|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 | ||||||||||
Illucifer Inner circle 1403 Posts |
Alvo,
David never saw a dime of what was owed him. Why on earth would Tony Miller or Paul Harris have been consulted about a published effect of David Harkey's? Would it not have made sense to consult, oh, I don't know... David Harkey? It's not some obscure effect in a magazine somewhere. It was published once in an early set of David's lecture notes, and then in his landmark tome "Simply Harkey". "Oz didn't know" just doesn't wash. He should've asked and informed himself regarding the credits behind any effect released by Penguin. They have a reputation for this kind of thing. David's case was not an isolated one.
It's all in the reflexes.
|
|||||||||
Alvo Regular user 102 Posts |
Illucifer, I think they were consulted precisely because he didn't know of Harkey's trick, as you suggested he should have. Sounded to me like this was just a bad coincidence of well-read folks not recalling a specific effect. And I believe Oz, Penguin and Harkey worked something out afterward. We all make mistakes, but as far as I know, Oz has quickly corrected any mistakes made involving his effects.
|
|||||||||
mumford Special user 652 Posts |
Oz is a member here, let him speak for himself.
|
|||||||||
The Burnaby Kid Inner circle St. John's, Canada 3158 Posts |
Watched this with my girlfriend, so I've got a non-magician/mentalist opinion here...
She didn't buy the watch steal. The way it was executed led her to believe that they stole it from him before the show started. The problem is that this rationalization led her to explain away every other effect with this same methodology -- I actually had to explain that the pizza box revelation was a fair representation of the effect, because she felt that everything was "planted". That's her viewpoint. As for mine... Oz and Ken are in desperate need of a director. If you look at most of the successful two-man teams, there are compelling points of contrast between the two characters. Here, if I didn't know Oz from his Penguin Magic days, I wouldn't be able to say that there's anything different between the two of them except that Ken's got a ponytail. They're both basically guys in suits doing tricks. Their respective roles are unclear, and they even share the same revelation of the phone number. There seems to be a distinct lack of understanding of what makes mentalism powerful. Essentially, what we're looking at here is Oz leading Ken through magic presentations that mirror what Oz was doing for Penguin Magic in the demo videos. This is fine for that venue, since magicians will (hopefully) understand that they need to replace the patter in the demos for their own. But there's so much more to presenting an effect than just establishing conditions and hitting a revelation -- especially in mentalism, because the effects aren't as obvious as they are in magic, there needs to be (as Derren Brown puts it) a discernible and interesting cause that makes the effects happen. Rather than trying to put some effort into acting like mind-readers, they rely on claps and flash paper as ways to make a thought transmit. If they'd even pretended to use a verbal coding system for the iPhone photo, they'd get a much more palpable "WTF?" moment from the audience. Instead, they got awkwardness. The lack of an understanding for the cause of the magic leads to other problems. Obviously, if I've got a pizza box that has the number of the pizza place on it, and I'm confident that it's going to match, then it's a bunch of nonsense running through the telepathy demonstration of the phone number -- you're not reading somebody's mind, you're just remembering the phone number that was on the pizza box. Now we're pointing towards forcing as a methodology, and again, that's a problem, because it undermines your legitimacy. And, if the forcing wasn't obvious enough from the pizza box, we've got the number appearing on a dollar bill in Jimmy's pocket? Now we're looking at forcing AND pre-show again making themselves obvious as methods. So, yeah, a director is needed. That and some time spend reading Henning Nelms, and putting some thought into the Too Perfect principle.
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
|
|||||||||
Mindpro Eternal Order 10586 Posts |
"Oz is a member here, let him speak for himself."
Yes, but through all of this, we haven't heard from him or them. Besides, we do not need him to be here to view our perspectives and offer a critique. We do hope he chimes in soon as since he originally posted this I'm sure he's seen this by now. I for one would like to hear his perspective and how he accepts the feedback offered here. |
|||||||||
Illucifer Inner circle 1403 Posts |
Alvo,
I appreciate your responses. I haven't spoken to David in a while but, when I do, I'll inquire. Someone involved, however, must have known it was David's effect. I find it hard to believe Paul wouldn't know, as he and David are friends.
It's all in the reflexes.
|
|||||||||
SWNerndase Regular user 168 Posts |
Andrew Musgrave's comments above are, in my opinion, extremely perceptive and exactly right. He has hit on most of the weaknesses and problems I saw and was hinting at here. Well done, sir.
SWN |
|||||||||
The One Veteran user 325 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-04-18 03:09, Andrew Musgrave wrote: Wouldn't it be possible for the magician to read the spectator's mind and THEN realize that its the number on the box... Wouldn't it be possible for the box to come as a prediction, with the magician not knowing exactly what it would predict? Why does the bill hint at pre-show work? Not that I think it was a good performance, just not sure those are the reasons why it's bad. Also, Derren Brown's theory is just that, theory, and not necessarily rules that need to be followed. Just a couple thoughts
I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end...
I came here... To tell you how this is going to begin. |
|||||||||
The Burnaby Kid Inner circle St. John's, Canada 3158 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-04-18 13:47, The One wrote: It's possible, but it's a difficult series of events to sell. What's more, you actually have to try to sell it. K&O did very little of that. Their manner of presenting everything suggested that they knew it would turn out that way. Far too slick. The discrepancy is subtle enough that it didn't hurt the pizza box revelation too much, but to throw the dollar bill into it is to take that discrepancy and then plaster it all over the place. Quote:
Why does the bill hint at pre-show work? Ultimately, the bill's serial number matching should point towards a coincidence effect. If that effect isn't made clear, and isn't supported by the necessary proofs, then the audience is allowed to suspect that somehow they got a bill with "6969" on it into Jimmy's pocket. After all, they had a pizza box with that number all ready to go -- they could have certainly had a bill prepared as well, right? What does common sense tell you about that performance? Either (a) Ken and Oz can read minds, and they can predict the future, and they'll happen to be able to book their show right on the same night that Jimmy will have a dollar bill in his pocket containing a coincidental serial number, or (b) Ken and Oz somehow managed to rig the selection of a phone number, pretend to read people's minds, and then show that the number is the same on a pizza box, and then show that the number is the same on a bill. For (a) to work, you've got to have strong portrayals of three different effects. We didn't get that... we only got revelations. The stronger the effect, the stronger the proof needed to make sure the effect comes across as legitimate. Unfortunately, with the poorly-done watch steal already hinting at pre-show work, they've got proof going on that hurts their claim, rather than helps it. Quote:
Also, Derren Brown's theory is just that, theory, and not necessarily rules that need to be followed. Tell you what... Go read (or re-read?) Derren Brown's Absolute Magic, and then come back here and tell us whether or not the ideas of establishing a compelling cause to account for the effects would help or hinder Ken and Oz.
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
|
|||||||||
Philemon Vanderbeck Inner circle Seattle, WA 4694 Posts |
This is why any mentalist needs to choose ONE premise (telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance, telekinesis, etc.) and stick with that and ONLY that throughout any show (or even entire career).
Professor Philemon Vanderbeck
That Creepy Magician "I use my sixth sense to create the illusion of possessing the other five." |
|||||||||
Ozer4 Veteran user NYC 329 Posts |
Hey guys,
Thanks for checking out the performance on Jimmy Fallon! Andrew Musgrave, I appreciate the feedback. As in all TV appearances there is quite a bit more than meets the eye. I've had the good fortune to do 3 national TV appearances in the past 12 months, and am likely to have a few more lined up in the near future. I think your analysis was quite insightful and would be happy to hear more of your thoughts in the future. Regards, Oz PS. I've seen some posts regarding apparent issues of publication and intellectual property disputes. If these relate to a Magic of Oz production video that I own the rights to, by all means let me know. If these relate to Penguin Magic videos, I suggest contacting them to resolve the issue. A public forum hardly seems the place to deal with a legal matter. |
|||||||||
RS1963 Inner circle 2734 Posts |
I have talked to a few non magicians that watched this and they all said the same thing. It how everything worked "To them" was it was all staged. All but one of them had guessed that the bag with the pieces of Yellow pages was not what it seemed. But the one that didn't suspect that the bag was gaffed still felt it was all a set up.
This spot on the Fallon show was not good for magic or mentalists by any stretch of the imagination. The reactions from the studio audience seemed like they didn't buy any of what was going on. Each reaction they gave (seemed to me anyway), felt like they thought the whole thing was a set up. Also that it was supposed to be a parody of a mind reading act, but was only semi funny at best. There wasn't a strong reaction from the studio reaction at all during the whole segment. This was a very sad display of garbage. |
|||||||||
RS1963 Inner circle 2734 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-04-17 03:05, Brandon Queen wrote: The comments are very honest. Being on the Fallon show is not a big deal. Being on any late night talk show is not a big deal. It had been a big deal during the Tonight Shows prime years ago. But now late night talk shows, are very run of the mill they are not spring boards for anyone no matter what your on the show for. |
|||||||||
SWNerndase Regular user 168 Posts |
Mr. Pearlman--
Your gentlemanly response to a fair amount of harsh criticism caught me by surprise, and deserves a round of applause. Bravo, sir. I will put aside any further snarky comments and instead try to say something constructive. You can make of it whatever you will, and consider or ignore, of course. I think there were a lot of problems with the set you presented. But the biggest was that nothing was clearly defined. Not the characters, not the relationship, not what "powers" were being demonstrated, not what the exact effect in each case was supposed to be, and it made the whole affair into a cloud of seemingly nice guys doing something vaguely interesting but confusing. I don't know you or your partner, so it is impossible for me to offer anything specific about how you might present yourselves, but here are some things you might think about: 1. Who are these two characters, and what exactly is their relationship? Defining this is critical. It's clear you don't want to go for a "straight man/funny man" relationship. It's also clear that you aren't taking a traditional approach to two person mind reading where one is the sender and the other is the receiver. Fine. But what are the roles? Why are you together, and what is the contrast between you? On Fallon I had no sense of who you were, why you were working together, what the dynamic between you was supposed to be. 2. What power are you demonstrating? This throws a lot of magicians and mentalists because everyone wants to do everything. Contrary to popular belief, I think it's possible to "do everything" and do it effectively. But it's much much harder to write that script than it is to make a limited claim. (We are talking about a theatrical claim here, not a real or scientific claim.) What was I supposed to think when your partner was sending you information about a picture by clapping and throwing flash paper? Is he signaling you? Are you reading his mind? By telepathy, or remote viewing, or what? Can you read only his mind, or anyone's? If anyone's, why did he have to see the picture and clap? It was not clear. Then you did a straightforward magic trick--moving the watch. (Oh, so they are magicians?) Then more telepathy between your partner and Fallon, followed by having predicted the information in several ways. (See my earlier post in this thread about predictions that follow telepathically receiving information.) None of this holds together with any kind of continuity, and I could not determine what you were supposedly doing, or what power or powers were on display. Just as a thought experiment, (and not suggesting this is at all "right" for you), what if you came out and claimed that you had been friends since grade school, and had spent so much time together that like an elderly couple you thought alike. YOU: "Sometimes I can start to say something..." KEN: "...and I can finish his sentence." In fact, we are such close friends, that under certain controlled conditions we can appear to read each other's minds." (Of course this approach means you cannot read anyone else's mind, so may not be right for what you want to do. But you see how defining the relationship and "power" would add clarity?) Now you do the first effect you did, with a picture from Fallon's phone. Instead of clapping and throwing flash paper(?) perhaps you stand a ten feet apart and begin to assume the same body positions, even though your eyes are closed. Ken moves, and a beat later you match his position--a visual cue that you are "getting in sync," and an odd but interesting thing to watch. Piece by piece you receive the image in his mind. You move distinctly and separately at all other times, but in the moments of "mind reading" you accurately mirror each other's every move without looking. I'm just spitballing here off the top of my head to give you a sense of what it I'm talking about regarding a clear definition of the relationship and power being demonstrated. We could talk about methods, about inconsistencies and logical flaws, about concealing pre-show work more effectively (or doing the demonstrations you did in real time!), about why some things that work in live theater aren't good for TV--but I think the questions of clarity and definition are more basic, and more critical for you to think about. I understand that you did not ask for my opinion, and would not be at all offended if you dismissed it completely. In fact, I usually ignore all unsolicited free advice myself--and in some cases get indignant about it. You can think on these things, or flush them. All good. SWN |
|||||||||
Review King Eternal Order 14446 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-04-18 20:37, Ozer4 wrote: I'm sorry Oz, but that just isn't good enough. If you think we're going to let you continue to have success on a national level, you are mistaken. We all know how easy it is to get these spots and if you would take the time to watch our performances....;-) Oz, it's wonderful to see your hard work over the years paying off. Remember, no one told David Blaine how badly he represented magic until...HE WAS ON NATIONAL TELEVISION! You have arrived! Chris
"Of all words of tongue and pen,
the saddest are, "It might have been" ..........John Greenleaf Whittier |
|||||||||
camron Regular user 160 Posts |
LMBAO These are the guys who represent the magic community, really? @#$% OFF. There is an old saying that if you want to be a good at something watch the best who are doing it and you guys are definitely not it.
|
|||||||||
pepka Inner circle Uh, I'm the one on the right. 5041 Posts |
I have nothing against either perfomer, but didn't really care for it. A lot of it did screamed pre show work. Especially when it was very obvious that the musician's watch was never on his wrist when it was supposed to be.
Oh, and Oz is looking more and more like Jerry Seinfeld. |
|||||||||
msmaster Special user 522 Posts |
Only time will tell if they are a flash in the pan or not.
|
|||||||||
w_s_anderson Inner circle The United States 1226 Posts |
LOL.....Jerry Seinfeld......
Congratulations Oz and Ken! Regardless of what is said on here, it's obvious that the T.V. exec's wouldn't allow just anybody on their show. I have a couple talk shows lined up right now too, but I am going to be "appearing" in another tv show here pretty soon and due to the contract I can't be on them until this one is over. Please keep us posted on your future appearances! |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Magic names and the media » » THE UNSEEN on the Jimmy Fallon show - Thursday late night (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.06 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 < |