I was watching Masters of Illusion last week and saw where they actually used CGI to conceal the method of an illusion. It was only in one shot but they definitely used rotoscoping at the very least. The term "Camera tricks" is overly broad and can mean so many different things. I have varying degrees of displeasure at people that can't do things live so they use tricks of the medium to create something that can't exist in real life. Yes, we all know that the audience for these shows are paid extras that will applaud and react on command. I'm not arguing about that. Just that someone is doctoring what they shot to cover up magic that couldn't fool everyone live. It seems to be ubiquitous in magic today to use CGI, AfterEffects, editing and anything else to create the illusion of something you could see live... yet can't be done. Magic appears to be changing and not necessarily for the better.

I agree it would be nice if TV simply presented the wonders of magic faithfully and without enhancement. I expect Gay Blackstone, as an exec producer, would have never endorsed such things. Indeed, it may have to do with a new generation of producers who are more media and less magic oriented.

RE: MOI -I've been in the live Los Angeles MOI audience for several years...and I never was paid, nor was I ever told that I would be, and that was fine by me.

The great majority of the people attending the MOI shows are there to simply "fill seats" and/or have a good time at seeing a 1 - 2 hour FREE magic TV taping.

Are there pre-planned "audience assistants" and/or stooges utilized?....sure, no doubt there are at times.

To their credit, the MOI performers during the live tapings do their acts 'start to finish', mistakes and all. Its up to "post" to "fix things".

I've only seen two acts where fluffs were made: Rick Thomas had one of his large birds "over-shoot" a landing, and had to be re-shot right then and there.

Murray's Don Wayne apparatus was exposed to the cameras & audience (of which Murray was unaware of at the time). They didn't re-shoot it at that taping (they may have done a 'pick up" at a later daytime taping?)...but the final version on TV was seamlessly edited to not show the goof.

But in general, yes I totally agree...if you can't do a magic act live in front of an audience without resorting to camera tricks, stooges and edits, then good luck in recreating those effects from TV into your live show.

i.e. Criss Angel fans in Vegas were disappointed to see him perform "standard" magic tricks, when they expected him to levitate and walk up walls, etc.

And David Blaine - why do you think his live touring show is 99% side-show stunts?---because he doesn't have the "magic" of TV cameras & editing to assist him with more of his known TV "miracles".

Moxahalla, would agree (though I have no experience) with most of what your said and I'm sure you're right. But with Blaine, don't you feel the stunts are what people want to see? I think obviously those are what made him so popular. The average Joe wasn't tuning in to see a few card tricks. So to sell tickets to a live show, you'd have to concede to performing what your target audience wants to see. Just my thoughts.

Makes sense about Blaine. Those stunts did build an audience. One which may have been disappointed not to see them possibly.

It is disappointing to see CGI as a method. It is no longer a magic show at that point in my eyes. It is a technology showcase.

Technology has a place in magic. What that place is seems to be the question.