talkmagic.co.uk

here is what i've come up with. Btw, any ideas how to do similar production standing up?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tHcWKSWMLQ

Lovely journey. I'm not sure you need as much shuffling and cutting at the start, though.

Nice

For stand-up you could pocket the rest of the deck for the petals, toppit or vest the card after the vanish and use a sort of dove production for the rose With a slight body turn and misdirection you could even just swap the vanished card for the rose in your pocket while leaning over to gather up the petals.

By incorporating a tt you could even make all the petals appear to have turned into the rose at the end.

jim

Usually I shuffle as I talk. Works natural with live spectators. But yeah, should shorten it for a standalone piece.
jim, what does "tt" stay for?

PM sent.

jim

Very nice. But I'd also agree that there maybe is too much shuffling and cutting at the start. Good work!

If I may just make a point, Derren incorporated a rose into it because of artisitic 'resonance' to phrase it as he would. He explains why, but I don't know how you perform it with spectators. Anyhow, the last thing he'd want is to have someone copying his presentation, I was just saying.
Nice piece of magic though
(And i agree with the shuffling comments)

SamGurney wrote:If I may just make a point, Derren incorporated a rose into it because of artisitic 'resonance' to phrase it as he would. He explains why, but I don't know how you perform it with spectators. Anyhow, the last thing he'd want is to have someone copying his presentation, I was just saying.

Not sure what youre meaning here. Derren didnt actually use a rose at all, only petals. The rose was only in the spectators imagination through Derrens story, and was there not so much for artistic resonance, but to provide an emotional hook to set up for a strong ending. He also had to incorporate a rose into the story for the transformation into petals to make sense. I also wouldnt say that will-o-wisp has copied Derrens presentation - far from it in fact. The only thing he has used is Derrens move and idea for the transformation of the card into petals. The selection process for the card, and the petals turning into a rose at the end are totally different from Derrens routine

jim

Whilst it was well executed, there doesn't seem to be much point to it. Unless you are planning on telling a story...why bother have a card selected with a rose on it?
Maybe have a card transform into a rose card but it all seems a bit disjointed to me.
As if perhaps, you learnt the load and sleight and just thought..screw it, I'm using these!

Not sure what youre meaning here. Derren didnt actually use a rose at all, only petals. The rose was only in the spectators imagination through Derrens story, and was there not so much for artistic resonance, but to provide an emotional hook to set up for a strong ending. He also had to incorporate a rose into the story for the transformation into petals to make sense. I also wouldnt say that will-o-wisp has copied Derrens presentation - far from it in fact. The only thing he has used is Derrens move and idea for the transformation of the card into petals. The selection process for the card, and the petals turning into a rose at the end are totally different from Derrens routine

Sorry, I wasn't being clear at all was I. I know he didn't use a rose and the emotional hook (which is a better way of saying putting it) is there due to Derren wanting artistic magic and emotional resonance. I wasn't trying to say that will-o-wisp was trying to copy Derren, but as I was talking about how the rose was used to give meaning and emotional impact I wanted to differentiate between me suggesting using Derren's story and me raisong a point about applying context for the use of a rose- and in short, I wasn't saying he was copying I was making it clear I wasn't suggesting he should copy and that he did a good job of not copying a taking the trick elsewhere. Anyway, I can see myself fumbling about with words here again: Lenoir summed up what I was trying to say better:

Whilst it was well executed, there doesn't seem to be much point to it. Unless you are planning on telling a story...why bother have a card selected with a rose on it?
Maybe have a card transform into a rose card but it all seems a bit disjointed to me

So, sorry for any misunderstanding, I didn't consider how what I was trying to communicate was coming across well enough sorry Thanks

Ah I see what you meant now Sam. My apoligies for reading it out of context

jim

Lenoir,

As if perhaps, you learnt the load and sleight and just thought..screw it, I'm using these!

- yeah, pretty much so lol. On the other hand I find the idea of such transformation quite charming.

While shuffling I talk about how cool it'd be if we could get what we wish for. Casually mention a rose there, then rather standard "say stop anywhere you like thing" and suddenly a rose card pops out... the rest follows

Ah I see what you meant now Sam. My apoligies for reading it out of context

No problem It was all my fault, I just did not maked it clear, reading back what I wrote I can understand why it read as it did.
(Makes for some interesting linguistic study of double-entendre to employ in dual reality I'm a geek)

Perhaps this is repeating Lenoir's point, but personally I thought the card bit was a little token. Why not take out a business card, have someone draw a flower on it, then have that crumble into petals and reform into a real rose? Or something like that.

Serendipity, it's still idea in progress. I guess I will change things around a little bit