Can "Interactive" Tricks Be Improved?

greymatters · 27th October 2007, 11:59 PM

Occasionally when you see a magic special on TV, the magician will perform an interactive trick (like the one from Copperfield's "Flying" special below).

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

These normally get quite a bit of criticism, especially the "move your finger around the screen" variety and the "Pick a number, multiply it...subtract your original number..." routines.

It's easy to criticize them, so let's move on from there. Can these interactive tricks be improved, and if so, how can they be improved?

Copperfield's presentation of Jim Steinmeyer's "Nine Card Problem" was a nice start, but where else can we take interactive TV tricks?

Bob Klase · 28th October 2007, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by greymatters

It's easy to criticize them, so let's move on from there. Can these interactive tricks be improved, and if so, how can they be improved?

Copperfield's presentation of Jim Steinmeyer's "Nine Card Problem" was a nice start, but where else can we take interactive TV tricks?

I think the very nature of the tricks limit where you can take them. Many of them work great live, or over the phone. But when you take them to TV, youtube or websites then people can watch them over and over and it's very easy to backtrack and figure out exactly what's happening. Not everyone can figure them out that way (a significant number of people see one of the web versions of the princess card trick and can't figure it out even after seeing it several times), but for the ones that can figure them out I don't think there's much you can do. But I could be wrong- someone smarter than me may find some way to prevent the backtracking and/or repeated viewing from giving it away.

That's also true about a lot of non-interactive tricks- if someone wants to figure it out they can watch it over and over and eventually they'll pick up the clues that aren't noticed when seeing the trick live (or just once) but that can't be hidden from the camera.

Garrette · 29th October 2007, 06:24 AM

Even before I knew much about magic I disliked this kind of effect. Even though I couldn't always figure out the mechanism, it seemed obvious there was some foolproof, self-working mechanism behind it. I think most people get that, too, though as Bob says, not everyone does.

That said, Copperfield's effect in your link is a step up. It introduces enough seeming variables to make people think it can't be math-based. But if you want to improve it, it's simple:

Don't just say: "That must be your card now." Actually name the 3 million cards being held up by all the viewers. And give the addresses of the people holding them...

T'ai Chi · 30th October 2007, 04:58 PM

cheese!

Well, maybe to have a trick that starts out like this, but then the *real* trick goes on while this trick is taking place

AgeGap · 31st October 2007, 04:47 PM

These type of tricks are much better if done

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

way.

Brown · 1st November 2007, 06:43 AM

Did anyone catch little Uri Geller's interactive on "Phenomenon?" What a lame trick... but not as lame as some of those interactives that David Copperfield or Max Maven have done.

You can perform an interactive trick like this using similar principles with a shuffled deck of cards, and achieve a surprising result; but if you care to do some false shuffles with a stacked deck, you can make it look like a freakin' miracle.

Bob Klase · 1st November 2007, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by Brown

Did anyone catch little Uri Geller's interactive on "Phenomenon?" What a lame trick... but not as lame as some of those interactives that David Copperfield or Max Maven have done.

You can perform an interactive trick like this using similar principles with a shuffled deck of cards, and achieve a surprising result; but if you care to do some false shuffles with a stacked deck, you can make it look like a freakin' miracle.

I disagree. It was only because you know how it works. To many people watching it's just as much magic as anything any other magician could do.

AgeGap · 2nd November 2007, 05:20 PM

Can anyone provide a link to the geller trick please. Although by the time I get to it mysterious forces may have it taken down.

fredcarr · 4th November 2007, 12:59 PM

I've never liked these TV interactive effects. For that matter TV has never been a great medium for magic. AS Richard Kaufman recently put it on on post in the Genii Forum "Its flat."

That got me to thinking that magic is a 3 dimensional art form. Listening to a symphony coming out of one speaker may be entertaining but with surround sound its much better. Being there live is even better. I have seen a lot of magic at the Magic Castle and a lot on TV and Youtube. I don't think they will ever really compare. With recorders its even more difficult as one of the big rules is you never repeat an effect and yet that is exactly what happens nowadays.

Fred

29th October 2007, 06:24 AM	#3
Garrette Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 7,964	Even before I knew much about magic I disliked this kind of effect. Even though I couldn't always figure out the mechanism, it seemed obvious there was some foolproof, self-working mechanism behind it. I think most people get that, too, though as Bob says, not everyone does. That said, Copperfield's effect in your link is a step up. It introduces enough seeming variables to make people think it can't be math-based. But if you want to improve it, it's simple: Don't just say: "That must be your card now." Actually name the 3 million cards being held up by all the viewers. And give the addresses of the people holding them...
Garrette Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 7,964	__________________ My kids still love me.

30th October 2007, 04:58 PM	#4
T'ai Chi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 11,233	cheese! Well, maybe to have a trick that starts out like this, but then the real trick goes on while this trick is taking place
	__________________ http://www.statisticool.com

1st November 2007, 06:43 AM	#6
Brown Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Twin Cities, Canada Posts: 9,118	Did anyone catch little Uri Geller's interactive on "Phenomenon?" What a lame trick... but not as lame as some of those interactives that David Copperfield or Max Maven have done. You can perform an interactive trick like this using similar principles with a shuffled deck of cards, and achieve a surprising result; but if you care to do some false shuffles with a stacked deck, you can make it look like a freakin' miracle.
	__________________ Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise. -- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice

2nd November 2007, 05:20 PM	#8
AgeGap Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,804	Can anyone provide a link to the geller trick please. Although by the time I get to it mysterious forces may have it taken down.
AgeGap Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,804

28th October 2007, 10:26 AM	#2
Bob Klase Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Largo, FL Posts: 2,445	Originally Posted by greymatters It's easy to criticize them, so let's move on from there. Can these interactive tricks be improved, and if so, how can they be improved? Copperfield's presentation of Jim Steinmeyer's "Nine Card Problem" was a nice start, but where else can we take interactive TV tricks? I think the very nature of the tricks limit where you can take them. Many of them work great live, or over the phone. But when you take them to TV, youtube or websites then people can watch them over and over and it's very easy to backtrack and figure out exactly what's happening. Not everyone can figure them out that way (a significant number of people see one of the web versions of the princess card trick and can't figure it out even after seeing it several times), but for the ones that can figure them out I don't think there's much you can do. But I could be wrong- someone smarter than me may find some way to prevent the backtracking and/or repeated viewing from giving it away. That's also true about a lot of non-interactive tricks- if someone wants to figure it out they can watch it over and over and eventually they'll pick up the clues that aren't noticed when seeing the trick live (or just once) but that can't be hidden from the camera.

1st November 2007, 01:29 PM	#7
Bob Klase Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Largo, FL Posts: 2,445	Originally Posted by Brown Did anyone catch little Uri Geller's interactive on "Phenomenon?" What a lame trick... but not as lame as some of those interactives that David Copperfield or Max Maven have done. You can perform an interactive trick like this using similar principles with a shuffled deck of cards, and achieve a surprising result; but if you care to do some false shuffles with a stacked deck, you can make it look like a freakin' miracle. I disagree. It was only because you know how it works. To many people watching it's just as much magic as anything any other magician could do.

4th November 2007, 12:59 PM	#9
fredcarr Muse Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Utah Posts: 554	I've never liked these TV interactive effects. For that matter TV has never been a great medium for magic. AS Richard Kaufman recently put it on on post in the Genii Forum "Its flat." That got me to thinking that magic is a 3 dimensional art form. Listening to a symphony coming out of one speaker may be entertaining but with surround sound its much better. Being there live is even better. I have seen a lot of magic at the Magic Castle and a lot on TV and Youtube. I don't think they will ever really compare. With recorders its even more difficult as one of the big rules is you never repeat an effect and yet that is exactly what happens nowadays. Fred