(Close Window)
Topic: P&T at America's got talent
Message: Posted by: Mikael Eriksson (Nov 27, 2007 04:21PM)
Penn & Teller performed an illusion. Then they exposed how it was done. Without any point in the end. I don't know much about them, but do they really use to do it this way?

Isn't it pointless to just expose for the sake of exposing? Because that's the impression they made.
Message: Posted by: Dave Gerin (Nov 27, 2007 07:25PM)
What illusion did they preform?
Message: Posted by: Payne (Nov 27, 2007 08:26PM)
It most likely was Blast Off as I think they perfromed that on the show if I remember right.

It's already been discussed to death on several post here on the Café over the years.

It really all boils down to "You like them or you don't", "you think they expose or you don't" and "You get what they are doing or you don't".

I happen to enjoy they're performances, other opinions will vary.
Message: Posted by: Dave Gerin (Nov 27, 2007 10:58PM)
Blast Off?
Message: Posted by: Mikael Eriksson (Nov 28, 2007 03:12AM)
This is the illusion they performed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYTmEVFL_NA

Payne, I think in this illusion there is nothing to "get". It's pure exposing just for the sake of exposing. I have seen them expose before, but it always had a twist or a point. Not this time.
Message: Posted by: Joey Stalin (Nov 28, 2007 03:29AM)
What are they exposing? That a person can slide around in a base that is 2+ feet thick? It's just more entertaining to watch Teller slide around under there.
Message: Posted by: Mikael Eriksson (Nov 28, 2007 07:10AM)
Not everyone knows ahead or understands how it's done. therefore it's exposing.
Message: Posted by: Rupert Bair (Nov 28, 2007 08:49AM)
I think its a funny routine. TRAPDOOR! The method IS better and funnier than the trick.
Message: Posted by: EddyRay (Nov 28, 2007 09:45AM)
Blast off!
Message: Posted by: Payne (Nov 28, 2007 10:40AM)
[quote]
On 2007-11-28 08:10, Mikael Eriksson wrote:
Not everyone knows ahead or understands how it's done. therefore it's exposing.
[/quote]

Look at is as the false explanation phase in Silk to Egg but done on a much larger scale :)
Message: Posted by: Mikael Eriksson (Nov 28, 2007 12:16PM)
[quote]
On 2007-11-28 11:40, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-11-28 08:10, Mikael Eriksson wrote:
Not everyone knows ahead or understands how it's done. therefore it's exposing.
[/quote]

Look at is as the false explanation phase in Silk to Egg but done on a much larger scale :)
[/quote]

In silk to egg the audience understands in the end that the trick was not done the way it was explained. That trick has a punch. Blast off has not. That's the big difference.
Message: Posted by: Dan Paulus (Nov 28, 2007 10:58PM)
Mikael,

Blast off was created by Penn & Teller for the purpose of this routine.
Never before has a magician done this trick. Nor has any routine been accomplished in this manner.

It was created for ENTERTAINMENT. PERIOD. Something far too many magicians forget about when designing their "acts".

However, P&T just love it when magicians see this and complain. It promotes their image as "The Bad Boys Of Magic", gives them free publicity, makes them more popular to the public, FREE PUBLICITY!!! Why, you were even kind enough to supply the link for those who may not have seen it these past 10 years or so.

Thank you for keeping their reputation in tact. We who LOVE P&T also LOVE those who bash them!

BLAST OFF!!! YA BABY!!! Wait until you see their Clear Cups & Balls!
Message: Posted by: Mikael Eriksson (Nov 29, 2007 05:43AM)
[quote]
On 2007-11-28 23:58, Dan Paulus wrote:
Wait until you see their Clear Cups & Balls!
[/quote]

I have seen it. It had a punch: They talked so fast when they explained how it was done that nobody could understand anything anyway. It was good. Totally different from Blast off.

If they have invented Blast off themselves, of course it's a different thing.

Well maybe it's a good idea to expose. You have given me an idea. I'm thinking about building a website where people can buy the secrets of all the latest tricks. It will make me rich. You will love that website.

Thanks
Message: Posted by: Dan Paulus (Nov 29, 2007 11:51AM)
You wont get rich at all... You Tube has beat you to that idea.

I'm afraid you're missing the point all together. P&T really don't expose anything that will hurt magic. If anything they have given magic a much needed lift. By taking attention away from tuxedo wearing magi wannabes and mindless amateurs with business cards who have as much originality as the latest soft drink that still tastes like Pepsi.

Consider this; if Penn & Teller really were just better versions of the masked magicians, wouldn’t WAM have been on their arss long time ago? And would The Magic Castle really have awarded them Magicians Of The Year? No, they would not have. And there’s a reason, they get it!
They get Penn & Teller the act. They get Penn & Teller the showmen. They even get Penn & Teller the magicians.

If you'll study P&T’s writings, see their shows, and really think about the performances, you may come to understand what I'm talking about.
Blast Off (the original questioned illusion in your post) is the perfect example. Dozens of "magicians" have freaked out over this "exposure", yet I defy you to find a single other stage illusion that works on the same principle.

Now go make your little web site. I'm sure it will be as successful than your attempt at sarcasm.
Then study Penn & Teller and become a better magician.
Message: Posted by: Hoff Man (Nov 29, 2007 01:18PM)
[quote]
On 2007-11-28 08:10, Mikael Eriksson wrote:
In silk to egg the audience understands in the end that the trick was not done the way it was explained. That trick has a punch. Blast off has not. That's the big difference.
[/quote]

Mikael,

If one could perform the false explanation of silk to egg in an equally outlandish and entertaining fashion, I doubt there would be a need to tack on a sucker ending at all. Would one really want to anyway?

Steve
Message: Posted by: Mikael Eriksson (Nov 29, 2007 01:24PM)
[quote]
On 2007-11-29 12:51, Dan Paulus wrote:
You wont get rich at all... You Tube has beat you to that idea.

I'm afraid you're missing the point all together. P&T really don't expose anything that will hurt magic. If anything they have given magic a much needed lift. By taking attention away from tuxedo wearing magi wannabes and mindless amateurs with business cards who have as much originality as the latest soft drink that still tastes like Pepsi.

Consider this; if Penn & Teller really were just better versions of the masked magicians, wouldn’t WAM have been on their arss long time ago? And would The Magic Castle really have awarded them Magicians Of The Year? No, they would not have. And there’s a reason, they get it!
They get Penn & Teller the act. They get Penn & Teller the showmen. They even get Penn & Teller the magicians.

If you'll study P&T’s writings, see their shows, and really think about the performances, you may come to understand what I'm talking about.
Blast Off (the original questioned illusion in your post) is the perfect example. Dozens of "magicians" have freaked out over this "exposure", yet I defy you to find a single other stage illusion that works on the same principle.

Now go make your little web site. I'm sure it will be as successful than your attempt at sarcasm.
Then study Penn & Teller and become a better magician.
[/quote]

I see on your number of posts that you are new to magic. You are forgiven.
Message: Posted by: Mikael Eriksson (Nov 29, 2007 01:26PM)
[quote]
On 2007-11-29 14:18, Hoff Man wrote:

Mikael,

If one could perform the false explanation of silk to egg in an equally outlandish and entertaining fashion, I doubt there would be a need to tack on a sucker ending at all. Would one really want to anyway?

Steve
[/quote]

Be careful to expose that you don't like sucker tricks... Otherwise Dan Paulus will say you "don't get it" ;)
Message: Posted by: Hoff Man (Nov 29, 2007 01:30PM)
Thanks for the heads up Mikael.
What am I supposed to get?

Steve
Message: Posted by: Mikael Eriksson (Nov 29, 2007 02:02PM)
[quote]
On 2007-11-29 14:30, Hoff Man wrote:
Thanks for the heads up Mikael.
What am I supposed to get?

Steve
[/quote]

Not sure what "heads up" means in this situation.

Dan Paulus will say you "don't get" that sucker tricks are funny if performed correctly.
Message: Posted by: Dan Paulus (Nov 29, 2007 03:26PM)
[quote]
On 2007-11-29 14:24, Mikael Eriksson wrote:
[quote]
I see on your number of posts that you are new to magic. You are forgiven.
[/quote]

Wow! What an asinine thing to say! Perhaps you should google my name or ask some more knowledgeable magicians here on the Café, or read Visions-Online, before you make such statements. You are really showing your ignorance.

Do you really consider the number of posts one makes on this or any other magic web site as to how "new to magic" that person must be? You may have the spare time to post hundreds of posts to a magic web site. I've been to busy booking shows.

This explains a lot about your grievance with P&T. Many magical hacks who can't make a living from entertaining get their ego fix by bashing those of us who do.

It's okay. "I forgive you."
Message: Posted by: Mikael Eriksson (Nov 29, 2007 03:47PM)
"asinine"? Not familiar with that word. "hacks"? Same thing here, you are very unclear.

I can say one thing though. I seldom post nowadays. And being able to make a living in entertainment doesn't say much about your quality as a magician, as I understand you believe.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Nov 29, 2007 04:29PM)
[quote]
On 2007-11-29 16:47, Mikael Eriksson wrote:
"asinine"? Not familiar with that word. "hacks"? Same thing here, you are very unclear.

I can say one thing though. I seldom post nowadays. And being able to make a living in entertainment doesn't say much about your quality as a magician, as I understand you believe.
[/quote]

If you keep digging that hole any deeper you ain't gonna have time to get that webpage built
Message: Posted by: Ray Eldard (Nov 30, 2007 12:11AM)
[quote]
On 2007-11-29 16:47, Mikael Eriksson wrote:
And being able to make a living in entertainment doesn't say much about your quality as a magician, as I understand you believe.
[/quote]

Actually, it usually does. Poor quality magicians seldom manage to eek out 20 year careers of repeat bookings that buy homes and pay all the bills like Dan has. At the very least it speaks far more to the quality of his magic than, say, posting your opinion on open forums where anyone can post their opinions. But that's not all that speaks to the quality of Dan's magic. There's and endless list of quotes from audiences that include A-list celebrities like Lisa Kudrow. Okay, there's probably an end to the list, but it's still a lot of quotes. There's original effects like Blind Luck, an effect David Regal said, "...should be in every magician's repertoire!" But mostly there's the countless number of laughing (and paying)audiences Dan has amazed and entertained. Okay, Dan could probably count them, but it's still a lot of audiences.

Hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and as Payne (another entertainer who has both amazed me while making me laugh) has stated, there have been many expressed in the Café on this same topic over the years, but as for deciding what or what's not "funny if performed correctly" you are way out of your league with Dan. Your disrespectful tone to a great comedy magician wreaks of more than a little bit of ignorance on more than just this topic.
Message: Posted by: Mikael Eriksson (Nov 30, 2007 02:28AM)
[quote]
On 2007-11-30 01:11, Ray Eldard wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-11-29 16:47, Mikael Eriksson wrote:
And being able to make a living in entertainment doesn't say much about your quality as a magician, as I understand you believe.
[/quote]

Actually, it usually does. Poor quality magicians seldom manage to eek out 20 year careers of repeat bookings that buy homes and pay all the bills like Dan has. At the very least it speaks far more to the quality of his magic than, say, posting your opinion on open forums where anyone can post their opinions. But that's not all that speaks to the quality of Dan's magic. There's and endless list of quotes from audiences that include A-list celebrities like Lisa Kudrow. Okay, there's probably an end to the list, but it's still a lot of quotes. There's original effects like Blind Luck, an effect David Regal said, "...should be in every magician's repertoire!" But mostly there's the countless number of laughing (and paying)audiences Dan has amazed and entertained. Okay, Dan could probably count them, but it's still a lot of audiences.

Hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and as Payne (another entertainer who has both amazed me while making me laugh) has stated, there have been many expressed in the Café on this same topic over the years, but as for deciding what or what's not "funny if performed correctly" you are way out of your league with Dan. Your disrespectful tone to a great comedy magician wreaks of more than a little bit of ignorance on more than just this topic.
[/quote]

If anyone is disrespectful it's Dan. I would never have used this tone if he hadn't used foul language and insinuation.

And if he had lived in a place where there is very little demand for magic, like where I live, he would have very little jobs too. Now he is lucky, not to confuse with skilled, to live in a place where there is a high demand for magic, and thus he gets most free. People who are unlucky and doesn't live in the right place, fight much much harder than he does.

His disrespect for a great childrens magician shows his true nature.

Hey, look, don't bother me any more. I'm fully occupied trying to make a living, fighting hard every day to get new customers. I'm working hard for my money, in opposite to some spoiled brat who has everything on a silver plate by living where there is high demand for magic.
Message: Posted by: EddyRay (Nov 30, 2007 07:13AM)
Blast OFF!
Message: Posted by: Payne (Nov 30, 2007 11:34AM)
[quote]
On 2007-11-30 03:28, Mikael Eriksson wrote:

Hey, look, don't bother me any more. I'm fully occupied trying to make a living, fighting hard every day to get new customers. I'm working hard for my money, in opposite to some spoiled brat who has everything on a silver plate by living where there is high demand for magic.

[/quote]

It looks like it's ti,e to order some new grapes. The ones you're eating now seem to have gone off.
Message: Posted by: Dan Paulus (Nov 30, 2007 03:40PM)
Payne,

I sent you a PM. Hope you like it!
Message: Posted by: Mikael Eriksson (Dec 1, 2007 04:46AM)
Payne,

I sent you a PM. You'll like it! :rotf:
Message: Posted by: Payne (Dec 1, 2007 03:00PM)
[quote]
On 2007-12-01 05:46, Mikael Eriksson wrote:
Payne,

I sent you a PM. You'll like it! :rotf:
[/quote]

Not as much as I liked Dan's :)
Message: Posted by: Grandillusionsmagic (Dec 1, 2007 10:30PM)
[quote]
I see on your number of posts that you are new to magic. You are forgiven.
[/quote]

WOW I guess I should search for David Copperfield here, or Jonathan Pendragon, Jeff McBride, Rick Thomas, Lance Burton, Andre Kole..... Should I continue?


If they had time to have a million posts they wouldn't be performing, on the other hand according to you, because I don't have many posts, I must be near the world’s worst performer. I hope that is not the case
Message: Posted by: Mikael Eriksson (Dec 2, 2007 03:40AM)
[quote]
On 2007-12-01 16:00, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-12-01 05:46, Mikael Eriksson wrote:
Payne,

I sent you a PM. You'll like it! :rotf:
[/quote]

Not as much as I liked Dan's :)
[/quote]

That's ok. We all know life is not fair.
Message: Posted by: Mikael Eriksson (Dec 2, 2007 05:37AM)
Grandillusionsmagic, I sent you a PM.
Message: Posted by: Dan Paulus (Dec 2, 2007 06:20PM)
[quote]
On 2007-12-01 23:30, Grandillusionsmagic wrote:
[quote]
I see on your number of posts that you are new to magic. You are forgiven.
[/quote]

WOW I guess I should search for David Copperfield here, or Jonathan Pendragon, Jeff McBride, Rick Thomas, Lance Burton, Andre Kole..... Should I continue?


If they had time to have a million posts they wouldn't be performing, on the other hand according to you, because I don't have many posts, I must be near the world’s worst performer. I hope that is not the case
[/quote]

Apparently it doesn't mean you're a BAD performer... just "new to magic"
Message: Posted by: Mikael Eriksson (Dec 3, 2007 01:43AM)
What it means is that I'm a good performer.
Message: Posted by: avimagic (Jan 3, 2008 09:28AM)
Sorry for (gasp) bringing this thread back from flamewar to original topic, but I'd like to sound off on the exposure debate here.

I'm very anti-exposure, but I really like what P&T did with this bit, for 3 reasons, 2 that were already mentioned and 1 that wasn't:

(1) As Dan Paulus said, they aren't exposing a mainstream trick that others are doing.

(2) As Matt Colman said, the revelation is more entertaining than the original performance.

And finally, (3) the one that hasn't been mentioned (which in my opinion is the most important factor of all):

Contrary to Mikael's "humble" opinion, this is more like P&T's Cups and Balls exposure (or, for that matter, Silk to Egg) than you think. Mikael wisely pointed out that the way they "explain" the Cups & Balls moves so quickly, that the lay audience might *think* they understand the trick, but when all is said and done, they could watch a decent magician perform classic C&B right in front of their faces 10 minutes later and still not catch how/when the balls magically make their way under the cups.

So, in effect, they are pretending to expose, they are satisfying the audience that they've just learned a secret of magic, but the viewers will, for the most part, never be able to apply what they've learned when they watch a subsequent performance.

Same with Blast Off.

What they've basically done with Blast Off is they've shown the audience that a person can hide in the base of an illusion. What they haven't done is gone to any great pains to make the base look thinner than it really is. The first time I saw the performance, not knowing an exposure was coming, I thought to myself, "***, that's the least deceptive 'deceptive base' I've ever seen! What idiot isn't going to be able to figure out that when whatever is about to happen happens, the person who disappeared is in the base and/or the person or people who appeared came from the base?!?"

Then, with an ingenuity you only get from Penn & Teller, they expose the "secret" of their trick. Great, so now the audience knows you can hide an assistant in a base. But I guarantee you, the next time those "newly educated" audience members see a trick using a deceptive base that is truly deceptive, they'll have no clue.

They'll be watching Hans Klok and they'll think to themselves, "Sure, Teller hid in the base of the trick I saw on AGT, but there's no room for Pamela Anderson and her tremendous rack in that one..."

Gotta vote in favor of P&T on this one.

Just my 2 1/2 cents...

Avi
Message: Posted by: organicmagician (Jan 3, 2008 12:16PM)
I like what someone said about getting Penn and Teller or not. I love them and their 'exposure' stuff is probably my favorite PT stuff. I actually vote for their versions of the lit cig vanish to music, though. Teller is so freakin' good.
Message: Posted by: Mikael Eriksson (Jan 27, 2008 02:50AM)
The strange thing is that I have not seen them do that much exposing. Maybe it's not such a big part of their repertoir.
Message: Posted by: JTW (Jan 27, 2008 11:05PM)
"Sure, Teller hid in the base of the trick I saw on AGT, but there's no room for Pamela Anderson and her tremendous rack in that one..."

Has to be one of the BEST lines I have ever read on the Café! I was going to put in a thoughtful post but I cannot compete (really who can) with Pamela's rack!

Thanks AVi!

Jason