I'd have to say I've been looking for this type of effect for awhile, but wanting something appropriate for walkaround. I've heard nothing but good about your material, so I'm sure this will be fantastic! Looking forward to it!
[/quote]

Bryan,
With the flexibility in the routine, and the instant reset, this is perfect for walk around or bar.

Thanks Jordan!!! No more magician says, "name your card" and spectator says, "no, you show me the card first and I'll tell you if you're right". The card is face up, BEFORE she names her card, and is in full view.
Message: Posted by: bond19 (Jan 16, 2009 12:40PM)
Magic just keep getting better..
Message: Posted by: Sean Fields (Jan 16, 2009 02:30PM)
Okay, I'm on the hook. This sounds great.
Message: Posted by: The Baldini (Jan 16, 2009 03:01PM)
I'm not a card man, and you got me wanting it.
Message: Posted by: Michael Paul (Jan 16, 2009 03:31PM)
[quote]
On 2009-01-16 15:30, Sean Fields wrote:
Okay, I'm on the hook. This sounds great.
[/quote]

The book is written, but the art is not quite done yet. It'll be out very soon.
Message: Posted by: Nico Zottos (Jan 16, 2009 04:05PM)
This sounds very interesting. I will have to check it out when released.

Nico
Message: Posted by: Thomas Kwon (Jan 16, 2009 04:13PM)
Is there more to it than simple sleights?
Id est, gimmicks?

and my last question..
does the performer hold the card while the spectator peeks at it?
Message: Posted by: Nico Zottos (Jan 16, 2009 04:17PM)
Thomas, it seems like the spectator holds the cards but I could be wrong.
Message: Posted by: goldeneye007 (Jan 16, 2009 05:20PM)
Mmmm :) sounds nice!!
Message: Posted by: Michael Paul (Jan 16, 2009 05:30PM)
I really don't want to get too far into what it does and doesn't include, as I don't want this to turn into a method guessing session. If you do have any concerns (and therefore questions) you can msg me and I will do the best I can to help you out. I think you are asking if this is an ID trick, and it is not. The prediciton is a single card on the table, and is shown and left face up before the spectator anounces the card she is focused on. All other method questions will now go ignored.

No, just as the description states, you never handle the cards as the spectator peeks, she does that on her own. You also don't handle the cards after... you just don't need to at all.
Message: Posted by: JamieD (Jan 16, 2009 05:56PM)
Sounds very cool. Cant wait for the release3!

jamieD
Message: Posted by: Judah Vee (Jan 16, 2009 06:32PM)
ME either. But I have loved Mikes material since I first started getting it, so I might be a bit biased!!

-J-
Message: Posted by: Michael Paul (Jan 17, 2009 10:18AM)
Thank you friend, you'll love the new work.
Message: Posted by: pegasus (Jan 17, 2009 12:17PM)
Sold.
Message: Posted by: Justin N. Miller (Jan 17, 2009 03:24PM)
OHHH MAN!
Wait till you see this!
I just got off the phone with Da Man..and WOW.
Real world
Practical
and SOOO much more.

Be on the lookout for this one.
JM
Message: Posted by: goldeneye007 (Jan 17, 2009 03:38PM)
Any precise release date? Rather Monday or rather Friday ? ;)
Message: Posted by: Michael Paul (Jan 17, 2009 03:53PM)
Just waiting for art.

Check http://www.theinvisiblethread.com for the release, it will be soon.

Justin,
Thanks brother! I look forward to seeing you in Vegas. I'm doing close up at the Venetian early Feb, but might stop back on my way back from the Castle. We'll meet up... I'm taking you out for Chinese.
Message: Posted by: BrandonWilliams (Jan 17, 2009 03:59PM)
This definitely has my full attention. Waiting patiently for a buy now button.
Message: Posted by: Michael Paul (Jan 18, 2009 12:29AM)
Maybe you should check on Monday??? maybe...
Message: Posted by: goldeneye007 (Jan 18, 2009 04:48PM)
It's nearly monday european time... ;)
Message: Posted by: goldeneye007 (Jan 19, 2009 03:45AM)
It's monday... :)
Message: Posted by: Angelo Carbone (Jan 19, 2009 10:03AM)
There is an effect on the market already called Freak. By Will Houstoun. Granted a different effect, but may cause some confusion none the less if you just see the title listed somewhere.

Maybe it is best when any new trick is to be released to have the title researched beforehand just to save confusion on both parties. :)

Best wishes,

Angelo
Message: Posted by: JamieD (Jan 19, 2009 10:22AM)
I did also think this was will's effect at first, It could be a complication in future.

JamieD
Message: Posted by: mayniac (Jan 19, 2009 02:13PM)
Nothing so far. It's Monday. Hurry, or else.
Message: Posted by: Michael Paul (Jan 19, 2009 04:24PM)
Name change is not an issue... sorry about the confusion, and thank you for actually taking the time to let me know, I appreciate it!
Message: Posted by: goldeneye007 (Jan 19, 2009 06:41PM)
I don't think the name is an issue either...






It's tuesday in the UK btw... ;)
Did I miss something? ... :)
Message: Posted by: mayniac (Jan 19, 2009 07:24PM)
I guess to his credit, he did say maybe.
Message: Posted by: andykean (Jan 19, 2009 10:39PM)
Any news???
Message: Posted by: Michael Paul (Jan 20, 2009 01:01AM)
Yes, I'm very sorry for the wait. I spent the weekend in a shoot with World Magic Shop, doing a 2 DVD set on Card Under Drink. Tonight, we shot in the VIP of a very big local club. When you guys see the footage, you'll fall out of your chairs.

So the good news is that Freak is 100% written, and completely done. I've seriously got to go crash though, as I've been shooting all day, and I'm exhausted beyond words. I did get a chance to share this with some guys (Justin Miller being one of them) and it looks like the response is going to be bigger then anything I've every put out.

I'm also considering pricing this UNDER 15$. One argument is... "oh boy, everyone will have this", the other is "times are tough".

I'm going to fall asleep at my keyboard. I'll get this up for you ASAP. First... sleep.
Message: Posted by: goldeneye007 (Jan 20, 2009 06:35AM)
[quote]

Yes, I'm very sorry for the wait.

[/quote]

C'mon, don't be sorry... We all have our things to do, and we all know you're busy! :) We're just teasing 'cause we're excited about your new effect! ;)


[quote]

First... sleep.

[/quote]

THIS is a very sound decision! :)
Message: Posted by: Michael Paul (Jan 20, 2009 01:47PM)
It's up, http://www.theinvisiblethread.com
Message: Posted by: Nico Zottos (Jan 20, 2009 01:56PM)
Oh boy! Great price Michael. . .Im definitely picking this up.

Nico
Message: Posted by: JamieD (Jan 20, 2009 02:38PM)
Freak Prediction: Review: PDF Format

Okay so, here I am, like most others awaiting the arrival of this seemingly perfect open prediction effect. The anticipation mounts day after day in till finally I see itís up! So I purchase it for a DIRT CHEAP price! Incredibly low price. Then I see the amount of text and figure iím in for a bumpy ride. I dived in and began to slowly connect the dots.

Firstly I would like to add that the amount of detail Michael has gone into is extreme. This effect could have been explained far more simply and in a lot less word. But he has gone through every motion to ensure everything is understood.
There are allot of fantastic little subtleties in this effect which make it even more of a stunning effect.

I wonít lie in saying the method was slightly disappointing. It was almost expected. Thereís nothing stunningly original about it. Youíll also have to be prepared in getting your hands on a few other things in order to make the effect work. A certain method is used which most magicians have a version of somewhere, but if youíre not familiar with it, then youíll have to get your hands on it.

This being said, there are no really difficult moment in the trick, allot of the work is done for you and you can work on presentation. Thereís no incredibly fiddly gimmicks in this and the only sleights are given to you in the form of a video clip which I thought was a nice touch.

Overall a fantastic, clean looking effect. Nothing overly original or stunning in its method but sometimes the simple ones are the best leaving you more room for presentation. The price is incredible and you get soooo much for your buck. A definite recommendation from me.

Best Wishes,

JamieD
Message: Posted by: Jpovey (Jan 20, 2009 02:48PM)
Looks like a great effect - is defo the next one to buy =D Get paid 2moro, so I shud b able to buy then! Looking forward to it alredy :)
Message: Posted by: DeeChristopherMagic (Jan 20, 2009 03:14PM)
This is a diabolical methodology - Really good!

A couple of principles combined make this a very direct and clean looking effect - I can see it playing REALLY well.

Can't wait to try it out!

D.
Message: Posted by: goldeneye007 (Jan 20, 2009 04:23PM)
Thanks for your review Jamie!

[quote]
On 2009-01-20 15:38, JamieD wrote:

Youíll also have to be prepared in getting your hands on a few other things in order to make the effect work.

[...]

Thereís no incredibly fiddly gimmicks in this [...].

[/quote]

Oh... so I guess you can't go on using the deck... or maybe you can ?
Message: Posted by: Nico Zottos (Jan 20, 2009 04:29PM)
You can, you just wont be able to repeat the trick without reset
Message: Posted by: goldeneye007 (Jan 20, 2009 04:31PM)
Oh! That's good news!
Thanks Nico!
Message: Posted by: JamieD (Jan 20, 2009 04:46PM)
Yeah you can continue. He covers a few different ideas for this. As I said hes gone into fantastic detail with this.

Jamie
Message: Posted by: Maynard (Jan 20, 2009 06:43PM)
Just purchased.
I'm still shaking my head over what is introduced on page seven.
Sorry to say, it's not as "hands off" as the description reads. Can't go into detail without tipping.
This one won't be right for me. Glad it was cheap.
Message: Posted by: Michael Paul (Jan 20, 2009 07:20PM)
Hi Maynard, I just went back through the description to see if I had accidentally described the effect as "hands off", and assured myself that I hadn't. In fact, "hands off" doen't appear in the effect, on the website, or in any of the reviews thus far. Perhaps you have a hang up with a moment in the routine? If you do, I would love to help you out with it. PM me, and we can chat if you'd like, I wouldn't mind taking the time to help you out personally.

...although, hands off would make it a much better effect!! I wish I was that good.
Message: Posted by: Maynard (Jan 20, 2009 07:34PM)
Sorry Paul, I meant to say.. as hands off as the description implys.
I will PM, (and hopefully word it better), thank you for the offer.
Message: Posted by: Michael Paul (Jan 20, 2009 07:39PM)
Anytime :) I look forward to hearing from you. In fact, if you find it easier, you can email me directly at mike@michaelpaulmagic.com
Message: Posted by: MiketheMagicDude (Jan 20, 2009 11:32PM)
Fantastic detail?

Real World?

Practical?

I think not. I couldn't do this if I tried. This whole concept "assumes" way to much prior knowledge of thing I am not interested in...and then the main piece of it, I have no clue how you would even begin to do...and there is no explanation other than do it.

I'd love a refund on this one.
Message: Posted by: MiketheMagicDude (Jan 20, 2009 11:37PM)
Fantastic detail?

Real World?

Practical?

I think not. I couldn't do this if I tried. This whole concept "assumes" way to much prior knowledge of thing I am not interested in...and then the main piece of it, I have no clue how you would even begin to do...and there is no explanation other than do it.

I'd love a refund on this one.
Message: Posted by: MiketheMagicDude (Jan 20, 2009 11:41PM)
Oh and by the way....your description "screams" hands off.
Message: Posted by: Astrocity (Jan 21, 2009 03:17AM)
Hey Guys,
I purchased this E-Book today and I'd like to give my two cents:

I'm not sure where the comments about "hands off" are coming from, but I don't see how an effect where the only real move is obtaining a specific card and executing a M*****n T******r can be looked at as an effect with "heavy hands".

As for real world practicality, an effect where I can take out a card, place it face down on the table, have someone cut to a card in a deck they hold it in their hands, look at it, close their eyes and think about that card, turning over my prediction card BEFORE they name the card that only they saw is pretty right between the eyes knock them on their A!@ Magic!

On the subject of detail, I agree with you Mike that there could have been more info on certain aspects of the "set-up" for the effect or at least a reference to where that information could be obtained. I PM'd Michael and suggested that to him as well.

I do know that I will be trying this one out and taking a few heads off with it...
Message: Posted by: goldeneye007 (Jan 21, 2009 04:25AM)
Sorry guys, this one is not for me either...

It's the second time I'm disappointed with Michael Paul's products: I downloaded Phantom and... well... yes, it works, but it's not, imo, very practical... plus I really thought the coin could be borrowed (no, the ad didn't say this, but I really thought you EASILY could: it can be borrowed - though how to do it is not covered -, but you really get into too much trouble in that case...)

Why do I tell you this? Because I kind of have the same feeling with Freak: man... it's like killing a fly with a bazooka... Ok, it works and everthing written on the ad is true (btw I also thought it screamed hands off), but you get into SO MUCH TROUBLE... just for this??? Don't take me wrong, the effect is good, and I really don't mind going into complicated things to achieve tremendous effects (I love Bebel's routines for those of you who know him and they're known to be the epitome of complication), but here, again in my humble opinion, it's just not worth it. Like Jamie already said, you'll have to get your hands on a few other things that most of you have, but I simply don't want to go into all what is needed to perform an effect that could be performed easier and that, FROM THE SPECTATOR'S POINT OF VIEW, would nearly look the same. I can't tell a lot more without tipping part of the method, but when I read Justin Miller (which is a great guy btw, really) saying that Freak is SOOO practical, SOOO real world, I reall scratch my head thinking: "did he read the right pdf"? :)

As I already said, for me it's not "real world" and certainly not practical, so I will not be using it. I hardly can imagine how you could defend the fact that Freak is a practical effect, but I guess some people will try. I already hear people saying things like: "if you're not ready to go into complicated things, you'll never be able to perform tremendous effects". That's not true and that's not even the way I see Magic. First, as I already said, I do complicated things, and second, Magic doesn't have to be complicated to be extraordinary. Furthermore I don't think that the effect is complicated in itself, meaning that it would be a difficult effect: it's not an automatic effect but it's really doable. The problem is, and that's where I don't agree with Astrocity, that it's just not practical at all (for me). Last point: I'm sorry, but concerning the very end of the routine (again, I'm sorry but I prefer not to tell too much): why the hell would you do that??? In the pdf you're told that the heat is over, so you do something that, imho, is not logical at all... and could look suspicious, even if, it's true, people won't understand how you did that. But I wouldn't do it two or three times in a row to the same people (the ad stats "The effect is instantly ready to be performed again with a different spectator, and a different card": I guess it means "with a different spectator" FROM ANOTHER GROUP...).

However (that's the other point I may not agree with Mike, with the fact that I would't describe the effect as "difficult"), I do agree that the effect does run as it says (except of course other things are at play which are of course not covered by the ad), the pdf is well-written and everything is clearly covered (you even get two videos for the description of a sleight most of you probably already know, but it's a good point, just in case - and it's true it's not a sleight that magicians use a lot). The idea is quite good, but it's a little like playing table tennis wearing an armour... I'm sorry Michael, in all due respect, I wouldn't recommend this one. Glad it was not expensive, even though it's the second time I purchase an effect that's not expensive and which I will not use.
Message: Posted by: fvdbeek (Jan 21, 2009 08:16AM)
It's cheap and the dollar is low, so my day is still good. This effect needs a certain skill, that I don't have and won't ever have because I don't like that part of magic. Well, it's quite cryptic but I don't want to expose something. The effect's description is terrific, but I found the explanation disappointing.

Frans
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 21, 2009 08:35AM)
Sorry guys, but I will have to disagree with the "negation-boys" :). I am not sure if any of you guys tok part in the Open Prediction Project recently started by Tom Baxter over at the mentalism forum, but suffice it to say that I did take part in that project which involved 52 different methods for the Open Prediction dilemma, submitted by some of the worlds best mentalists.

Now, let me put this on the table right now, I have only been practicing the sleights involved with Freak for about an hour, and I "floored" my greatest sceptic (my wife) and I have to say that this is a better version of the Open Prediction (although it doesn't fulfill all the 51FN rules and regulations) than any of the 52 submissions in the Open Prediction Project and even, in my opinion, beats Osterlinds "Miracle Thought Projection" (sorry Richard :))

I thank Mike for making this miracle such an affordable one, I really believe its worth 50 times the price (I have no affiliation to Mike BTW, never met him, never will) and would like to encourage you all to look beyond the sleights involved, but rather on the tremendous amount of psychology involved in the effect, which as been thought out meticulously....

Just my two cents worth of a review!

Best regards
Kam
Message: Posted by: Michael Paul (Jan 21, 2009 08:59AM)
Wow, finally I get some controversy and strong opinions! It's about time... I've made it! In all seriousness, let me covers some points really quick. Everyone is entiteled to and encouraged to give their opinion. However, "real world" is not a topic up for debate. I've had Freak in my set for years, and it kills people in the restaurants, bars, and nightclubs that I work. That's the real world. I understand that you may look at the l o n g description (I go into a lot of detail), and think, "I can't use this". That's different then "it can't work".

Secondly, there are a number of people who have emailed me, and who have posted, who state, "the trick plays exactly as described... BUT...". That just tells me that they love the effect, but aren't looking forward to practicing the method. Shame. It's like saying, "I love the idea of being able to do a killer gambling routine, but wait, it involves a second deal? Forget it..." And I should stop here and mention that learning the concept used for Freak will take much less time then perfecting a good second deal.

Next, my description doesn't say "hands off" anywhere. If it implies "hands off"... IT SHOULD!!! It's a magic trick. If the audience didn't think it was hands off, it wouldn't be the great effect that it is. Anyone that has ever dealt with me on-line, or in person knows that I'm not an arrogant person, but this next statement might come off that way: I honestly believe that Freak is going to suffer because the effect sounds like REAL MAGIC (but requires some work on your part).

Lastly, Freak Prediction was supposed to be part of a collection of effects that I was publishing because my performing character is moving in a different direction. The book was to be called ABK. I decided instead to release Freak Prediction seperately so that those interested in the open prediction plot could check it out without having to spend money on the other effects that might not appeal to them. That's why it's priced as low as it is... honestly, I spend more then that for lunch at Quizno's and for that price you're getting a piece of magic that I made my living with.
Message: Posted by: goldeneye007 (Jan 21, 2009 09:01AM)
Actually... yes! I have been involved into the Open Prediction Project. And I can't beleive you're being serious by saying that it's better than any of the other 52 solutions provided by "some of the world's best mentalists"... I won't go into details here, because it would obviously involve openly comparing methods, but I really think you're exaggerating a little here. I hope it's not because you think Freak involves a complicated methodology that you feel the effect is incredible...

But if you're happy with it, I'm happy for you! (no, really!) :)

Again, it's ingenious, but I don't feel I need a missile to smash a mosquito, and I already have other routines which achieve the same effect and which are - though complicated - far more practical and less suspicious at the end (or at least more logical).
Message: Posted by: Michael Paul (Jan 21, 2009 09:02AM)
As a side note, anyone that has spent some time looking over the notes (that would be nobody, as the notes where released less then 24 hours ago), will realize that the value here is in the routining, and theatrical set up of the reveal. There is a no-mental work way of arriving at the same conclusion. I'll write up a word file today, and make it available to anyone who has freak and is unwilling to put in the real work.
Message: Posted by: Michael Paul (Jan 21, 2009 09:21AM)
[quote]
On 2009-01-21 00:41, MiketheMagicDude wrote:
Oh and by the way....your description "screams" hands off.
[/quote]

It should... it's a magic trick. I've pm'ed you.
Message: Posted by: JamieD (Jan 21, 2009 09:48AM)
Heya Guys,

After polishing up last night, I have all that's needed to creat the effect luckily and I'm very fluent with all of the technques used. I decided to give this effect a chance in the real world (as I do all effects). I will say it does play VERY strong. It does do exactly what it says on the tins. The spectators freaked (hence the name) and they immediatly turned to a psycological explination thinking I had somhow influenced them to select a certain card.

However, I'm still very dissapointed with the method for it. There were a few times during performance that my hands were (hot) when I wish they wern't. At the time of turning the prediction over, I found that what ever way I played it, The heat was on my hands. There were a few comments from the onset thinking I was doing something fishy (which I was) They didn't see what was fishy but I'm sure its only a matter of time before they get it. There was no heat on the fact we were both holding a deck which was cool. I simply used my deck to help demonsrate the effect to them. The second section of the effect is harder to exicute then first thought. In the end I ended up using 2 of the spectators deck to helpo me out (those of you who have this should get what I mean).

Despite these facts (from a magicians point of view) The reactions were still great. They did discount the other cards in my hand and all comments before I turned the prediction was lost and were covered with pure astonishment.

The debate I belive people are having with the ad is it sounds MORE hands of then thought. I thought I would place a card on the table, they would go through a deck and think of any card in the deck (not having it on the table and being cut to) I belived they could freely handle the deck. I then thought I wouldnt have to do much else. Obviously I realised there would be somethng I would have to do but (without tipping the method) not whats required to get there card to the prediction.

Non the less, I would honestly recomend all those to just try it out to beging with. You SHOULD know the methods used if your a card magician. Most magicians should know one of these technques anyways as they come in VERY handy.

My closing notes being, The reactions are fantastic and all negatives in terms of comments from the specs is lost after the prediction is turned over. The method is a little iffy for my liking and I don't htink its what people were expecting. But please try it out before discounting it.

Best Wishes,

Jamie Daws
Message: Posted by: Michael Paul (Jan 21, 2009 10:23AM)
[quote]
On 2009-01-21 05:25, goldeneye007 wrote:
Last point: I'm sorry, but concerning the very end of the routine (again, I'm sorry but I prefer not to tell too much): why the hell would you do that??? In the pdf you're told that the heat is over, so you do something that, imho, is not logical at all... and could look suspicious, even if, it's true, people won't understand how you did that. But I wouldn't do it two or three times in a row to the same people (the ad stats "The effect is instantly ready to be performed again with a different spectator, and a different card": I guess it means "with a different spectator" FROM ANOTHER GROUP...).


[/quote]

Two quick things. You've obviously read the entire pdf, and so you know that I've only included the last part of the routine you are refering to, to be complete and offer every idea I've had on the topic. Why the hell would I do that? I don't. I state right in the pdf, that I do not perform that bit, just as I do not use the script also included for another part of the effect. The item is only there for your information purposes.

And yes, by stating that it is ready to go again with no reset, I do mean for a different group... I'd never do this effect twice for one audience. You are correct in assuming that.
Message: Posted by: MiketheMagicDude (Jan 21, 2009 01:13PM)
Glad to see I am not the only one who feels this way.

I honestly have been disappointed by Michael's other products before as well, but like a battered wife I keep coming back.
Message: Posted by: MiketheMagicDude (Jan 21, 2009 01:53PM)
[quote]
On 2009-01-21 11:23, Michael Paul wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-01-21 05:25, goldeneye007 wrote:
Last point: I'm sorry, but concerning the very end of the routine (again, I'm sorry but I prefer not to tell too much): why the hell would you do that??? In the pdf you're told that the heat is over, so you do something that, imho, is not logical at all... and could look suspicious, even if, it's true, people won't understand how you did that. But I wouldn't do it two or three times in a row to the same people (the ad stats "The effect is instantly ready to be performed again with a different spectator, and a different card": I guess it means "with a different spectator" FROM ANOTHER GROUP...).


[/quote]

Two quick things. You've obviously read the entire pdf, and so you know that I've only included the last part of the routine you are refering to, to be complete and offer every idea I've had on the topic. Why the hell would I do that? I don't. I state right in the pdf, that I do not perform that bit, just as I do not use the script also included for another part of the effect. The item is only there for your information purposes.

And yes, by stating that it is ready to go again with no reset, I do mean for a different group... I'd never do this effect twice for one audience. You are correct in assuming that.
[/quote]

including this will contribute to bad habits and practices of some who choose to use this part...which should never happen

to me that'd be like making the finally to a C/S coin routine magically chaing the coin so now one side is copper and the other side is silver.
Message: Posted by: MiketheMagicDude (Jan 21, 2009 01:57PM)
[quote]
On 2009-01-21 10:02, Michael Paul wrote:
As a side note, anyone that has spent some time looking over the notes (that would be nobody, as the notes where released less then 24 hours ago), will realize that the value here is in the routining, and theatrical set up of the reveal. There is a no-mental work way of arriving at the same conclusion. I'll write up a word file today, and make it available to anyone who has freak and is unwilling to put in the real work.
[/quote]

seriously?!

how long does it take to read 10 pages?

I actually read through it 3 times before I posted the first time, because I thought I must have missed something.
Message: Posted by: Maynard (Jan 21, 2009 02:32PM)
JamieD, nice touch with the 2 spectator decks. Adds a level of security to those of us troubled with the finish. Thank you.


[quote]
On 2009-01-21 14:57, MiketheMagicDude wrote:
I actually read through it 3 times before I posted the first time, because I thought I must have missed something.
[/quote]

MiketheMagicDude, I felt exactly the same way. I was sure a page or 2 were missing.

Must add too that Michael Paul has cleared some things up for me thru PM which is appreciated.
Michael, maybe a small video of you performing the effect would be of benefit, just a thought.
Message: Posted by: Marc Frese (Jan 21, 2009 03:04PM)
I also bought it.
And Michael Paul did not lie!
And the price is moderate!
It has one interesting idea! I find it actually not at all bad!
For absolute beginners is not this trick! Good foreknowledge is must!
I will try it out.
Believe the trick is very interesting!

I would see also gladly a real performance!
Message: Posted by: Marc Frese (Jan 21, 2009 03:13PM)
Hands off - Yes and No (Is not really important also!)

The effect counts - not as it is reached!

Only such a thought!



Sorry for my english!
Message: Posted by: Michael Paul (Jan 21, 2009 04:12PM)
[quote]
On 2009-01-21 14:53, MiketheMagicDude wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-01-21 11:23, Michael Paul wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-01-21 05:25, goldeneye007 wrote:
Last point: I'm sorry, but concerning the very end of the routine (again, I'm sorry but I prefer not to tell too much): why the hell would you do that??? In the pdf you're told that the heat is over, so you do something that, imho, is not logical at all... and could look suspicious, even if, it's true, people won't understand how you did that. But I wouldn't do it two or three times in a row to the same people (the ad stats "The effect is instantly ready to be performed again with a different spectator, and a different card": I guess it means "with a different spectator" FROM ANOTHER GROUP...).


[/quote]

Two quick things. You've obviously read the entire pdf, and so you know that I've only included the last part of the routine you are refering to, to be complete and offer every idea I've had on the topic. Why the hell would I do that? I don't. I state right in the pdf, that I do not perform that bit, just as I do not use the script also included for another part of the effect. The item is only there for your information purposes.

And yes, by stating that it is ready to go again with no reset, I do mean for a different group... I'd never do this effect twice for one audience. You are correct in assuming that.
[/quote]

including this will contribute to bad habits and practices of some who choose to use this part...which should never happen

to me that'd be like making the finally to a C/S coin routine magically chaing the coin so now one side is copper and the other side is silver.
[/quote]

Hi Mike, I'm sorry, but I guess you can't please all the people all the time. I've released a working effect that I've used as part of my real world work for years. I've released it exactly as I perform it, and it kills. I've included extra ideas to be complete, and then go on to explain that I don't use that detail because I don't find it useful. Take it or leave it, it's there for your consideration. I've recieved critizism now, as the method (which makes the effect as direct as it reads) is more involved then some had hoped. This effect is pleasing to me (hence it's inclusion in my act) because it meets certain criteria, and acheives a level of directness and cleanliness. It's a profesional calliber piece. Sometimes, to acheive these things, you have to put in more work... and I understand that not everyone has the desire to do so.

On the other hand, I've also recieved a number of emails, pms and comments about how other performers love the idea and look forward to using it. To each his own. I think you'll agree that I never commented that the effect is hands off, self working, or real magic. You've pm'ed me to express that you haven't the ambition to work through the method. That's a shame, as to acheive this effect as it's described, a level of commitment may be required. That doesn't make the effect a bad one. It just means you choose not to make it work. However, any effect worth performing is worth learning... not just mine. I can tell you honestly Mike, that I've spent much more then a mere ten dollars on an effect only to find that it wasn't for me... and I never asked the creator for a refund because of my distaste for the method.

My job is not to tailor my methods (water down my magic) to magicians in an effort to sell more e-books, it is to impress my real world audience and then in some cases, offer those ideas to the magic community. Some will love the ideas, others will not find them as useful. I respect everyone's oppinions, but comparing yourself to a battered wife after clearly stating that you haven't the ambition to learn the effect is tasteless.
Message: Posted by: goldeneye007 (Jan 21, 2009 04:27PM)
[quote]
On 2009-01-21 11:23, Michael Paul wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-01-21 05:25, goldeneye007 wrote:
Last point: I'm sorry, but concerning the very end of the routine (again, I'm sorry but I prefer not to tell too much): why the hell would you do that??? In the pdf you're told that the heat is over, so you do something that, imho, is not logical at all... and could look suspicious, even if, it's true, people won't understand how you did that. But I wouldn't do it two or three times in a row to the same people (the ad stats "The effect is instantly ready to be performed again with a different spectator, and a different card": I guess it means "with a different spectator" FROM ANOTHER GROUP...).


[/quote]

Two quick things. You've obviously read the entire pdf, and so you know that I've only included the last part of the routine you are refering to, to be complete and offer every idea I've had on the topic. Why the hell would I do that? I don't. I state right in the pdf, that I do not perform that bit, just as I do not use the script also included for another part of the effect. The item is only there for your information purposes.

And yes, by stating that it is ready to go again with no reset, I do mean for a different group... I'd never do this effect twice for one audience. You are correct in assuming that.
[/quote]

I think I did not make myself clear when I spoke about "the last part", my mistake: by "last part" I meant "the revelation" of the card. Of course you don't have to do the VERY last part... For me the revelation is just weird... The logical way to turn a card over is... well... to turn the card over... and not do what you suggest to do... especially in this kind of effect. Again: who would do that? But again, that's my opinion.
Message: Posted by: MiketheMagicDude (Jan 21, 2009 04:41PM)
I asked for a refund because I did not get what I paid for.

If I ordered a book on how to fix my car and it gave a description of how a car worked and then it told me to go to mechanics school I would send it back.

Similar situation here.
Message: Posted by: JamieD (Jan 21, 2009 04:51PM)
Well after a day of performing it, I can say the reactions are wicked. I can assure you. I don't think it's fair to say this is completely not worth it. It think it's a nice idea and I've quite a bit of time to think it over and cosider different things about it.

MiketheMagicDude, I think your points are very justified and I must ad mit I were far less impressed then I would like to have been. My suggestion is, it plays very well to an audience. So how about trying to play around with the effect and make it more hands of. I've began tinkering with the method and found ways to exicute the end of the trick with far less "heat" on my hands when I need it not to be. I urge you, despite your thoughts (which I have to) and give it a go but give your own flavour to it. Perform it a few times for freinds/family and then see how you think it plays to an audience. I think there is potential in this effect although we have yet to find it properly.

JamieD
Message: Posted by: goldeneye007 (Jan 21, 2009 04:58PM)
If you don't know a lot of other methods, why not give a try to this one.

I'm sorry, but there is a routine out there which I quite often perform and which, imo, is far better than Freak, but which is already a little complicated; when buying Freak I thought, from the ad, that I would get a similar effect, which it is, but a lot more practical, which is absolutely not. Again, I'm not blaming the ad, but there are other things at play which are not covered by the ad, and that the creator obviously cannot tackle for various reasons.
Message: Posted by: matthewmello (Jan 21, 2009 05:34PM)
JamieD I agree completely. I think we as magicians feel like we need to be fooled or impressed by a new method everytime something is released. But, we fail to realize how it will play for real audiences. After reading through the manuscript I immediately thought of how this would play in my restaurant work. I can't see it not getting amazing reactions. All I care about is what my audience sees and remembers. This effect will without doubt get the job done.

Also, for people complaining about the method/setup...there are some obvious alternatives. For instance you could do this effect with only one gimmick. The one used when the card is turned over. I think the whole "you never see the front or back of the card" is more for the magicians benefit and selling purposes. But, you could just as easily get the information another way and then continue on with the routine that Michael describes. Again, method isn't important, its the effect the spectator sees.

I'll be performing this at my gigs next week and will let everyone know how it goes.

Matthew Mello
Message: Posted by: goldeneye007 (Jan 22, 2009 04:55AM)
I've received a nice PM from Jamie who kindly shared his thoughts on the effect and who suggested a few modifications which were quite sound. Actually, like you Matthew, he is considering making the method less complicated. And I think it's great! But why do you do that? Maybe it's because, from the ad, we all thought that other things were not in play... Maybe it's because, just as the ad states:

[quote]
1. Magician places a single card onto the table in full view.

2.Spectator is given a pack of cards and asked to peek at any card. She doesn't have to show anyone else the card, there is no force, she doesn't need to speak the card, or pull it out of the pack. You never see the front or back of the card. If she is dissatisfied with the card she peeked at, she can peek another, until she gets one she likes. She then hides the pack away (or keeps it as a souvenir) without you ever touching it.

3.Spectator closes her eyes and focuses on the card, which is then turned face up in full view of the audience.
[/quote]


The problem is that, between steps 2 and 3, a few things happen. If you both try to make the effect less complicated, it nearly turns the effect into a basic effect that a lot of us already know... I'm sorry but it's true.

I'm sorry again, but I'm not concerned about difficulty or peforming complicated magic. Again, when I read the ad, I thought: "cool, I won't have that much to carry around with me!". If you perform magic in restaurants like I quite often do, you know that it's a pain to have to carry a lot of stuff. I just don't want to carry all that with me since I do not use what is required for the effect normally, and, again, I already have a similar effect which is less complicated. I thought I might perform Freak instead of my usual one, but it tuns out that Freak is less practical. But if you guys normally carry around the stuff required fro Freak (and really there's no sarcasm here, it's quite possible that some of you do), then yes, you might give it a try and it will most certainly give great reactions, there's no doubt (I still have a problem with the revelation, but people most certainly won't).

I thought I was buying a new method (no, I'm not saying that the ad was stating this, so it's my mistake if I had this feeling, but apparently I was not the only one), and people tell me that it's all about letting the tension grow and building an atmosphere. Well, I'm sorry, but I already now how to do this. But again, my mistake (although it was not stated in the ad that it was all about building tension... but anyway).
Message: Posted by: goldeneye007 (Jan 22, 2009 10:22AM)
After discussing with a few members through PMs, I simply wanted to specify one point about my disappointment which perhaps was not totally clear in my posts, maybe even not for me:

First, Freak does what it says, only there are a few other things at play (that's the secret part), like every other routines on the market quite obviously.

I already perform a routine which is nearly exactly the same effect as Freak. The methodology is COMPLETELY different, but the overall effect is in fact quite the same (prediction of a card, completely free choice and boom you predicted the right one, to simplify a little). This effect already needs quite a few things, so I thought I might get Freak which seemed to be more practical.

In fact Freak and my other effect appear to be similar in difficulty/complexity; only, I'm quite familiar with my other one, so that's why I thought I might stick to the one I already know. Maybe I'll give Freak a try though, just to experience the reactions it gets.

In fact Freak is a clever idea, especially concerning the psychlogical aspect of it, that's what gives Freak its strength. And that's also where my misunderstanding laid, since my hopes were elsewhere.

Hope that's more clear now.