|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 [Next] | ||||||||||
Decomposed Eternal Order High Desert 12059 Posts |
Always a thin line, trying not to lie but at the same time stating everything you do is not just "tricks."
Its a tough job but somebody has to do it.
ClICK HERE for HOW TO MAKE TRANSITION FROM MAGICIAN TO MOTIVATIONAL SPEAKER WORLD NEW BOOK!
Click here for NEW PROMO TRAILER! 90 seconds of pure laughs without a standing ovation! Click here for Magicians Austin Mentalist Performance https://www.facebook.com/AustinMagicians https://www.speakermatch.com/profile/gianicano/ Magicians Company Entertainers in Dallas, TX https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8sHW_zVuSc https://about.me/motivationalpublicspeaker |
|||||||||
Paul Shirley Inner circle Melbourne, Australia 1206 Posts |
Hey Eric! How are you?
That IS my point. It's what MIGHT have happened that is of concern (to me at least)... and there would have been, due to lack of specifics in a contract, nothing Banachek could have done about it. Then he, through no fault of his own (other than agreeing to appear on such a show to begin with) would have been forever and a day associated with a program that had exposed methods. If I asked the producer "Will any of my methods be exposed?" and he replied "They MIGHT" ... I would have backed away FAST. Potentially ending in disaster... as I am not used to running backwards. Also, given the premise of the show, debunking, the potential of what MIGHT have happened is far from an "extraordinarily unlikely result". Once again, if I were the producer, the exposure of the mentalists methods would be a completely natural progression. 1.Discuss psychics. 2: Introduce the notion of potential trickery 3: Have mentalist perform similar feats of psychic ability 4: Expose those methods to prove, without doubt, that deception is in play. Job done. Moot? I don't remember any discussion of trumpets or associated accessories? .... Oh, sorry, my mistake. I always get those 2 confused Eric, respectfully, I disagree. My point is not moot, it is actually the polar opposite, COMPLETELY due to the fact that we ARE "dealing with a performer who knows television production, inside-out!" Imagine we had been discussing a less experienced performer appearing on the same T.V show, instead of Banachek. This performer then states openly that he/she didn't know, until the show aired, wether or not their performance methods would be exposed or not. There would still be people like me who would have something to say about that... but it would mostly be put down to inexperience on behalf of the performer. His/Her intentions were good... but lack of experience became his/her downfall etc... Banachek is a highly seasoned performer... with more T.V experience than most. He is well versed in the intricacies of television production... and how sneaky some of these producers can be just to get 'The money shot'. Once again, it was this reasoning I posted my initial question... I don't care how experienced you are in T.V... poor decisions can still be made. George Lucas is a highly successful experienced creator, script writer and film maker... didn't stop him introducing Ja Ja binx to the mix though did it!? I stand by the sentiment of my initial post and maintain that, regardless of experience, Banachek is fortunate that he was working with a producer/crew that wasn't out to expose HIS methods. When you don't have specific, contracted, guidelines in place to protect.. the avoidance of exposure comes down to getting lucky.. not experience. As an aside, just so you know... I do not perform mentalism professionally. Never have... most likely never will. I say this purely to illustrate that my distain for exposure does not come from a self absorbed place of "I could loose $$$ because of this!!!" It stems from my concern for our art. And it IS art. One that I whole heartedly love.. and would fight to preserve. It comes from concern for those that DO pay the bills by performing... but most of all, and this may seem strange and ill founded.. it comes primarily of my concern for the laymen. The audiences. This planet we share becomes increasingly 'educated' by the day.. now, in some areas, this is a good thing. In regard to magic and keeping mystery alive however, I feel that exposure robs audiences of experiencing that beautiful child like wonder that, as human beings living together on this crazy planet, we need now more than ever. |
|||||||||
Paul Shirley Inner circle Melbourne, Australia 1206 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-08-20 19:44, Banachek wrote: Nest time this happens, produce a pen from your pocket... you know the one... rub your hands together franticly... point them at the pen and make it fall from the table. Do the ole ditch'N'switch and hand it to them to take home to practice. Saying "Let me know when you have mastered it" There is something I find quite satisfying in knowing that this person has gone straight home to try it out.... at some point, probably shouting the words "I can't right now honey... Im busy practicing something Banachek taught me today" |
|||||||||
Blueboy Regular user But I don't steal to fund my habit 200 Posts |
Hey Paul, great job on S&S, not the easiest gig to pick up.
I wish Sylvia Browne would start using Osterlinds mask, would be a lot easier on the eye. |
|||||||||
Paul Shirley Inner circle Melbourne, Australia 1206 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-08-21 04:00, Blueboy wrote: Thanks mate Was a fun night. Osterlinds mask?? That would only cover her eyes ... The masked magicians face adornments may be more appropriate... or even the mask from scream. Hell.. I'd even take a paper bag at a pinch. |
|||||||||
Blueboy Regular user But I don't steal to fund my habit 200 Posts |
Hey paul yesterday I had a coffee with Sylvia Browne and she says great things about you.
I mentioned the Osterlind because I think Banachek used one on the programme, Sylvia thinks he's naughty (but she likes him) |
|||||||||
eSamuels Inner circle 3085 Posts |
Hey Paul,
Your points are well articulated and there's no denying what 'might have happened,' had, for instance, there been a producer of the show with an 'agenda,' or in post they simply found an exposure shot and their base-TV-producer-instincts kicked in. My point is that from a television 'gotcha' standpoint (stating one thing and doing another) he was quite clear that he wasn't hiding anything. Hence, nothing to expose without a lot of rationale/explanation to the audience, that would have thrown the show's narrative in an entirely different direction. That said and risk acknowledged, there are few performers I would trust more in this set or circumstances, than Banachek, as he knows the medium and I'm certain his techniques reflected the environment. Bottom line, if it isn't our own crew/production (Derren Brown, Keith Barry, Haim Goldenberg, et al), there will always be risk in a television appearance....but let's consider the reward. 4 million+ viewers is great for our business. Yes, what we do is a Yin/Yang of art and business, but for professionals, the task of marketing is usually the single biggest challenge, a never-ending effort to develop and maintain top-of-mind awareness. I still encounter people who don't know what a mentalist is, and have given up correcting people who refer to me as a magician (when I have no control over their actions). In my view, this segment was good for business. Banachek acquit himself brilliantly and, I imagine he will benefit greatly from this 'exposure' (let's remember that "exposure" isn't always a bad word). Other performers within the broadcast regions of this show (whether professionals or not) also benefit from this. e |
|||||||||
Jim-Callahan V.I.P. 5018 Posts |
Eric, you did see what was sent out the day after by the JREF & Banachek?
It will not make things easy for any other performer. Do you want to deal with a media that has been told of the tools mentalists use. Not only that they gave reference links to information on how to. You know how reporters are when they think they know something. Best Wishes, Jim
“I can make Satan’s devils dance like fine gentlemen across the stage of reality”.
|
|||||||||
Tony Iacoviello Eternal Order 13151 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-08-21 11:25, Jim-Callahan wrote: In my opinion, they are pretty much the same as magicians, they have to let everyone know what they think they know. Tony |
|||||||||
MichaelCGM Inner circle Oklahoma City 2286 Posts |
Quote: When my kids were young, I remember the occasional, "But what if a tornado tears the roof off, Dad?" "But, what if the green beans make me sick?" "But, what if….?" We can worry about "…what MIGHT have happened…," 'till the cows come home, but it won't change what DID happen - an absolutely perfect appearance by one of our greatest representatives.
On 2011-08-21 01:11, Paul Shirley wrote: That IS my point. It's what MIGHT have happened that is of concern (to me at least)... and there would have been, due to lack of specifics in a contract, nothing Banachek could have done about it. How many of us include, in our contracts, that our clients can't publish methods or secrets in their next newsletter? How many include wording that doesn't permit some nut to jump up and shout out the method to our best routine? How many will not accept a TV special offer unless WE are in total control of the end product? Bottom line: One looks at all the possibilities, sets in place contingencies - should anything go awry, weighs the risks and rewards, then makes an informed decision. Our business is fraught with risk… but should never be stifled by what-ifs. Kudos, Banachek! |
|||||||||
Paul Shirley Inner circle Melbourne, Australia 1206 Posts |
Michael,
I ask this with sincere curiosity... have you read my posts in their entirety? Do you live in an area prone to tornados? Are your children hypoallergenic toward green beans? If not, your anecdotal 'what if' parallels bear no semblance to my argument at all. And, if we shouldn't worry about the 'what ifs'.. why would Banachek not permit them, as stated in a previous post, to not have a camera above, despite assurances that the footage wouldn't be used? Sounds like Banachek was worried about at least one 'what if' to me. Secondly, I may be missing your point but... What clients?? What news letter? Im confused. Clients that ask you to perform for them?? If so, and this goes for the "some nut to jump up and shout out the method to our best routine"question also: If this his happening to you, then you should probably spend more time practicing. No client should know how you are doing what you do... (Unless you tell them, in which case you deserve it )and, if "some nut" actually were to jump up, as you say, and shout out the method to your "best routine" then you need to find some better material.. because if "some nut" can figure it out... then my guess is others can too. If the nut you refer to is actually an informed one... then he knows the method for one of 2 reasons... he is a fellow performer, and knows a few tricks of the trade (which renders him highly unlikely to want to expose a colleague) OR... he has learned your method via some sort of exposure.... which - brings - us - back - to Doh re me fa so la te DOH!!! As for your "How many will not accept a TV special offer unless WE are in total control of the end product? " question is, once again, not an accurate parallel. Had you asked "How many will not accept a TV special offer, in which the sole purpose is to debunk psychics, using our performance as mentalists to validate their biased view to the viewing public, unless WE are in total control of the end product?" then this would have been more fitting. To which the answer I would give is 2 fold. 1: We don't need to be in control of THIER end product ... just ours. I would want more than a passing "Nah man, we wouldn't expose your secrets" from the producer to entice me to perform. 2: The second answer would be... ME. I wouldn't perform unless I had it in writing. Simple as that. If I were Banacheck, I would want absolute surety. Lastly, I would love to know what rewards you think Banacheck got from this appearance. I, and the dead horse I have been flogging, already know the risks... but asides from money.. and a few minutes on t.v (which Im sure probably doesn't really excite Banachek much anymore) ... what other rewards are there? Because, if the decision to perform on a show whos sole agenda is the exposure of psychics, using you as 'Proof' ... having no solid contingencies set in place, and I quote AGAIN "would they consult a magician who would explain the effects I performed as I performed. I had no idea my friend and sat waiting in anticipation just like everyone else." Doesn't sound like much of a contingency plan to me. HENCE the reason for my initial post... and question to Banachek. This being the case... it basically comes down to $$$ Vs Risk... and I am sorry, but that just doesn't sit well with me. I like Banachek!! I am a big fan of his work... but I am even bigger fan of mentalism as an art form. No person is greater than the whole. Had it actually gone awry... would you still be saying "Kudos Banachek"? .... probably. |
|||||||||
MichaelCGM Inner circle Oklahoma City 2286 Posts |
Quote: I've read all of your posts in their entirety. As for what bears semblance you your argument, I'll let the readers decide for themselves. I won't address your first two paragraphs because, if you didn't get the allusion, no amount of explanation will help.
On 2011-08-21 15:48, Paul Shirley wrote: I ask this with sincere curiosity... have you read my posts in their entirety? Quote: Since you wouldn't perform, aren't we lucky that you aren't Banachek? You keep making the same argument, sans anything but your own speculation. It was obvious, at least to me, that Banachek was called in as an expert consultant and to address the claims via the JREF million-dollar challenge - NOT simply to validate their biased view - because at least one segment producer was leaning toward defending psychics.
On 2011-08-21 15:48, Paul Shirley wrote: Had you asked "How many will not accept a TV special offer, in which the sole purpose is to debunk psychics, using our performance as mentalists to validate their biased view to the viewing public, unless WE are in total control of the end product?"… The second answer would be... ME. I wouldn't perform unless I had it in writing. Simple as that. If I were Banacheck, I would want absolute surety. Quote: Having read Banachek's "posts in their entirety," as well - I can only say that, if you actually don't know the reward that made the effort worth the risk, then no amount of explanation will help.
On 2011-08-21 15:48, Paul Shirley wrote: but asides from money.. and a few minutes on t.v... what other rewards are there? Quote: Kudos??? Probably not, but I'll allow you the joy of your snide comment. What most in our field, the real professionals, might have done - at least I would have - is realize that someone that most of us truly trust and respect would have taken every precaution to protect his craft… then made the assumption that he was shafted by an unethical producer. We would have had his back, knowing that he is a true professional and would have taken every precaution. In that "what-if" scenario - that you're so fond of - I doubt we would have jumped on Banachek with a "see, I told you so" rant. But, that’s just me, Paul. You just keep doing what you think is right.On 2011-08-21 15:48, Paul Shirley wrote: Had it actually gone awry... would you still be saying "Kudos Banachek"? .... probably. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Can't we save the snarky ad hominem BS for the trolls?
|
|||||||||
IAIN Eternal Order england 18807 Posts |
We might be doing this...
I've asked to be banned
|
|||||||||
Jim-Callahan V.I.P. 5018 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-08-21 11:25, Jim-Callahan wrote: How about this then? I do know many of you have seen it on other forums. Jim
“I can make Satan’s devils dance like fine gentlemen across the stage of reality”.
|
|||||||||
Jim-Callahan V.I.P. 5018 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-08-21 11:38, Tony Iacoviello wrote: Yep and we can thank who, for increasing the odds of that? Anyone?.... Anyone??....
“I can make Satan’s devils dance like fine gentlemen across the stage of reality”.
|
|||||||||
MichaelCGM Inner circle Oklahoma City 2286 Posts |
Quote: Sorry, Bob. I didn't realize I was being "snarky."On 2011-08-21 17:03, mastermindreader wrote: Can't we save the snarky ad hominem BS for the trolls? |
|||||||||
Sean Giles Inner circle Cambridge/ UK 3517 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-08-21 17:36, Jim-Callahan wrote: What was sent out? |
|||||||||
Paul Shirley Inner circle Melbourne, Australia 1206 Posts |
Michael,
Snide? I haven't even BEGUN getting snide... yet. My posts, to every one, especially Banachek were respectful and born from care for our art. Yes, I have made my point "Making the same argument"... its called sticking to your guns.. and, trust me I have better things to do with my time, but points were only repeated as a courtesy to those who subsequently commented on my initial post, offering their opinions, of which I am also respectful of, yet still failing to alleviate my initial concerns satisfactorily. To use the phrase "No amount of explanation will help" not once, but twice is a cop out Michael. It suggests that you A: Don't actually have an answer or B: You think I am an ignorant fool, incapable of understanding the words of wisdom you could expound. So, try me. Explain away Sage. (See? ... Snider by the second folks) Banachek IS someone I respect. VERY much so. I don't know him from a bar of soap personally though... and given that trust is something that develops, for me at least, with time and personal interaction with any given person, I can't say one way or another wether I trust him or not. You seem to though... so please send my regards when next you meet up for tea... and remind him not to feed your kids green beans when next he baby sits for you. (Wow... this snide thing IS fun!) Yes, I AM fond of 'what ifs?" ... another word for it would be 'Precaution'. Do I run around all day long, sending my self insane with what-ifs? No. Conversely, do I seriously consider the ramifications and what-if should my actions negatively impact on someone else. ABSOLUTELY. Not knowing if an "Unethical producer" is going to shaft you or not due to the fact that you don't have it in writing is NOT "Taking every precaution". Given Banacheks stature in both the mentalist AND skeptic communities, a guarantee in writing is absolutely something he could have requested. The ONLY reason a producer would STILL want the type of overhead shot, which Banachek refers to, and, thankfully, declined permission (twice) for, is to gain knowledge of method... which indicates to me that he was actually dealing with some one who could potentially want to use this footage for the purposes of further exposure. At least we agree on one thing...Thankfully it WAS Banachek and not me asked to do the spot. The producers would have soon tired of my incessant insistence on this particular contractual clause being put in place. Had Banachek done the same... they would have no doubt found someone out there willing and able... who knows!? Could have got yourself a gig mate? Kudos! Anyway, I've had enough of this. I have a VERY important meeting with a guy named 'beer' on a beach in Phuket. Nice chattin' with ya'll |
|||||||||
MichaelCGM Inner circle Oklahoma City 2286 Posts |
Quote: Ditto. Enjoy your beer.On 2011-08-22 01:25, Paul Shirley wrote: Anyway, I've had enough of this. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Banachek- Brilliant for Mentalism (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.09 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 < |