|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] | ||||||||||
IAIN Eternal Order england 18807 Posts 
|
You mean "should this be performed for strangers?" - yes, yes it should 😁
I've asked to be banned
|
|||||||||
MRAC Regular user 177 Posts
|
Does that mean it is NOT suitable for friends and family?
|
|||||||||
|
Robmonster Elite user 455 Posts
|
I don't see why not. If you are worried they'll think you already know the answers to the questions you are asking just pick different questions.
|
|||||||||
|
IAIN Eternal Order england 18807 Posts
|
I would say get used to performing for strangers more, rather than friends and family, as you'll learn a lot more and have more fun 🎉
I've asked to be banned
|
|||||||||
|
Sean Giles Inner circle Cambridge/ UK 3517 Posts
|
This seems awfully transparent. Has no one been rumbled on the method?
|
|||||||||
|
robd Loyal user 251 Posts
|
I don't understand this effect.
Part 1 is "I can work out which hand a piece of paper is in" - a 50:50 chance. Part 2 is - "I can read your thoughts" - entirely impossible. Bit of a disparity here in 'which skill are you showing'. If you can do the second part, the first part is nothing. Also I can't see how you could repeat the center fold part of the trick, as all eyes would certainly be on where the rest of that paper goes when you rip it up. But still. Maybe that's over-thinking it - goes down well on the video. |
|||||||||
|
Blindside785 Inner circle Olympia, WA 4541 Posts
|
The demo shown with Daryl William's presentation is nice but I think the more attractive presentation would be Darryl Davis'.
Darryl Davis' routine has a presentation that would also play great during stand-up/parlor due to the nature of how it is routined, Darryl asks questions and it appears as if he knows what the answer to each question is and the audience can see at the end that Darryl and the participating spectator end up with the ball in the same hand at the end, kind of why he is facing in front of the spectator and facing the camera. Darryl and Daryl do it to their own style and I think you may like the presentation of Darryl's a bit more. |
|||||||||
|
MRAC Regular user 177 Posts
|
Would love to do so. But it looks like I have to stay with my hobbyist performances ;-)
Anyway, thanks for the advice 
All the best M. Quote:
On Apr 18, 2016, IAIN wrote: |
|||||||||
|
MRAC Regular user 177 Posts
|
Quote:
On Apr 18, 2016, Robmonster wrote: Going through the demo vid again, I'm afraid I can't avoid a specific question - which would be pretty obvious for family and friends... |
|||||||||
|
Legendary Wizard Inner circle The Wizard , The Legend 162,885,947,3659, 1695 Posts
|
Quote:
On Apr 18, 2016, MRAC wrote: It's not obvious . You're overthinking again . So what if that one question has an obvious answer ? The rest of the four question seems completely logical to ask and there's no suspect . Your friends and family audiences will not be able to piece everything together using just that question . I've got mine recently and for just 15 bucks , it's money well spent . Nothing bad at all to say about this . I knew the works , I purchased still , and now I know it better . Can't compare it to Tequla Hustler though due to them being a different nature in presentation , but maybe it could work well with each other .
" Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " ...
- Albert Einstein |
|||||||||
bowers Inner circle Oakboro N.C. 7024 Posts
|
Watched the dvd tonight.Totally different method
than TH and V.Great having a different way of doing which hand plot.I will use this one also.Nice routiens taught too. Todd |
|||||||||
|
Matthew Crabtree Special user 611 Posts
|
I have been playing around with this one. I use it as a kicker for Silver Swindle. I have also been using it as part of a reading but not doing a CT but a peak since it it doesn't seem logical to tear up the paper and then hand it back to them to pass between hands.
National First Vice President
The Society of American Magicians |
|||||||||
Engine Regular user 123 Posts
|
Does this sound familiar: You've known about the work on an effect for a while but then for some reason you get a DVD of the effect and even though you know everything on it and it's very vanilla overall, it gives you the extra push to go out and just start doing it. This is exactly that kind of thing. (i would also put Robert Baxt's Miser's Dream DVD in the same category BTW.)
So it's cheap and fun and you'll do it. Here's the bad thing though...If you don't know the work you're going to get some really weak teaching on the "Move." Now that's only used for one version but it's really the best version. It's not only taught very quickly but it's also a bit incomplete - there's no talk about the timing or cleanup within that move. And that's a pretty significant thing. (It's hard to be specific without tipping methods here!) Still, for $15 you'll have fun and learn a nice little subtlety that will be useful in any form you choose to employ this - so if you're already a worker it's easily worth it. If not...you might want to save a little more and invest in something that will give you a more throughout foundation first. |
|||||||||
|
dan the man Loyal user 216 Posts
|
Quote:
On Apr 18, 2016, IAIN wrote: Thanks, Iain. That's pretty much what I ment. |
|||||||||
I.M.Wright Regular user 117 Posts
|
I'm back from a small snafu regarding updating my email address and not being able to log in for a long time. I just wanted to check in and thank everyone for the support and kind words!
|
|||||||||
|
kissdadookie Inner circle 4275 Posts
|
Quote:
On Apr 18, 2016, robd wrote: I agree. The first part becomes trivial and the reactions and memory of the effect is going to be virtually all on the mind read. Even the first part I find may be able to be backtracked by the more astute audience carefully listening to the instructions. The answer is to steam roll over suspicions and just pay them no mind. However, if one already does a peek regularly, I think this is unnecessary. Also there are much better which hand methods out on the market (gimmicked or propless or even completely propless a la Peter Turner where he uses an imagined coin, knows which hand the imaginary coin is in, seemingly knows the moves the participant makes, divines the type of coin imagined as well as the year on the imaginary coin, and did I mention that there's no actual coin in his routine?). I mean even with TH, the beauty of TH is that because it uses the role playing, it elevates the plot far beyond you just knowing where the object is, as they will always leave believing that you were able to read their mind and know if they were lying or not (and it's repeatable with it being impossible to backtrack because they are trying to figure out something entirely different to what you have been tracking all along). I can see how and why magicians would love Hands Down. Conceptually it sounds amazing and you get to play with different methodologies in the same routine and seemingly get two effects out of one routine. However, the which hand effect is overshadowed by the mind read thus poses the question of why not just do a direct mind read and milk that instead. |
|||||||||
jerdunn Inner circle 1735 Posts
|
Kissadookie,
I understand your thinking, but instead of viewing Hands Down as a sequence of "weak, then strong" phases, you could look at it like this: You start with something basic, something that might make spectators think, "Hmm, I can almost sorta understand how he might be able to do that." And then you flabbergast them with pure mind reading -- something they CAN'T explain. In this scenario, rather than the first phase seeming weak, it actually increases the strength of the mind-reading climax. It also brings in fun and humor -- i.e., entertainment -- and gets the spectator personally involved in the proceedings. Without these things, mentalism might be reduced to just "reveal, reveal, reveal" -- all about the performer, instead of the spectator. These days, I look for fun, variety, and rhythm in routines, while never forgoing the mind-boggling effect. Cheers, Jerry |
|||||||||
|
kissdadookie Inner circle 4275 Posts
|
Quote:
On Apr 21, 2016, jerdunn wrote: I thought about just that. The issue here however is not the mind read part, it's the weakening of the which hand part. Which hand can be very very very strong but in this routine, it's essentially used as subterfuge and comes off a bit unmemorable. As for mind reads, it doesn't need to be fluffed up with a which hand red herring. Theatrically all you really actually need for a memorable mind read is how you present the reveal. The strongest thing you can really do is give a reading with your revelation. This adds credibility to the illusion that you really are reading the participant's mind. Now, some may pose the question "How about the demonstration of the process for the mind read?" Well, the "process" can easily and very interestingly done via the reading you give along with the mind read. It's a similar concept to how Banachek presents reveals (he goes through what the alleged thought process of the participant was/is, one can refer to Psychological Subtleties for an explanation of this). |
|||||||||
Deano88.jpg "View Profile") Veteran user Lincolnshire UK 377 Posts
|
Quote:
On Apr 21, 2016, kissdadookie wrote: Who says you have to reveal the 'Name' straight after the which hand effect? Ask them to keep hold of it don't let me see it then do something in between revealing , I will be using an impression pad for this so gives me lots of time to achieve the peek |
|||||||||
|
DrRob Special user Middle Chinnock 952 Posts
|
OK a question to those whom have this I'm sure I know the which hand methodology from watching the full performance as I felt it was quite transparent is it still with purchasing?
Feel free to drop me a pm Thanks Dr Rob |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » Hands Down by Darryl Davis & Daryl Williams (8 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Apr 18, 2016 08:42 am 
X
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.04 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|