| Go to page (Previous) 1 ~ 2 ~ 3 ~ 4 |
|
|
Ray Pierce
Inner circle
Los Angeles, CA
1636 Posts
|
Posted: Jun 28, 2011 7:18pm
Quote:
|
On 2011-06-28 13:33, Brad Burt wrote:
Ray:
Let's consider technology contextually. Robert Houdin, reportedly, was one of the first magicians to use Electro Magnets to perform some of his effects. Light/heavy box... New tech used in a manner not intended? Maybe/maybe not. Who decides?
Why would it not be legit during his era if magicians upon finding out how it was done said essentially the same thing as you vis-a-vis Angel? That is, "Hey, this is something you can't just do anywhere, anytime. It's cheating, etc."
What's interesting to me is that with Blaine you had the first magician USE the medium of T.V. for all it was worth as the medium offered. I always thought it was odd and artificial that T.V. was set aside as some kind of tech that was inviolate magically. Yep, you can use it to 'X', but then you won't be able to reproduce it live.
But, Cyril, as I've pointed out on another post, in his talk on the Essential Magic Conference has been doing the translation from what he does on T.V. over to his live show with a huge amount of success!!!
The fact that something is done on T.V. in no way means that it cannot be reproduced live. The "live" version may have to be done differently, but so what? T.V. is a medium that offers types of manipulation not found in live performance, but that's just the way tech is.
Consider the following: Folks will demand or not demand what they are willing to pay for either with their wallet or time. Looking forward I am positive that the following will happen: Magicians will come forward and more than ever make a BIG DEAL about the purity of their performance on camera! Folks will watch and decide.
I understand the problem. I really do. I grew up thinking that anything that used ANY kind of gimmick was not legit magic. Not lota bowls, not mirror boxes, not thumb tips, not nuthin'. I was a PURE sleight-of-hand guy and pretty fanatical about until I discovered that I preferred effect over method.
This stuff tips one way and then the other. Guys will do stuff on tv that they cannot reproduce live and then, as Cyril pointed out, suffer for it until they figure out HOW to do it live also, or quit doing things on camera they cannot do live.
The craft goes forward. The tech changes and offers new and different ways to offer up what we do. The market will, I believe, in the end ALWAYS shift to the live performer of magic and demand the best that that has to offer.
With the greatest respect,
|
|
What a well thought out opinion, thanks for making me think and re-evaluate my thoughts! Ultimately that's all I really have is my opinion on what I think is fair as do others. The popular shift might or might not happen with the majority of magicians, not sure.
I do understand why people cheat, whether in magic or in school... I just don't have to respect them.
If anyone had the ability to use editing and CGI, I would. Being the director of the video department of the Magic Castle for years and editing video since the early 80's, I've always known the techniques to use it to my advantage. As a matter of fact when Mike Caveny had his party every year, JNeal & I always produced fairly elaborate video each time which always included at least one "Video Trick" for the magicians present. In fact these video tricks frequently took a lot more time to set up and rig then a traditional method. Many of those ideas were also subsequently used by many others over the years.
As I've mentioned, I think it is frequently just a tool of laziness, not creativity. Yes, I've seen some very clever uses of the medium. Long before Blaine... David Copperfield was the first to really take advantage of the medium in SO many ways that most didn't realize. Very selective camera angles, frame line cheats and so on. In later years he would actually shoot segments out of sequence cinematically and edit them to look the best. He was certainly pushing what we around him thought was right but he was the big dog at the time. Franz Harary took it to a new level by using a lot of blatant cheats for his self titled Mega Illusions. He just never got that much exposure so many didn't know about it. Yes, David Blaine was the first well known magician to use a cut from a totally different time frame as part of the method of an effect and create an effect that could not have been reproduced (even on camera) in real time. Then of course we come to Criss Angel who just didn't care and cheated effects (while claiming to just document them) in such an obvious fashion that many laymen are even aware of his habit of editing with this medium. Yes Criss made a big deal about the purity of his performance and slowly... surely, people caught on and he lost a huge amount of credibility in the public eye until his name is now synonymous with video tricks. It was used as a punch line on TMZ and other shows now so I guess the public did decide.
When David Copperfield did his first few specials, he couldn't do any of that material live either. By the 3rd one, he had started getting smart and learning to perform in the real world so Cyril is certainly borrowing from the past there.
David Blaine's main contribution (or actually his producer's) was in focusing on the audience rather than the effect which was allegedly because his technique was so bad that the camera kept catching everything so they had to cover the bad shots with something! This is a rumor but I can understand it could have happened. It is similar to the Steven Spielberg situation on "Jaws" where the shark ended up looking really bad on camera so he couldn't use the long shots of it and it ended up being much better!
So here we are today!
I am certainly no purest with using gaffed apparatus for effects. I might have a personal preference for using a straight deck for my own satisfaction but for shows, it's not necessary to restrict myself to that.
I also have no complaint with using new technology to accomplish an effect. Danny Cole used a technology in his magazine that not too many people knew about at the time and it was great! I gave him a lot of credit for coming up with a way of fitting it into the act. It wasn't a cop out or an easy cheat. In fact it took a lot more time than a simpler method might have but he was pushing technology and I admire him for that.
Now let's look at Criss Angel... lol.. if we have to. Is he pushing technology as Robert Houdin? Hardly. He's simply using the same tired editing techniques that film makers have been doing for the last few decades. The exception would be the CGI effects where he completely fabricates methods that don't exist until the computer creates them, but again, hardly cutting edge. It's the same work that is being done on even the most basic studio films now. Nothing earth shaking, cutting edge or really creative in any way. Look at virtually any James Cameron film if you want to see someone pushing the envelope of creativity and technology.
Now if Robert Houdin hadn't used the technology live, or maybe he just paid someone to go inside a tent and come out describing what allegedly happened inside (replete with profanity for effect) ... I might have a different opinion of him for in fact, isn't that what Criss Angel is effectively doing at times? Just paying people to vouch for what he was supposed to have done? As I've mentioned, I could do any effect in the world by just hiring people to say it really happened then using CGI to accomplish it. Anyone could. It requires no real discernable talent of creativity. That is my main disappointment with people that resort to that... it's not creative or clever, just lazy and sad.
I don't believe television is some pure sacrosanct medium as it has proven in tons of theatrical films and shows. On the other hand, when you are using it to supposedly document a live occurrence that you couldn't get to... there are basic rules you follow. Anyone that remembers the classic James L. Brooks film "Broadcast News" will remember the moment when the William Hurt character used an insert shot of him crying that he took after the fact to emotionally manipulate a news interview.
Magicians that cheat the medium attempt to follow those documentary rules of conduct to create the perception that they are being fair to the home viewer and that if you were watching it there, you would have seen the exact same thing. In fact nothing could be further from the truth. Criss Angel's Mid-Air Motorcycle vanish is a glaring example.
Remember, It's not about using technology, it's about misusing it as a lazy alternative to being creative and actually practicing.
I LOVE technology yet so many times the technology ends up being misused and the magic suffers. There are some companies that make these really great electronic magic toys that sell like hot cakes because they know us geeky magician love cool methods! Sadly, the effects end up feeling mechanical in some way and not the organic feel they should have to fool laymen. It doesn't matter... we love how they work and we fool ourselves into thinking its good due to how much we spent on it!
Yes, The craft goes forward and as much as I am a total tech geek in my life, my magic usually goes back to the most low tech options as I think it actually fools people more and that ultimately is what matters the most to me.
Respectfuly,
Ray
Ray Pierce
www.HollywoodAerialArts.com
|
Brad Burt
Inner circle
2412 Posts
|
Posted: Jun 28, 2011 8:17pm
Ray:
Thanks for the excellent response. I honestly do not believe that you and I disagree all that much..if at all. Would I prefer that magic on tv be ... what? ... natural? fair? We can't say ungimmicked or ungaffed as that would disallow virtually all modern stage illusions. What then: ONLY routines that could be done both on tv and off? That's really what the discussion is about and it's the basic question.
Consider the following idea though: Yep, some, may many items performed on tv and not 'fair', but consider that that very unfairness has in fact pushed magic forward quite a bit. I reference Cyril's noting that yes, folks wanted to see the tv stuff and it forced him to come up with 'fair' method of doing same. I thought that was pretty cool.
Magic is in such a state of flux that is amazes me and I've been in the business in one manner or another for 40 years. I love it. I even love some of that warts.
Now, let, me again very respectfully pose the following for opinion. Let us say the some time in the future it was possible for someone to walk out on stage and have all the magic performed "live" to in actuality be done via Laser Holograms? Real person there on stage, but he or she is surrounded by Holo's allowing the magician to do things that you just couldn't do any other way. And....he could do them on tv, live, etc.
I love magic history and having been in the business of selling teaching and selling magic for so long one of the things that I noticed was that magicians are early adopters of whatever comes along, particularly technology of one kind or another. Find a dangerous, horribly poisonous chemical and if it can produce a cool magic effect magicians will use it without reservation. I am thinking for instance of the old 'heat' trick that uses bi-chloride of mercury and aluminum foil. The chemical is one of the 10 or so most poisonous substances known, but was sold for years to everyone from children on up as a magic trick!
Magicians will eventually use any tech offered to perform magic of one kind or another. I'll even go with the concept that what has happened with magic on tv is a kind of degradation, but ..... I'm ambivalent about it all.
Anyway, an excellent discussion that I believe cuts right at the marrow of where and how magic is going into the future. Interested in your thoughts on the holo scenario above.
All very best,
Brad Burt
Brad Burt's Magic Shop Online
www.bradburtsmagicshop.com
Brad Burt's Private Lesson Teaching DVDS:
http://www.nexternal.com/bburt/Category18
|
Ray Pierce
Inner circle
Los Angeles, CA
1636 Posts
|
Posted: Jun 28, 2011 9:11pm
Some really interesting points! I think in the case of shows that have the appearance of "documenting" a live event with the validation of unbiased spectators as our emissaries, yes, it should be the same if we were standing where those people representing us were.
I will also grant that there have been cases of "not being fair" pushing magic forward but my hypothesis is that those cases are more rare and the greater number of cases have just the opposite effect of pulling magic backwards in a negative fashion. Cyril is in fact a good example of someone that is coming up with brilliant creative uses of the medium as he is a great magical thinker. Contrast that with Criss Angel who it seems just ran out of production time and/or money, so cut corners and "faked it".
Yes, I'm coming up on 46 years of it myself and I love it just as much as ever. I also find some idiots in each generation that I abhor who seem to be destroying the art I love. lol... part of the deal!
I love the hologram example...and yes, that time might come! Again, I would give him credit for being a great technical thinker, possibly even a great and charismatic performer... but just not a great magician. James Cameron creates amazing "illusions" (as something that occurs in the mind) in his films but is he a magician? Some could call him that but I feel that it's technically a misnomer. For me... a real magician does the real thing in the hands in front of real spectators.
I do believe that magicians are early adopters of technology as they are always looking for the next cool thing to fool someone with. This was particularly true a hundred or more years ago when the top entertainment was done live and the touring magicians were at the top of the field. The leading innovations always go to where the most money is. That use to be magic. Now it's films. It's the same with music. When symphonies were the huge draw for people, the great composers would write for them. Where are all of our classical composers now? They are writing scores for films as that is where the top money is.
For that reason, I don't believe magicians will typically have the financial means to be true innovators with any sophisticated technology unlike our predecessors... but some will certainly be there to pick up last years film technology (CGI, Editng) to try and use for ourselves.
Yes, magicians will use any technology offered to them because as you know... we largely grew up from a group of insecure, shy and misunderstood nerds yearning for some attention from the cool kids. That's what magic gave us. Yes, some of us outgrew that and some are still the same, just older. Only by acknowledging our past truth can we understand our present and hope for positive evolvement towards our future.
Ok, let's make it really simple. My basic feeling on this whole issue is ... how do you think the audience would feel if they found out how you did something? Would they respect you or would they feel cheated?
JNeal once told me "Talent never suffers by exposure". I feel like I could do a lecture and explain every effect I do... then go back and do them again and the audience would be just as impressed. They might not be fooled, but they would respect either the talent, work or cleverness that I brought to them. When people find out how some of the "TV Boys" actually accomplish something, it becomes a joke. That is my defining point.
lol... or then again, I might change my mind tomorrow!
Ray Pierce
www.HollywoodAerialArts.com
|
Sean Giles
Inner circle
Cambridge/ UK
1930 Posts
|
Posted: Jun 29, 2011 2:32am
Hi
Could someone point out where Criss Angel has used CGI in his effects please?
I'm not asking this as a challenge because I beleive he doesn't. I'm just interested to know where he's doing it.
thanks
Sean
|
Pakar Ilusi
Inner circle
4637 Posts
|
Posted: Jun 29, 2011 2:48am
Quote:
|
On 2011-06-29 02:32, seangiles wrote:
Hi
Could someone point out where Criss Angel has used CGI in his effects please?
I'm not asking this as a challenge because I beleive he doesn't. I'm just interested to know where he's doing it.
thanks
Sean
|
|
Go through two of Ray Pierce's post just before yours, he mentioned at least one. 
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
Ray Pierce
Inner circle
Los Angeles, CA
1636 Posts
|
Posted: Jun 29, 2011 2:56am
I think you might be surprised at just how much digital manipulation went on for his shows. To start with, I would guess... digital wire removal for his levitation between the two buildings, His matte work/composition for the mid air vanish of a car going off a cliff into a cloud of smoke, digital paint box and matte work for his mid air motorcycle vanish, etc. I would have to look at each show to pick them out but that is a start just from memory.
Keep in mind I'm counting CGI as anything other than cheating with basic editing. Any matte work or motion tracking and/or rotoscoping in Aftereffects I would count as CGI as it is more advanced than just cutting in other footage or editing out bad shots.
Ray Pierce
www.HollywoodAerialArts.com
|
Sean Giles
Inner circle
Cambridge/ UK
1930 Posts
|
Posted: Jun 29, 2011 4:46am
Thanks Ray, cutting and editing footage I can live with but matting shots is just plain wrong!
|
Ray Pierce
Inner circle
Los Angeles, CA
1636 Posts
|
Posted: Jun 29, 2011 1:24pm
Lol... Sean, I had trouble reading your post as the sarcasm kept dripping off the page obscuring the print. ;-) I do understand your POV. We all have to draw our own line and be judged accordingly. I know where I'm willing to draw mine. We know where Criss draws his, as does a lot of the public. I'm still pretty happy with my decision!
Ray Pierce
www.HollywoodAerialArts.com
|
Ray Pierce
Inner circle
Los Angeles, CA
1636 Posts
|
Posted: Jun 29, 2011 4:50pm
And for those of you that don't understand what is posssible with CGI... here is a fun non magic example!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW5yWUKDMpg&feature=player_embedded
Ray Pierce
www.HollywoodAerialArts.com
|
Brad Burt
Inner circle
2412 Posts
|
Posted: Jun 29, 2011 4:59pm
Wow...hmmmm...wow! You watch movies that use this tech, but ... it's almost more punchy when you see it abstracted like this. Very cool.
Brad Burt
Brad Burt's Magic Shop Online
www.bradburtsmagicshop.com
Brad Burt's Private Lesson Teaching DVDS:
http://www.nexternal.com/bburt/Category18
|
Pakar Ilusi
Inner circle
4637 Posts
|
Posted: Jun 29, 2011 5:17pm
Nice to see it explained that clearly.
Thanks Ray... 
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
gdw
Inner circle
4428 Posts
|
Posted: Jun 30, 2011 4:49pm
I actually kind of consider it a rule that magic be presented on tv with no "camera tricks."
I also consider the, in film, and visual art, consider the "rule of thirds" to be a rule.
March 22, 2011, our beautiful baby girl, Evelyn, was born.
It's a brave new world, get with it, or get out of the way.
Man has evolved, "god" is extinct.
I won't forget you Robert.
|
JNeal
Special user
784 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 1, 2011 4:33pm
On 2011-06-28 21:11, Ray Pierce wrote:
"JNeal once told me "Talent never suffers by exposure".
Wow!? did I really say that?! I was clever once.
I think I was quoting or paraphrasing something Henry Hay wrote about in the "Amateur Magician's Handbook" that SKILL never suffers by exposure.; Ie; the methods of Downs and Cardini can be as impressive to laymen (if not more so) than the effect.
In any case... it is germane to the conversation here and thanks for remembering it.
By the way, while this may appear to be an academic discussion amongst peers, I am confronted with this almost weekly on Cruise ships by Laymen who want to know if what Blaine or Angel does..."is real"? I interpret the question to reflect the intuitive or subliminal skepticism of the lay community to 'video performers'. They are asking...because they just sense something is 'wrong'.
Regards-JNeal
|
Brad Burt
Inner circle
2412 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 1, 2011 8:16pm
I'm not so sure that that's it. When the first Blaine special aired my magic shop was still open in San Diego. I thoroughly enjoyed it. The next day and for some days following it was a revelation .... The first call I received that following morning was from a young guy at M.I.T. Yep, THAT M.I.T. He said, hello, I'm a graduate student in Physics at M.I.T., etc., etc. He then said in all seriousness, "I saw that David Blaine guy work last night and ... I think that he's real, right?" I talked to him for a while. He was totally convinced that Blaine had REAL MAGIC POWERS/Psychic Powers....he conflated the two.
I was somewhat at a loss for words. Without giving anything away I essentially said, no.
But, this happened over and over again over the next few weeks. Highly intelligent folks REALLY thought that David was the real deal.
I had theorized many years before that the first magician to take all the built up capital of "honesty" that had accrued over the years and actually USE what amounts to camera tricks would be a huge hit. I think I was right. At least it seemed so to me talking to folks afterward!
People didn't so much seem to sense something 'wrong' as they were convinced that they were seeing something 'right', that is that minds could be read and people could actually levitate!
Best,
Brad Burt
Brad Burt's Magic Shop Online
www.bradburtsmagicshop.com
Brad Burt's Private Lesson Teaching DVDS:
http://www.nexternal.com/bburt/Category18
|
mightydog
Regular user
Michigan now living in the Florida panha
156 Posts
|
Posted: Dec 8, 2011 8:46pm
Quote:
|
On 2011-06-07 12:38, Pete Biro wrote:
You can't always see the people in the audience well due to lighting. I was performing a benefit for the military and asked a guy to come on stage. When he got up to me he had no hands and acting quickly, having been in the military myself said, "OK, we'll need to use the buddy system, call one of your buddies to help. He did and we had a great time, he later thanked me for involving him in the show.
|
|
Posted: Jun 7, 2011 12:30pm
Quote:
You are so far off it is silly. The stooges and audience plants are to ensure the same show with the same results each time. It does not mean he can't do it, it means he knows it works and likes that result.
Well that covers anything I can think of in the "this is not magic" category.
Quote:
Just recently, I asked a child to come up and help me to cut some rope. Guess what, he had his arm in a cast. He could not cut the rope, but he wanted to be on stage. Why do this when people are paying big money to see a good entertaining show. Performers have a obligation to deliver what people pay to see.
Curious as to why you would call up a guy with his arm in a cast.
Yes performers have an obligation to deliver what people pay to see and it could be argued that they didn't come to see stooges or camera tricks.
You are correct, they did not come to see stooges or camera tricks. ...Nor did they come to see thumb tips or black threads or pulls. They came to see the effect. How the effect is done whether using stooges, camera tricks sleight-0f-hand etc or what have you is not important really, just the effect and its presentation.
Illusion and magic is the same, if it was possible to achieve the impossible by genuine powers then it wouldn’t be impossible and therefore it wouldn’t be magic. That’s why magic is an art; the art of creating the illusion of the impossible.
Raphael Benatar
mightydog
David
|
magic4545
Special user
Jimmy Fingers
867 Posts
|
Posted: Dec 9, 2011 6:43am
Quote:
|
On 2011-06-17 22:04, motivationalmagic wrote:
Pakar, I absolutely agree with you 100%.
You raised some great points!
|
|
Me, too, Pakar. Continue to be brave enough to speak out in the face of online youtube magicians who wouldn't know higher art if it bit them. These things are eroding our art.
But go ahead. Kumbaya our art into oblivion.
Lapping the same as stooging and preshow? Because they're both tools?
This lack of an ability to discern shows me exactly why most of magic is going the direction that it's going.
Jimmy Fingers
|
Pakar Ilusi
Inner circle
4637 Posts
|
Posted: Dec 9, 2011 3:11pm
Quote:
|
On 2011-12-09 06:43, magic4545 wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-06-17 22:04, motivationalmagic wrote:
Pakar, I absolutely agree with you 100%.
You raised some great points!
|
|
Me, too, Pakar. Continue to be brave enough to speak out in the face of online youtube magicians who wouldn't know higher art if it bit them. These things are eroding our art.
But go ahead. Kumbaya our art into oblivion.
Lapping the same as stooging and preshow? Because they're both tools?
This lack of an ability to discern shows me exactly why most of magic is going the direction that it's going.
Jimmy Fingers
|
|
Thanks Jimmy, appreciate the support.
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
The Burnaby Kid
Inner circle
GwangJu, South Korea
2720 Posts
|
Posted: Dec 9, 2011 4:26pm
Anybody saddened by television tricks really needs to get out there and perform more often. Seriously, every time you show somebody a good, strong trick right to their face, that'll be an event that gets imprinted in their memory permanently, and it'll have a special place in their heart because it happened directly for them.
You're worried you can't compete with television tricks? That's backwards. Television tricks can't compete with you.
|
Pakar Ilusi
Inner circle
4637 Posts
|
Posted: Dec 9, 2011 4:44pm
Quote:
|
On 2011-12-09 16:26, Andrew Musgrave wrote:
Anybody saddened by television tricks really needs to get out there and perform more often. Seriously, every time you show somebody a good, strong trick right to their face, that'll be an event that gets imprinted in their memory permanently, and it'll have a special place in their heart because it happened directly for them.
You're worried you can't compete with television tricks? That's backwards. Television tricks can't compete with you.
|
|
I agree. Nothing beats live performances.
I'm not worried.
I am saddened.
I thought Cyril was NOT using "creative" editing.
Anyway, that is good advice you gave. 
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
magic4545
Special user
Jimmy Fingers
867 Posts
|
Posted: Dec 9, 2011 6:56pm
Andrew is right. Now, great magic can ONLY be done live, in my opinion. We need to turn this into a positive, and make live performance even more appealing and vital.
|
Brad Burt
Inner circle
2412 Posts
|
Posted: Dec 9, 2011 8:17pm
Andrew makes a great and powerful point. When I was actively performing there were numerous times when folks said, in effect, "Wow, that's better than what I saw so and so do on tv." Television is fine, but the power of live performance, especially of magic is hard to beat.
Brad Burt
Brad Burt's Magic Shop Online
www.bradburtsmagicshop.com
Brad Burt's Private Lesson Teaching DVDS:
http://www.nexternal.com/bburt/Category18
|
tommy
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
13338 Posts
|
Posted: Dec 9, 2011 8:55pm
I am old enough to remember the days when a TV was magic and camera tricks were miracles.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy
|
movemonkey
Regular user
Detroit, USA
129 Posts
|
Posted: Mar 11, 2012 9:53am
Don't go wrong with TV
TV producers are the ones who decide what kind of tricks they want to see... not Cyril himself.
and Cyril only uses clever editing at rare moments, most of his material is performable live at the right angle (I mean the endless bare handed coin production, or the table ending of Dean Dill's explosion)
|
wizardpa
Special user
The New Orleans area
739 Posts
|
Posted: Mar 16, 2012 10:56am
I DO NOT LIKE STOOGES, OR CAMERA TRICKERY, PERIOD. I hate it when some kid comes up to me asking me if I can do something like what Chris Angel does, and I know it was just camera trickery, or him using a stooge.
|
critter
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2334 Posts
|
Posted: Mar 16, 2012 12:42pm
It's interesting that many of the arguments against television editing have to do with the same reasons I used to dislike stage magic.
I can't duplicate huge Copperfield and Lance Burton effects on the fly. It requires a whole special set-up, and in some cases a specially made theater, to do these big effects.
But I've come to appreciate that Lance Burton is still an amazing magician. I still prefer his torn & restored newspaper over his flying Corvette though.
I still hate camera tricks as much as the next guy, just thinking out "loud."
I throw stuff.
Follow Critter on Twitter: @Critterdun
Ichi-go ichi-e
"Courtesy is as much a mark of a gentleman as courage."
-Theodore Roosevelt
|
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » I am saddened to find out that even Cyril Takayama uses stooges and camera trickery... |
|
|
| Go to page (Previous) 1 ~ 2 ~ 3 ~ 4 |
|
