Filler Tricks

[worldwideme]

You were looking for the word altered magically.


I agree with every effect needing to be strong. If you take enough time in between effects to let the mood settle, no need to go directly into the next effect, through conversation. Even in the middle of an effect you can take a moment and let the first climax sink in before moving on within the effect (like an ACR).

Too many times a magician will rush from one effect into the next without continuing to build rapport or taking time to acknowledge the audience. You have to remember that this is the first time any of your audience has seen this particular effect, even if you've performed it 10,000 times, it's all new to them.

Instead of going trick to trick to trick to trick to Thank you for watching, maybe try and have fun through conversation and getting to know people in between the magic. Introduce yourself however you normally do and then perform your first effect. After you do that, reintroduce yourself and ask what everyone does for a living (or what grade they're in...what they used to do if they're retired...) and get used to transitioning from conversation into your next trick.

Just a few things I think on the subject, I'm by no means a professional but this is something I've thought about a lot. Hope some of it strengthened or created a new view for you.

Also, Strong Magic is probably one of the better reads on the subject so I just wanted to second the recommendation.

i agree that every trick should be strong.

but isnt their benefit in having one trick stronger than the one before it?

theres no point in having super strong climax after super strong climax over and over. theres no story, no theater no drama to your set if thats what you do. why not start off with a simple double lift reversal and do a triumph or some other reversed themed trick? then proceed to a sealed invisible deck?


the first two effects are equally strong in their own right, but at the same time they are building up to (one of) the greatest card effects in history.

tell you what, i'm gonna purchase a couple new invisible decks take off the cellophane but leave the sticker seal. then proceed to do exactly what i told you about. a few simple reversal tricks with a normal pack then proceed to the sealed invisible deck (with classic handling)

but with the other deck i'll do just the classic invisible deck handling.

anyone is welcome to try this to, but i want to do it for my own personal benefit. tell me how it works out for you.

 

[Morgan B]

let the first climax sink in before moving on within the effect

Too many times a magician will rush from one effect into the next without continuing to build rapport or taking time to acknowledge the audience. You have to remember that this is the first time any of your audience has seen this particular effect, even if you've performed it 10,000 times, it's all new to them.

Instead of going trick to trick to trick to trick to Thank you for watching, maybe try and have fun through conversation and getting to know people in between the magic. Introduce yourself however you normally do and then perform your first effect. After you do that, reintroduce yourself and ask what everyone does for a living (or what grade they're in...what they used to do if they're retired...) and get used to transitioning from conversation into your next trick.

Also, Strong Magic is probably one of the better reads on the subject so I just wanted to second the recommendation.

He also wrote.....
I'm by no means a professional

Which fooled the hell out of me, the above is solid professional advice for close up.

Bolded the key points to highlight a great post. Thanks.

 

[Morgan B]

i agree that every trick should be strong.

but isnt their benefit in having one trick stronger than the one before it?

theres no point in having super strong climax after super strong climax over and over. theres no story, no theater no drama to your set if thats what you do.

Who is to judge what is stronger? You? Your opinion is tainted by the knowledge of sleights and how much you may have seen.

Truthfully, you can do 3 tricks that all kill, but add different value to the effect...they can be connected or not. However, let the audience decided what is best...in my experience people won't say, "that last one was better" they are just going to say how great you are. When you offer strong magic with variety, you are able to show your depth and talent without overkill.

Also, you idea makes no sense to me...triumph, which ends with one card reversed....then ID...which ends with one card reversed. Not exactly variety.

 

[worldwideme]

Who is to judge what is stronger? You? Your opinion is tainted by the knowledge of sleights and how much you may have seen.

Truthfully, you can do 3 tricks that all kill, but add different value to the effect...they can be connected or not. However, let the audience decided what is best...in my experience people won't say, "that last one was better" they are just going to say how great you are. When you offer strong magic with variety, you are able to show your depth and talent without overkill.

Also, you idea makes no sense to me...triumph, which ends with one card reversed....then ID...which ends with one card reversed. Not exactly variety.

i see what your saying now. ok that does make sense the goal then is to provide the audience with all the best we have and let them decide which they prefer.

kind of like were laying out a feast for the spectators, and although the beef my be perfect. Jethro from Florida may only eat alligator.

but then how does one avoid an anti-climatic performance?

(upon rereading my previous post in your quote it seemed a bit rude to me looking back 'hindsights 20/20' sorry)

 

[Morgan B]

I didn't take it as rude, so no worries.

It really comes down to what the final impression you want to leave is.

Here is the thing, my sponge ball routine kills, so I would consider it a hard hitting and strong magic...a 10/10 perhaps, but I wouldn't close with it. Certain effects just stand out as a finale...this is where I like to leave something behind...which can be a bent up card that was "magic'd" or just a great memory of impossible.

You will recognize a closer when you see it.

I don't think great moments, one after another, are anti-climatic, as much as certain effects are. I think we are hooked on the show concept, versus individual shows within the show. If that makes sense.

Good questions, hope my answers suffice.

 

[worldwideme]

awesome. thanks for your advice Morgan!

 

[worldwideme]

i've been thinking about this alot lately as i read the chapter in strong magic on the act.

and my question for Morgan or anybody else willing to comment is. how can one acheive unity and a consistent theme while still providing variety to an audience?

morgans example of providing variety for the audience during the act seems to me like it creates a sense of dis-unity.

which puzzles me. because unity in an act adds great strength and power to an act.

 

[RickEverhart]

Here is an example of unity of a theme but providing different effects to add variety.

Let's say your theme is about catching a hit man or a killer....ha ha.

You are a cop and one of your effects is piecing together all the clues (torn and restored newspaper).

Evidence...you spot a knife on the scene. Now you perform a white to red (color changing knife routine) The red can represent blood or whatever and then it vanishes back to white which leaves no trace behind.

There is a story line but different effects carry you and your spectators through the experience.

 

[Cedric Taylor]

If this has been posted before, I'm sorry but I've searched and couldn't find any results.

After performing big effects such as the invisible deck, why is it important to perform filler tricks after? What is the importance of performing small tricks in between powerful effects?

I've heard it before, but I don't understand it. I'll perform something that gets great reactions and then move onto a small trick; like the first part of "rubbermade" where the ring penetrates the rubber band, and gets nothing. No reactions at all. So, what's the point of it?
To bring them back to the first part of the "witches hat" for another rising climax?

Also, I'd like to ask what are some small tricks you perform for in between effects?

Thanks.

thats simple my friend...people who do filler tricks usually don't have a lot of powerful magic to spread along...

what i advise is when ur doing casual magic...have some like 3 effects...two small ones and a big one...not too small, you don't wanna be the boring magician guy...just make sure they are not as big as the final effect...what i do alot is i tell a story...like what one magician taught me and how i was amazed all the while doing that..that allows your original patter to kick in, or if your story is close to the bought patter, it will fall in line with that...

since i do geek magic....i'll perform some card....until i'm ready to end with a geek effect...

i'll do some ring magic...until i'm ready to end it....

u gotta have a feel for your audience..

i asked J.B. this question and he told me that you never let loose your entire routine...you wanna give them enought to want more....

 

[worldwideme]

Here is an example of unity of a theme but providing different effects to add variety.

Let's say your theme is about catching a hit man or a killer....ha ha.

You are a cop and one of your effects is piecing together all the clues (torn and restored newspaper).

Evidence...you spot a knife on the scene. Now you perform a white to red (color changing knife routine) The red can represent blood or whatever and then it vanishes back to white which leaves no trace behind.

There is a story line but different effects carry you and your spectators through the experience.

i understand that.

i was still sticking with the sort of anticlimactic-ness point i was trying to make.
Darwin Ortiz refers to an example in Henning Nelms book where Nelms talks about a smooth curve, where if we connect the climaxes of individual effects or routines together. we achieve a smooth continuous curve of progression and build.

and Morgans example of the boxer hitting the other guy with a strong punch after a strong punch after strong punch. seems to counteract that point which is brought up in two of the best books on presentation and theory.

(sorry if my above post wasnt clear enough i might edit it)

 

[praetoritevong]

I wouldn't call them fillers. You should never have fillers in your show. That does not mean however that every effect needs to be a screamer. As Vernon once said - "If I could climax as much as a Dingle routine, I'd be a happy man." - But it won't necessarily make for good magic. And as far as walkaround goes - finish on top.

 

[i.am.infamous]

I've been thinking about sets in magic, and I concluded the idea of... WHY MUST YOU PERFORM 3 EFFECTS (Opener, Middler, Closer)?

Our job is to entertain and leave our spectators with that wonder of magic... right?!

So, if you perform 1 effect, than it plays out like "real magic", perform 2 or 3 effects after, and it plays out like tricks.

I truly believe that one should only perform 1 effect (in this case, for table-hopping and walkaround) - build your rapport, make this effect engaging, build up the climax, and hit them with the best you got with this 1 effect, and let me tell you, this works and kills ALL THE TIME FOR ME!

A great example would be Tommy Wonder's 'ACR' - I feel in love with the performance, and I was wanting more and more after each phase.

Let me put this in a different perspective - let's say you watched 3 different movies in a row (one after the other, than the other, and than the last... without any breaks - just like a magic set) and I can GUARANTEE that ONLY 1 movie will stick out the most to you and that's the ONLY movie you'll be talking about...same when we perform...our spectators will remember all 3, but ONLY 1 will REALLY stick with them and it's going to be the only one they love the most out of all the 3 and talk/think about the most.

Well, those are MY thoughts, and I know most will disagree and some will agree, but that's how I feel about sets (that doesn't mean I don't use them, but I rather stick with my own way - which works A LOT better for me through experience).