(Close Window)
Topic: P & T's "Fool us", fools no one! They did it again!
Message: Posted by: TSW (Aug 7, 2014 07:33PM)
Is anyone else tee'd-off at this?

https://tv.yahoo.com/video/penn-teller-reveal-famous-magic-061244687.html

All for the sake of "upping" the ante on one illusion?

How many other illusions that use a beveled base now risk exposure?
Message: Posted by: RCP (Aug 8, 2014 05:30AM)
LOVE p&t.
Message: Posted by: Dave Le Fevre (Aug 8, 2014 08:07AM)
They are rather too fond of exposure, aren't they? In [I]Fool Us[/I] they would sometimes say that they knew the method and would have a quiet word with the performer. But sometimes they'd announce the entire method to everybody. Quite unnecessary, and I found it distasteful and malicious.

Dave
Message: Posted by: MGordonB (Aug 8, 2014 07:41PM)
I'm not sure they "expose" things exactly, they say they do, and it looks like they do, but they often seem to hold something back. In any case the things they have exposed haven't really ruined things for other magicians. Take the cups and balls for instance, the "exposed" part of their routine is done so fast that even though you know how it works you don't really pick up on all the moves they make.
Message: Posted by: TSW (Aug 8, 2014 08:08PM)
MGordonB,

They cut a cross-section of a beveled base and pulled it apart showing the interior. Now, granted what you're looking at in the interior is not what you think it is, but they still explain why a beveled base is deceptive and how it hides an assistant. I don't believe anyone who saw it will look at a beveled base the same way again. Perhaps you and I knew it was not as thin as it appeared but now it has, to a great extent, been compromised.
Message: Posted by: ZachDavenport (Aug 8, 2014 09:27PM)
People complain about their exposure, but they have been doing it for decades, and it has not hurt anyone. It is not right, but most spectators don't care enough for it to matter. What annoys me about this trick is the lack of closure. She disappears, but then is just gone. No reappearance.
Message: Posted by: Tom Jorgenson (Aug 8, 2014 10:56PM)
I dislike being thrown under the bus for their transient whims. It's not their call.
Message: Posted by: jay leslie (Aug 8, 2014 11:45PM)
Just saw a mentalist with a bank night envelope effect and PT said "We think you're hiding another envelope that you secretly slide into the last envelope"

If that isn't making money through exposure, what is? This is different then people investing time and energy to learn something.
The audience would not normally learn these secrets on their own.
Message: Posted by: magicwatcher2005 (Aug 9, 2014 01:25PM)
Much ado about nothing. As Jim Steinmeyer so astutely notes, "Magicians are guarding an empty safe." If anything, the Penn and Teller trick leads lay people AWAY from suspecting bevel bases - which, by the way, is an antiquated "secret" for those of still stuck in the millennium before this one. After all, the end result of this routine is that the audience will have forgotten all about the supposed "secret" that "other magicians" use, dwelling instead on the impossibility of the live assistant actually being grotesquely cut in half.

The bevel base they "expose" is so poorly made and immediately obvious to ANY casual viewer that all you "magicians" who are so worried about it somehow ruing YOUR magic ought to be ashamed of yourselves. In fact, if this exact prop had been used in a traditional performance by some hack on Youtube, I'll bet the same group of you posting here would have ridiculed [i]that[/i] performance AND the performer. In other words, if you think this prop could have fooled [i]anyone[/i] (had it been performed in the traditional manner) then you are clearly out of touch with the intelligence found in today's audiences.

Besides, a bevel base is NOT the real secret to a good thin-model [i]Sawing in Half[/i]; in fact, it's not even necessary and is rarely found in any well-made contemporary version of that effect. Take a look at any GOOD version and you'd have a hard time arguing that this "exposure" has hurt anything at all. It's like they "exposed" that Copperfield's flying illusion was all done with giant electromagnets - nothing worse than that.

.
Message: Posted by: magicwatcher2005 (Aug 9, 2014 01:43PM)
Oh yeah, one other thing - how come none of you are up in arms against Kevin James and Ed Alonzo? They ALSO have exposed sawing-in-half in [i]this[/i] public performance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vohu-jmyPqU Surely this is as bad as Penn and Teller's routine - or even WORSE! Maybe we should start a petition or something...

.
Message: Posted by: TheRaven (Aug 10, 2014 07:49AM)
If you didn't know the secret already, you would assume P&T were throwing you a red hearing with the thick table explanation.
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (Aug 10, 2014 08:08AM)
This looks like well motivated exposure to me. Magician's often make this kind of call. In Paul Daniel's ring routine he says "Magic shops sell a set of rings where one of them has a gap, but these are professional rings with no gap". Almost any one doing ambitious card will show that the card isn't "already on top". Magician's doing a levitation pass a hoop over the girl to show that there are no wires. Etc Etc.
Message: Posted by: Dave Le Fevre (Aug 10, 2014 09:00AM)
[quote]On Aug 10, 2014, MeetMagicMike wrote:
well motivated exposure[/quote]
I know what you mean, but that reads like an oxymoron. Like [I]a caring and thoughtful smack in the teeth[/I].

Dave
Message: Posted by: Jerskin (Aug 10, 2014 03:15PM)
I love the show.
Message: Posted by: bowers (Aug 10, 2014 04:50PM)
Me Too.
Message: Posted by: TSW (Aug 10, 2014 05:12PM)
I like the show. I don't like the exposure.

If we're guarding an empty safe, why does Steinmeyer both to patent his illusions? Answer; because the secret has value. It's the same with P & T. They make money from the secret and in this case exposing an element of the secret. If they safe is empty, why did Teller litigate and win the case against Gerard Bakardy for the creation rights to his rose and shadow illusion? Answer; because it has value. If secrets have no value, why aren't illusion plans sold for the price of the printing plus a reasonable profit margin.

Why, after you buy the trick can't you return it to the dealer if doesn't fit your style. Answer; because you're also buying the secret.

The "empty safe" analogy works for those who have already removed their money from the safe!
Message: Posted by: Atom3339 (Aug 10, 2014 07:49PM)
^ Right on, TSW!

:applause:
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (Aug 10, 2014 09:21PM)
[quote]Quote:
On Aug 10, 2014, MeetMagicMike wrote:
well motivated exposure

I know what you mean, but that reads like an oxymoron. Like a caring and thoughtful smack in the teeth.

Dave
The Ozzy Osbourne of the 34x27[/quote]

I agree "Well motivated exposure" sound like an oxymoron. I was actually struggling for something like "Well motivated and Not-too-harmful-when-compared-to-it's value" but that was too long.

I'm often on the against exposure side of these discussions but I have seen more and more examples of the kind of justified exposure that I gave examples of. Each magician must make this call and no matter what he decides he is going to "ruin" some other magician's big trick.

What if a magician makes a point of rolling up his sleeves before doing a coin routine? Is he exposing sleeving? David Roth does this and he comments "sleeves rolled up". He has made a calculation that a certain percentage of his audience think coins go up the sleeve. Some would say that he is throwing his fellow magicians under the bus by even hinting at this idea. On the other hand I believe that sleeving has become so well known over the years that it is considered a cliche among non-magicians and it is a good idea to point out that you are not doing that.

When I do my rope routine I ask the audience to examine the rope and make sure there are no magnets or velcro and that the rope is not stretchy. I really can't deny that this is exposure but I believe it is well motivated not to harmful for it's value exposure. I'm sure some magician's who use magnets will disagree with my call. I'm also sure that some magician's who use magnets will STILL fool their audiences even after I have clued them in to the idea of magnets.

My general rule would be that exposure is bad when it is only exposure. For a moment on the Penn and Teller clip I was appalled to think they were simply exposing the workings of an illusion with no magical end result.
Message: Posted by: cheesewrestler (Aug 10, 2014 09:38PM)
[quote]On Aug 10, 2014, MeetMagicMike wrote:


What if a magician makes a point of rolling up his sleeves before doing a coin routine? Is he exposing sleeving?

[/quote]

No, he's rolling up his sleeves because approximately 100% of non-magician spectators have a vague idea that "It's up his sleeve!" explains every possible magic effect.
Message: Posted by: magicwatcher2005 (Aug 11, 2014 01:43AM)
[quote]On Aug 10, 2014, TSW wrote:
I like the show. I don't like the exposure.

If we're guarding an empty safe, why does Steinmeyer both to patent his illusions? Answer; because the secret has value. [...][/quote]

Um, actually the answer there are two answers - neither of which you got right. Yes, the secret definitely "has value", but not the way YOU mean it. It's value is as commercially viable intellectual property, NOT simply because it is unknown (secret). If he wanted to keep it unknown he wouldn't patent it in the first place, since anyone who reads an understands a patent is legally entitled to build the patented item FOR THEIR OWN USE. The monopoly granted to the inventor by the US Patent Office simply prevents others from legally SELLING an item using the patented technology (without the inventor's permission).

That covers the SOLE reason Steinmeyer has patented some inventions under a "utility patent". Others ([i]Origami[/i], for example) he has only claim under the DESIGN PATENT designation, which does NOT protect anything to do with the "secret" to the trick.

.

.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Aug 11, 2014 09:05AM)
Maybe we all should create a YouTube channel exposing the latest and greatest effects that we currently own! That will further our craft by forcing creators to be more innovative!

I don't get the idiots that think exposing methods are making our craft better. If you really do think it does, please give me 5 minutes to speak to you spectators about some various methods we use. I promise your impact will lessen and will make it to where they are wanting to catch your 'move' rather than be entertained. If you think not, please let me know the next time your'e in Colorado and I'd be happy to contribute to this experiment. And yes, this would be temporarily exposing things. We should record it too for further analysis!
Message: Posted by: Dave Le Fevre (Aug 11, 2014 11:16AM)
[quote]On Aug 11, 2014, cheesewrestler wrote:
he's rolling up his sleeves because approximately 100% of non-magician spectators have a vague idea that "It's up his sleeve!" explains every possible magic effect. [/quote]
Very true. I've had spectators comment [i]"and you even had your sleeves rolled up!"[/i], regarding effects in which sleeving would have been completely irrelevant.

So I roll my sleeves up, it makes them happy, and their reaction to the lack of sleeving makes me smile.

Dave
Message: Posted by: magicwatcher2005 (Aug 11, 2014 12:31PM)
Simply put, anyone who thinks the Penn & Teller "exposure" of Sawing a Lady in Half in any way diminished a GOOD performance of the real thing is over reacting. Here is a skillful performance of the routine, using a properly made prop:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Nr_7Z1mWPY

An audience could watch [only] the "exposure" part of P&T's act, and then watch the above performance and still be completely fooled and amazed. In fact, the P&T prop [and "exposure" sequence] would actually be a great lead-in to the Ferguson/Alonzo performance - much the way P&T did it. You know, "this is how the hacks do it, but now you get to see what REAL magic looks like"...

.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Aug 11, 2014 03:06PM)
You don't get it, skillful or not, the audience will think that they already know how it's done due to getting what they consider the 'solution' to the now 'puzzle'. Why take the magic out it, why make it a puzzle? Why expose one of the inner workings? Why have them whisper to their neighbor the workings only to diminish the performance in that persons eyes? Why why why? I haven't read one good argument for exposure, all have been excuses. Please take my offer above, I'd be happy to oblige :)
Message: Posted by: Montana76 (Aug 12, 2014 08:11AM)
Penn and Teller has done more for magic than most here can dream of doing in a lifetime of trying. As previously mentioned: "we are guarding an empty safe". The magic is in the way we perform it; not the secret.

I know how David Copperfield flies. But not _how_. And I think it is mindblowing.

And people getting upset about ID exposure should pick up their Tarbell and find more material! It's presumptious to think you can rely on ONE gimmick for so many years...
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Aug 12, 2014 08:56AM)
And it's presumptuous to think that one should have to give up a staple in ones repertoire due to someone's selfishness. Please please please let me talk to your spectators before your next performance, it'll elevate everything!

And you don't mind your specs knowing the secret of your effects? That has to be one of the most idiotic statements I've read in the past few years....
Message: Posted by: Montana76 (Aug 12, 2014 08:58AM)
That is not what I am talking about. Please do not misunderstand me on purpose.
Message: Posted by: magicwatcher2005 (Aug 12, 2014 01:46PM)
[quote]On Aug 11, 2014, lunatik wrote:
You don't get it, skillful or not, the audience will think that they already know how it's done due to getting what they consider the 'solution' to the now 'puzzle'. Why take the magic out it, why make it a puzzle? Why expose one of the inner workings? Why have them whisper to their neighbor the workings only to diminish the performance in that persons eyes? [...][/quote]

[b]You're[/b] the one who doesn't get it. The supposed method P and T "exposed" for [i]Sawing in Half[/i] hasn't been used by magicians for almost a century! AND that "method" has been exposed so many times it's considered a joke by virtually all knowledgeable magicians - which may explain why SOME still think it's exposure.

Having them "[i]whisper to their neighbor the workings[/i]" can only embarrass that all-knowing audience member when, a few seconds later, the magician cleanly separates the two halves. Even if a viewer paid VERY close attention to P and T's "exposure" of how the "other guys do it" that viewer's "understanding" would be shattered when what he thinks is the secret method is instantly debunked in his face.

The only "exposure" you can legitimately whine about is P and T using the phrase "wedge base" and their explaining what that is in the most vague terms possible. But what they show is NOT a true wedge base, and every decent thin model sawing has a wedge that is virtually undetectable - unlike that massive hunk of junk P and T INTENTIONALLY showed to be completely obvious (and not at all deceptive).

The P and T routine was actually far less genuine exposure than virtually EVERY version of "[i]Backstage With a Magician[/i]" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7BMrHkV5fM ). Even Bill Malone commenting that he tried to get his finger into a deck [of cards] on top of a spectator's selection is more "exposure" than the P and T sawing.

The P and T routine was clever, funny, and ultimately presented an illusion that left the audience with no clue how it was done. They discredit various "methods" that other magicians supposedly use, but those methods are SO obvious the audience would have to be stupid to be fooled by them.

However, it's quite clear that you desperately want to - perhaps even NEED to - rail against them for the mere hint of supposed "secret" methods. Before you waste more of your time doing that, I'd like to direct your energy toward some REAL exposure - and this guy actually DOES expose methods currently used by thousands of magicians around the globe. I refer, of course, to Michael Ammar, with his scandalous and harmful "[i]Shadow Coins[/i]":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdYWuhdUvwo

In that highly unethical routine, Ammar exposes fake coins, trapdoors, coins with rubber bands, coin gimmicks, mirrors, use of extra coins, sticky stuff, mechanical holdouts, and sleeving.

So quit wasting your time on Penn and Teller; go after the REAL villain of exposure - Michal Ammar!


.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Aug 12, 2014 03:32PM)
How can you rail against him? He's doing exactly what p and t is. No one has given 1 good reason to expose a secret...
Message: Posted by: magicwatcher2005 (Aug 12, 2014 04:44PM)
[quote]On Aug 12, 2014, lunatik wrote:
How can you rail against him? He's doing exactly what p and t is. No one has given 1 good reason to expose a secret... [/quote]

At this point I can only hope you're being intentionally obtuse because you finally realize you're wrong. Neither Penn and Teller NOR Michael Ammar are "exposing" anything. Whatever exposure you think is occurring exists only in your mind.

.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Aug 12, 2014 08:21PM)
And neither was the masked magician, eh ?

At what point do you draw the line? And when can I crash one of your performances? Oh wait, THAT'S DIFFERENT!
Message: Posted by: magicwatcher2005 (Aug 12, 2014 09:43PM)
[quote]On Aug 12, 2014, lunatik wrote:
And neither was the masked magician, eh ?

[/quote]

To quote another poster who also had enough of your lunacy: "That is not what I am talking about. [b]Please do not misunderstand me on purpose[/i].

Here, I'll give you a chance to fully defend your specious argument. Please explain exactly what magic principle you think Penn and Teller have exposed with their sawing routine, and please post some links to videos of professional (or amateur) magicians preforming illusions based on that exposed principle.

If you can find ANYONE within the last 3 decades performing an illusion that depends on the principles you claim they've exposed then maybe - that's a BIG maybe - you have a valid point.

I'll wait here.

.
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (Aug 12, 2014 09:51PM)
Magicwatcher2005. You are explaining this well but as you suggest lunatik seems to be intentionally misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting our position.

Lunatik - Do you really see things in only black and white? Do you not see any nuance at all? We are not condoning exposure for the sake of exposure (ie The Masked Magician and your offer of explaining secrets before a magic show).

Are you a performer? I'm not saying you have to be a performer to have an opinion but if you are a performer I wonder if you have really scoured all of your performances of the hint of any and everything that some tyro may consider his big secret?

You don't do any sucker tricks? You never lead the audience down the garden path only to fool them even worse? I doubt there is a single performing magician who doesn't use his judgement and use what the audience thinks they know to trip them up. Copperfield did it, Blaine, Paul Daniels. In each case their judgement may differ from yours and mine.

I'm not saying it's always a good thing. Some people go too far. Penn and Teller push the boundaries but in this case I don't think they stepped over it. You may but please don't act like it's black and white.

How many laypeople know what Penn meant when he referred to a wedge? That's really something he stuck in there to get a reaction out of magicians and it worked.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Aug 13, 2014 09:05AM)
Magicwalker, why expose anything to begin with? Are you so shallow that you can't see what you're supporting? Some peoples children..

And mike, in this case, I do see black and white. There is no purpose in exposing methods, not one good example has been shown
Message: Posted by: magicwatcher2005 (Aug 13, 2014 09:53AM)
[quote]On Aug 13, 2014, lunatik wrote:
Magicwalker, why expose anything to begin with? Are you so shallow that you can't see what you're supporting? Some peoples children..
...[/quote]

Why "expose" anything? Clearly you know next to nothing about theatrical presentation, or for that matter not even much about magic as a performing art. Virtually ANY sort of "proving" that is done in performance could be proclaimed (by a guy with your mentality) to be "exposure".

For example, when a magician bangs his hand on a big sheet metal blade while performing Harbin's [i]Zig Zag[/i] he's proving the blade is not faked with n secret door. However, [i]some[/i] versions of [i]Mismade Girl[/i] actually DO use such a gaffed blade - so by your rationale he's "exposing" gaffed blades with secret doors in them.

Or when a card man seems to cleanly insert a spectator's selection into the middle of the deck (claiming it is now lost) but then goes on to show that the card is not on (or near) the bottom or top of the deck, he's "exposing" that [i]some[/i] magicians might secretly move the card to one of those locations (again, by your distorted thinking).

Embracing with your argument further, when any magician says, "Please examine this [whatever] to make sure there are no wires, mirrors, trapdoors, or hidden assistants - as HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of magicians have said, and will continue to say - he's "exposing" wires, mirrors, trapdoors, and hidden assistants. Oh, the horror!

In essence you're saying that anything a magician does to prove he is NOT using a particular method [the audience might otherwise suspect] is a form of "exposure". I can't imagine a more asinine position to take, but it seems pretty clear that's what you're saying. Otherwise you'd answer my very simple question: What viable magic principle do you think Penn and Teller have exposed with their sawing routine? And you would be able to post some links to videos of professional (or amateur) magicians preforming illusions based on that exposed principle.

But you can't answer that question, and you can't find those videos because in the final analysis Penn and Teller aren't really exposing ANYTHING. They're simply "proving" to the audience they aren't using methods that the audience might otherwise possibly suspect on their own. Virtually ALL magicians have been doing some form of this proving forever, and as I stated earlier this entire "outrage" directed toward P and T is much ado about nothing.

.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Aug 13, 2014 11:21AM)
All I'm hearing from you is a bunch of yip yap. P&T have been a big source of controversy over the years with their exposure vids. You're on the wrong side of history, plain and simple. Where does one draw the line? Where do YOU draw the line?
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (Aug 13, 2014 12:09PM)
Lunatic, you may be only hearing yip yap but magicwatcher2005 is putting down some very cogent arguments. Clearly they aren't getting through. A few posts ago he SARCASTICALLY scolded Michael Ammar but you responded as if he was serious.
Message: Posted by: magicwatcher2005 (Aug 13, 2014 12:23PM)
Mike - I'm done with this guy. He seems to love arguing, but is apparently incapable of grasping simple, clear logic. He's willing to attack the opinions of others, but when challenged will not defend his own. Not long ago I read someone else write that "you can educate ignorance, but you can't educate stupid." How true that turns out to be.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Aug 13, 2014 05:34PM)
Watcher, it seems that you and Mike are the ones without clear logic. There is absolutely no reason for what P&T does on a normal basis, plenty others agree with me. I can only hope and pray to see either one of you performing, I'll be happy to do share some secrets with your audience, by y'all's logic, it'll REALLY enhance your performance and reactions will be over the top!!

As for Ammar, I didn't google him for any exposure videos, maybe they're there, maybe not. But please, the examples given have been pathetic, a 2 yr old could have given better ones.
Message: Posted by: magicwatcher2005 (Aug 13, 2014 08:02PM)
[quote]On Aug 13, 2014, lunatik wrote:
[...] But please, the examples given have been pathetic, a 2 yr old could have given better ones. [/quote]

Well here's a perfect opportunity for you to prove to all of us that your intellect is superior to "a 2 yr old".

You say that the Penn & Teller "[i]Sawing in Half[/i]" routine constitutes exposure. I've asked before but I'll ask again: please explain in detail that even "a 2 r old" could understand what magic secrets or techniques they are exposing with that routine. You insist they are, so convince us.

.
Message: Posted by: Ado (Aug 14, 2014 02:32AM)
[quote]On Aug 12, 2014, Montana76 wrote:
Penn and Teller has done more for magic than most here can dream of doing in a lifetime of trying.[/quote]

Out of curiosity, what have they done for magic?
I have never heard of a book by them, I have never met anyone saying to have learned from then, and they are virtually unknown where I am from. I discovered them by mistake when I stumbled upon Fool Us on youtube.

I now know they are famous (in some places), that they are rich, seen on TV, and probably very knowledgeable, but I honestly don't know what they have done for magic that others can dream doing in a lifetime of trying...

P!
Message: Posted by: TSW (Aug 14, 2014 06:08AM)
Ok, let me break this down for you magicwatcher2005 (and anyone else who may be interested).

There are those among us, and I am one, who believe any real exposure is bad. If you put a woman in a box that is 2' high, 2' wide and 5' long and cut her in half and then show the audience how it's done, I don't care. If you do thin model cutting-in-half and show they audience how it done, I do care. The latter is 'real' exposure. Now you may know, what both of these illusion have in common is the methodology (I make this assumption because you are here, in this room of The Magic Café. And you did not get here without a lot of work and knowledge). So, why the concern? Because no one, I know of, is seriously presenting a cutting-in-half illusion using the 2' high, 2' wide and 5' long box of 200 years ago. ....Same illusion, same method, different equipment. One style is in use now, today and ONE IS NOT.

Real exposure diminishes the value of some other magician's performance, somewhere. And if you don't think the audience has that long a memory, remember, they can always find it on YouTube (that's the nature of the times in which we live).

Doing a rope routine? Why even mention rope with magnets or snaps? Just hand the *** thing out, either at the beginning or at the end; that, in itself, is the audiences' proof and all the proof they need require. Or just do the *** trick and allow your skills to speak for themselves. Those that get caught-up in the routine will still get caught-up in the routine and those looking to solve a puzzle will have still have their theories, but let's not eliminate three or four possibilities from the beginning so they can get closer to the real method.

Doing a card trick? What book on beginning card magic doesn't caution against saying, "This is an 'ordinary' deck of cards"? There's a reason. (Many magicians who should know better, still say this.) If you want the audience to believe the deck is ordinary, just hand out the cards and let the audience handle them, just once, at the very beginning (or several times, as you feel the need) and say nothing except, "Please shuffle these cards" or "Would you please cut the cards?". The audience will get it. If you need a gimmick or special set-up in the deck, learn a good deck switch (there are more that 101) or learn to a good way to ring-in the gimmick or learn how to do the set-up on the fly, between tricks (Harry Lorayne is a master of this).

Going back, magicwatcher2005, you asked “How come none of you are up in arms against Kevin James and Ed Alonzo?” That’s because I, for one, hadn’t seen it yet and I’m guessing that perhaps some others also hadn’t. (Thanks for bringing it to my attention).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vohu-jmyPqU

That exposure is even worse. Unlike P & T’s exposure, mentioned at the beginning of this post, which they did to at least enhance their presentation of that trick, the James-Alonzo exposure was just for a cheap sight-gag with a little cross-dressing thrown in. This is ironic, since, at the beginning of his ‘Floating Rose’ dvd, Kevin James makes an impassioned plea, directly to the camera, against disclosing the secret or pirating his dvd, because that takes money from his family (He even had his son standing next to him). In that context, he was exactly correct. In this Youtube video, he and Alonzo are exactly wrong!

P & T have done a lot for Magic as an entertainment, but less, as an art form. Do more people have a heightened awareness of the ‘coolness’ of magic because of their existence? Yes. Do more people know more of the ‘secrets of magic’ (many still in use today) because of them? Yes again. Have they developed some terrific routines (that they’d rather not have exposed)? Definitely yes!

So, why did P & T really expose the beveled/wedge base?... Why did K.J. & E.A. really expose the cutting-in-half method? Why did Valentino really ‘sell his soul to the Fox Network’? Because it served their purposes at the time to enhance them in the entertainment field and that means they have fatter wallets now then if they hadn’t. They all did it (and do it) with disregard to the poor, suffering magician who worked hard and saved-up to buy that used, $2000. wedge base to help take his material to the next level and maybe put him in a position of getting a little more money for HIS show. The prevalent attitude these days seems to be, ‘I got mine; you get yours’. ‘I’m up here, you’re not’ so whatever I do is OK. Long gone are the days when they had to spend hours to set-up and breakdown their own equipment, struggle with their own sound, lighting, staging and sightline concerns, change into their costume and then do a 15 minute-to-hour long show. Well, success does not make it OK. And money, at least as far as I'm concerned doesn't buy you real respect.

Any explanation someone gives for exposure of magic secrets, as a way to push magicians to better the art, is a rationalization to allow themselves to sleep better at night. They're disrespecting the art form that got them where they are and from which they make money. They're disregarding and minimizing the thousands who came before them, who worked heard, kept the secrets, and strove to improve the art of Magic, and made contributions toward that end without the need of exposure to drive them. Anyone who 'parrots' this 'exposure improves' dogma is naive and being duped. Magic will move forward, change and improve, not because of exposure, but in spite of it. It does so because magicians want to bring themselves into the magic; they want to put their stamp on it. They don't need P & T, Kevin James, Ed Alonzo, Valentino or anyone else, on stage, TV or Youtube, to light a fire under their asses.

So, let's not make it harder on the next magician. He/she may turn out to be the next Steinmeyer, Gaughan, Pendragon, Vernon, Sankey, or Harlan, anyway. They need encouragement and nurturing not to have their efforts undermined by exposure.
Message: Posted by: Montana76 (Aug 14, 2014 06:26AM)
Wow. THAT'S exposure (the Kevin James clip). That I DO hate.
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (Aug 14, 2014 08:19AM)
TSW Wrote:

[quote] If you put a woman in a box that is 2' high, 2' wide and 5' long and cut her in half and then show the audience how it's done, I don't care.[/quote]

And later:

[quote]

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vohu-jmyPqU[/url]

That exposure is even worse. Unlike P & T’s exposure, mentioned at the beginning of this post, which they did to at least enhance their presentation of that trick, the James-Alonzo exposure was just for a cheap sight-gag with a little cross-dressing thrown in...In this Youtube video, he and Alonzo are exactly wrong! [/quote]

How big would you say that box is?

In regards to your argument about exposure improving magic by pushing magicians to find new methods etc I completely agree with you. I think that is a bogus argument.

On top of that I have also stated that ANY exposure which is given just for the sake of exposure is a bad thing. The masked magician doesn't attempt to entertain he is only dishing out secrets.

We only disagree on examples (Like the Penn and Teller Sawing) where the magican makes a calculated decision to address methods that a good deal of the audience already suspects and then uses a different method to fool them. This generally has the effect of showing the audience that their original idea is in fact NOT how the trick is done.

I doubt there are any performing magician's who don't do this. (Keeping in mind that you have agreed that merely mentioning magnets or gimmicked decks qualifies). I just now watched a video of Bill Malone doing Sam the Bellhop and the first words out of this mouth are "Look at these cards they are perfectly ordinary". I know you said that some who should know better do this but but it is way beyond that. Nearly all performers do it and for good reason.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Aug 14, 2014 11:22AM)
So what if the masked magician prefaced his show as one that will help people from being scammed out of their money? Would his show then be justified? Are you sayin that any effect can be exposed just as long as you have a good reason to do so? The points that you're trying to make do not make much sense when you think about it logically.
Message: Posted by: magicwatcher2005 (Aug 14, 2014 11:36AM)
[quote]On Aug 14, 2014, TSW wrote:
Ok, let me break this down for you magicwatcher2005 (and anyone else who may be interested).

There are those among us, and I am one, who believe any real exposure is bad. If you put a woman in a box that is 2' high, 2' wide and 5' long and cut her in half and then show the audience how it's done, I don't care. [...][/quote]

I don't need you to "[i]break it down[/i]" for me, TSW - you've already shown you don't understand the simple difference between genuine exposure and the "sucker gag" that Penn and Teller are perpetrating in that video. But thank you for supporting my argument... and allow me to "break it down" for YOU: The Penn and Teller prop is AT LEAST as big as the numbers you say reach a level where you no longer care. So you shouldn't care.

[quote]On Aug 14, 2014, TSW wrote:

So, why did P [and] T really expose the beveled/wedge base?... [/quote]

They didn't. The "table" on that prop is so ridiculously thick it can only be seen as a parody by anyone with even the slightest bit of common sense. In fact, anyone in the audience stupid enough to think that prop is the real thing could be shown an actual thin-model sawing and the contrast alone would erase any thought of a "wedged table" from their minds.

In the Penn and Teller routine the two halves are initially separated and the audience thinks they see the assistant's body spanning the gap. Suddenly, that body is "accidentally" sliced in half and apparently her guts come spewing out. At that very moment there is a brief wave of shock, followed immediately by major laughter - because they realize Penn and Teller have been putting them on the entire time.

But in the whole routine there is no REAL "exposure" of any actual principle of magic - at least not one that's been used in the last century or so. The "wedge" reference Penn makes has nothing to do with a genuine sawing prop, and as soon as Teller removes the front section to "expose" the woman's slumping mid-section the table instantly loses 6 or 7 inches of it's thickness (bet you didn't notice THAT part).

Suddenly the prop is ready to fool everyone there (which it does) and there is no explanation offered to give them even a tiny clue as to the REAL thin-model secret (the "hip turn"). In the end the audience readily dismisses anything Penn has "exposed" in the beginning as just part of his elaborate sucker gag leading up to a real fooler.

You're all concerned about "exposure" of a "secret" that would NEVER be used by any magician who didn't want to laughed off stage - hopefully you meet that minimum qualification.

.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Aug 14, 2014 05:36PM)
[quote]On Aug 14, 2014, lunatik wrote:
So what if the masked magician prefaced his show as one that will help people from being scammed out of their money? Would his show then be justified? Are you sayin that any effect can be exposed just as long as you have a good reason to do so? The points that you're trying to make do not make much sense when you think about it logically. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (Aug 14, 2014 08:49PM)
Lunatic wrote:

[quote]So what if the masked magician prefaced his show as one that will help people from being scammed out of their money? Would his show then be justified?[/quote]

Well this is a new justification for exposure. It has nothing to do with the Penn and Teller or any other thing in this discussion. But the answer is that yes that might be a justification ...if it is true. James Randi exposes tricks used by scammers even though these same methods might be used by magicians. I think he is sufficiently careful about it but you are welcome to disagree. It's a judgement call. Life is easy if you pretend things are black and white but they are not.

Lunatic also wrote:

[quote]Are you sayin that any effect can be exposed just as long as you have a good reason to do so?[/quote]

Well you have to have a good reason and you also have to consider the cost. This is an area where there is bound to be disagreement. I just don't see harmful exposure in the examples on this thread. It would be simplistic and incorrect to say that because I am defending these cases I must be in favor of any exposure.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Aug 15, 2014 11:25AM)
This will have to be something that we agree to disagree. I appreciate everyone's thoughts!
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (Aug 15, 2014 11:52AM)
[quote]This will have to be something that we agree to disagree. I appreciate everyone's thoughts![/quote]

Agreed.
Message: Posted by: magicwatcher2005 (Aug 15, 2014 01:55PM)
[quote]On Aug 15, 2014, lunatik wrote:
This will have to be something that we agree to disagree. I appreciate everyone's thoughts! [/quote]


Oh yes, your comments throughout this thread show just how appreciative you've been:

[quote]earlier lunatik wrote:

“That has to be one of the most idiotic statements I've read in the past few years....”

“Are you so shallow that you can't see what you're supporting? Some peoples children...”

“All I'm hearing from you is a bunch of yip yap.”

“... the examples given have been pathetic, a 2 yr old could have given better ones.”

“The points that you're trying to make do not make much sense...”[/quote]

Most importantly, despite [b]repeated[/b] requests for clarification, you STILL haven't been able to point out any magical secret, principle, or technique that Penn and Teller [i]supposedly[/i] "expose" in their Sawing in Half illusion (linked at the beginning of this thread)! Oh, you've incessantly insisted you're right and we're wrong, and you've been aggressive and insulting - so insulting at least one of your really nasty posts was deleted in its entirety by the moderators. Other than that you haven't offered a single reasonable explanation your position.

But hey, it's sure nice to be appreciated... so at least we've got that.

.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Aug 15, 2014 07:23PM)
Do you need a tissue LOL!!
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 15, 2014 08:06PM)
Not so sure most people learn by seeing if there's a strong distraction after and the show keeps moving from there.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Aug 15, 2014 08:17PM)
I can see having a strong distraction if the exposure was accidental.
Message: Posted by: magicwatcher2005 (Aug 15, 2014 09:35PM)
[quote]On Aug 15, 2014, lunatik wrote:
Do you need a tissue LOL!! [/quote]

No, but you clearly need professional help - and maybe somewhat stronger meds. Plus someone to instruct you in proper manners. Doubtful any of that will come to pass... but those are obviously at least some of what you need.

.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Aug 16, 2014 01:48AM)
Try again
Message: Posted by: ZachDavenport (Aug 16, 2014 09:26AM)
I'm tired of this argument! :firedevil: It is magicians helping magicians, not magicians telling other magicians they are wrong. This thread should be removed prom the café.
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (Aug 16, 2014 09:36AM)
ZachDavenport

[quote]I'm tired of this argument! Smile It is magicians helping magicians, not magicians telling other magicians they are wrong. This thread should be removed prom the café.[/quote]

The argument was great but I wish people would edit out all of the personal stuff BEFORE posting it. It might make you feel good to say or imply any one with an apposing opinion is an idiot but can't your case stand on it's merits?

Oh and rather than removing this thread how about just NOT opening the thread and scrolling all the way down to the latest comment to see what's being said?
Message: Posted by: Tim Cavendish (Aug 16, 2014 03:57PM)
[quote]On Aug 14, 2014, Ado wrote:
[quote]On Aug 12, 2014, Montana76 wrote:
Penn and Teller has done more for magic than most here can dream of doing in a lifetime of trying.[/quote]

Out of curiosity, what have they done for magic?
I have never heard of a book by them, I have never met anyone saying to have learned from then, and they are virtually unknown where I am from. I discovered them by mistake when I stumbled upon Fool Us on youtube.

I now know they are famous (in some places), that they are rich, seen on TV, and probably very knowledgeable, but I honestly don't know what they have done for magic that others can dream doing in a lifetime of trying...

P! [/quote]
Penn & Teller create art, with magic as their medium.

People here are arguing about the purity of the paint pigments, while Penn & Teller are using that material to make paintings.

[b][i]That's[/i][/b] what they do for magic.
Message: Posted by: Dave Le Fevre (Aug 17, 2014 02:25AM)
[B]And[/b] they go out of their way to expose the methods of some performers on [I]Fool Us[/I]. It's malicious, and it's bad for magic.

Dave
Message: Posted by: sean_mh (Aug 17, 2014 09:49AM)
Heaven forbid if anyone talking here reads "Hiding the Elephant". What horror that will be! ;)

Sean
Message: Posted by: Dave Le Fevre (Aug 17, 2014 09:59AM)
Exposure in a book that almost no laymen will read - d'you really think that that can be compared with exposure on prime time TV?

Dave
Message: Posted by: sean_mh (Aug 17, 2014 10:24AM)
Well no but I was just being a bit cheeky. Lol

And anyway since modern day large scale illusions are always evolving I
would imagine it's rare that how its being done is "how the audience thinks it's being done" anyway.

Sean
Message: Posted by: Ado (Aug 17, 2014 06:11PM)
I was watching a few videos of Luis Piedrahita, and quite a few time, he exposed (on national TV) some very good tricks... I have no idea why he did that...

P!
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Aug 17, 2014 06:12PM)
Why even give them an actual working method to begin with? So if a new method comes out for an illusion, is it ok if some spills the beans on all of the other methods? Using the logic on this thread, it would seem justified.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 17, 2014 06:55PM)
Has anyone here tested the say-then-surprise retention of information?

that's a visceral moment just a few seconds after the mention of "wedge base". Aversion?
Message: Posted by: Galileo (Aug 18, 2014 09:56AM)
[quote]On Aug 10, 2014, MeetMagicMike wrote:
This looks like well motivated exposure to me. Magician's often make this kind of call. In Paul Daniel's ring routine he says "Magic shops sell a set of rings where one of them has a gap, but these are professional rings with no gap". Almost any one doing ambitious card will show that the card isn't "already on top". Magician's doing a levitation pass a hoop over the girl to show that there are no wires. Etc Etc. [/quote]

I think Mike really nailed it on the head, P&T and Paul Daniels are both magicians that really added to the art an helped cultivate it to what it is today and is a calculated decision they made to reveal ONE method of sawing someone in half.
Message: Posted by: MKoeppel (Aug 18, 2014 10:44AM)
Exposure: the revelation of something secret, especially something embarrassing or damaging.
(Google definition)

Googling "saw woman in half trick" will bring up as top result:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawing_a_woman_in_half

If it is on wikipedia, it is no longer secret. Without secret, there is no exposure.

Case closed.

Best, markus
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Aug 18, 2014 12:30PM)
So by that logic, if someone posts on Wikipedia how some of the latest and greatest effects work, it's public knowledge and no longer exposure? Your standard has a bunch of holes in it.

Case closed.
Message: Posted by: Galileo (Aug 18, 2014 12:36PM)
Yeah I have to agree with lunatik on that one (even if he is!) just because a trick is out there on the web already doesn't mean you should make sure EVERYONE knows how it is done.
Message: Posted by: magicwatcher2005 (Aug 18, 2014 10:20PM)
[quote]On Aug 18, 2014, lunatik wrote:
[...]

Case closed. [/quote]

And there - right there - is why any discussion with you is a complete waste of time - your complete inability to consider anyone's viewpoint that differs with your own.

.
Message: Posted by: Mad0hatter (Aug 19, 2014 01:26AM)
[quote]On Aug 10, 2014, TSW wrote:
I like the show. I don't like the exposure.

If we're guarding an empty safe, why does Steinmeyer both to patent his illusions? Answer; because the secret has value. It's the same with P & T. They make money from the secret and in this case exposing an element of the secret. If they safe is empty, why did Teller litigate and win the case against Gerard Bakardy for the creation rights to his rose and shadow illusion? Answer; because it has value. If secrets have no value, why aren't illusion plans sold for the price of the printing plus a reasonable profit margin.

Why, after you buy the trick can't you return it to the dealer if doesn't fit your style. Answer; because you're also buying the secret.

The "empty safe" analogy works for those who have already removed their money from the safe! [/quote]

I just wanted to point out that what Teller litigated over was not the secret of the illusion, which he says has changed several times, but over the copyright of the playlet which he performers around the secret. Where Gerard f-ed up was not trying to sell the secret of making things fall off a rose bush but by trying to sell Tellers act.

When it comes to exposure I don't feel there's any hard proof that exposure has any effect on the performing magician. Obviously there's no hard proof for the other side either. But what the other side does have is what my college teachers would call "anecdotal evidence" and I think the best example come from a book about Harry Blackstone Sr. Back in that day there was a ad campaign where a cigarette company printed all these posters exposing popular magic effects of the day. The campaign was a huge failure and and Blackstone got all the unused posters on the cheap. He would put them up on the front of the theater with the promised of performing those effects in side and then he did just that.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Aug 19, 2014 07:58AM)
[quote]On Aug 18, 2014, magicwatcher2005 wrote:
[quote]On Aug 18, 2014, lunatik wrote:
[...]

Case closed. [/quote]

And there - right there - is why any discussion with you is a complete waste of time - your complete inability to consider anyone's viewpoint that differs with your own.

. [/quote]

I was just quoting MKoeppel. It looks like you may have jumped to an incorrect conclusion once again. It also looks like you didn't address MKoeppel, could it be due to him being on your side?
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Aug 19, 2014 08:10AM)
@MadoHatter

What about restaurant performers that have reported that after performing an effect, someone at table whips out there smartphone and finds a YouTube video exposing the method? It not only ruins the effect for everyone else, but changes the mood/vibe at the table....completely unnecessary! Magicwatcher2005 still hasn't taken me up on my offer, I'm thinking it's because when the rubber hits the road, he truly doesn't want his effects to be exposed. He knows the ramifications but is content being an armchair quarterback.
Message: Posted by: MKoeppel (Aug 19, 2014 08:56AM)
If you start to enter a term in Google (i.e. "saw woman in half"), which gets auto completed after 7 characters and then the first reference that pops-up is a wikipedia article and not just some strange magic related web-site, then yes, I believe that this knowledge is public. It simply is no longer a secret. There is nothing to expose.

BTW: In this case, the so called exposure is not something that is related to the internet. I remember first reading this same "explanation" in a youth magazine, when I was about 10 (which was before the www was even invented). So this method does definitely not qualify as "latest and greatest".
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Aug 19, 2014 11:19AM)
Why limit it to wiki? Why not YouTube? Is it still not public knowledge according to your standards?
Message: Posted by: magicwatcher2005 (Aug 19, 2014 11:36AM)
[quote]On Aug 19, 2014, lunatik wrote:


I was just quoting MKoeppel. It looks like you may have jumped to an incorrect conclusion once again. [/quote]

Quotes are generally enclosed in quote blocks - see, above, how that works?

In cases where a quote is used within a poster's statement [i]without a quote block[/i] the alternate way to denote it as a quote is the standard form of enclosing it within [i]quotation marks[/i]. Those look like this: [b]"[/b][i](text)[/i][b]"[/b]

Failure on your part to understand and display a "quote" in the long-established manner that a reader - ANY reader - will recognize as such does not equal an "incorrect conclusion" on my part. You're not very skilled at writing, that much is clear. However, these are universal practices that most learn before they are out of grade school.

.
Message: Posted by: magicwatcher2005 (Aug 19, 2014 11:47AM)
[quote]On Aug 19, 2014, lunatik wrote:
[...]Magicwatcher2005 still hasn't taken me up on my offer, [...][/quote]

You mean your ridiculous fantasy "offer" to attend a performance of mine and interrupt it by explaining to my audience in real time how each effect was done... even though that is a stupid, stupid "argument" that has absolutely nothing to do with Penn and Teller OR the subject of this particular thread?

Okay, I accept your offer. If you are able to find me, show up at one of my performances, and then follow through with your threat... please do. I or a member of the house staff deal with that highly unlikely event at that time - should it ever occur.

But just in case, bring your health card. The security crew at my main venue has been known to be a little heavy handed at times...

.
Message: Posted by: Mad0hatter (Aug 19, 2014 12:37PM)
[quote]On Aug 19, 2014, lunatik wrote:
@MadoHatter

What about restaurant performers that have reported that after performing an effect, someone at table whips out there smartphone and finds a YouTube video exposing the method? It not only ruins the effect for everyone else, but changes the mood/vibe at the table....completely unnecessary! Magicwatcher2005 still hasn't taken me up on my offer, I'm thinking it's because when the rubber hits the road, he truly doesn't want his effects to be exposed. He knows the ramifications but is content being an armchair quarterback. [/quote]
Those are what you call poor performers, they were unable to engage the audience allowing the minds to wander. I would add that they probably did not take the time to get their hostages on their side before whipping out their pack of cards. Also if you are performing an effect so strait forwardly that simply putting it's description it to google finds the real method you should look into to how you present that.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Aug 20, 2014 08:11AM)
[quote]On Aug 19, 2014, magicwatcher2005 wrote:
[quote]On Aug 19, 2014, lunatik wrote:
[...]Magicwatcher2005 still hasn't taken me up on my offer, [...][/quote]

You mean your ridiculous fantasy "offer" to attend a performance of mine and interrupt it by explaining to my audience in real time how each effect was done... even though that is a stupid, stupid "argument" that has absolutely nothing to do with Penn and Teller OR the subject of this particular thread?

Okay, I accept your offer. If you are able to find me, show up at one of my performances, and then follow through with your threat... please do. I or a member of the house staff deal with that highly unlikely event at that time - should it ever occur.

But just in case, bring your health card. The security crew at my main venue has been known to be a little heavy handed at times...

. [/quote]

Oh, I wouldn't interrupt your show, I'd just be outside the venue exposing some of your effects, before and after the show. Maybe even provide a DVD so they can take the explanations home. This will allow you to integrate some exposure in your show so that you can employ a totally new method to trick them! Then after let's say 8 months, I'd be back to show them that method so you could then learn a completely new one, hence always one step ahead of them! This is going to make your show SOOO much better, you'll thank me later and maybe cut me a percentage of the profits!

As for your heavy handed security, HILARIOUS!
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Aug 20, 2014 08:17AM)
[quote]On Aug 19, 2014, Mad0hatter wrote:
[quote]On Aug 19, 2014, lunatik wrote:
@MadoHatter

What about restaurant performers that have reported that after performing an effect, someone at table whips out there smartphone and finds a YouTube video exposing the method? It not only ruins the effect for everyone else, but changes the mood/vibe at the table....completely unnecessary! Magicwatcher2005 still hasn't taken me up on my offer, I'm thinking it's because when the rubber hits the road, he truly doesn't want his effects to be exposed. He knows the ramifications but is content being an armchair quarterback. [/quote]
Those are what you call poor performers, they were unable to engage the audience allowing the minds to wander. I would add that they probably did not take the time to get their hostages on their side before whipping out their pack of cards. Also if you are performing an effect so strait forwardly that simply putting it's description it to google finds the real method you should look into to how you present that. [/quote]

This has happened to experienced professionals. You can try to mitigate these circumstances but there are some people that will still look it up because they know a lot of videos are out there. Even if they don't do it while you're performing, they can go home and find it and share with those who attended. The next time they visit, they'll be more likely to be watching for the move, not being entertained any longer and more apt to voice what's going on. That's exactly what ALL performers want, an educated spectator! *Rolls eyes*
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (Aug 20, 2014 10:29AM)
Neither MagicWatcher2005 nor I have advocated exposure for the sake of exposure. I am against youtube videos etc that simply expose magic. Giving out magic secrets AT a show would impact the show and I am very much against that. It's not so much evil behavior as it is childish behavior.

But there is something here that is too subtle for some people. Not all exposure is exposure for the sake of exposure. Performing magicians do take into account what the audience knows or thinks they know and use it against them. We have given examples of Bill Malone, Paul Daniels, Michael Ammar and others doing this.

If you refuse to see this distinction or if you simply can't wrap your head around it then yes the debate is easy for you. Expose Baaad. Not Expose Goooood.

But that only works if you want to claim that almost all working magician's are guilty of harmful selfish exposure. IF this is what you believe then so be it.

If you reject that kind of simplistic thinking that doesn't mean you have to like Penn and Tellers Sawing. If you think that particular routine is not justified and does more harm than good then make THAT argument.
Message: Posted by: magicwatcher2005 (Aug 20, 2014 11:43AM)
[quote]On Aug 20, 2014, lunatik wrote:
[...]
Oh, I wouldn't interrupt your show, I'd just be outside the venue exposing some of your effects, before and after the show. [...]

As for your heavy handed security, HILARIOUS! [/quote]

The security staff at that particular venue monitor the entire premises, including the sizable parking lot. You'll have to set up across the street or down the block a ways - and though you clearly crave attention, I don't think you'll get much out there. But hey, knock yourself out.

Now, having accepted your challenge ("offer"), I'll re-issue my own, I've repeatedly asked you to explain what magic principles you feel Penn and Teller "exposed" in their "Fool Us" performance of [i]Sawing a Woman in Half[/i], linked at the beginning of this thread. The topic at hand here is NOT Youtube exposure videos, or the imaginary specter of some jerk-off outside another magician's show exposing his methods to teach him a lesson, or whatever. The topic is this specific routine performed by Penn and Teller on public television.

I'm sure everyone on this forum agrees that [i]actual[/i] exposure is bad, so there really is no further need for you to prattle on and on about how bad it is. We get it. Exposure = BAD. But where we disagree is what actually constitutes exposure, SPECIFICALLY with regard to the Penn and Teller [i]Sawing[/i] routine. So again, please tell us WHAT valuable magic secrets you feel Penn and Teller exposed on that show?

Your ongoing failure to answer that one very simple question, combined with your endless, obsessive whining about Youtube, pretty much shows us that the real source of "yip yap" in this thread is YOU.

.
Message: Posted by: Russell Davidson (Aug 22, 2014 05:30AM)
Exposure is a fact of life these days. Those moaning about it the most are probably the least affected. If you were actually out there performing you'd realise that it's not really an issue. Unless you're a poor performer!

Hell, I still use a TT and it flys by those that know they exist. Why? Because I don't vanish a silk with it (although you'll find the majority of laymen will still be fooled with the vanishing silk).

Try improving your performance & methods if you have to but don't blame exposure for your lack of initative and skill. Spoon fed, easy to do, needless gimmicked magic causes more harm IMO. Easy come, easy go.
Message: Posted by: Tim Cavendish (Aug 23, 2014 12:02PM)
They "expose" an explanation for the trick (the woman's body dips down to avoid the blade), and then cancel it by lowering the blade and slicing the body -- a body which is revealed to be a fake when guts pour out of it. So their explanation is revealed to be false.

For the audience, this cancels their whole explanation and it gets dismissed as a joke -- and yet there's the woman, sawn in half. The mystery remains.

It's beautifully constructed.
Message: Posted by: ZachDavenport (Aug 23, 2014 12:06PM)
[quote]On Aug 23, 2014, Tim Cavendish wrote:
They "expose" an explanation for the trick (the woman's body dips down to avoid the blade), and then cancel it by lowering the blade and slicing the body -- a body which is revealed to be a fake when guts pour out of it. So their explanation is revealed to be false.

For the audience, this cancels their whole explanation and it gets dismissed as a joke -- and yet there's the woman, sawn in half. The mystery remains.

It's beautifully constructed. [/quote]
I agree, but when she gets cut in half it is obvious it is a fake body so it becomes a vanishing act. The only problem is there is no reappearance. If she reappeared in the back of the theatre it would be a wonderful routine.
Message: Posted by: TSW (Aug 23, 2014 02:55PM)
Why would magicwatcher2005 have stage security deal with lunatik if he showed up outside magicwatcher2005's performance venue? Because exposure would ruin magicwatcher2005's show.

Exposure is exposure, and the results of exposure are the same, whether it be 2 seconds after the trick is performed or 6 months later. To 'faux-expose' a method not in use is one thing (Who hasn't done a "sucker" trick? [although I'm not real keen on that type of presentation and have done them myself])... but to expose a REAL method widely in use, currently, is another matter. Such is the exposure by P & T of the wedge/bevel base. It's exposure aided in their deception by (mostly) another method, but how many illusions themselves rely on a wedge/bevel base as their main methodology? The illusions are almost too many to list.

And, exposure to millions on television or Youtube is quite different than the exposure to a few to fool millions, ala Chris Angel, for instance. (Sometime, I'll tell you of my experience of being in an audience during the taping of a David Copperfield special).

Bottom line, there is a lot of grey area until you've stepped over that 'bottom line'. I think we are sometimes too close to judge objectively when and where that is exactly. Some examples are obvious, others not so easily determined. I think discussion about exposure is good as long as we don't make it personal and we remember that we all are here, together, because we share a love of something special. I don't believe anyone one either side of this discussion, wants anything but the best for this art.
Message: Posted by: ZachDavenport (Aug 23, 2014 03:06PM)
[quote]On Aug 23, 2014, TSW wrote:
Why would magicwatcher2005 have stage security deal with lunatik if he showed up outside magicwatcher2005's performance venue? Because exposure would ruin magicwatcher2005's show.

Exposure is exposure, and the results of exposure are the same, whether it be 2 seconds after the trick is performed or 6 months later. To 'faux-expose' a method not in use is one thing (Who hasn't done a "sucker" trick? [although I'm not real keen on that type of presentation and have done them myself])... but to expose a REAL method widely in use, currently, is another matter. Such is the exposure by P & T of the wedge/bevel base. It's exposure aided in their deception by (mostly) another method, but how many illusions themselves rely on a wedge/bevel base as their main methodology? The illusions are almost too many to list.

And, exposure to millions on television or Youtube is quite different than the exposure to a few to fool millions, ala Chris Angel, for instance. (Sometime, I'll tell you of my experience of being in an audience during the taping of a David Copperfield special).

Bottom line, there is a lot of grey area until you've stepped over that 'bottom line'. I think we are sometimes too close to judge objectively when and where that is exactly. Some examples are obvious, others not so easily determined. I think discussion about exposure is good as long as we don't make it personal and we remember that we all are here, together, because we share a love of something special. I don't believe anyone one either side of this discussion, wants anything but the best for this art. [/quote]
I'd love to here the Copperfeild story.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Aug 23, 2014 10:22PM)
[quote]On Aug 20, 2014, magicwatcher2005 wrote:
[quote]On Aug 20, 2014, lunatik wrote:
[...]
Oh, I wouldn't interrupt your show, I'd just be outside the venue exposing some of your effects, before and after the show. [...]

As for your heavy handed security, HILARIOUS! [/quote]

The security staff at that particular venue monitor the entire premises, including the sizable parking lot. You'll have to set up across the street or down the block a ways - and though you clearly crave attention, I don't think you'll get much out there. But hey, knock yourself out.

Now, having accepted your challenge ("offer"), I'll re-issue my own, I've repeatedly asked you to explain what magic principles you feel Penn and Teller "exposed" in their "Fool Us" performance of [i]Sawing a Woman in Half[/i], linked at the beginning of this thread. The topic at hand here is NOT Youtube exposure videos, or the imaginary specter of some jerk-off outside another magician's show exposing his methods to teach him a lesson, or whatever. The topic is this specific routine performed by Penn and Teller on public television.

I'm sure everyone on this forum agrees that [i]actual[/i] exposure is bad, so there really is no further need for you to prattle on and on about how bad it is. We get it. Exposure = BAD. But where we disagree is what actually constitutes exposure, SPECIFICALLY with regard to the Penn and Teller [i]Sawing[/i] routine. So again, please tell us WHAT valuable magic secrets you feel Penn and Teller exposed on that show?

Your ongoing failure to answer that one very simple question, combined with your endless, obsessive whining about Youtube, pretty much shows us that the real source of "yip yap" in this thread is YOU.

. [/quote]

I don't think anyone is worried about the $9/hr security staff lol. At any rate, P&T exposed a legitimate method, as they have in other video's. It may not be the one YOU use, but very well may be what others do. One would have to be very naive not to acknowledge everyone else who does not like what P&T does. That group is pretty large. You claim to be against exposure, but are ok with exposure if you're a fanboy of P&T.

So what if I construct my entire show around exposing the methods of your effects, but I then use a totally different method to trick the audience? According to yours and others position, it would be perfectly ok and aligns with what P&T do. I expect you to double back and make an excuse as to why I shouldn't do that, but everyone will then know that you're just yip yapping just to hear yourself.
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (Aug 24, 2014 09:57AM)
TSW's last post made a lot of good points. But in saying


[quote]Why would magicwatcher2005 have stage security deal with lunatik if he showed up outside magicwatcher2005's performance venue? Because exposure would ruin magicwatcher2005's show.[/quote]

I hope TSW realizes that this is not a point that MagicWatcher2005 or I have argued against.

And TSW seems to contradicts himself in saying "Exposure is exposure" and then going on to explain that he doesn't mean faux-exposure.

Well, he doesn't really contradict himself he just defines things a little differently. You could say that "exposure is exposure" IF you define exposure well. But you can't say "exposure is exposure" if you say that revealing ANY method in any way is exposure as Lunatic2000 seems to argue.

I think the expression faux-exposure is a very useful one.
Message: Posted by: TSW (Aug 24, 2014 10:03AM)
ZachDavenport,

While I found the incident very illuminating, I'm not sure everyone else here would share in my 'ah-ha' moment; some here might even find it boring. If you however you're interested PM me and I'll relay all the details.
Message: Posted by: Dougini (Aug 24, 2014 06:23PM)
[quote]On Aug 19, 2014, Mad0hatter wrote:
[quote]On Aug 19, 2014, lunatik wrote:
@MadoHatter

What about restaurant performers that have reported that after performing an effect, someone at table whips out there smartphone and finds a YouTube video exposing the method?
[/quote]

Those are what you call poor performers, they were unable to engage the audience allowing the minds to wander.
[/quote]

Well. I must be a poor performer. That happened to me, a NUMBER of times! I must be an old hack now. Maybe it's time to give it up...

Doug
Message: Posted by: Tim Cavendish (Aug 24, 2014 06:33PM)
Let's talk about focus.

While Penn talks about an architectural principle of illusion, Teller is removing the front facade from the apparatus and reveals what appears to be the woman's butt hanging out the bottom of the illusion. Storytellers are encouraged to show, not tell -- why? Because showing is stronger than telling. Here, Teller's action of showing takes the viewer's focus and what Penn tells doesn't register with any strength. Further, what Teller is showing has its focus on the body hanging out beyond the profile of the illusion, not on an architecture of containment.

The architectural principle, although discussed in the open, passes unnoticed because there is something more compelling on which to focus.

Some here have heard of a performance art called magic. In that art, a magician can openly place a card under a beer glass -- in plain view -- and have it completely fail to register with the audience! Yes, it is true! This is accomplished by placing the focus on another more compelling action performed at the same time, such as spreading a deck of cards on the table.

Penn and Teller have some familiarity with this principle of focus management and are applying it here.

When Penn talks about the architectural principle, he's blowing on a dog whistle that only magicians will hear.
Message: Posted by: ZachDavenport (Aug 24, 2014 06:42PM)
If anyone here has ever had a performance fall flat, and there is a good chance it was because of Penn and Teller please post it here.
Message: Posted by: magicwatcher2005 (Aug 24, 2014 08:27PM)
[quote]On Aug 23, 2014, TSW wrote:
Why would magicwatcher2005 have stage security deal with lunatik if he showed up outside magicwatcher2005's performance venue? Because exposure would ruin magicwatcher2005's show.

[...][/quote]

I don't know if you're obtuse, or just overly argumentative like [i]lunatik[/i] (who certainly lives up to his mis-spelled name). ANY venue would eject some jerk-off who was outside approaching customers as they entered or left. It has nothing to do with exposure - especially in my case, since I perform fully scripted routines, rather than the latest Youtube-level card tricks [i]lunatik[/i] is so concerned about. So some mentally-challenged guy standing outside my performance venue offering to "expose" my "tricks" would have the exact same impact as standing outside a theatrical performance of [i]Peter Pan[/i] shouting "Hey everybody, that little guy can't really fly! They have super-thin wires that hold him up!"

My response to [i]lunatik[/i] (and you, TSW) is that I am not even remotely afraid of his fantasy "threat" of standing outside one of my performances and exposing my "secrets", because the audience already knows my biggest "secret" - I'm entertaining and funny, and they laughed their axes off. So what's [i]lunatik[/i] gonna tell them, "The goose is just a puppet and he can't really write with his beak - the guy holding him was secretly doing the writing!"?... or "He secretly loaded that signed bill into the lemon when you weren't looking!"? Oh my god, the horror of it all!

BUT - and this is more for [i]lunatik[/i] than you - I hereby challenge him to follow through with this "threat" for ANY performer, at ANY venue ANYWHERE - and have a friend video it for Youtube. He won't, because even though he claims he would he hasn't got the guts. But he certainly can prove me wrong with some simple video.

Most importantly, as others have already explained, Penn and Teller didn't "expose" anything with their Sawing routine that ANY [b]decent[/b] magician would think needs "protecting". which I guess explains why the two of you are so concerned.

.
Message: Posted by: ZachDavenport (Aug 24, 2014 08:48PM)
Ok that is a bit harsh. Based just on this discussion you are saying they are bad magicians. I don't think it is exposure of something that matters, but that is just a rude comment.
Message: Posted by: magicwatcher2005 (Aug 25, 2014 04:17AM)
[quote]On Aug 24, 2014, ZachDavenport wrote:
Ok that is a bit harsh. Based just on this discussion you are saying they are bad magicians. I don't think it is exposure of something that matters, but that is just a rude comment. [/quote]

[b]I'm[/b] not saying they're bad magicians, [i][b]they[/b][/i] are saying they're bad magicians. I'm simply reading between their lines and clarifying the point.

Ask any great magician - Mac, Lance, DC, whomever - if he's against exposure and he'll absolutely say he is. Now ask him if he has ever feared his success would be ruined by Penn and Teller or Youtube exposure videos and when he's done laughing he'll say "No." Good performers don't rely on "secrets" to entertain their audiences, they rely on their theatrical skills, engaging personalities, and performing talent. Others in this very thread have given voice to one universal truth - you only need fear exposure if the bare-bones secret is all you've got going for you... which is the hallmark of a bad magician.

Don't shoot the messenger. If it walks like a chicken and [especially] SQUAWKS like a chicken, it's probably a chicken.

.
Message: Posted by: ZachDavenport (Aug 25, 2014 06:55AM)
I'm sorry, but their opinion on YouTube exposure, and their ability to perform magic well are 2 different things entirely. If your opinion is that those who think YouTube exposure is wrong are clearly bad magicians, then you think that many well respected magicians and mentalists are terrible magicians.
Message: Posted by: magicwatcher2005 (Aug 25, 2014 12:16PM)
[quote]On Aug 25, 2014, ZachDavenport wrote:
I'm sorry, but their opinion on YouTube exposure, and their ability to perform magic well are 2 different things entirely. If your opinion is that those who think YouTube exposure is wrong are clearly bad magicians, then you think that many well respected magicians and mentalists are terrible magicians. [/quote]

Not what I said, and not at all what I meant. If, after reading what I wrote, you conclude that my opinion is "[i]those who think YouTube exposure is wrong are clearly bad magicians[/i]" then you need put a lot more work into your reading comprehension skills.

.
Message: Posted by: silvercup (Aug 25, 2014 12:42PM)
It's becoming a clear fact that magicians prefer video to books to learn simply because they are unable to read. How this forum persists confuses me daily.
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (Aug 25, 2014 04:07PM)
Silvercup wrote:

[quote]It's becoming a clear fact that magicians prefer video to books to learn simply because they are unable to read. How this forum persists confuses me daily.[/quote]

Most of us have probably been guilty of glossing over a post and thinking we knew what the poster was saying and getting it a bit wrong.

There are actually several conversations going on in this thread. It's always a good idea to quote the relevant thing you are responding too. No only does it make things clearer but it makes it really obvious whether you are actually addressing the points brought up or not.
Message: Posted by: ZachDavenport (Aug 25, 2014 06:40PM)
[quote]On Aug 25, 2014, magicwatcher2005 wrote:
[quote]On Aug 25, 2014, ZachDavenport wrote:
I'm sorry, but their opinion on YouTube exposure, and their ability to perform magic well are 2 different things entirely. If your opinion is that those who think YouTube exposure is wrong are clearly bad magicians, then you think that many well respected magicians and mentalists are terrible magicians. [/quote]

Not what I said, and not at all what I meant. If, after reading what I wrote, you conclude that my opinion is "[i]those who think YouTube exposure is wrong are clearly bad magicians[/i]" then you need put a lot more work into your reading comprehension skills.

. [/quote]
OK I reread the post, and I see that you said that they are bad magicians because they think the Penn and Teller thing was wrong. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but it still is a little irrational for you to say that because they think it is wrong they are bad magicians. Even if they are (and I have never seen either of them perform, so I have no idea) you should not call people bad magicians, unless you have seen them perform and can offer them some suggestions.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Aug 25, 2014 08:49PM)
[quote]On Aug 24, 2014, magicwatcher2005 wrote:
[quote]On Aug 23, 2014, TSW wrote:
Why would magicwatcher2005 have stage security deal with lunatik if he showed up outside magicwatcher2005's performance venue? Because exposure would ruin magicwatcher2005's show.

[...][/quote]

I don't know if you're obtuse, or just overly argumentative like [i]lunatik[/i] (who certainly lives up to his mis-spelled name). ANY venue would eject some jerk-off who was outside approaching customers as they entered or left. It has nothing to do with exposure - especially in my case, since I perform fully scripted routines, rather than the latest Youtube-level card tricks [i]lunatik[/i] is so concerned about. So some mentally-challenged guy standing outside my performance venue offering to "expose" my "tricks" would have the exact same impact as standing outside a theatrical performance of [i]Peter Pan[/i] shouting "Hey everybody, that little guy can't really fly! They have super-thin wires that hold him up!"

My response to [i]lunatik[/i] (and you, TSW) is that I am not even remotely afraid of his fantasy "threat" of standing outside one of my performances and exposing my "secrets", because the audience already knows my biggest "secret" - I'm entertaining and funny, and they laughed their axes off. So what's [i]lunatik[/i] gonna tell them, "The goose is just a puppet and he can't really write with his beak - the guy holding him was secretly doing the writing!"?... or "He secretly loaded that signed bill into the lemon when you weren't looking!"? Oh my god, the horror of it all!

BUT - and this is more for [i]lunatik[/i] than you - I hereby challenge him to follow through with this "threat" for ANY performer, at ANY venue ANYWHERE - and have a friend video it for Youtube. He won't, because even though he claims he would he hasn't got the guts. But he certainly can prove me wrong with some simple video.

Most importantly, as others have already explained, Penn and Teller didn't "expose" anything with their Sawing routine that ANY [b]decent[/b] magician would think needs "protecting". which I guess explains why the two of you are so concerned.

. [/quote]

Visit colorado and I'd be happy to oblige. But if you're just a kids performer with a Barney puppet, I may let you slide by.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Aug 25, 2014 08:56PM)
[quote]On Aug 24, 2014, Dougini wrote:
[quote]On Aug 19, 2014, Mad0hatter wrote:
[quote]On Aug 19, 2014, lunatik wrote:
@MadoHatter

What about restaurant performers that have reported that after performing an effect, someone at table whips out there smartphone and finds a YouTube video exposing the method?
[/quote]

Those are what you call poor performers, they were unable to engage the audience allowing the minds to wander.
[/quote]

Well. I must be a poor performer. That happened to me, a NUMBER of times! I must be an old hack now. Maybe it's time to give it up...

Doug [/quote]

Magicwatcher, what do you say to doug here, is he just a poor performer? or has he found audience members that are just plain curious and were able to youtube the secret which was out of his control? Surely you can't insinuate that every person that googles/youtubes an explanation had a poor performer.
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (Aug 25, 2014 09:50PM)
I know that questions is directed at Magicwatcher but let just point out that Dougini doesn't actually say how he handled the situation. Did it really ruin his set? Most magician's perform routines with multiple phases that cancel each other out.

Even before the internet I ran into people who knew the double lift but I still did ambitious card for them and got the usual reaction from the crowd because the double lift was only a small part of the routine.

When I was somewhat new into magic I was completely fooled by Daryl doing his rope routine even though I knew Profs Nightmare. He did the same counting move I did but had better technique and it totally fooled me.
Message: Posted by: tomsk192 (Aug 26, 2014 11:36AM)
I saw P&T live, recently, and have a few thoughts on the matter.

Firstly, there is a huge amount of disrespect being thrown at two fine magicians who think [i]profoundly[/i] about how they approach magic. It has been said that what separates craft from art is not relative skill, but rather the leap of imagination. Here are two superb performers, P&T, who certainly do magic as [i]art[/i]. And here, some deeply unimaginative people are slagging them off, without addressing any of the straightforward rebuttals which have been clearly outlined over four pages.

Penn & Teller exemplify the approach as outlined in 'Our Magic', a book by two hugely successful magicians of an earlier generation. This book, incidentally, was intended for the general public's consumption. It makes the point that the more audiences are informed of the sorts of ruses magicians use, the more engaged and impressed they are when those ruses are successfully carried out in a theatrically pleasing way.

To wit, in the show I saw, P&T did a really lovely piece, (which would enrage some here beyond all reason,) where Teller essentially does a manipulation act to music. This is repeated, with Penn giving commentary as Teller turns to expose the angles. [Don't die on me now, lunatik, you'll get over it.] Then Teller does it again, from the right angle, and there is an unexpected ending which is not explained.

Now, Jonathan Townsend was trying to tease out an important point earlier in this thread, relating to the comparative difficulty of retaining information after a surprise, which works in this instance. Also, as in their 'exposed' Cups and Balls, there is actually a layer of obfuscation being spread during the rather confusing commentary. There is simply too much to see, for a layman, to remember exactly the choreography after the fact. Add to that the surprise ending, which is not explained, and the whole thing works as artful magic. Not only that, but the audience has been educated as to the sheer complexity of genuine sleight of hand manipulation. I work on sleight of hand [i]a lot[/i], and yet a good, well choreographed manipulation act can fool me in a pleasing way, because the methods have been well executed, and the routine so structured, that my attention has always been directed to the right place at the right time.

Anyway, I find great irony in two wonderful entertainers being slated and mocked for being 'disrespectful'. I know who I respect, in this instance.
Message: Posted by: Dougini (Aug 26, 2014 01:44PM)
[quote]On Aug 25, 2014, MeetMagicMike wrote:
...Dougini doesn't actually say how he handled the situation. Did it really ruin his set?
[/quote]

Yeah. This last time, I just left. The friend who invited me over, had a place full of people. His roommate decided to fire up the big 60" screen and pull up Youtube. There was the masked moron exposing two of my effects I just did. The laughter shrunk me. I kept my composure, thanked everyone and left.

I will NEVER do magic for them again. EVER! It was MOST humiliating! I am not a pro today. I just have fun. After forty years of this, I am pretty good at some things. I'm 58, and have NO tolerance for rudeness or this kind of bull****. It was done to embarrass me. The roommate is an egomaniac. Has to be the guy "on top". You'll run into this type eventually.

And THIS guy has an extensive knowledge of magic principles. You ain't gettin' ANYTHING by this guy...So, the best solution is to leave...

Doug
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (Aug 26, 2014 02:01PM)
Dougini - that was awful behavior by your "friend". It is an argument against the type of exposure for the sake of exposure that I and MagicWatcher2005 have both denounced.

I probably would have left too but I kind of wonder if there might have been a better way to handle it. What if you laughed right along with them and talked openly about what magic is and is not and how technology has affected modern magicians? The internet isn't a fad so we magician's had better learn to be entertaining in a world with Google.

As a matter of fact we might all benefit from asking ourselves how Penn and Teller would have handled that very situation. In a way they already did this with their see through cups and balls.

Tomsk192 - +++ Great post. Thanks for your thoughts and insight.
Message: Posted by: tomsk192 (Aug 26, 2014 05:55PM)
Thank [i]you[/i], MeetMagicMike and magicwatcher2005, for offering cogent, well thought out arguments and for not resorting to silliness. I didn't need to address the key points because you have both done that admirably.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Aug 26, 2014 08:13PM)
[quote]On Aug 26, 2014, tomsk192 wrote:

This is repeated, with Penn giving commentary as Teller turns to expose the angles. [Don't die on me now, lunatik, you'll get over it.] [/quote]

*croaks*
;)
Message: Posted by: tomsk192 (Aug 26, 2014 08:36PM)
:D
Message: Posted by: Tim Cavendish (Aug 26, 2014 09:43PM)
[quote]On Aug 26, 2014, lunatik wrote:
[quote]On Aug 26, 2014, tomsk192 wrote:

This is repeated, with Penn giving commentary as Teller turns to expose the angles. [Don't die on me now, lunatik, you'll get over it.] [/quote]

*croaks*
;) [/quote]
Link for any who haven't seen the routine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G30vNCmMP1k

Art.

And a lesson in magic appreciation.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Aug 27, 2014 12:33AM)
Penn and Teller are sell outs in the true meaning of the words. Defend them if you want, but they have cashed in on magic secrets not their own. They have exposed things they do not own. People are not as stupid as you say they are. They see and remember quite well.
I can totally understand getting a magic lesson after you've shelled out $100 to see Penn and Teller ... Giving it away for free on Youtube is just not right ... and everyone here knows it!
Message: Posted by: tomsk192 (Aug 27, 2014 03:49AM)
Read it and weep, Slim, you just got Roshambo'd...
Message: Posted by: Dave Le Fevre (Aug 27, 2014 04:11AM)
Doug, what happened to you was disgraceful. It shouldn't have happened.

You spend huge amounts of time and large sums of money perfecting your conjuring, in order that you can entertain and delight others. And your "friends" ask you to entertain them, and then they treat you like ****.

[I]Friend - a person whom one knows, likes, and trusts[/I]. Not in this case.

It's interesting to ponder how they'd have behaving regarding other performing arts. Would they have set out to humiliate you had you been a singer? Or a juggler? Or a guitarist?

Occasionally, one encounters a spectator who treats conjuring as a puzzle, a bar betcha. Their viewpoint is that if they can "solve" it, then they've won, else the conjuror has won. On the infrequent occasions when I find such a spectator, I politely stop performing - I'm here to entertain, not to challenge. But in this instance, they waited until after you'd finished, and then they ruined everything retrospectively. And they did so in front of the whole room. Horrible horrible people.

Dave
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Aug 27, 2014 07:46AM)
Exposers... They call themselves the bad boys because they do bad things .. They glory in it ... They take pride in selling off what others have kept secret for centuries. I was about a week away from purchasing an item they exposed on TV .... I didn't do it ..everyone lost but P and T ...Shameful!!!!!
Message: Posted by: Dougini (Aug 27, 2014 11:58AM)
Thank you Dave. You get it. This crowd is twenty-somethings. They're rude to each other! The only friend is the one that rents the place. He was not amused at their antics. It was the roommate's 60" TV, so it was his to turn on. My friend moved, and I never see those people any more. Thank GOD!

Doug
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 28, 2014 02:55PM)
[quote]On Aug 26, 2014, Dougini wrote:

Yeah. This last time, I just left. The friend who invited me over, had a place full of people. His roommate decided to fire up the big 60" screen and pull up Youtube. There was the masked moron exposing two of my effects I just did. The laughter shrunk me. I kept my composure, thanked everyone and left.

[/quote]

On occasion you can use exposure to your advantage. A week after the first Masked Magician program I had a performance at an office holiday party. Out of curiosity I asked how many people there had seen the show. Only the few children in attendance raised their hands. After admonishing the parents for allowing their children to watch unsupervised television I continued on with my show.

When I pulled my linking rings out. One of the tricks that had been exposed on the Masked Magician show, I saw one of the kids who had raised their hands earlier get really excited and run over to his mother. The Masked Magician had only shown how a three set worked. I was using a set of eight. so naturally I picked the kid to help me with the trick. I immediately linked two rings together and handed them to him to take apart. Naturally he couldn't. But that didn't stop him from spending the rest of the routine looking for the gap that the masked magician had told him was there.

So in the end I wound up fooling him more than I would have had he not seen the show. The perplexed look on his face was priceless and of course now all the revealed secrets on the show became suspect.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Aug 28, 2014 10:39PM)
Good on you Payne ... That's what a pro would do ... But honestly ... You may have gotten really lucky .... right?
Message: Posted by: Dougini (Aug 29, 2014 02:09PM)
[quote]On Aug 28, 2014, Payne wrote:
[quote]On Aug 26, 2014, Dougini wrote:

Yeah. This last time, I just left. The friend who invited me over, had a place full of people. His roommate decided to fire up the big 60" screen and pull up Youtube. There was the masked moron exposing two of my effects I just did. The laughter shrunk me. I kept my composure, thanked everyone and left.

[/quote]

On occasion you can use exposure to your advantage. A week after the first Masked Magician program I had a performance at an office holiday party. Out of curiosity I asked how many people there had seen the show. Only the few children in attendance raised their hands. After admonishing the parents for allowing their children to watch unsupervised television I continued on with my show.

When I pulled my linking rings out. One of the tricks that had been exposed on the Masked Magician show, I saw one of the kids who had raised their hands earlier get really excited and run over to his mother. The Masked Magician had only shown how a three set worked. I was using a set of eight. so naturally I picked the kid to help me with the trick. I immediately linked two rings together and handed them to him to take apart. Naturally he couldn't. But that didn't stop him from spending the rest of the routine looking for the gap that the masked magician had told him was there.

So in the end I wound up fooling him more than I would have had he not seen the show. The perplexed look on his face was priceless and of course now all the revealed secrets on the show became suspect. [/quote]

Payne you are a pro. No question. But after Prohibition by Charlie Justice was exposed, everything else falls flat. That was my finale at a get-together at the Lani Kai on the beach. The Dye Tube...well, anything I would have shown afterwards...just would have Bill searching it on YouTube/Google. Ya just gotta know your audience. 8 out of the 10 were entertained and would not have done that. Bill's a good guy normally. He's just an egomaniac! He admits that, LOL!

Doug
Message: Posted by: Steven Webb (Aug 31, 2014 09:51PM)
I didn't read the whole thresd but wanted to comment because my wife and I were talking about this exact bit last night.

This actually helps magicians more than hurts them I think.

Think about it, they show the traditional method a nd expose it to everyone. Those who thought this was how it was done feel confirmed, those who don't have that aha moment.

Then, the mistake happens and tje girl is sawed in half.


Moments later she comes out alive and well. Clearly, there is another method involved that they didn't expose. Now the method that everyone just understand stands under great suspicion! There is no reason to belueve it and you are left more confused then before. Everyone who sees the trick in the future will be grasping at straws.

Now, I'm not a performer so I may be wrong but it seems to me that this helps more than hurts.
Message: Posted by: MartiniMagic (Aug 31, 2014 11:37PM)
I love Penn and Teller. The are really different than magicians. They started on off Broadway.

Since they do reveal a lot and are irevrant, the show Fool Us works that much better especially when they are fooled.

I was looking for some blatant exposure in a video I once saw where they gave everyone in the audience a TT, hundreds of people, and then performed I think a silk routine with them. I could not find it but found this instead.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GN98dykPqcE

I think this is pretty bad because a lot of people still use the two methods they exposed and use it to make a living. Not everyone is as bright and creative as P and T and to throw away so much for laughs that never came (I don't think the audience got it) is bad IMO. And I do not believe that people will not remember the stairs and a mirror hiding the escape when the see a magician performing with a box on a platform. The audience was huge for this exposure and it lives on forever as well. So for what it gained IMO it was reckless and unessasary. They are smart and talented enough to do magic with the stihick.

That's my opinion but I am still a big fan.
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (Sep 1, 2014 01:59AM)
Great posts by Steven webb and MartiniMagic

They each focused on "is this unwarranted and harmful exposure?" rather than the simplistic "All exposure is bad".

They both discussed the merits and harm done in these examples.

MartiniMagic, I pretty much agree with your thoughts on this although an argument could be made that those steps were awfully bulky and you can hardly expose mirrors because they are at the forefront of every ones mind when watching stage illusion. Still it wasn't one of P & T's best bits.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Sep 2, 2014 12:05AM)
I read a quote on another thread that I think is great and applies here.

"The most common reaction I get from Spectators is, "No way!" From magicians, "I have NO IDEA how you did that."


Giving a spectator a method IMO will lead them to the latter reaction "I have no IDEA how you did that". Most would rather have a "NO WAY!" reaction as they are astonished as opposed to having the mindset of a magician which is trying to just figure out the method. Why present an effect to encourage this type of future behavior?
Message: Posted by: magicwatcher2005 (Sep 2, 2014 03:31AM)
Darwin Ortiz's [i]Strong Magic[/i] is an entire book dedicated to dealing with one very simple fact: MOST audiences will consider possible solutions to any effect they see, including those who exclaim your beloved "No Way!". If you think they simply believe they've just witnessed a true miracle, equal to any chronicled in the Bible, and that they will not think beyond that to ponder possible methods then you are an even bigger fool than I give you credit for.

Because Ortiz knows that audiences virtually ALWAYS think about the "how" of any magic effect he goes to great lengths to teach concepts and methods for discrediting any possible solution, preferably before the audience can invest too much time considering it. In many case this discrediting is done either through "convincers", or by a more advanced approach called "canceling". This is advanced thinking, clearly beyond the grasp of [i]some[/i], but astute performers know - as does Ortiz - that most audiences will already be thinking of solutions. Convincers and canceling techniques reduce (or entirely prevent) this train of thought from occurring in the first place - and many times they include what [i]simple-minded[/i] magicians might classify as "exposure".

A fine example of this can be found in mentalism. Often a mentalist will introduce an envelope into which a billet containing secret information is placed. Almost without exception the mentalist will first hold the envelope up to the light (and/or invite the spectator to do so), proclaiming it is impossible to see through it and view the hidden writing within. According to the "rationale" (term used loosely) presented by [i]some[/i] in this thread, those mentalists are guilty of exposure. After all, there actually ARE some mentalism tricks that DO rely on being able to read through an envelope. So when the performer holds one up to show that we cannot see through it he is, at the same time, "exposing" that secret "see-through-envelope" technique... right?

On the other hand, if we are able to rise above such simple-minded thinking we may realize that this performer is actually discrediting that theory - not only for his own instant purposes, but potentially for all future performances that same audience may witness. So later, that performer (or another) may actually use a translucent envelope to his advantage, without the audience suspecting the truth.

Seem far fetched? Consider Bob Cassidy's brilliant [i]Two Envelope Test[/i] (aka [i]The White Dwarf[/i]). Not only is the point strongly made that one cannot see through the envelope(s) and detect what is inside, but in reality that is [i]exactly[/i] what the performer will be doing in a moment (!) In what can only be seen as a stroke of pure genius, Cassidy has used both cancellation and convincers to "prove" to the audience that he is not doing what he actually IS doing. The strength of this effect cannot be overstated, and that is only the case because the performer has first taken the step of "exposing" [while disproving] a method that he will actually be using in a few moments. Without that exposure there is no miracle; the audience may very well suspect the envelope is "see through", and failing to disprove that before the thought can take hold means possible failure of the entire routine.

Mindlessly saying "exposure is bad", without actually defining exactly what constitutes "exposure", is no more true (or false) than saying "guns are bad". Sure, guns are bad when they're used to shoot down innocent store clerks - but when they're used (by the police) to take out the bad guys before any other innocent victims can be slaughtered... well, then maybe guns start to look pretty good.

So it is with "exposure". Want to complain about it? Then define it. Explain EXACTLY what you say is being exposed, and how that information is harming ANY performer and/or the art form itself. Or, you know, crawl back into your mother's basement and continue to whine about Youtube on Twitter (or whatever).

.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Sep 2, 2014 07:57AM)
That's one opinion, but not the be all say all. What's wrong with just letting them being entertained instead of spoon feeding them methods? If one has to resort to exposing methods, why would most people not be happy if I exposed their entire show if I justified it by using totally different methods in which to cancel out what was exposed? By what you and others are purporting, there shouldn't be any problem with doing so.

P.S. How's your Barney puppet doing?
Message: Posted by: tomsk192 (Sep 2, 2014 08:10AM)
Here is an interesting example: [b]Silk to Egg[/b].

Although many performers, including such esteemed names as Whit Haydn and Bob Sanders, do the 'Sucker Silk to Egg', [i]which exposes the method[/i], yet there are others who do [i]not[/i] do the 'Sucker' bit, and the trick plays along quite happily for them.

I don't notice anybody whaling on Sanders, Haydn or countless others that do the 'Sucker' routine. Why? Firstly, because although the actual method [i]is[/i] being exposed, it is then cancelled out later on.( Just like the sawing in half illusion as done by P&T.) Secondly, I'd say that some people really dislike P&T, and this is just a way to have a good old fashioned b*tch.

Food for thought.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Sep 2, 2014 11:23AM)
Given that, Would my example be ok
Message: Posted by: magicwatcher2005 (Sep 2, 2014 11:32AM)
[quote]On Sep 2, 2014, lunatik wrote:
That's one opinion, but not the be all say all. What's wrong with just letting them being entertained instead of spoon feeding them methods? If one has to resort to exposing methods, why would most people not be happy if I exposed their entire show if I justified it by using totally different methods in which to cancel out what was exposed? By what you and others are purporting, there shouldn't be any problem with doing so.[/quote]

Your argument remains sophomoric. However, you accidentally make an interesting point. [i]Some[/i] producers feel there IS no problem with presenting an entire show in which secret after secret is exposed - they've been calling it "[i]Magic's Biggest Secrets Revealed![/i]". It's gotten great ratings and has been very successful across the entire [i]MBSR[/i] franchise for many years. In fact, given your inherent nastiness and ongoing threats to do such a thing it might actually turn out to be your "calling".

But the thing is - and there's really no getting around this - in spite of MANY exposure show episodes revealing dozens upon dozens of [b]actual[/b] secrets (unlike the phony secrets "revealed" in Penn and Teller's sawing) - thousands of professional magicians still thrive in the marketplace, and NONE of the major performers (Mac, Lance, DC, etc.) have suffered any negative results in the least. If anything it's made the subject of magic more interesting for a much larger audience and allowed [i]skilled[/i] performers to use the very existence of the "masked Magician" to their advantage.

[quote]On Sep 2, 2014, lunatik wrote: P.S. How's your Barney puppet doing? [/quote]

I don't have a "Barney puppet" - that's your twisted fantasy, not mine. In fact, I didn't even know there [i]was[/i] such a thing as a "Barney puppet", but I am not surprised in the least that you DO.

.
Message: Posted by: Dougini (Sep 2, 2014 11:48AM)
I suppose I undertstand the apathy of the Pros, since you are constantly updating your acts. Me, I'm a simple sort. Show magic to my friends once in a while. I'm really miffed about paying $35 to $40 for an effect, just to see the Masked Moron expose it for all! Charlie Justice did not give Bruce Nash permission. Valentino openly exposed it. No credit given...nothing.

That's low-life behavior to me...

Doug
Message: Posted by: Dave Le Fevre (Sep 2, 2014 12:55PM)
[quote]On Sep 2, 2014, magicwatcher2005 wrote:
Explain EXACTLY what you say is being exposed, and how that information is harming ANY performer and/or the art form itself[/quote]
You ask for a example of exposure - ok, here's one.

On [I]Fool Us[/I], Penn & Teller sometimes say that they know the method, sometimes they have a quiet discussion with the performer and then confirm that they know the method, sometimes they drop a public "hint" such as the fact that it's a one-way deck, and sometimes they admit they they've been fooled. And sometimes they completely expose the performer's method, publicly. As they did for Chris Dugdale, which was gratuitous, spiteful, malicious, and bad for magic.

They also exposed an effect that Jon Allen performed, which is his creation and he markets it. Fortunately, they method that he used on the show differed from that of his marketed effect, so the public exposure by P&T was, by happenstance, harmless.

One could argue that appearing on [I]Fool Us[/I] is inviting one's method to be exposed. But I disagree - in most cases, Penn & Teller weren't fooled yet they didn't publicly expose the method. Public exposure on prime-time television of the methods of certain performers, done apparently on a whim, isn't nice, and isn't good for magic.

Dave
Message: Posted by: magicwatcher2005 (Sep 2, 2014 01:56PM)
[quote]On Sep 2, 2014, Dave Le Fevre wrote:
[quote]On Sep 2, 2014, magicwatcher2005 wrote:
Explain EXACTLY what you say is being exposed, and how that information is harming ANY performer and/or the art form itself[/quote]
You ask for a example of exposure - ok, here's one.

On [I]Fool Us[/I], Penn and Teller sometimes say that they know the method, sometimes they have a quiet discussion with the performer and then confirm that they know the method, sometimes they drop a public "hint" such as the fact that it's a one-way deck, and sometimes they admit they they've been fooled. And sometimes they completely expose the performer's method, publicly. As they did for Chris Dugdale, which was gratuitous, spiteful, malicious, and bad for magic.

They also exposed an effect that Jon Allen performed, which is his creation and he markets it. Fortunately, they method that he used on the show differed from that of his marketed effect, so the public exposure by P and T was, by happenstance, harmless.

One could argue that appearing on [I]Fool Us[/I] is inviting one's method to be exposed. But I disagree - in most cases, Penn and Teller weren't fooled yet they didn't publicly expose the method. Public exposure on prime-time television of the methods of certain performers, done apparently on a whim, isn't nice, and isn't good for magic.

Dave [/quote]

Thank you, Dave. however, I'm NOT saying that Penn and Teller have [i]never[/i] exposed valued secrets in their careers. I'm sure you can find many examples that will seem egregious on one level or another. However, in their "[i]Sawing a Lady in Half[/i]" - the topic of THIS particular thread - I contend there is no exposure of any secret that any respectable magician would use... or should even care about.

I understand that some will always see them as villainous exposers of the treasured secrets (in Steinmeyer's "empty safe"), and therefore feel that [i]anything[/i] they perform which even hints at "exposure" is evil, evil, evil. But as yet no one has actually been able to explain in detail what exactly they have exposed in the [i]Sawing[/i] effect. Oh, we've got plenty of [i]other[/i] examples being pointed out, and we have out resident [i]lunatic[/i] besmirching anyone who would disagree with him... but no actual spelling-out of what priceless secrets they've so cavalierly "exposed".

Feel free to enlighten me on that with [b]specific[/b] regard to the Penn and Teller performance that is the subject of this thread - https://tv.yahoo.com/video/penn-teller-reveal-famous-magic-061244687.html

.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Sep 2, 2014 02:06PM)
[quote]On Sep 2, 2014, magicwatcher2005 wrote:
[quote]On Sep 2, 2014, lunatik wrote:
That's one opinion, but not the be all say all. What's wrong with just letting them being entertained instead of spoon feeding them methods? If one has to resort to exposing methods, why would most people not be happy if I exposed their entire show if I justified it by using totally different methods in which to cancel out what was exposed? By what you and others are purporting, there shouldn't be any problem with doing so.[/quote]

Your argument remains sophomoric. However, you accidentally make an interesting point. [i]Some[/i] producers feel there IS no problem with presenting an entire show in which secret after secret is exposed - they've been calling it "[i]Magic's Biggest Secrets Revealed![/i]". It's gotten great ratings and has been very successful across the entire [i]MBSR[/i] franchise for many years. In fact, given your inherent nastiness and ongoing threats to do such a thing it might actually turn out to be your "calling".

But the thing is - and there's really no getting around this - in spite of MANY exposure show episodes revealing dozens upon dozens of [b]actual[/b] secrets (unlike the phony secrets "revealed" in Penn and Teller's sawing) - thousands of professional magicians still thrive in the marketplace, and NONE of the major performers (Mac, Lance, DC, etc.) have suffered any negative results in the least. If anything it's made the subject of magic more interesting for a much larger audience and allowed [i]skilled[/i] performers to use the very existence of the "masked Magician" to their advantage.

[quote]On Sep 2, 2014, lunatik wrote: P.S. How's your Barney puppet doing? [/quote]

I don't have a "Barney puppet" - that's your twisted fantasy, not mine. In fact, I didn't even know there [i]was[/i] such a thing as a "Barney puppet", but I am not surprised in the least that you DO.

. [/quote]

I know reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, so let me say it again. Not just having a show that only exposes methods but to then perform the effect with a totally different method, canceling out what they just saw. It by your logic would be justified as you're leading them down a path but then switch it up on them. How is that any different than what P&T do? Don't worry , I'll answer it for you...there is no difference.

Ok, so maybe you have a stuffed bird or dog lol
Message: Posted by: magicwatcher2005 (Sep 2, 2014 04:40PM)
[quote]On Sep 2, 2014, lunatik wrote:
[[...]
I know reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, so let me say it again. Not just having a show that only exposes methods but to then perform the effect with a totally different method, canceling out what they just saw. It by your logic would be justified as you're leading them down a path but then switch it up on them. How is that any different than what P&T do? Don't worry , I'll answer it for you...there is no difference.

Ok, so maybe you have a stuffed bird or dog lol [/quote]


Now [i]that's[/i] funny - YOU criticizing some else's "reading comprehension".

Your total lack of respect for any opinion other than your own renders your own opinion worthless to any rational individual. But THIS thread - the one you have posted almost nothing but nonsense to - is about Penn and Teller's [i]Sawing a Lady in Half [/i] routine.

It's NOT about their past history of supposed exposure.

It's NOT about the show [i]Fool Us[/i].

It's NOT about Youtube videos.


It IS about their [i]Sawing a Lady in Half [/i] routine. Though I know you will not, I still challenge you to detail what genuine "secrets" they've exposed in that routine. And the reason I know you will not is because I know you CANNOT. The only "secrets" they've "exposed" are non-existent ones that no actual magician would ever use.

.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 2, 2014 04:43PM)
They exposed deceptive s####s on national TV ... I'd shun them ... They didn't invent DS and it's not theirs to give away. They sold out and I'm amazed anyone would run damage control for their magical treason. Absolutely no difference between them and the Masked Magician... Except they make a lot more money at it!!!!
Message: Posted by: magicwatcher2005 (Sep 2, 2014 06:38PM)
[quote]On Sep 2, 2014, Slim King wrote:
They exposed deceptive s####s on national TV ... I'd shun them ... They didn't invent DS and it's not theirs to give away. They sold out and I'm amazed anyone would run damage control for their magical treason. Absolutely no difference between them and the Masked Magician... Except they make a lot more money at it!!!! [/quote]

We're in the "Secret Sessions" forum here, Slim - it's okay to write "deceptive stairs" without self censoring. So you say Penn and Teller exposed [i]deceptive stairs[/i]? Where exactly did you see them do that?

Oh, and I can't speak intelligently about how much money the Masked Magician made, but I can guarantee you the [i]network[/i] that broadcast the MM series made WAY more money than Penn and Teller.

Anyway, where did P and T expose deceptive stairs again?

.
Message: Posted by: tomsk192 (Sep 2, 2014 07:19PM)
To be honest, they didn't and it doesn't matter much anyway, because Slim [i]did[/i] just coin the phrase 'magical treason', which I love. ROSHAMBO!!!!
Message: Posted by: Ado (Sep 2, 2014 09:58PM)
[quote]On Sep 2, 2014, magicwatcher2005 wrote:
Anyway, where did P and T expose deceptive stairs again?
[/quote]

The Emmy Awards in 88. That, to me, pretty much looked like what you're asking for, if not more. And at the end on the show, they did not even use any other magical mean taht the audience would be left pondering about, unlike with the lady sawed inhalf. To me, it was just exposure after exposure.

P!
Message: Posted by: magicwatcher2005 (Sep 3, 2014 01:05AM)
[quote]On Sep 2, 2014, Ado wrote:
[quote]On Sep 2, 2014, magicwatcher2005 wrote:
Anyway, where did P and T expose deceptive stairs again?
[/quote]

The Emmy Awards in 88. That, to me, pretty much looked like what you're asking for, if not more. And at the end on the show, they did not even use any other magical mean taht the audience would be left pondering about, unlike with the lady sawed inhalf. To me, it was just exposure after exposure.

P! [/quote]

You're talking about the stairs in THIS video? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GN98dykPqcE

Wow, if you think those are "deceptive stairs" you need to go back to beginner magic class. The actual illusion prop called "Deceptive Stairs" looks [i]nothing[/i] like that monstrosity, which was clearly built and dressed to be entirely obvious to the entire audience from the very beginning. You could fit three adults in that massive thing, and covering it with solid pink sparkley fabric is the absolute opposite of what any illusion builder would do - IF he intended for it to deceive (which Penn and Teller clearly did not).



As for your contention that they "did not even use any other magical mean that the audience would be left pondering about..." I have to wonder how do you know? All you've seen is a heavily edited Youtube video; in the actual performance Teller was not in the cardboard box for quite some time before the washing machine was dropped. Instead there was a very clever switch in which a "stunt double" took Teller's place. The fellow you see diving out of the cardboard box at the last second was not Teller, who reappeared in the theater far too quickly to have been the guy jumping out of the box. Teller's reappearance was not shown in that Youtube video.

From the audience point of view Teller somehow reappeared among them, even though they believed they had seen him leaping free from danger way up on the right end of the stage just a fraction of a second earlier. But you couldn't know any of that because you've drawn your conclusions based on incomplete information.


(PS: Here are some actual "Deceptive Stairs", just to help you know the difference for future reference.)
Message: Posted by: magicwatcher2005 (Sep 3, 2014 11:55AM)
[quote]On Sep 3, 2014, MeetMagicMike wrote:
[...]

I DO recognize that thinking magician's have to take into account what the audience thinks they know. I was just watching "Worlds Greatest Magic I" and saw Jan Tamariz lift up the small table he was at and say "see, no magnets, no holes, nothing". Why would he do that? Could it be that he actually put some thought into it? [/quote]

Holy crap! Juan Tamaiz exposed [i]trick tables, magnets, and holes[/i]? OMG, he's worse than Penn and Teller, the Masked Magician, and Youtube all rolled into one!!!

I've given this some thought and come to realize that [i]lunatik[/i] and others think we should just do a trick and then sit back and let the audience award us with the praise and adoration we so richly deserve. Scripting, plot twists, provers, convincers... forget all that clap-trap. That's just meandering down the potential road to ruin via "exposure".

So how can we scrupulously avoid even a [i]hint[/i] of exposure? I mean, we can't say, "Look, my hands are empty" because then we'll be exposing the "secret" of hiding stuff in our hands. We can't say, "Nothing up my sleeve" because then we're exposing sleeving. Forget the stock line, "No trapdoors, mirrors, or hidden assistants" when they're examining a prop because we'll be exposing... um, trapdoors, mirrors, and hidden assistants.

It's starting to seem that if we want to adhere to the hyper-zealous anti-"exposure" crowd that's surfaced in [i]this[/i] thread we'll have to stick to nothing but silent acts. Because - if you buy into the nonsense espoused by some here - virtually [b]anything[/b] we say or do to convince out audience we're not doing something they might suspect makes us guilty of "exposure".

Crap! I can't believe I have to throw out years of hard work developing and refining my scripts; Plus now I gotta go find a bunch of loud music to perform to...

.
Message: Posted by: Phil J. (Sep 3, 2014 12:35PM)
I went to the filming of one episode of 'Fool Us'. P&T did their best not to reveal any secrets. However, if any contestant argued the toss over the method they would reveal the secret. Given that there was a prize involved they had little choice but to do the reveal. Believe me what you see on the TV is nothing compared to what was cut out.
Message: Posted by: Dave Le Fevre (Sep 3, 2014 12:46PM)
[quote]On Sep 2, 2014, magicwatcher2005 wrote:
Feel free to enlighten me on that with [b]specific[/b] regard to the Penn and Teller performance that is the subject of this thread - https://tv.yahoo.com/video/penn-teller-reveal-famous-magic-061244687.html
[/quote]
The title of this thread is [I]P & T's "Fool us"[/I]. You didn't start the thread. However, if you feel that you're entitled to dictate what is and isn't pertinent to this thread, then I can't be bothered to argue.

Apologies if that sounds a bit terse. You asked for an example of exposure. I gave an example of exposure. I'd added [I]but no doubt you'll disagree[/I], and then I'd removed it because I didn't wish to sound contentious. Might as well have left it there, because no matter what example anybody gave, you weren't going to accept it. You've made your mind up.

Dave
Message: Posted by: Payne (Sep 3, 2014 02:49PM)
[quote]
On Sep 2, 2014, Dougini wrote:

I suppose I undertstand the apathy of the Pros, since you are constantly updating your acts.

[/quote]

Most Pros don't update their acts. There's the old saying that the difference between a professional and an amateur magician is that the professional does the same tricks for different audiences while the amateur does different tricks for the same audience. I've been doing pretty much the same act at my Ren Faires for over thirty years now.

[quote]

Me, I'm a simple sort. Show magic to my friends once in a while. I'm really miffed about paying $35 to $40 for an effect, just to see the Masked Moron expose it for all! Charlie Justice did not give Bruce Nash permission. Valentino openly exposed it. No credit given...nothing.

[/quote]

Understandable. But it should motivate you to find material that hasn't been exposed on YouTube. Stay away from the latest and greatest YouTube Wonder being foisted on the magic community and delve into some books. There's tons of effects and routines out there that can't be found on YouTube. Especially if you don't call them by name when you are performing them.

Or better yet, create your own routines. It's not as hard as one might think.

That's low-life behavior to me...

Doug [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Payne (Sep 3, 2014 02:57PM)
I generally find that the people who are most upset about "secrets" being exposed are those who the secret to the trick is all they have.
Message: Posted by: MartiniMagic (Sep 3, 2014 06:50PM)
I think there was a lot of exposure in the Houdini Miniseries.
Message: Posted by: magicwatcher2005 (Sep 4, 2014 12:06AM)
[quote]On Sep 3, 2014, MartiniMagic wrote:
I think there was a lot of exposure in the Houdini Miniseries. [/quote]

Yeah, I heard that. I also heard Penn AND Teller were both co-producers and it was sponsored by Youtube. Also, supposedly the production company that created the [i]Magic's Greatest Secrets Revealed[/i] series has optioned it for syndicated release.

Of course, those may all just be unfounded rumors...

.
Message: Posted by: Ado (Sep 4, 2014 12:47AM)
[quote]On Sep 3, 2014, magicwatcher2005 wrote:
You're talking about the stairs in THIS video? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GN98dykPqcE

Wow, if you think those are "deceptive stairs" you need to go back to beginner magic class.
[/quote]
Well, I didn't take classes. I just guesses from words that it was, well, what it is.
Oh, yes, I was able to realise that this staircase was very big. But my take on that is that now, people WILL think of the staircase, and "lovely assistants" have been known to accommodate well in less room.

It's like saying that by showing a DL where the two cards are not aligned at all, you're not exposing it well done.
While that is true in that you don't get an exposed view of the thing done properly, it still pretty much tells you the concept that is used by people who do it well enough that you would not have considered it had you not seen this comical interpretation.

In other words, they have exposed the *method*, while not (always) using optimal props.


[quote]
But you couldn't know any of that because you've drawn your conclusions based on incomplete information.
[/quote]
I stand corrected. They have exposed a handful of *methods*, and used another one which fooled me.

P!
Message: Posted by: magicwatcher2005 (Sep 4, 2014 02:05AM)
[quote]On Sep 4, 2014, Ado wrote:
[quote]On Sep 3, 2014, magicwatcher2005 wrote:
You're talking about the stairs in THIS video? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GN98dykPqcE

Wow, if you think those are "deceptive stairs" you need to go back to beginner magic class.
[/quote]
Well, I didn't take classes. [...] [/quote]

Okay... [i]that[/i] explains everything. Never mind.

But if you get a chance, have a magician who IS educated show you Marlo's "Spider Vanish" (it's a coin sleight). Alternately you could ask to see Skinner's variation, the "Spidergrip Vanish". Either one uses [apparently] awkward, clumsy handling to make the audience believe they have caught the magician attempting to only [i]pretend[/i] to take the coin with one hand while secretly retaining it. In reality, the magician actually DOES take the coin, but the audience is convinced otherwise. By the time they discover it's not where they think it is the coin is safely out of play, leaving no clue as to where it could have gone.

So it is with the Penn and Teller stairs that have you so concerned. They didn't have to build a special prop that was grossly over-sized and bright sparkley pink so that it could not possibly fool anyone. In fact, they could have easily obtained a truly deceptive prop - but then they actually WOULD have been exposing a secret. By making the stairs SO obvious they turn the whole idea of hiding a person in a set of stairs into one big gag. In the future, should that same audience see an illusion that uses a REAL set of deceptive stairs they will have no idea, because they've been conditioned to think that it takes a pretty big set of obviously hollow stairs to pull it off. I would bet that ten minutes after the Penn and Teller routine the same people could be seriously baffled by a genuine illusion using truly deceptive stairs. So much for "exposure".

.
Message: Posted by: Ado (Sep 4, 2014 03:14AM)
[quote]On Sep 4, 2014, magicwatcher2005 wrote:
Okay... [i]that[/i] explains everything. Never mind.
[/quote]
How condescending. Was it necessary? (This is a real question. Please answer.)

I have no interest in stage magic, and I have never looked for secrets behind it.
I did, however, and by pure coincidence before joining this thread, recently rediscovered the prop by watching a magican on America's got Talent on youtube. Forgot the name, but it was him being tied to a table, with spikes in flames. all behind a curtain. The spikes drop, he's behind the judges. The magician's staircase was much bigger than that of your picture, and I quickly thought of the staircase.

I was able to devise the prop without the hint.
It seems very plausible that having seen the ugly staircase, the chances of gettign the insight of the staircase in a real performance increases dramatically. I think that the risk of people making this link is high enough to classify P&T's action as exposure of the method (which it is, since there exist stairs to do exactly that).

If you don't think that showing that someone who is hidden in a wheeled staircase to escape a set (ie, P&T's demo) is indeed exposure of the use of a staircase as a mean to secretly move someone away from the set (ie, a method used by magicians), then we won't agree. I don't think colour makes it less exposure.

I do think they exposed the method, even though the prop was grotesque.


[quote]
But if you get a chance, have a magician who IS educated show you Marlo's "Spider Vanish" (it's a coin sleight).[/quote]

I know it. And I don't like it. I think it's an unnecessary ugly move, and that magic would be improved if alternative vanishes were used. And that if there's no alternative move for that trick, then an alternative trick should be chosen. I think that, because the spider vanish is doable, doesn't mean that it has to be done. Marlo is one of the magicians I like the most, and with all due respect, I dislike this creation of his.

P!
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Sep 4, 2014 08:29AM)
I've already answered it but apparently you cannot read. They showed a method did they not? Maybe not every magician in the world uses that method, but to say no one does would be ignorant.

This thread is like saying Hitler was a nice community oriented gentleman because he had a lemonade stand, but neglecting to see the bigger problem. Why stick up for him and fight tooth and nail for such an atrocious man? Same thing for P&T, who cares that they do a few decent things when on the other hand they commit such atrocious acts of exposure throughout their career?
Message: Posted by: tomsk192 (Sep 4, 2014 08:35AM)
[img]http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/Blog_Godwins_Law.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: Tim Cavendish (Sep 4, 2014 10:00AM)
Lunatik invooked Hitler.

The thread is over.

lunatik lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Message: Posted by: magicwatcher2005 (Sep 4, 2014 11:22AM)
[quote]On Sep 4, 2014, lunatik wrote:
I've already answered it but apparently you cannot read. They showed a method did they not? Maybe not every magician in the world uses that method, but to say no one does would be ignorant.

[Godwin's Law invoked, making this poster look even more foolish - omitted here for obvious reasons][/quote]

I read just fine, lunatik; others do too. Please direct us to the post where you [i]specifically detailed[/i] WHAT method was exposed in Penn and Tellers Sawing routine. I'm talking [b]specifics[/b] here, not just the general term "method". At one point you offered to enlighten me in a manner that "even a 2 year old" could understand (a level you may or [i]may not[/i] be capable of). So I asked you to [b]detail[/b] what method was exposed, even if you can only do so at that elementary level. As yet you have failed to do so.

You say "[i]Maybe not every magician in the world uses that method[/i]" as if there are [i]some[/i] who DO. Currently there are tens of millions of videos on Youtube. First we'll have to get you to [i]detail[/i] the method you insist was exposed, but after that you should able to find some magicians who DO use this as-yet-unknown method. If there is ANY resource that would help us discover those poor souls it would be Youtube, and I have repeatedly asked you to direct us to such videos. As usual you have been unable or unwilling to do so.

At this point it's sort of a [i]put up or shut up[/i] moment - though it seems you refuse to do the former and I doubt you are capable of the latter. The only conclusion I can draw is you cannot provide specifics because you don't have any. The vague generalization "[i]they exposed [b]a method[/b][/i]" won't cut it here, probably not even among those who kind of agree with you. So, you know... put up or shut up.

.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Sep 4, 2014 11:28AM)
I think the both of you need to do the latter, have we not been talking about a wedge this whole time?!?
Message: Posted by: colin72 (Sep 4, 2014 01:20PM)
[quote]On Sep 4, 2014, lunatik wrote:
I think the both of you need to do the latter, have we not been talking about a wedge this whole time?!? [/quote]

[quote]On Sep 4, 2014, colin72 wrote:
Since you've already answered the question, please refer me to that specific post. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Sep 4, 2014 02:43PM)
Have we not been talking about a wedge? That was my first contention. And I added the rest to the thread. At any rate, what's so hard to understand either point? If you don't, then it very well may be that we'll have to agree to disagree. But if you still want to go on and on about it, I'm more than happy to oblige lol.
Message: Posted by: magicwatcher2005 (Sep 4, 2014 05:05PM)
[quote]On Sep 4, 2014, lunatik wrote:
Have we not been talking about a wedge?[/quote]

Amazing - you turn out to be the most gullible of all.

It's true, Penn does utter the word "wedge", and so you think that's the name of a magic principle they have now exposed. In reality, the closest thing to "a wedge" you can find in the field of illusions is the [i]wedge base[/i], but you obviously don't have a clue about what that is because the Penn and Teller [i]Sawing[/i] prop does not utilize the wedge base principle in any manner whatsoever - not during the [b]fake exposure[/b] portion of the routine... and not in the actual illusion itself.

Feel free to try again. But maybe get someone who knows something about magic to help you this time. The only magic principle I am aware of called "a wedge" is used in card magic and was invented by (and named after) Dai Vernon.

[quote]On Sep 4, 2014, lunatik wrote: That was my first contention. And I added the rest to the thread. At any rate, what's so hard to understand either point? If you don't, then it very well may be that we'll have to agree to disagree. But if you still want to go on and on about it, I'm more than happy to oblige lol. [/quote]

I do. Please continue to try, lunatik. It's very entertaining watching you trip over your own ignorance, and [i]you're[/i] actually laughing out loud, so it's all good... right?

.
Message: Posted by: ZachDavenport (Sep 4, 2014 05:33PM)
What I don't like about this thread is how everybody seems so mean spirited. People are actually insulting other people over nothing more than a simple question. It is magicians helping magicians, not magicians insulting magicians.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Sep 4, 2014 05:42PM)
No reason to show ANY working of the illusion, regardless if you don't think anyone uses it or not. And he's , I will continue to laugh at your ignorance. So what about P&T's other videos that expose, got some more excuses for them fanboy?

P.S. How's your Big Bird puppet been doing btw?
Message: Posted by: Ado (Sep 4, 2014 11:44PM)
[quote]On Sep 4, 2014, tomsk192 wrote:
They didn't let him through either time, but on what was I think the first appearance, they said that he'd 'rung in something from the cooler'. Exposure? Well, shortly thereafter, 'The Cooler' was marketed, and you can Google that if you don't know what it does already. But to be honest, it wasn't really exposure. Watch the clip: it's seamless.
[/quote]

I think this was just a coincidence. What you bring from the cooler is a cold deck. He just didn't want to say that (though I'd have to watch the video again to see whether the actual device called a cooler was in play. But I doubt it). That is cryptic enough to be meaningless to those not in the know, and thus not exposure. Had he said "I think you ended with a deck different from that you started with", it would have publicly put the switch as the method actually used to get cards in an improbable arrangement. That would have qualified as exposure of a mean, even though the when and how wouldn't have been explained.

P!

PS: I'm still waiting for magicwatcher2005 to answer my question.
Message: Posted by: Dougini (Sep 13, 2014 07:46PM)
[quote]
On Sep 3, 2014, Payne wrote:
Most Pros don't update their acts. There's the old saying that the difference between a professional and an amateur magician is that the professional does the same tricks for different audiences while the amateur does different tricks for the same audience. I've been doing pretty much the same act at my Ren Faires for over thirty years now.
[/quote]
Hmmm. Good point. Your act is quite unique. No one could copy it with any success. Thirty years. That, my friend, is what I call success! I cannot hold a candle to you. I wouldn't even try. My goal is to develop a unique act like you did. I'm 58, so it won't last thirty years! LOL!

Doug

[quote]
Me, I'm a simple sort. Show magic to my friends once in a while. I'm really miffed about paying $35 to $40 for an effect, just to see the Masked Moron expose it for all! Charlie Justice did not give Bruce Nash permission. Valentino openly exposed it. No credit given...nothing.
[/quote]
[quote]
Understandable. But it should motivate you to find material that hasn't been exposed on YouTube. Stay away from the latest and greatest YouTube Wonder being foisted on the magic community and delve into some books. There's tons of effects and routines out there that can't be found on YouTube. Especially if you don't call them by name when you are performing them.

Or better yet, create your own routines. It's not as hard as one might think.
[/quote]
That is really the best advice. Routines, I have no problem with. Books...YES! I have plenty. Good stuff too. Nothing exposed or YouTubed! LOL! Yeah, I know just the book. Oh, and no, I would never call an effect by its trade name! Never!

It took me quite a long time to master the Dye Tube and Multiplying Billiard Balls. I guard those diligently. However, harping about it here is pointless. Back on topic...

Yeah. I see now. This wasn't so much exposure by P & T, as it was a parody. I see that now.

Doug
Message: Posted by: edshern (Sep 20, 2014 01:06PM)
"The day we learned that The Sun doesn't go around the Earth,
The sunset was still beautiful." anon
Message: Posted by: ZachDavenport (Sep 22, 2014 10:12AM)
[quote]On Sep 20, 2014, edshern wrote:
"The day we learned that The Sun doesn't go around the Earth,
The sunset was still beautiful." anon [/quote]
But the sunset's beauty does not involve fooling you. You could argue that people don't like being fooled, but if that is true why are we doing magic?
Message: Posted by: SilverMagician (Dec 20, 2015 01:00AM)
At the very least, Penn and Teller come up with more innovative ways to perform these tricks, unlike people like the masked magician who claimed to expose to encourage innovation which was complete BS
Message: Posted by: ATL (Dec 27, 2015 06:53PM)
Well that thread was quite interesting read. I personally don't have any problem with P & T's "exposure". Besides cups and balls I don't even remember seeing much actual exposure from them. Masked magician who's brought up here as well, I did quite like the show. However I would agree it went too far, but I still enjoyed watching it.

I remember seeing trick called one handed pass or something like that where as part of presentation you would expose the pass. I wouldn't personally have problem with someone doing that, but I'd imagine some people here would. Something I've noticed myself though is that younger people generally are less worried about exposure and less obsessed about secrets. That doesn't mean necessarily that they run around exposing tricks to left and right for sake of exposing, but for example a year ago when I started getting into magic and went to visit local magic circle's meeting where anyone can join. When there was time to freely discuss and chill at the end of it I found some differences between older and younger guys.

Firstly younger guys were a bit more flexible. So older guys often had effect that THEY wanted to show where with younger guys it was often that I could throw out concept(for example, "you know any of those tricks where card just visually changes to another?") and then one younger guys would perform something that uses that concept, so basically they would perform what I wanted to see, which was really cool. But more importantly older guys often only wanted to show effect and leave it at that where as chatting with younger guys it was different. For both I told that I was interested of learning obviously. Thing is younger guys would show me effect that I wanted to see normally, but then also were often open to teach it to me. Show how it's done, explain, let me try, give feedback etc.

Now that I know everyone much better, a lot of the older guys are great and I don't want to say that's case everywhere. But that was my experience and I have to say that I wonder if I'd came back without the younger guys.

I have to jump on Zach's: "But the sunset's beauty does not involve fooling you. You could argue that people don't like being fooled, but if that is true why are we doing magic?"

Firstly magic's beauty doesn't necessarily need to rely on fooling. And I don't know about you, but I don't do magic to fool people. I do it because I think it can be done in a way that it's beautiful to watch. I know some people who do it because it can be done in a way that's funny.

In fact when I look for routine to practice my number one thing in a checklist is "It has to be worth watching even if you know exactly how it's done.". If it relies on fooling someone, then I'm not interested, because I have to enjoy practicing it and I will know the secret. All of my favorite routine's I know to some extent how those are done. Not to every single move, but even if I would it wouldn't lessen the value for me in any way. I think the whole idea of fooling is a big problem to begin with, that's biggest problem when I think audience is that they often have this assumption that they need to look for secret. So Lunatik, if I ever become good enough and would come to where you are and perform, I'd honestly love your idea. I kind of doubt you'd actually do it, but I would absolutely love it. For now it wouldn't make any difference since I've only performed to magicians mostly.

If I would be good enough to do card manipulation routine, I'd have no problem of you having word with audience and exposing the methods(I'd suspect some people here would as well as you would probably feel a bit contradicted) I think it would be good set up for the routine. I would just see it as "let's get this need to know how it's done out of the way so then you(audience) don't have to worry about it anymore.". I would even know pretty much what kind of patter I would have pre performance after your talk with audience. Only problem is card manipulation is not exactly one of those things you buy and then week later you can perform. I'll see you in 10 years though, remind me!
Message: Posted by: Charles Gaff (Dec 28, 2015 01:22AM)
Exposure hitches a ride on magical performance. Many of our forefathers were famous for "exposure", showing the ways of mediums, later tk, and other such trickery. My girlfriend hates that I am fond of cold reading, and thinks it's the work of cults and exploitation. In the "honest liar" documentary, magicians loose their power to exploit when they admit they are magicians.
I do think P&T show much just so they can have something new to show. If they lived forever, they would probably show everything. I love their BS videos, and have seen their show in Vegas multiple times. Sometimes it seems like misdirection when they claim to expose to keep people from being taken advantage of, then expose some method that is non related to a scam.
I think it's interesting that people get so upset about secrets, then don't mind if it sells for five or ten dollars. I guess it all adds up, but as we rarely have the time or opportunity to apprentice under a master, I think the best secrets are the ones we learn for ourselves in how to direct a crowds attention, get great reactions thru timing and guts, and the pleasure we get when someone later remembers a trick we preformed (accurately or not).
Many people "know" that I don't actually put the coin in the other hand. Along the way, someone exposed the method. I still preform with all my conviction, story , and skill. I still get it by, and they still give the reactions I love. That's what I value.
Message: Posted by: ATL (Dec 28, 2015 03:51AM)
Very well said Charles. Moves are just moves. Obviously it's not in our interest to reveal all the moves to public, but if someone knows doublelift, SO WHAT? Doesn't stop us from using it. Knowing a move doesn't mean you then will be able to bust every trick that uses it. Hell I've been fooled by tricks that use moves that I know every single one of.

I remember in other thread someone telling about a kid who could do pass when this person was burning that kid's hands and he could not see cards move. Now there are some particular effects, 2 card monte for example that I think do lose value if you know the secret. But a lot of things don't. This discussion actually gave me idea for a "game" to play with magicians, which would basically be "Show me something, but only using moves/sleights that you know I know.", it's just one of those silly little things. Like I had idea of playing spot the DL with friend once after card jam. So basically you and the other guy both have deck, you turn card and other guy has to say within 3 seconds either "DL" or "Clean" and if he is correct he gets point, if he's wrong you get point, then he turns a card and it's your turn and so on and so forth until certain amount of points etc.