We Remember The Magic Café We Remember
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » TV Magic and Camera Tricks (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next]
Brady
View Profile
Loyal user
Los Angeles, CA
235 Posts

Profile of Brady
Richard,

I agree. I also think there is another danger for the proposed magician in such a project. There is an old saying: You can fool some of the people, some of the time and you can fool all of the people,some of time, but you can't fool all of the people, all of the time.

For this type of project to work, one would have to fool all of the people, all of the time. If anyone in the cast or crew let the cat out of the bag, it wouldn't take long for that magician to be ruined in the eyes of the public. They would never trust another TV show that magician was involved in, just as in the case of Milli Vanilli.

Anyway, I have said enough. This is a great topic. Thanks for bringing it up.

I saw your name as a possible lecturer for Mindvention. Will that happen? It would be great to see you there!

Regards,

Brady
RicHeka
View Profile
Inner circle
3999 Posts

Profile of RicHeka
Imagine a See-Saw.Truly TRADITIONAL MAGIC sits on the seat at the lower end.Slowly INCREDIBILITY on the higher seat begins exerting it's burden,raising MAGIC higher and higher approaching the balance.Once the MAGIC seat starts to pass the level of the fulcrum point,severe incredibility begins to take over...and that is fine.It becomes a problem when INCREDIBILITY calls in the technically talented friends and they sit down also.This launches Magic up way above even the believability of the majority of a TV audience of normal persons,so much so that they react negatively to the act in particular,and to MAGIC in general. ALL the Best. Rich
Ed Hutchison
View Profile
Regular user
Madison, MS (orig. CNY)
118 Posts

Profile of Ed Hutchison
Why would anyone want to watch a TV magic show if it was known that the tricks were created by special effects technicians and not by the performer?

We've already seen Mr. Ed talk, Jeannie perform miracles by twitching her nose, Gilligan float, and countless other televised "tricks." Anyone who tuned in to a second episode of these shows did so for the comedy, not because they believed that Mr. Ed was really talking. What would be the novelty of watching a special effects show devoid of comedy or some other entertainment? And isn't that precisely what a TV show of the type described by Richard would be?

Ed Hutchison
Edward Hutchison

Madison, MS

Home Page: http://www.ERHutchison.com
Greg Arce
View Profile
Inner circle
6503 Posts

Profile of Greg Arce
Quote:
On 2005-09-12 21:04, Ed Hutchison wrote:
Why would anyone want to watch a TV magic show if it was known that the tricks were created by special effects technicians and not by the performer?

We've already seen Mr. Ed talk, Jeannie perform miracles by twitching her nose, Gilligan float, and countless other televised "tricks." Anyone who tuned in to a second episode of these shows did so for the comedy, not because they believed that Mr. Ed was really talking. What would be the novelty of watching a special effects show devoid of comedy or some other entertainment? And isn't that precisely what a TV show of the type described by Richard would be?

Ed Hutchison

I think the point Richard was trying to make is that it would be a show in which you would not know it was being done via electronic wizardry. Would you be okay with establishing some sort of new art form in magic that can only be done via TV Magic? Would you feel that's a good direction to go in as far as the magic world is concerned?
Would you feel comfortable staying in magic if suddenly there were shows on the air that had magic effects you could not ever hope to reproduce in life... and they seem totally real when they played on TV?

Of course, I could be putting words in Richard's mouth so I'm sure he'll correct me if I misunderstood his original post.

Greg
One of my favorite quotes: "A critic is a legless man who teaches running."
Richard Osterlind
View Profile
V.I.P.
2213 Posts

Profile of Richard Osterlind
Greg,

No, you are right on target. Everything you said was exactly what I meant.

Brady,

You bring in a very interesting point. Let me elaborate on it a bit further. We all know that Television networks have basically one goal in mind - ratings. Ratings mean money. For someone to even want to produce a televison show as I have proposed, that would be the driving force. If they were to succeed in capturing a large share of the market, how long would it take another jealous network (ala the attack on Paula Abdul and American Idol) to want to expose what the competition was up to? As you pointed out, the chances of everyone keeping their mouth shut would be very slim if even that. If such an "exposure" show were to take place it would be a lost worse than the masked magician. Instead of just showing some conjuring tactics (which some might admire for their ingenuity), it would showcase the out and out swindle that the whole thing was done in the editing room on computer screens. Therefore it would seem to me that the very purpose of producing such a show would lead to its own downfall.

Just another thought.

Richard
Al Straker
View Profile
Grammar Host
Australia
1121 Posts

Profile of Al Straker
Firstly Richard, love you and your work brother and this is a good topic. Although I have never met you, you are a great mentor and one of the truly 'nice guys' left in magic. Here is my thought process about the topic trying to think like a layperson:

If the show was put across to the audience (me as a layperson) as being a 'magic show', to my 'layperson' way of thinking, I would expect the magic to have been accomplished with traditional magician's methods that could be reproduced 'live' even if the magic was of a kind never seen before.

Assuming I found the show to be entertaining, magical and meaningful, I would be really upset if I later discovered that it was all just a bunch of camera tricks and this would definitely lower my view of magic as an art. As a layperson I can imagine thinking the show should NOT have been promoted as a 'magic show' but rather as something along the lines of a 'fantasy movie' or 'show' like Willie Wonka, Matrix etc. In fact my afterthoughts (Harry where are you) would be exactly that, ie: what I have just seen was not really a 'magic show' as I first believed but rather some kind of 'movie'.

I would definitely feel cheated as a layman. These also happen to be my thoughts as a magician. Like most other magicians I love to be zonked by a great piece of entertaining magic and be comfortable in knowing my amazement was NOT just caused by a camera trick. Causing other people to have that experience through genuine, real time performance of magic is the heart of magic for me. IMHO camera tricks could not survive long as a method simply because as Richard says the show would lead to its own downfall. One thing I remember clearly about watching the early Copperfield specials is the 'no camera trick' disclosure statement. Whether this was strictly true or not, it felt good watching the magic while believing this statement. Magic is so much stronger live than on TV. How many of us have had the comment 'I've never seen a magician up this close before and I can't believe you can still do this stuff...'. I think in any 'staged' TV magic there will always be some scepticism amongst the viewers about using camera tricks, etc.
Therefore, part of the impact of any TV magic show (to a layperson) will actually be affected by how many convincers you can offer them that none of the magic is achieved through camera tricks, etc. Obviously in the case of a slick 'Hollywood' show where the methods are all camera tricks, etc it would be highly unethical (are there ethics in magic?) to make a big effort convincing people you are not using camera tricks. I would also be willing to bet the audience would see straight through this claim in any case and lose interest very quickly.

Cheers,
Al
Al Straker
Resident Mystery Entertainer at Multiple Venues
Music & Mentalism Specialty Act 'Completely Mental'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyGhApqnG7I

(Old clip, show has changed quite a bit since then!)

Jazz & Contemporary Musician/Composer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnN3JNmeKns

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sU_zfOvpneA
MagicMan1957
View Profile
Inner circle
1447 Posts

Profile of MagicMan1957
If any of you saw the film SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW with Gweneth Paltrow, almost the ENTIRE film except the actors were computer generated and it looked really good.

In the VERY near future there will be movies and television shows created ENTIRELY by computer.

I suppose the same will be true with many filmed magic presentations. Actually it's already started in the last few years with some magic television specials.

People will eventually get wise to this and unless the early Copperfield Specials disclosure appears, " Absolutely no camera tricks of any kind were used in the making of this show " , magic on television will not be so magical ever again.
Chad Sanborn
View Profile
Inner circle
my fingers hurt from typing,
2206 Posts

Profile of Chad Sanborn
Richard brings up the point of exposure. More directly, that a magic show with no real magic is just begging to be exposed. If that is the case, then what about a show where the effects are strictly prepared for the tv camera. (as is the case with most of Chris Angels effects) While they may not use computer magic, they certainly do use the magic of 'editing' and the misconceptions of the home audience about the circumstances under which they were filmed. Does a show like this 'beg for exposure'?
If their was an exposure show about this type of 'tv magic' would you be as strongly opposed to it as most magicians were with the FOX specials? Afterall, the tricks exposed would not be tricks you could do live anyway! If you have bought into my philosophy so far, would be opposed to magician who actively sought to expose this type of show?

Chad
Hypnotic Winter
View Profile
Special user
Ireland
720 Posts

Profile of Hypnotic Winter
Some times I think it is a nbit like the "Boy who cried wolf" story. People learn a few times that an effect is done with camera tricks, then when they finally see some one with skill on TV and they will also assume that guy is using camera tricks and what that person has to say has no real value! Personally I feel it devalues mentalism for the rest of us. I mean, even if a person found out the secret to your effect, they can still be impressed at it's operation and skill it took, in the case of camera tricks they feel cheated.

H.W
When your only reality is an illusion, then illusion is reality.
Richard Osterlind
View Profile
V.I.P.
2213 Posts

Profile of Richard Osterlind
Quote:
On 2005-09-13 11:49, Chad Sanborn wrote:
Richard brings up the point of exposure. More directly, that a magic show with no real magic is just begging to be exposed. If that is the case, then what about a show where the effects are strictly prepared for the tv camera. (as is the case with most of Chris Angels effects) While they may not use computer magic, they certainly do use the magic of 'editing' and the misconceptions of the home audience about the circumstances under which they were filmed. Does a show like this 'beg for exposure'?
If their was an exposure show about this type of 'tv magic' would you be as strongly opposed to it as most magicians were with the FOX specials? Afterall, the tricks exposed would not be tricks you could do live anyway! If you have bought into my philosophy so far, would be opposed to magician who actively sought to expose this type of show?

Chad


Chad,

To answer your last question first, NO, I would want no part of ANY exposure shows nor would I want to be part of any such undertaking.

As to your first part, you mention Criss Angel. Why do you say he uses "the magic of 'editing' and the misconceptions of the home audience about the circumstances under which they were filmed."?

Richard
JohnLamberti
View Profile
Elite user
Los Angeles, CA
420 Posts

Profile of JohnLamberti
Here's another hypothetical.

Suppose that the show described above was actually produced, and it contained effects that no human being could hope to be able to accomplish. Then, as proposed in this thread, another show was produced by a jealous network that exposed every single aspect of the show as nothing but special effects. (As an aside, I hesitate to say "camera tricks," as most special effects are the result of a confluence of "tricky" things, including but not limited to green-screens, computer graphics, and expert editing. Usually there's nothing "tricky" about the camera itself. But that's just me being anal while wearing my TV hat.)

So we've got this fake magic show, and we've got this other show debunking the first show. Let's assume that both of these shows made big news and got great ratings. OK.

Now here's something that not everyone will agree with, but I'm going to throw it out there and see who bites. And keep in mind that I'm saying this as a hobbyist who has never earned a dime from performing anything, at any time, ever. So I may end up sounding like a moron. If I do, then please, Richard and you other folks who put food on the table doing this stuff for a living, please feel free to smack me down. Smile

I submit that this whole scenario described above would actually be helpful to a working magician or mentalist. Why? Well, the vast majority of working magicians/mentalists do NOT have regularly scheduled TV specials. They make their livings at trade shows and parties and public performances and the like; in other words, venues where the concept of special effects and so-called "camera tricks" are totally excluded as possibilities. In your advertising and in your actual performance scripts you could make reference to the fact that while other performers have to rely on special effects and the "magic of television", you on the other hand don't need to resort to such flummery. I would think that something like that would make you even MORE believable to your audience.

Agree or disagree? I'm especially interested in hearing from those folks (especially Richard) who rely on performing to pay the bills. So, Richard, what do you think?
RicHeka
View Profile
Inner circle
3999 Posts

Profile of RicHeka
Hi John:Your point is well taken.However,I believe we may be at crossroad where the preservation of Magic as a viable 'art form' is at stake. Individual working performers can of course state the difference with their live, no special effects entertainment if they wish, but I personally believe, high tech edited TV 'magic', being that it may be seen by 'millions', is not helpful to The Art. I think that if this type of show is to continue, some type of profound pre-show disclaimer should exist, so the audience knows what it is getting.Of course, money talks,so the odds for that happening are slim at best. All the best. Rich
Vandy Grift
View Profile
Inner circle
Milwaukee
3504 Posts

Profile of Vandy Grift
Richard,

If you are looking for peoples general opinion, I'll throw mine in. To answer the question in your first post. I wouldn't like it.

I consider magic (and by magic I mean all forms from stage and close-up to mentalism and everything in between.) to be a skill and an art form. Even when I know how an effect is done, in the right hands, I can still marvel at the skill involved and the execution and performance. The skill and performance coupled with the realization of the immense amount of work that can go into these things can be as satisfying as being fooled.

I want to see skilled practioners and presenters of the art of magic. Not some unskilled spokesmodel presenting magic the way the models on "The Price is Right" present the prize package for winning the cliffhanger game.

Vandy
"Get a life dude." -some guy in a magic forum
mormonyoyoman
View Profile
Inner circle
I dug 5,000 postholes, but I have only
2440 Posts

Profile of mormonyoyoman
Quote:
On 2005-09-13 13:47, JohnLamberti wrote:
In your advertising and in your actual performance scripts you could make reference to the fact that while other performers have to rely on special effects and the "magic of television", you on the other hand don't need to resort to such flummery. I would think that something like that would make you even MORE believable to your audience.

This would work only during the act, if the client purchased the act. To advertise "No cheating camera effects" makes it into a challenge. We don't want a challenge; we want to enchant and entertain. And nobody in their right mind hires an entertainer who says, up front, that they're walking in with a chip on their shoulder.

Sure, once you're on stage, you can boast how you don't have to use cheap (expensive) camera effects; heck, you get a lot of mileage if you promise you don't have any assistants (stooges)! (Richard has a very funny line which puts the audience on his side immediately.) But the problem is in getting hired in the first place.

Those with a proven track record and who have a list of happy return clients -- well, they can keep going with return business. But it'll make it mighty difficult for someone new to break into the business -- and it's difficult enough as it is!

*jeep!
--Chet
#ShareGoodness #ldsconf
Richard Osterlind
View Profile
V.I.P.
2213 Posts

Profile of Richard Osterlind
Chet,

Right on the money! But let me address John's question and response.

John,

You make a very good point and, as I have already pointed out on another thread, I always have clients coming up to me saying, "I see this stuff on TV, but seeing it live right here is so different and so much better."

But here is the problem for working professionals as I see it. Let's suppose, John, the scenario you mentioned takes place. So all of magic looks cheap or, at least, not the group of magicians who most people think belong to a special society where promises of keeping secrets are made and all magicians are a brotherhood! So then, here is the planning room in a large corporation deciding what type of talent to have for their top executives at the next big sales meeting in Arizona and someone mentions "magician" or "mentalist" and everyone says, "No, I think not." That is where it affects us.

In Japan, Mr. Maric was (and now still is!) a popular TV personality. Other jealous magicians wanted to do him in because he had gotten so big. They exposed him time after time on TV. The result was that NO ONE could get any work.

That is what could happen. I'm not saying it will - just could.

Richard
Chad Sanborn
View Profile
Inner circle
my fingers hurt from typing,
2206 Posts

Profile of Chad Sanborn
Quote:
On 2005-09-13 13:46, Richard Osterlind wrote:

Chad,

To answer your last question first, NO, I would want no part of ANY exposure shows nor would I want to be part of any such undertaking.

As to your first part, you mention Criss Angel. Why do you say he uses "the magic of 'editing' and the misconceptions of the home audience about the circumstances under which they were filmed."?

Richard


His specials as with those of David Blaine, and others I have seen lately, exemplify the underlying theme of this topic. A lot of the effects could never be done live in front of an audience in the situations portrayed in the tv show. Sometimes, the live portions have been edited together with staged portions, unbeknownst to the home viewers.

These types of shows seem to rely on the reaction of the people watching to sell the effect to the audience. But when the reaction from a real trick is edited into a completely different effect, then the home audience is cheated.

I wish I could give more specifics, but that would require the giving away of secrets. Richard, if you PM me, I can detail them for you.

Chad
JohnLamberti
View Profile
Elite user
Los Angeles, CA
420 Posts

Profile of JohnLamberti
Quote:
On 2005-09-13 17:02, Richard Osterlind wrote:
So then, here is the planning room in a large corporation deciding what type of talent to have for their top executives at the next big sales meeting in Arizona and someone mentions "magician" or "mentalist" and everyone says, "No, I think not." That is where it affects us.


Got it. Thanks for helping me understand Smile Can't wait for the new videos!
Cory Gallupe
View Profile
Inner circle
Nova Scotia, Canada
1272 Posts

Profile of Cory Gallupe
I didn't read the thread, but I am assuming that this is talking about what our opinions are of tv tricks. Personally, I think they look really cool, but they should definatly not be used. It just makes us look stupid, like we are out to fool people and trick them. Not entertain them. like "hey, look I am no good at magic so Ill use the use on cheap camera tricks to fool you!" Hope that made sense. -Cory.
mormonyoyoman
View Profile
Inner circle
I dug 5,000 postholes, but I have only
2440 Posts

Profile of mormonyoyoman
This goes out to Themagicman101 and anyone else who is fond of the quote "For those who believe, no explanation is neccesary. For those who don't believe, no explanation is possible" is the correct quote. Dunninger didn't originate it; he "merely" used it. For the sake of trivia, does anyone want to hazard a guess as to who actually first said it, and what he or she was talking about? Or do I have to bring Bill Palmer in here?

*jeep!
--Chet
#ShareGoodness #ldsconf
RicHeka
View Profile
Inner circle
3999 Posts

Profile of RicHeka
Father Roman Bunda:He actually used both quotes together.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » TV Magic and Camera Tricks (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.19 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL