|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] | ||||||||||
The Baldini Inner circle I some how pounded in 2445 Posts |
I love this genre, I also think Robert Giobbi is a great thinker and teacher so I immediately ordered it. I do have some minor concerns about the wallet and I don’t think it will be an issue. I will Reply back to soon as I receive it,
|
|||||||||
takeachance Inner circle 3764 Posts |
Yeah I think I’ll be passing the wallet off as a passport wallet. I have plenty of old passports
|
|||||||||
The Baldini Inner circle I some how pounded in 2445 Posts |
Takeachance. great idea.
|
|||||||||
RNK Inner circle 7493 Posts |
Staying with my SHIVA Wallet. Super normal looking wallet in which you have 8 outs. But it's so innocent and clean, love it!
Check out Bafflingbob.com
|
|||||||||
Jared Inner circle Rhode Island, USA 1573 Posts |
I really wanted to like this, but there are two things that I just didn't care for...The 'off by one' ending and large bulky oversized wallets that don't look 'real-world'. I am however a big-fan of Roberto Giobbi's teachings and routinely purchase nearly everything he releases. In fact, I would be interested in buying the download instructions just to see his work on equivoque.
Others might disagree, but these 'off by one' endings never quite satisfy audiences the same as getting a direct hit. I feel that people are just being polite and not actually buying that the performer actually succeeded. Again, this is my own personal opinion. Secondly, while the construction of the wallet might be clever it looks like something you'd see sitting in a glass display case next to a Dove Pan and a Break-Away Wand in an old brick and mortar magic shop...It looks too much like a magic prop and is definately not consistent with my persona. |
|||||||||
BarryFernelius Inner circle Still learning, even though I've made 2537 Posts |
I wonder if he credits Kenton Knepper. The ending has a very familiar ‘feel’.
"To achieve great things, two things are needed: a plan and not quite enough time."
-Leonard Bernstein |
|||||||||
Gaz Lawrence Inner circle 5991 Posts |
Quote:
On Nov 22, 2021, RNK wrote: Certainly agree with you on that Bob, best wishes Gaz 😊 |
|||||||||
tenchu Inner circle Europe 1117 Posts |
Quote:
On Nov 22, 2021, BarryFernelius wrote: Come on. It's Roberto Giobbi, not Jibrizy. Mike |
|||||||||
ted french Inner circle Columbus Ohio 1946 Posts |
Kenton is credited.
P3
practice practice perform. |
|||||||||
DJG Inner circle The northern hemisphere of Earth 1295 Posts |
Credited isn't the same ask asking permission to use his creation. Penguin claimed they own the rights to the effect this is based on, which isn't correct.
Your choices in life can be compared to watching a magic trick: You can continue to believe the illusion in front of you, find the intrigue and desire to learn more, or quit paying attention the moment you feel deceived.
|
|||||||||
Robert P. Special user Kansas 632 Posts |
Just some initial thoughts, it looks beautiful, but to me seems more practical to use as a stage of parlor effect.
Otherwise, why not use Colossal Killer or the Shadow Wallet as these would work a bit better for every day carry? (If that is something you desire). I think the effect to a spectator would be essential the same. What I would be more interested in is getting Roberto's thoughts on the subject. But again, looks really nice. |
|||||||||
Consultthemind1 Regular user 185 Posts |
It’s been a long while since I’ve posted, this effect and the controversy surrounding it has drawn me out of the woodwork. Social media has been raving with a now resolved feud between Kenton Knepper and Penguin Magic, over a penguin employee who wasn’t privy to all the facts and sent out an email that angered Kenton and the gang.
If anyone wants the actual facts, I was around when the ‘off by one’ concept was published and at the time, those in the ‘know’ were (and still are) under the impression it was a Larry Becker and Kenton Knepper creation, born out of a brain storming session. Larry never gets credit, he’s never even mentioned anymore. Which is a shame, as time rolls on, the history of things seem to change Anyway, that’s neither here nor there. The ‘off by one’ concept has always perplexed me, I think it is a terrible ending to what is an otherwise clean looking effect. Watch the reaction of the audience when the Six comes out of the envelope instead of the Seven, all of the tension and the need for a release that is created in the performance is lost and the ending after that feels like a cheap cop-out (when the message on the back is revealed). This type of ending is almost paradoxical, I believe the idea of showing that you will be one off after the card is displayed is (almost) the wrong way around (but not). Let me explain, if you showed the ‘off by one’ before showing the identity of the card would it make the effect stronger? (I’m not sure), If you reworded the writing and it said something like, “Whatever card you choose, I will only be off by one”. You could show that first, and would at least suggest you knew up front before turning the card that you would be out by one. Either way, I’m still not convinced about the ending… The reason that I say it’s paradoxical is, if you’d really predicted the future and knew you would be off by one, then why not just put in the envelope the correct card? It doesn’t make a bean of sense. At least we know error, which allows us to look at potential solutions. Thinking out loud, if I displayed a deck of cards and stated that there was a few cards missing, then looked at the spectator (as though I’m analysing them) whilst saying aloud (to yourself) “What card, do I think you’ll go for?” Run through the deck, then proceeded to say, “the card you’re going to go for, I don’t think is in here… I’ll go for the closest I can to it. It’s probably going to be one off, but that’s ok”. Then was seen sealing a card into an envelope and then placing it into a wallet it’s now all copacetic - You don’t need the off by one on the back of the card, if it hits on the nose great, if not you’ve covered everything up front. There’s a logical reason why you’re off by one, and it’s clear from the outset that you knew what card they was actually going to go for. I think it makes more sense. If I was to combine both my thoughts above to stay closer in line with the original, on the back of the card write, “The card you will name was missing from my deck, I wen’t with the closest one I could find”. This can either be shown up front (before turning it over and revealing the card) or never shown at all dependant on the routine. These are still not the best solutions to the problem, you can stick glitter on a turd, but it’s still a turd. Personally, I think it makes more sense to add an extra phase to the routine (which strengthens it) and always allows for the strong ending - select the spectator you’re going to work with, then say, “In a moment you’re going to jump one either way, for now don’t worry about that”. Go through the process of the selection of the card but take your time, make each choice count and create time - not so much time that the routine is boring, but enough to make your first statement almost forgotten about. If they arrive at the card you want, great don’t say anything more, if they arrive anywhere else say, “right at the beginning of all of this, I said very openly that your very last choice will be to move from whatever you end up on, one either way, you remember me saying that right?” They move one either way, you proceed to say, “even if your first choice might have been one that everyone might go for, right at the end you curve balled me. Changing the value of the card at the very last second to something different”. If the last move is needed, it adds to the impossibility, not detracts. You can move into your revelation. I never understood how Knepper who supposedly ‘understands’ the power of words and how they’re invisible (and can just disappear) wouldn’t have taken the easiest route with the least amount of visual compromise. Anyway, I’m digressing. I don’t like the cloak and dagger of envelopes and wallets, take a card out of the pack, place it on the table and have the spectator name it. It’s a much better effect. David. |
|||||||||
The Baldini Inner circle I some how pounded in 2445 Posts |
David great article thank you. I’ve used the “off by one” for several years, and it served me very well. I think as magicians we give audience members too much credit for what they say as a large wallet or a crystal box or a run rabbit run. I don’t think anyone cares about the size of the look of the wallet, it’s the effect and the ending that matters.
|
|||||||||
Consultthemind1 Regular user 185 Posts |
Quote:
On Nov 24, 2021, The Baldini wrote: I would somewhat agree with you, if the performance ended there in ‘the moment’. When things are in full swing in a live performance the audience don’t always have time to think about such things. Unfortunately, when most people have access to a camera and the internet, the playing field changes - vastly. It opens up the performance to scrutiny and additional commentary when the routine is uploaded to social media. Being purposefully ignorant towards things also doesn’t protect the effect when the audience talk about it after you’ve left or they replay it mentally to themselves either. I completely disagree with your sentiment about magicians and mentalists giving the audience too much credit. If they did, they wouldn’t use articles that looked out of place in the context of the performance. In magic, doing that is passable, in Mentalism it’s questionable. I want believable, not questionable. Just because something flies, doesn’t mean that it’s good. Take a step back for a second, forget the ‘outcome of the effect’ and think about the performance, does the wallet add to the impressiveness of the demonstration or make the performance better? Is the addition of a wallet a moment that adds theatricality or heightens the experience for the audience? In this case the answer is a resounding “no”, it facilitates the method. It benefits the performer, not the performance. The secret is about finding the balance between the two. Never underestimate your audience. One of the greatest lessons I ever learnt, is to stay true to the narrative. If you are claiming to be able to predict the future, then predict the future. You sh*t on your narrative by predicting being ‘off by one’. If you really knew that you were going to be off by one and you’d predicted that long before the performance, then why wouldn’t you put the correct card into the envelope or wallet in the first place? Apply the same formula (questions), I asked above - does predicting being ‘off by one’ benefit the theatrically or heighten the experience for the audience or facilitate the method for the performer? The answer is clear. I’ve tried both (hitting the exact card and predicting being off by one), in many, many different performing scenarios (including a television act I worked on) and I can tell you with certainty that hitting is always the better outcome. Even missing completely is stronger than predicting being off by one, at least it doesn’t feel like a trick. Watch the video back, you can see it in the video. To an audience, the invisible deck is a more powerful effect than predicting being off by one - It’s cleaner looking. It’s just not ‘sexy’ for magicians because it’s old hat. For clarity, I’m not advocating the invisible deck, I’m simply making a point. To finish the point about outcome, if you had the choice of ‘hitting’ the exact card or resorting to predicting being ‘off by one’ in the real world, which would you choose? If you chose hitting the exact card, then predicting being off by one is compromising the overall performance. Final question, would you put a playing card in a large wooden crate that could fit a human inside and drag the crate on wheels around your gig to produce the playing card from there? If you answered “no”, then the prop does matter and your point about rabbit runs, crystal boxes and large wallets not being as important we think is simply not true. Start by changing the small things, tighten up the nuts and bolts and offer your audience the best experience for them. Not you. I’m not overthinking, I’m simply thinking about what is best for the audience, whether it be live or via video. David. |
|||||||||
DJG Inner circle The northern hemisphere of Earth 1295 Posts |
"Best for the audience" assumes everyone thinks the same. I understand and appreciate that it's your opinion, but personally if the story matches the prop, then one has done the job. After all, aren't we all just weaving our stories?
Wallet size is very much proportionate to one's comfort. Ps don't forget about Urban, Wagner, and Hilford who also played around with it before it was released as Kenton's Klose Kall.
Your choices in life can be compared to watching a magic trick: You can continue to believe the illusion in front of you, find the intrigue and desire to learn more, or quit paying attention the moment you feel deceived.
|
|||||||||
Consultthemind1 Regular user 185 Posts |
Quote:
On Nov 24, 2021, Davidicus wrote: I won’t forget about those gents, how could I? Maybe I was one of the people who got to play with it before it was released also . When it was just a ‘weerd’ concept. I mentioned in my initial post that the concept came about as the result of a jam session between Becker and Kenton, only those on the ‘inside’ would know that. It doesn’t matter who has used it or who uses it, it doesn’t make predicting being off by one anymore or any less logical. Trust me when I say I’ve had more than enough time to know the principles strengths and weaknesses. That doesn’t mean for a second this effect shouldn’t be used, I just don’t think it’s the best version of this plot that’s all. Re-read my second post, I was careful to say multiple times ‘predicting’ being off by one, not the off by one principle. That’s what I take issue with, yes, it works, but it’s illogical and doesn’t quite sit right in this context. The off by one principle when not used in conjunction with playing cards is wonderful and there are much better uses for the principle. Trust me when I say there are many, better, stronger and logical uses for the principle. I also think you’re missing my point about the wallet, it doesn’t matter if you do decide to use it - read my first and second post together, I was simply stating it’s to facilitate the method not elevate the performance. I don’t mind what methods or props are used, as long as they are the best for the job. If you believe they are then absolutely use them, I’m telling you I’ve found (with little effort searching) better versions of this plot that are also 100% reliable. Answer me this honestly Davidicus - if you could place one card in front of the spectator, ask the spectator to name any card and with no switches or funny business be right every single time (with no convoluted procedure), would you still choose to use the wallet and be off by one? If you answered that you would still use the wallet and predicting being off by one, then you made that choice theatrically and that’s totally different to choosing to use it because it facilitates the method. If you chose however that you’d rather place one card down and approach the plot that way, then you’re only using the wallet and predicting being off by one because it’s works and you think it’s your only option to achieve that effect. See my point? There is a very cute version of this type of effect, where only one card is ever in play and the effect uses the same framework as Kolossal Killer but loses the off by one aspect. It’s better than Kenton’s original and better than this version (in my opinion). We are all weaving stories, we get to choose the stories that we weave, and all I want is to share the best stories that I can. David. P.S. Thank you for the very nice private messages several of you have sent, it’s nice to know that some people do get something out of my posts. I’m glad people can also see it’s just my opinion also. |
|||||||||
PatrickGregoire Inner circle 2239 Posts |
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, David, but I also believe that you *can* make an "off by one" prediction make sense with your presentation.
In my opinion, it only works if you play it off as the "off-by-one" existing for the entertainment value *if it matches your character*. You can't just flip it over and say "I knew I'd be one off". It's more of a tongue-in-cheek way of building up the tension, bringing it down a bit but immediately spiking it up again even higher. It has to be done in the right way. That being said, I also don't really like that ending but I have no doubt the right performers can make it play even stronger than without it (stronger being also about entertainment, not just amazement). As for the wallet, it can be argued that you can make it seem MORE fair to spectators by saying you'll leave the envelope in the wallet so you can't do any sleight of hand with it. Even though it doesn't completely make sense if you think about it, I do believe it still does make some sense and would fly right by. However, again, I do agree that it might be stronger not to have a wallet at all. Different ways of doing things, and it's how you do it that makes it stronger or not, make sense or not. |
|||||||||
Consultthemind1 Regular user 185 Posts |
Quote:
On Nov 25, 2021, PatrickGregoire wrote: Hi Patrick, Giving logical justification for introducing the wallet does make the effect stronger, and that sits exactly in line with the points I have made above. If you’re heightening the experience for the audience then the prop doesn’t matter. Simply using it because you have to (for the method to work) is bad practice. Re-read what Baldini said, magicians give their audiences too much credit, that sentiment is in my opinion lazy and only takes a few seconds to rectify (as you demonstrated in your post). Making changes that heighten the audience experience, whilst adding very little time to the performance is a benefit, not a detraction. I completely agree that character should dictate selection of material, I could really see John Archer being able to pull it off with his character, in his performances there are multiple moments where the performance twists and turns humorously. It could work well as a reoccurring gag for someone like that. Unfortunately I see deadpan (serious) mind readers trying to pull this off and I don’t think it works. The video demo provided by penguin magic (whilst cut short to preserve the method) was awful, it was flat and contextually didn’t play out as a very strong demonstration of foresight and it certainly wasn’t a piece of influence. It felt like it didn’t really know what it was. Read my second post back, I was clear to say it doesn’t sit right ‘in this context’. Outside of being a ‘comedic bit’, in this context I stand by my assertion - predicting that you will be off by one only exists to make the method ‘fly’. David. |
|||||||||
PatrickGregoire Inner circle 2239 Posts |
Quote:
On Nov 25, 2021, Consultthemind1 wrote: ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ Quote:
On Nov 24, 2021, Consultthemind1 wrote: |
|||||||||
Consultthemind1 Regular user 185 Posts |
Quote:
On Nov 25, 2021, PatrickGregoire wrote: In THAT context it doesn’t make any sense, I don’t know what you’re not getting? Tell me how it does make sense? If you knew that you’d be out by one, other than adding it for a comedic bit, IF you’re claiming you can predict the future why would you put the wrong card in the envelope? Without adding something to the performance, without adding one line of scripting or adjusting the routine, explain how it makes sense as it is. If you think they’re unfair restrictions, then you understand my gripe with the routine as it’s presented. David. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » The Prophecy by Roberto Giobbi (16 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.09 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 < |