talkmagic.co.uk

The whole appeal of OOTW for me is the simplicity in which it should be presented. For me i think the whole trick should come down to the spectator being able to separate the whole pack into two piles of red & black, nothing more. That's perfection in itself; I'm not a massive fan of the Lorrayne version, too convoluted with shuffling.

I use two different versions and switch between the two they are both similar anyway. I use DB's version and I also use a simple version i learnt from Luke Jermay but both acheive the same finale. I guess i slightly favour the DB version though as it allows the spectator to turn over the cards themselves.

I don't use the angle separation to set up the trick either as I'm not that great at it, so as i present my OOTW as psychological I say I'm preparing the deck based on questions i ask them so that i think it will work with them.

Also, I'd rather always perform this effect with photographs over cards as Vanderbelt mentioned.

mark lewis wrote:There is too much visual card magic nowadays. I don't mind it but you can have too much of it. Just chewing gum for the eyes. Nothing to baffle the mind. The strongest kind of card trick has a cerebral quality to it rather than a visual quality. This one fills the void admirably.

I don't normally agree with him, but this is true. Visual magic has its place but to me, the "quick tricks" that are usually assosiated with that kind of magic are all "look at how awesome I am". Out of this world though is great because although the out of this universe video that was posted was a little long winded, your average out of this world can run as a good routine. It ticks all the boxes; classy, audience participation and great responce.

I did for a long time like the classic original version of this effect, but now looking back, I'm really not a fan of the whole picking a card out and moving it across to the mark the next set of dealt cards. I just think it ruins the flow of the routine. I think it's much better to just be able to let them deal the enitre deck. It also makes it all the more impresive too, to be able to show that they have managed to seperate the entire deck. I do like that with the classic version, if you do it a paticular version, that for the life of me I can't remember the name of, I saw it on one of Eugene Burgers dvds, that you can have them seperate the reds and blacks, but with the remaining cards, show that they are shuffled. I'm not knocking the classic version at all, I've seen it performed very nicely, but I would say that another small problem with the old version is that it's been youtubed quite a bit, so although you may not refer to your next trick as being out of this world (which I know and self respecting magicain wouldn't do), the whole seperating blacks from reds plot could remind a slightly interested person of a youtube reveal video they might have seen. Just a thought.

As for the version I'm most fond of at the moment, mine, I love it because mainly it's mine, but because it does use the entire deck, you can have show that they really have dealt out half black and half red by spreading the cards, and then after showing both the piles in their entirety, you put the piles back on top of eachother to complete the deck again, only to show that when they are spread out again, the cards have completely interlaced. This interlacing part I wouldn't usually incorporate as part of the effect, I would normally say something along the lines of, "well that's great, congratulations, but what good is a deck of half red and half black to me? I'll have to shuffle them again." This is where you reasemble the deck, "great, all shuffled. What, you don't believe me? Take a look." I spread the cards to show them interlaced. It's a nicely flowing routine and I do love that little kicker on the end. I know that it's probably not the greatest out of this world effect out there but I can see myself taking that to work with me for my forseable future.

phillipnorthfield wrote:I used to do DB's version from The Devils Picturebook, but didn't like that it was set for just that effect if that makes sense to those who have seen it.

I now use Ray Carlyle's from Carlyle Touch Vol 2, impromptu, borrowed deck of cards, and they name the colours themselves.

There's another very nice Carlyle version on his 'Close-Up and Personal' DVD that only uses half of the deck which means you can rattle through it at a much faster pace - I agree that OOTW can be very long winded!


Sean

Klangster1971 wrote:

phillipnorthfield wrote:I used to do DB's version from The Devils Picturebook, but didn't like that it was set for just that effect if that makes sense to those who have seen it.

I now use Ray Carlyle's from Carlyle Touch Vol 2, impromptu, borrowed deck of cards, and they name the colours themselves.

There's another very nice Carlyle version on his 'Close-Up and Personal' DVD that only uses half of the deck which means you can rattle through it at a much faster pace - I agree that OOTW can be very long winded!


Sean

I can't remember who it was here (might have been you actually) that recommended this, but it's great advice only using half the deck. It's just as impressive (they know that if they can do it with half the deck they could do it with the whole deck), and it takes half the time! Sometimes I like it being more drawn out, but often this is more appropriate...

I like the Carlyle version, I think he credits General E.Grant as the original person to teach him but I would have to look at the DVD again.

I love the beauty of OOTW but also find it can seem a bit samey, you are effectively asking the spectator to do the same thing 52 times.

In the Carlyle version only half the pack is used and halfway through the way in which the colours are determined by the spectator changes.

I do not know most of the other methods mentioned but for it being impromptu, fast paced and changeable, this method has my vote.

I'm really not a fan of the whole picking a card out and moving it across to the mark the next set of dealt cards. I just think it ruins the flow of the routine.

This bit only makes sense if your using two people .

I sometimes wonder if the people who poo poo the whole deck version of O.O.T.W, and talk about how long it is, have missed the point of the trick.

The concept behind O.O.T.W is simply the magician, allowing his spectators to create a miracle.

In doing this your spectators have a vested interested in the effect, brining a personal involvement into play.

By doing this, you can bet your bottom dollar that they wont get bored, because they want to see how well they did, as much as you.

magic that makes the magician look good is one thing... but if it makes the spectator look good, it's much, much better.

I perform Roy Walton's "Pass at Red", found on R.Paul Wilsons Royal Road DVDs (although, I don't actually use the pass as he suggests, I just cut the deck at the point the 3rd card is chosen and no-one seems to notice, keep it simple!). The setup for that trick involves explaining to the audience that you will be creating a pile of cards, a stack, and you'll show them the stack at the end. This affords you the luxury of stacking the deck ready for OOTW, which will follow the Walton trick.

Once your've completed Pass at Red, you can scoop up the deck haphazardly, but retaining the OOTW order. You pass the deck to a spectator for an overhand shuffle, then do one yourself.

The overhand shuffle will only mess up a small number of cards, so you can build this into the patter as you begin out of this world. Remove any cards that have bene shuffled into the wrong half, ask the spectator to guess the colour, show them if they were right or wrong then replace them into the correct half. Congratulate them on their psychic ability if they were right, or explain they were wrong and you are going to teach them how to do it every time. Then go into your OOTW routine. As mentioned previously, I love the Derren Brown version, but in all honesty, the basic original version always goes down well, even though it wouldn't fool a magician. No-ones called me on the setup deck yet, I figure this is because the previous trick visibly showed a setup and there was a spectator shuffle before starting the next trick.

Incidentaly the HL version on the video above does nothing for me - the beauty of the OOTW (especially DBs version) is that the magician appears to do nothing.

daleshrimpton wrote:

I'm really not a fan of the whole picking a card out and moving it across to the mark the next set of dealt cards. I just think it ruins the flow of the routine.

This bit only makes sense if your using two people .

I sometimes wonder if the people who poo poo the whole deck version of O.O.T.W, and talk about how long it is, have missed the point of the trick.

The concept behind O.O.T.W is simply the magician, allowing his spectators to create a miracle.

In doing this your spectators have a vested interested in the effect, brining a personal involvement into play.

By doing this, you can bet your bottom dollar that they wont get bored, because they want to see how well they did, as much as you.

magic that makes the magician look good is one thing... but if it makes the spectator look good, it's much, much better.

I'm not sure if you have agreed with what I said or you are trying to point out something you think I missed. I agree with what you say though and if this didn't come across I apologize. I definatly not "poo poo"ing the full deck versions, like I said, my own uses the whole deck. I guess if you're in a bit of a rush or are performing magic where time is a big issue, a half deck version would be better, but with the right presentation, and in the right situation, a longer, full decked version is great. I have never had an issue with mine being long winded because the whole process is accompanied with performance, everything doesn't stop just because the spectator is dealing the cards. So if you find it boring when they have to deal out the whole deck, then they're probably not going to be amazingly thrilled either and so that tells me you're not doing a good enough job. I know saying that last bit has probably painted a target on my back, but it's true, when performing any kind of magic not just out of this world, neither you or your spectator should feel bored.

it was a general observation, not aimed at you.

No worries. I like a good depabte, but I'm not a fan of people mis-quoting or misunderstanding me, then giving me a telling off over it. I know there are people here who jump on that kind of stuff so I just wanted to make sure.

I am performing the DB version. Its straight to the point, no funny moves ( well, except one) and super clean.

I see that the young man two posts up is rather prickly. He really needs to get a thick skin and calm down. He says he does not normally agree with me and I consider this statement to be the end of civilisation as we know it. He is however correct when he says you are better off having the whole deck dealt. It will of course be a boring procedure in the hands of most people but most people are not showmen. If you are a showman this is a piffling matter.

Anyway, tonight I am in great delight that I have found another description of the George Blake method. It is on page 130 of the Rae Hammond Edward Victor book published by that scoundrel Kaufman. It is a 4 line description but it does give the gist of it.

I use Paul Harris's Galaxy. I've seen the Lorayne version and, while it's OK, there are too many shuffles for my taste.

As far as I could tell, Galaxy was what Blaine used on one of his TV shows. I was already using it by the time I discovered Mr Blaine performed it, by the way!

I have a bit of dialogue I use to try and make sure the dealing process is not too drawn out, but I am keeping that to myself.

Among the impromptu versions I like the ones by U. F. Grant and Harry Lorayne (these two versions are very similar). The U. F. Grant version can be found here for $3: Nu Way Out Of This World. The Harry Lorayne version (it's not his "Out of This Universe" trick; it's an impromptu Out of This World) can be found in his book “My Favorite Card Tricks”.

For non-impromptu versions, I like Galaxy by Paul Harris and Wyman Jones, which can be found in “The Art of Astonishment – Book 3” (this version does not have the switching in the middle). Cosmos Duo by Greg Rostami is also pretty good.

The full deck versions take time, but Luke Jermay has an amazing solution to speed things up. His presentation can be found in this free download from Vanishing Inc. Magic: https://www.vanishingincmagic.co.uk/magic-downloads/card-magic-downloads/summer-free-download/