Wonderball

[Tom Moore]

I'm not sure where or how you've decided what my opinions on floating objects and theatre are since I've not expressed either in this thread talking about a specific effect and genre.

There are artists who could make defecating on stage in to a piece of beautiful art that an audience would clamour for - it doesn't change the fact that the material at the heart of it is literally a pile a doo-doo.

Whilst i'm sure their zombie routines were beautiful pieces of performance i'm also quite sure that the majority of their audiences would not be "fooled" by it; a great routine means an audience gets caught up in the emotion and drama of the moment; briefly suspending the certain knowledge and enjoying the pretence. They're entertained but they are not fooled that this is "magic".

It's just the same with back-palm card manip; audiences can be entertained by the technical skill but they're not actually "fooled" in the same way as they would be with most magic; they see it as skillful juggling and wonder how the magician has gotten these skills so fast and smooth; they're not for one instant wondering "where" or "how it vanished".

With wonderball the core method is EXACTLY the first explanation a lay audience would come up with and there's not a single thing in the routine that disproves this idea; just the opposite as every move shown in the demo quite literally shows you where the secret is. The way to "fix" this routine is to either come up with some spectacular convincers to disprove the method (a hideous waste of resources for such a small-scale effect) or change the method... but doing the latter would stop it being "wonderball" and instead make it one of the other well documented methods.

If you've got to go to so much effort to create a routine that disguises the fact that your core method is flawed then you'd be better off scrapping that method, replacing it with one that is inherently more deceptive and then putting just as much work in to the routine of this second method so you end up with an incredibly strong routine with multiple levels of deception rather than a bodged-together compromise built on poor foundations.

[Kent Gunn]

Tom,

Great website. Your background lends an astonishing level of credence to your posts.

[IrishMagicNews]

You'll never guess who is name checked on Tom's website under the heading of "Clients, Friends and Associates from around the world"

[Tom Moore]

I've worked with her on material for a subsequently shelved show and exchanged many emails and conversations; i've told her my thoughts on this effect before and i'll happily discuss it in person with her or anyone else. For the record i don't blindly like (or blindly dismiss) every single effect every single performer I've ever worked with has ever conceived....

[IrishMagicNews]

Tom, I was just trying to be a smart arse. No offence intended.

[Jonathan Pendragon]

When it comes to zombies, never forget rule # 1... cardio.

[Dustin Stinett]

I thought zombie rule #1 is "head shot."

[Kevin Connolly]

Bingo! Head Shot!

[Tom Stone]

I thought zombie rule #1 is "head shot.

No, #1 is Cardio. Haven't you seen Zombieland?
http://www.horror-movies.ca/horror_16631.html

[Dustin Stinett]

Cant say that I have; until now. Ive only seen Romeros Night of the Living Dead and its sequel where rule #1 is head shot. As for the site, given all the misspellings, it appears to have been written BY zombies.

[Richard Kaufman]

Wonderball could be greatly improved by simply doing Astrosphere. The original effect produces a wonderful illusion of floating without jiggling--the ball floats "solidly" and is just great.

[Dustin Stinett]

Was that the old piece of apparatus you won at the SAM Las Vegas raffle/drawing thing that they did?

[Richard Kaufman]

Yes.

[Bill Marquardt]

I thought zombie rule #1 is "head shot.

No, #1 is Cardio. Haven't you seen Zombieland?

http://www.horror-movies.ca/horror_16631.html

[CraigMitchell]

In case you weren't going to buy a Wonderball before - this advert will surely make you change your mind.

[Zig Zagger]

Not sure, Craig.

Those wonderballs don't look like the real thing(s) to me. But if it helps pushing up sales...

In any case, this is probably the most risqué ad to appear in one of those prudent American magic magazines since the days of Melanie Kerr, isn't it?!

[Tom Pilling]

Prudish? Surely not, perish the thought.

I think it's admirable that all this unsold stock is being used in such an artistic and alluring photo opportunity.

[Pete McCabe]

I saw a gentlemen do a tribute to Thurston at the SAM convention in Boston during the 70s. He floated a large silver ball around the stage and took it into the audience, from where it floated back on stage.

I remember very clearly being mesmerized. While the ball was floating back onto the stage you could hear a pin drop in the theater. The ovation was

The longer I live, the more I think that it does not matter at all if the audience can tell afterwards how the trick is done. What matters is the experience they have at the moment it is occurring.

Few magicians agree with me.

(Five years ago I was discussing the Thurston tribute with Mike Caveney, who was there and remembers the guy's name (!). But I don't remember it now, even after he told me.)

[Max Maven]

The performer was Bernard Whitman.

[Brad Jeffers]

There are artists who could make defecating on stage in to a piece of beautiful art that an audience would clamour for

No there aren't ...

Well maybe Teller - but lets not give him any ideas.

Whilst i'm sure their zombie routines were beautiful pieces of performance i'm also quite sure that the majority of their audiences would not be "fooled" by it.

I disagree.

With Wonderball (and all thread based floating ball effects, no matter how expertly performed), it is as you said, "the core method is exactly the first explanation a lay audience would come up with".

However, with Zombie, I believe it is a different situation. When done well (Neil Foster of course being the most cited example), I don't believe a lay audience will have a clue as to the method.

[Richard Kaufman]

Zombie: ball on a stick
Other floating balls: ball on a thread

Either can be performed in a mystifying way that is magical to laymen. It depends on the performer and the presentation. Plenty of people do Zombie badly and it looks like a ball on a stick, just as many people do a floating ball on a thread badly. But they can both be done well and fool people.

[Tom Moore]

However, with Zombie, I believe it is a different situation. When done well (Neil Foster of course being the most cited example), I don't believe a lay audience will have a clue as to the method

You might believe that and i do concede it is theoretically possible but you'd be generally wrong. The Foster performance is one of the best (though that's mainly due to his mime skills rather than the magic/prop) but "that ball on a stick trick" is as much a magic cliche as "its up his sleeve" to a lay audience and if you poll audiences after they've seen the zombie performed a very significant majority will correctly identify it as the ball on a stick trick and not as the beautiful mystifying levitation most magicians seem to think it is.

As much as i hate the effect the Floating Table has at least revitalised the method and created a way for (what is essentially) the same trick to take on a new life where the method is not immediately obvious and the audience commonly aware of its methodology.

[Matthew Field]

Zombie: ball on a stick
Other floating balls: ball on a thread

Raymond Crowe's version: neither.

Matt Field

[Q. Kumber]

The longer I live, the more I think that it does not matter at all if the audience can tell afterwards how the trick is done. What matters is the experience they have at the moment it is occurring.

Few magicians agree with me.

I agree with you. If you can invoke their emotions the emotion will take over.

They may think afterwards that it must have been a thread but they still will have no idea of the actual mechanics. It is different though if they actually 'see' the thread, owing to carelessness or bad lighting.

Good routing should cancel out all possible solutions. Perhaps a re-read of Tamariz', The Magic Way is on the cards.

[JHostler]

There's such a huge difference between "looking pretty" and "invoking a deep sense of mystery and astonishment." I've been battered for suggesting this before, but 99% of floating/levitation effects - no matter how well-done - fall more into the former category than the latter. If one insists on tacking something pretty to a gig, though, I suppose they're a wiser option than the laughable dance polluting many stage shows.

This is precisely because there is only one possible method (an invisible means of support), and the exact means - a thread or "stick" - is often the first conclusion reached by the viewer. They know it. We know it. But everyone applauds politely and we move on.

Well-executed transpositions ("invisible movement") are, generally speaking, more powerful than equally well-done levitations. It would be mighty interesting to poll a few audience members after presentations of both - let's say - card-to-wallet and the floating bill...

[Travis]

This remains my favorite when it comes to Zombie presentations (the Zombie begins around the 2:40 mark, but the whole act is great).

http://youtu.be/mtbWMDRxLLY

[Brad Henderson]

Ball on thread is the obvious method for any floating thing. ball on stick is a step further. Larry Jones used to perform the Zombie for drunk adult audiences. I was always amazed by how amazed the audiences were. Larry did a good routine, very well. Not a great routine masterfully. Not to say he did it poorly, he did it well. But Larry did not have the mime/acting skills for a life changing type of masterful performance. But those people were deceived and enjoyed the trick. I think the key in larry's case was the structure of the routine - the ball did not remain on the stick but he would remove and replace it. most magicians don't. Perhaps that is a mistake which points to the method.

Sure there were some people who "knew" how it was done, but I heard 'filled with helium' a lot. Sometimes threads. Don't know if I ever heard anyone say 'ball on stick'.

When it comes to thread floats, does not the lack of visible thread serve a deceptive purpose? I remember first time a saw wonderbar. I knew about threads but how could there be one? It was inches from my face! Then when I saw Ammar do the Kennedy float on TV - omg, what witchcraft was this? That thing floated in front of him, not dangling from his mouth! I thought I was a smart magic kid but that stomped me.

point is - perhaps thread is the go to answer that has no meaning. The same as when the frat boy sitting at Esther's follies whispers 'forklift behind the curtain' to his future date rape victim as ray anderson floats a woman in the air. Doesn't matter there is a glass window and busy street behind the curtain. Just matters that he has an explanation even if it fails to explain the obvious.

here is the interesting thing from my perspective: the less interested and more interested someone is in a 'trick' the more likely they will come up with AN explanation - not always the right one. It's helium is an answer and one that will happily silence the need to know it all. but it's almost never the right answer. To get to the real answer one must care and think through the little details.

my experience is most audiences stop at the first explanation.

So how do we keep them for caring about the method??

Is it to sell the trick harder, or sell it harder but not too hard? Not sure that can be measured.

Perhaps this is where presentation comes in? does our reason for floating the ball give the audience an experience more valuable (to them) than the value of knowing how?

if the feelingful component of one's magic is more valuable to an audience than the methodological component of one's magic, it is my experience the audience will protect and even defend their feelingful experience from those who would sully it through the imposition of methodological concerns.

[erdnasephile]

Interesting points, Brad.

It sometimes seems extraordinarily difficult to get certain people off of the emphasis of method. I think it's because people are wired differently.

For example, people in certain occupations have learned how to divorce their critical faculties from their emotions. Consequently, many of them seem far less prone to having their emotions "take over" while watching magic.

For those folks, a meticulous method, including healthy doses of canceling, false solutions, and psychology would seem to be a must to deliver the magic because they probably aren't going to willfully ignore the Emperor's nakedness. While some audiences can be beat by eliminating the first solution, you have to crush the living daylights out of these guys before they cry "Uncle!" I think it's worth the effort to try to get these folks because if I fool them, the rest will probably be fooled as well.

And I think that's one of the big challenges with floating effects. Too often, the claim of the effect is too strong for the limited conviction most methods allow. For example, I think if the object you are floating could be suspended by a thread, then you potentially become subject to Carl Ballentine's famous rejoinder: "What else?" Perhaps going for subtle animation and momentary flight would be more efficacious (See: "The Animated Ring" by Jamy Swiss).

I'm not trying to promote a false dichotomy between evoking emotion and convincing methods, as they both are part of a whole. I just think that the former is not always in as reach as we think. (Do we really need to hear one more hoary presentation about someone's grandfather?) Rather, I think the skeleton of a superbly strong method that will withstand intellectual scrutiny must be in place to support the overlaying of an entertaining presentation with the appropriate level of sell, psychology, and misdirection.

The question for me is: will any methods of levitation/suspension pass this test for the most skeptical in our audiences? I can think of two: "Flying" and the "Blaney Ladder Suspension".

[Brad Henderson]

well first you are right about priorities. Think of most every magic book every written - most of the pages are about the method, the part which should concern our audiences the least.

Magicians care about the method and this perhaps seeps through in our performances - so our audiences care about it too. unfortunately.

I think we are all in agreement that for something to fall under the heading of magic as a theatrical art, there must be the simulation of the impossible and that simulation should be successful (ie deceptive).

However that, I think we would also agree, is not sufficient for being either magic (as opposed to a puzzle) or art (as opposed to not art).

The one thing about which we might disagree is how presentation plays a role. It does. But I fear (and forgive me if I am restricting your thoughts too narrowly, but it remains worth mentioning) that the dead grandfather is almost never the answer.

No, I think those ruses superficial and probably more manipulative than artful. You are conning the audience into caring. To then focus on the method is to be a jerk. "c'mon, the guy's mom is dead. Lets not mentioned the threads. that would be rude!'

no, I believe that the experience of the magical moment itself can be its own reward. There is something exhilarating when we come in contact with the impossible. It is something to be cherished.

That is the script we need to flip - by focusing on the feeling magic can produce and how wonderful it is, we can hope to do that.

People hate spoilers for shows they love. They want the ride.

But in magic we have taught our audiences, probably because of our misplaced values, that the method is more important than the ride.

This works to our and their detriment. It is an obstacle on the path of feeling. It encourages distance, not sharing.

[Brad Henderson]

and one should always keep in mind the arc of one's show. Flying as an opener wouldn't work. But after the audience has been led to a place of open minded ness, they can let go and relax into the magic.

this impacts more than just deceptive elements. Open with the sponge bunnies and you are a kiddie magician with a clever trick. Put it 3/4 way into a sleight of hand show and you are whimsical and it can become a miracle.

our audiences are alive. the magic in a magic show seldom comes from the manipulation of the boxes on stage; but the minds and hearts of the humans in the house seats.

[JHostler]

But in magic we have taught our audiences, probably because of our misplaced values, that the method is more important than the ride.

I'm not sure about this, but I am absolutely certain we've taught each other (implicitly, of course) that the method is more important.

Mystery ("being fooled") alone is rarely sufficient for artistic magical performance, but it is necessary. All the scripting, dancing, music, lighting and choreography in the world, as entertaining as it might be, simply can't instill the astonishment of the inexplicable.

[Brad Henderson]

in that we agree completely, as I wrote.

however I think we have taught not only ourselves but our audiences these misplaced values. There are people who believe the goal of magic is the game between magi and audience. Catch me if you can.

This is a confusion of craft and art. but as our instructional texts priveledge craft, as does the commercial magic for magicians retail marketplace, it is little wonder these values seep through our performances and into the mindset of the audience.

often, I have seen, it is the magicians focus on deception which ends up pointing the audience to the deception. All too often we design our work based on assumptions the lay audience may not have. We all know of tricks which fool magicians but are transparent to the audience.

Magical audiences need to be deceived. Absolutely. however, how important that element is to them results from what we show and tell them. that reflects that which is important to us. is magic merely a showcase for method, or is our goal to provide feelingful experiences using those methods?

[Jonathan Townsend]

I think of method as something which happens during the show yet is itself not supposed to be noticed by the audience. In the regular theater backstage setup for scene changing, lighting cues makeup rooms, directors, acting coaches etc.

[Pete McCabe]

…I think we have taught not only ourselves but our audiences these misplaced values.

I like Brad's thinking here because it points the way towards a solution to this common problem. We can teach our audiences—help them turn off the can-you-catch-me response and enjoy the presentation. (Step one: Have a presentation.) A little bit of this goes a long, long way.

[Jonathan Townsend]

There's a serious challenge to writing a script which when performed gives the audience a sense of how clever the script is ... and still has the drama presented working as drama. To be seen as both clever and deceptive.

What sort of character would attempt at each show to have that card appear fourth from the top yet still be surprised when the audience informs him that their card was the first one put on the table?

Try to offer them something more than "Rainman" - the bit with the matchbox is cute but ... there's gotta be a less demeaning way to come across as 'special'.

Okay back to AstroSpehere. Using a coat instead of a scarf has some merit. A pearl at great price?

[El Mystico]

Talkiing of floating...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mr0iN0pMXc

[mrgoat]

Talkiing of floating...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mr0iN0pMXc

Blimey, they spent some money on that fakery. Moby, Doc, Tony Hawk, and that CGI is good. Must have cost a fortune, but, what is it advertising?

[El Mystico]

This is all I know

http://mashable.com/2014/03/04/huvr-videos/

Still, it looks great!

[Pete McCabe]

What sort of character would attempt at each show to have that card appear fourth from the top yet still be surprised when the audience informs him that their card was the first one put on the table?

What sort of performer would give the audience the impression that what happens in this show is exactly the same as what happens in every other show? That person should read the chapter in Strong Magic about the singer in Vegas whose name escapes me.

[Jonathan Townsend]

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1669799/mit ... ating-orbs

impressive.

I'm glad there are books like Strong Magic available in the magic shop.

Right... like they all walk around with AutoTune on their cell phones