Your Cart

Your cart is empty.

Now viewing your cart.

Edit « »
Subtotal: 0.00
Basket
Account Support
Announcement

TYCOON Luxury Playing Cards

Produced in collaboration with Steve Cohen at the prestigious Waldorf Astoria Hotel.More Details

Strong as an oak You are now viewing the Strong as an oak thread.
  1. #91 April 4th, 2013
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    352

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrei View Post
    I can't really discuss further since you seem to be convinced what people want and what works best for them is entertainment with a story, so I wish you the best of luck!
    I'd say we both seem pretty "convinced" of our individual ideas.

    To summarize the entirety of my point: I don't care about or have personal bias as to what people want - I simply observe it and deliver it. Whether that is story or not, skill or not, etc. It doesn't matter to me. I don't believe in entering this with any preconceived notions of what is or isn't - only what I have seen, demonstrated and experienced consistently and for sure. That is my yardstick, and those statistics will serve me well; as they demonstrate the likelihood of future audiences enjoying what previous audiences have enjoyed.

    Best,
    Vince

    Actor, Business Owner and 9+ year Authority on Card Handling, Manipulation & Flourishing
  2. #92 April 5th, 2013

    Default

    Just a quick explenation first in post: the following is typed out on my phone and will read as if this is the word of god. my writing atyle comes off that way but trust me i mean well. IF i had to produce a carfistry video this is some of the things id consider before doing it.


    Well i lack the skills and equipment to make a "good" video but I can tell you what -should- be in it.

    First from the technical aspect the cameras. I would work with two cameras filming from different angles. Strait on and 45 - 60 degrees to one side. Your two frames would be tight on the hands and full body at the least. Maybe a couple bust shots mixed in for good measure.

    I think the scene should be urban. Streets or park. Ideally Get a couple people to watch as spectators. Give them notes to make their reactions big but not cheesy or forced. Make sure the second camera catches some of their reactions for editing in later.

    Character. The character should be the paragon of card handling They should ooze confidence, and it shoul show from their physicality, facial expressions, and card manipulations. The point is to show off and say "look at me! This is hard and yes I'm that @$)@ good!"

    Costume. Dress Casual with a young edgy look. Black slacks black shoes. Button down dress shirt with metallic fluer de lis or crosses on it, solid color T shirt underneath. Contrasting from the over shirt. Warm colors. Reds or Blues. Leave top 3 buttons undone. Possible silver necklace. Black fedora like hat. Don't know what they are called exactly.

    The look should be comfortable but should stand out against the surroundings and spectator.

    The "story" is a demonstration of pure skill starting with a few simple warm up flourishes to the increasingly difficult moves.
    For good measure the set should start with a deck production. Maybe end with a deck vanish.
    Maybe include a color change?

    Set length should be 3 to 5 minutes or the length of one song.

    Music can be used to keep timing of moves in sync but should be dubbed in to the video in post. The music should be without sung lyrics if possible but it is more important that the music works with the performance. Since this is all about skill is say something with a quick pulse poundin beat that makes you want to move.

    Thi isn't the only way. This isn't even what I'm sayin should be done format wise. I am just saying if I had the skill and resources this is the video I'd produce.

    Winner SNC 6/5/2010 "What Magic Means to You?"
    Winner SNC 8/22/2010 "Best Dramatic Work" for Theory11 Movie Night
  3. #93 April 5th, 2013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChristopherT View Post
    I definitely disagree with this. Take club juggling, for instance. You can't bend them, so you are limited. Therefore, not infinite. Every prop introduces its own limitations, it's up to the artist to explore those limits and push them.
    That is a limitation of juggling clubs, not juggling, you could get clubs that flex. Balls, rings and clubs are generally regarded as the three most common, but there are thousands more, and it all depends on what your definition of juggling is, but even with limitations of certain props you can still achieve unlimited amounts of motions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vinnie C. View Post
    Not true for either one - the motions for both are technically finite, even if extremely large in number. However, on a purely technical level, card handling is inherently more variable than juggling. It's just math. There are 52 cards. Unless you're juggling 52 pins or balls at the same time, you're going to be able to do fewer motions. And, even if you had 52 of them, you would still be forced to do fewer motions overall because of their size.

    Don't get me wrong - I love juggling; I'm not discounting anything. I'm just stating the math of it, and how it isn't altogether applicable as an analogue.

    Best,
    Vince
    I dont really understand your point about maths. Taking into account the amount of permutations of a deck of cards, do you mean you can do a Charlier cut 8*10^67 different ways? You can still do a sybil with 5 cards, your point only really makes sense if you came up with a 52 packet cut. If you only have 3 juggling balls or only 3 cards you can still do almost anything with them.

  4. #94 April 5th, 2013
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    352

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WyattSB View Post
    I dont really understand your point about maths. Taking into account the amount of permutations of a deck of cards, do you mean you can do a Charlier cut 8*10^67 different ways? You can still do a sybil with 5 cards, your point only really makes sense if you came up with a 52 packet cut. If you only have 3 juggling balls or only 3 cards you can still do almost anything with them.
    Let me clarify: my point is that a deck of cards can be fanned, spread, sprung, cut, dribbled, tossed, and juggled. Pins or balls have far fewer possible combinations than those listed above, given their shape, size and quantity.

    While 52-packet displays are possible, they are butt-ugly and hard as hell, so that's not as much what I'm referring to. Thing is, while pins and balls can be juggled, tossed, bounced, etc, you are limited in your quantity and range of movement (all movements having to be some variation of tossing or bouncing them, unless you begin to move into the field of Contact Juggling).

    Cards are small, springy and numerous. This makes unique and varied motions with them far easier and larger in number.

    To use your example, with 3 balls I can juggle them and bounce them. With 3 cards I can juggle them, bounce them, toss them, fan them (crudely), cut them (one and two-handed), do a crude dribble, spring, spread, etc.

    I don't mean this to be an argument. I love juggling, and a lot of it takes far more coordination and strength than many people posses. My point isn't to detract from juggling at all, only to state that the two arts are certainly different.

    Best,
    Vince

    Actor, Business Owner and 9+ year Authority on Card Handling, Manipulation & Flourishing
  5. #95 April 5th, 2013

    Default

    Andrei - I have a lot of respect for you as someone who has actually taken this to a professional level. However, I wonder how objective you can be here. Clearly you are someone who is interested in skill for skill's sake. I am not.

    I've been in the object manipulation/circus scene for a little over 11 years now. I've written circus shows and acts. I may never have been in front of an audience as large as you've done, but I have noticed a distinct trend. The shows I've done which were just skill-based never did as well as shows that were character-based.

    I understand the amount of time, practice and dedication that goes into learning a physical skill to the level that you've taken it. I also understand that, really, the only thing separating me and you is that practice time. Therefore, watching you do various flourishes doesn't really impress me, because I know it's just a matter of practice. Anyone can learn any skill, given enough dedication.

    You say that I just haven't seen good flourishing and that's why I can't tell flourishes apart. Well, I've watched videos by Dan & Dave, yourself, Bone Ho, De'vo ... I can't tell them apart. Other than the obvious differences of, "That's a one handed cut, that's a two handed cut ... that's an in-the-hands card house ... that one goes up the arm .. " etc., it all looks the same to me. I'm sorry, but flipping a card over the fingers of your left hand looks the same as flipping a card over the fingers of your right hand. Taking a packet of cards and tossing it back onto the deck isn't that much different to me than tossing a packet of cards up and kicking it up like a hackey sack. The only difference there is someone put the time into the kicking part.

    And that's why I get bored with flourishing videos. All I get from them is "Watch me practice". If there's no story, why do I care? I understand that it's the culmination of a huge number of hours of practice and I can respect that. But I don't care about it.

    And I thoroughly believe it's completely valid to spend your spare time developing whatever skill you want to develop. There's no need to create a show out of that skill if you don't want to. Anything that is satisfying to the person doing it is worthwhile to me. I say these things strictly for those that want to create a show. Who want to have something that people like me will enjoy watching. Feel free to ignore my words, I won't mind.

    Cirque may have started out with shows that didn't have as much story or character, but they are more successful now than ever and their modern shows do focus on story and character. In my opinion, Ka is vastly superior to Zoomanity for that reason. While I enjoyed both shows, I would much rather see Ka again because the story was what hooked me. Zoomanity didn't have much of a story and while I do enjoy the skills shown and the subject matter is of interest to me, a story compels me far more.

    Quote Originally Posted by WyattSB View Post
    That is a limitation of juggling clubs, not juggling, you could get clubs that flex. Balls, rings and clubs are generally regarded as the three most common, but there are thousands more, and it all depends on what your definition of juggling is, but even with limitations of certain props you can still achieve unlimited amounts of motions.
    No, you are limited. Clubs that flex are no longer clubs, they're something else. By definition, a club doesn't bend. Now, you could go into something like rings, or even some funky spring thing. Hell, I've even seen a really good juggling act that used toilet plungers. But every prop has restrictions and juggling is restricted to what can be done and still be considered juggling. Juggling has a few definitions, but I have always subscribed to, "Juggling is the act of controlling more objects than you have hands for." Contact juggling pushes that definition, but it's not actually the same skill as toss juggling.

    I'm not saying you can't create amazing things with juggling, but if you don't acknowledge the limitations you will never be able to push them.

    -Christopher
  6. #96 April 5th, 2013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChristopherT View Post
    No, you are limited. Clubs that flex are no longer clubs, they're something else. By definition, a club doesn't bend. Now, you could go into something like rings, or even some funky spring thing. Hell, I've even seen a really good juggling act that used toilet plungers. But every prop has restrictions and juggling is restricted to what can be done and still be considered juggling. Juggling has a few definitions, but I have always subscribed to, "Juggling is the act of controlling more objects than you have hands for." Contact juggling pushes that definition, but it's not actually the same skill as toss juggling.

    I'm not saying you can't create amazing things with juggling, but if you don't acknowledge the limitations you will never be able to push them.
    We are not disagreeing with each other, and I'm not, not acknowledging the limitations, creating a flexible juggling club as opposed to a regular one is pushing he limitations. Juggling has no limits, props do. Juggling is still juggling no matter what you use. Again we're back to the definition, yes contact and toss juggling are different, both are called juggling, 300 years ago magic was called juggling, its up to you what counts and what doesn't. Still, even with only toss juggling the possibilities are endless, even more so to include the immeasurable amount of props and styles there are and could be.

  7. #97 April 5th, 2013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vinnie C. View Post
    Let me clarify: my point is that a deck of cards can be fanned, spread, sprung, cut, dribbled, tossed, and juggled. Pins or balls have far fewer possible combinations than those listed above, given their shape, size and quantity.

    While 52-packet displays are possible, they are butt-ugly and hard as hell, so that's not as much what I'm referring to. Thing is, while pins and balls can be juggled, tossed, bounced, etc, you are limited in your quantity and range of movement (all movements having to be some variation of tossing or bouncing them, unless you begin to move into the field of Contact Juggling).

    Cards are small, springy and numerous. This makes unique and varied motions with them far easier and larger in number.

    To use your example, with 3 balls I can juggle them and bounce them. With 3 cards I can juggle them, bounce them, toss them, fan them (crudely), cut them (one and two-handed), do a crude dribble, spring, spread, etc.

    I don't mean this to be an argument. I love juggling, and a lot of it takes far more coordination and strength than many people posses. My point isn't to detract from juggling at all, only to state that the two arts are certainly different.

    Best,
    Vince
    Are you a juggler? If so you sound like a fan of the WJF competitions. I just don't think you are thinking about juggling creatively enough. Yes the majority of popular juggling is toss variations, but how are they all not unique individual motions? Thats like saying most movements in cardistry are packet cuts, so they all count as one. Just in the amount of different ways you can throw a ball from one hand to another is ridiculous, and makes it ridiculous to even try to count, let alone compare of the amount of different ways to manipulate cards. You can do much more with three juggling balls than toss and bounce them my friend.

  8. #98 April 5th, 2013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WyattSB View Post
    Juggling has no limits,
    What about the laws of physics?

    People need to stop pretending that limitations are a bad thing. Limitations are what drives innovation in the first place. Didn't any of you ever play the Mass Effect games? "Limitations drive progress. Can't catch food, so invent spear. Can't carry load, so invent wheel."

    Juggling does have limitations. But working within those limitations is what makes the act impressive, not counting the human element of course. The same is true of magic and mentalism. If there were no limitations, and literally anything was possible, we would get bored pretty quickly and the arts would stagnate because there would be nowhere to go. It's like handing someone a blank piece of paper and a pencil and saying, "Draw anything." Sure, they'll eventually get around to it, but they're going to spend a lot of time trying to narrow down the list of "anything" to "something."

    That is not dead, which can eternal lie
    And with strange eons, even death may die

    Witching Hour Productions
    The Pitt and the Pendulum
  9. #99 April 5th, 2013

    Smile

    The thread that keeps on giving!
    I am very much enjoying this discussion, many well worded thoughts to ponder.

  10. #100 April 5th, 2013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChristopherT View Post
    Andrei - I have a lot of respect for you as someone who has actually taken this to a professional level. However, I wonder how objective you can be here. Clearly you are someone who is interested in skill for skill's sake. I am not.

    I've been in the object manipulation/circus scene for a little over 11 years now. I've written circus shows and acts. I may never have been in front of an audience as large as you've done, but I have noticed a distinct trend. The shows I've done which were just skill-based never did as well as shows that were character-based.

    I understand the amount of time, practice and dedication that goes into learning a physical skill to the level that you've taken it. I also understand that, really, the only thing separating me and you is that practice time. Therefore, watching you do various flourishes doesn't really impress me, because I know it's just a matter of practice. Anyone can learn any skill, given enough dedication.
    While I appreciate that, if you think about what you just stated, wouldn't that apply to just about everything? That seems like an easy way to write anything off. "I could do that too if I really wanted to". Appreciating something (anything and everything in life) has nothing to do with time you could have invested in doing the same. I don't see this as being a valid point. I could say the same - anyone can skip the practice time and write a story, because they're too lazy to dedicate themselves to learning something very difficult. Any random shmoe can write a story and say, "Well wouldn't it be cool if....?" Again, such a subjective thing to say.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChristopherT View Post
    You say that I just haven't seen good flourishing and that's why I can't tell flourishes apart. Well, I've watched videos by Dan & Dave, yourself, Bone Ho, De'vo ... I can't tell them apart. Other than the obvious differences of, "That's a one handed cut, that's a two handed cut ... that's an in-the-hands card house ... that one goes up the arm .. " etc., it all looks the same to me. I'm sorry, but flipping a card over the fingers of your left hand looks the same as flipping a card over the fingers of your right hand. Taking a packet of cards and tossing it back onto the deck isn't that much different to me than tossing a packet of cards up and kicking it up like a hackey sack. The only difference there is someone put the time into the kicking part.
    Well that's unfortunate for you then. If you can't see the stark differences between above said techniques, then that's 1 more thing you can't enjoy in life. I can honestly say you'd be the first I've heard say that and that's totally fine. Your personal taste. However, I fail to see how incorporating a story would do you any better. Why should a story make you care about cardistry? If it does make you care, how does it all of the sudden make you appreciate the beauty in motion? Because it has meaning? So now meaning gives you the sudden ability to distinguish things thus making it not boring?

    Not everyone needs a story with a meaning to enjoy the beauty in front of them. I think that's the point I've made from the start. If you don't like it and find it boring, then that's fine. No one can convince you otherwise. Just like someone may dislike a specific food. No amount of "presentation" is going to change the taste. "But the chef put so much effort into this dish, it's his life long pursuit since he was 5, it's his dream to be doing this!" -"Awesome, don't care".

    I've seen nearly every Cirque show time and time again. KA sure does have a story (not the greatest at telling it, I remember first time I watched it) but Mystere does not, and it's been kicking ass for the last 10+ years. Still a sell out. Same with "O". That's just a few of many. I remember going to see "BELIEVE" (Angel's show), both times I've seen it, audience reaction is "please stop talking and just do some magic tricks, I don't care to hear your stories, too much talking and not enough doing". It can be argued both ways. Ultimately what saved it for them was the Cirque aspect which were the dancers, although Cirque has long since pulled out of the production. Now it's really, way too much talking. Most simply do not care. So perhaps I can throw the same question back at you. Don't you think you may be biased as someone who loves magic and always wants to hear a story? Of course you are, and so am I but that's the beauty of it - you don't have to be biased towards something to enjoy it. That's why we have different audiences.

    // andrei jikh
    vp of production / theory11

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Login to theory11

Forgot Password?

Create New Account