Thank you, Scott! I feel better already!

Scott, you are my hero!!!

When people say "its all in the presentation" and "everyday props make it more magical" they are right and wrong. The problem is that so many people use these two arguments to justify something, therefore rendering them rather meaningless at times.

In the end, the easiest person to fool is yourself...

You are right on the money Scott. Cardboard and PVC is great for the young aspiring Illusionist to start out with at the High School talent show, but when a client is paying thousands of dollars for their entertainment, I would feel seriously bad showing up with cardboard boxes and PVC pipe. And I don't think our clients would be happy either.

I dressed up my PVC pipe "shadow box" by putting yellow and black "duct tape" on it in the pattern of an electrical warning sign. My appearance will come in the guise of an electrical or nuclear experiment "gone wrong" complete with sound effects and smoke.

I first used this is a charity show with the plain PVC pipe and just music...it killed even then...there was an audible "gasp" in the audience. I can't wait to get the "new version" scripted and routined. Should be lots of fun!

Careful.....It sounds like you are using "LOUD" yellow and black paint......LOL

LOL

So Macculley, your idea is to take current stage illusion practices, and turn it into this? I am just curious. I know you hate gaudy and cheesy props and performers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5ELRIgs0......LRIgs0aY

I don't think there's anything gaudy or cheezy about it.

All the props are constructed from stuff from home depot. I don't have any gold trim or loud cheezy colors. All are stained a dark oak and look in period for what I'm performing for: ren fair shows which have a lot of comedy element to them. The bag escape is Ian McColls. The box and stocks are my own original method, as are the cuffs (the cuffs are sort of original, it's a long story). I don't think any of these props look like fake magician crap.

And I took what you said to heart, All About Magic. My appearance WAS a bit cheezy, so I changed it. For the better.

http://www.macthemaniac.com

The show was constructed for less than $1000. It's not necessarily to pay big money for big illusions if you're willing to put work into them. And you aren't seeing some of the other stuff I have, like Maynes spectre cabinet and the razorwire illusion I built (also inexpensive to build).

Most magicians are dying to spend money, because they think buying expensive illusions will make them great. But it doesn't. I think audiences like illusions and escapes to be as real and authentic as possible.

>I first used this is a charity show with the plain PVC pipe and just music...it killed even then...there >was an audible "gasp" in the audience. I can't wait to get the "new version" scripted and routined. Should >be lots of fun!

What? I thought you had to pay thousands of dollars to have it hand made out of aircraft aluminum to get good reactions!

You mean you can get a big, illusion effect without spending tons of money? UNCONSCIONABLE!

>You are right on the money Scott. Cardboard and PVC is great for the young aspiring Illusionist to start >out with at the High School talent show, but when a client is paying thousands of dollars for their >entertainment, I would feel seriously bad showing up with cardboard boxes and PVC pipe. And I don't think >our clients would be happy either.

Great that you are getting clients for thousands of dollars a pop. My clients don't pay that much, so I'll continue doing it for less than that!

>If brightly painted wooden boxes are fake magician crap then what do you call this......magic gold? LOL
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JwQmPqawC8 (fast forward to 3:20)
>Your cardboard box theory is now blown out of the water. I felt bad for the guy, but that is what happens >to cardboard in vegas. It may be ok for your magic school, but not for real world performers.

That had nothing to do with being a cardboard box. That was a bad performer. He didn't watch his angles, like an idiot. If someone drops a key ring, does that make the linking rings a bad trick? No.

The following are GOOD performers doing GOOD cardboard box illusions:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=card......&first=0

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=card......&first=0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sza4MALddws

And there is nothing wrong with that. However, it doesn't make you right and everyone else wrong.

There's nothing wrong with a nice looking illusion, Aaron. I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that we often over-do it with gaudy props, when something a little simpler would be a little better. There are lots of expensive illusions that I covet, but there are also a lot of really cheezy, gaudy, fake looking illusions out there too. They look great to magicians, but not so much to audiences.

Magicians get excited about elaborate looking props because, they are... well... magicians.

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFZeMP2L4E4

Enormous gaudy illusions. These two illusions are state of the art (Franz harrary's slicer, don't know the other one) and cost EASILY $10,000 He didn't talk. Did it to mediocre music. No lines. No story.

Why didn't it work? He bought really impressive illusions!

He didn't buy the illusions, they were not his. He borrowed those illusions right before he performed them. He did the same thing with the illusions in his first performance. You are judging the illusions and not the performer. Yet in my video you are judging the performer and not the illusion. It didn't work because he didn't rehearse them enough.

It is obvious that you take it to heart when you are criticised, and you are very quick to justify your performances. If you weren't so critical of other magicians performance styles people probably wouldn't be so critical of you.

You showed two very similar cardboard box illusions to attempt to make your point that cardboard illusions are better than large illusions. Your reaction to the video I posted was to blame the magician....BUT HOW CAN THAT BE??? He used cardboard, there can't be any traps, mirrors, or false bottoms. The audience has to accept that it was real, because it was a cardboard prop not a well constructed one. Sound Familiar? Do you see where I am coming from on this? In the majority of your posts in the Grand Illusion section you come in here and trash guys like me because we use larger props. One of the biggest audience "pops" we get in the show is with our red and black gaudy opening illusion. Everything you describe as wrong with magic is what we do in my show. If that is the case why am I making close to 5 figures a show and you are making 3? Shouldn't it be vice versa. Afterall, people should be leaving my show in droves after they have all figured out every one of my props works based on the smoke and mirrors principal?

I can show you hundreds of other real illusionists to disprove your point. Where I feel your point is flawed is when you say that box illusions automatically get people to think trap doors, mirrors, false bottoms......ect. Can you please provide even a brief list of the illusions which automatically illicit that response. How did you conduct your research to find out that is what all the audience members were thinking. I can almost guarantee they will be accompanied by a poor performance, with a uneducated and unrehearsed magician.

What cardboard illusions have you performed for your audiences that have led you to believe that they are superior to large props like the slicer? I am hoping you can teach me from your experience in this field, and this is not just your opinion on it. If that is the case I will leave you to it, and we can agree to disagree. I will keep doing what I do and you can keep saying that's what is wrong with magic. Though it reminds me of a clip where some guy in the audience is heckling the comedian Jamie Kennedy because he thinks he can be funnier than him. To which Jamie replied "We are bound to have our differences....the difference between you and me, is that I showed up today in a limo!"

And I think that in a way sums it up for magic, or at least leads to the thought. The key term being professional illusionist here. Please note that is not the same thing as professional magician. Its a totally different ballgame actually doing an illusion show for a living OR doing family shows with balloon animals and occasionally a bigger gig with an illusion thrown in.

I still firmly believe that 90% of people doing illusions should not do them at all. People just seem to think when they buy some funny silk stuff and a few cute small boxes all of a sudden they are an accomplished magician and somehow automatically qualified to perform illusions. And offer advice and/or criticism...which is something you see here a LOT.

W.S. I've never seen your show. I'm not judging you, I'm just saying that some props are cheezy, gaudily painted, and look fake. I never mentioned any of your props, I never mentioned your performance. Again, I've never seen either.

Are you SERIOUSLY going to look me in the eye and tell me there are no badly painted, cheezey, clashing color, fake looking illusions? And that all illusions that people use nowadays look great? Come on sir! A lot of illusions look very fake, especially if not presented well.

There's nothing wrong with a cardboard box illusion. Nothing whatsoever. A great performer makes it look great, a poor performer makes it look poor and context of the act is everything. The Flying Karamatzov brothers are currently doing a show themed around cardboard boxes and trash looking props. How is their show? Tremendous!

>Where I feel your point is flawed is when you say that box illusions automatically get people to think trap doors, mirrors, false >bottoms......ect.

Not Necessarily. A metamorphosis trunk doesn't make people think that, because it's made to look like an ordinary trunk. Harbin's Zig Zag was effective because he let an audience member examine it and look at it from every angle: also it had no flashy colors.

>What cardboard illusions have you performed for your audiences that have led you to believe that they are superior to large props like >the slicer?

It's all about context. Franz Harrary does magic for rock concerts. Large flashy, over the top props DO NOT look out of place at a rock concert! They fit right in! The Slicer illusion is perfect amongst smoke machines, heavy metal music and over the top personalities.

Most illusionists (and magicians too) go for the flashiest looking, most expensive prop and that's usually a mistake. You have to contextualize every prop in your show, and there is often no context for big, gaudy flashy looking illusions, which is why they fall flat (and why this guy's performance fell flat) and are often a big mistake. Jeff McBride can make a huge, incredibly entertaining stage illusion with two NORMAL bowls of water and some xylophone music!

The mistake is thinking that the entertainment value is in the prop, when really it's in the person. AND THAT sir, is what's wrong with magic.

Dude.....your post there pretty much contradicts everything you wrote in your first post. I think the reason why you pi** so many people off is because you make statements in all absolutes. You paint all illusionists, all illusions, all you name it, in the same category. When you say "Big Box Illusions make people think x, y, and z." you are lumping all big box illusions in your statement. You do the same with illusionists.

Follow this exchange for me.....it makes no sense: Maccullay- Big Box illusions make everybody assume that there are mirrors, traps, and false bottoms. Me- I feel your statement is flawed about assuming mirrors, traps, ect. Maccually- No its not, look at the metamorphosis and zig-zag, they don't do any of that...... Your counter argument contradicts your argument. You make me feel like I am debating my 8 year old......lol

You call the slicer an enormously gaudy illusion, then talk about how it fits right in........

There are examples like this throughout a high number of your threads.

How many times have you posted on the Café, where all your subsequent posts in the thread are of you trying to defend yourself? I have received multiple PM's from individuals since this thread started showing me links to threads like this with you in them. Followed by links to performance video's of yourself that show you do not practice what you preach. I am not trying to put you down here, but think about it. I think it's great that you have your own opinions of how magic works or should work, but I think you should focus a little more on putting them more accurately in writing. You would probably be taken more seriously, and not spend so much time defending your, dare I say, misworded opinions. You could be contributing a lot more to the discussion.

As far as your take on there being A LOT of cheesy illusions and performers. I agree with that statement 100% The sad thing is that most of them do not even know it! But that is not what you said initially. You lumped ALL illusions and performers together. Maybe this was not your intent, but words DO mean things. I feel that your intent is in the right place, but your delivery is off the mark.

When I think of an *exceptional* cardboard box illusion, this is the only one that comes to mind:

--> Magic Café thread titled... Hans......illusion

- Donald

Here's my thoughts, for what they are worth.

Several years ago (about 5) I saw the Spencers perform their show in Huntsville. I was doing only closeup/parlor magic at this time and really didn't like their show. EVERY trick felt like another "big stupid box" trick and I thought "I could do that if I had that box." ...and I thought the audience felt the same way. They didn't clap much (and I genuinely felt bad for the Spencers) and were fairly unengaged. So I blamed the performers (and while it was PARTLY their fault, I feel now that most of the blame wasn't on them).

But let's take a step back. I was a closeup/street sort of guy originally. That's the ONLY thing that was on TV at the time, and I loved being able to take 'everyday objects' and do the impossible with those same objects. I wanted an illusion show to have that feel too - and the Spencer's show definitely did not. So the first point is that I was judging their show from my viewpoint as a closeup/street magician. BUT the deception here is that the audience isn't made up of "closeup magicians" ! They are just normal people! YES they see street magic on TV...but that assumes they watch those shows in the first place. I think it's much safer to assume that most people didn't watch Mindfreak or DB specials as religiously as I did. Perhaps they catch it if it happens to be on. So I'd think although it affects them to some extent, it's still not enough to turn them off to the "big box magic" making them crave "organic, real, in-my-hands" sort of stuff. Gimme a break - those are words used by online stores to push product. Let's face it.

One stat says that the average person will watch no more than 10 hours of magic IN THEIR LIFETIME. I would tend to agree with that. This means audiences really have no expectations except for making people vanish or cutting someone in half (two most requested tricks for me to do...sigh...). The good news here is that we can pretty much do ANYTHING in magic and it will be something special for them if we perform it right...because it's live!

So why did I not enjoy the Spencer's show and why did I have the audacity with no props or experience to think I could do better? Here's why - because I was a closeup guy...watching street magic on TV...and buying closeup tricks from the only true magic stores around - those of the internet (Ellusionist / Penguin) who don't typically sell big box tricks. So my entire view was jaded towards street magic. I completely bought into the idea that magic should happen in the spectator's own hands, etc. etc.

Part of this philosophy is spot on. But it's an incomplete picture! When people show up to a show, they LOVE the idea of big boxes because it equates in two ways in their minds - 1) This show is going to be BIG! and 2) they MIGHT saw someone in half...

That's it. But if they walk in and see something like a cardboard box (without justification) then it may look cheap. Because I travel a good bit (internationally too), I don't want to be one of those touring shows like the Spencers have (big boxes and even more work to unload, assemble, pack, reload)...not yet at least. That's a TON of work! And most of my venues are churches so I can't physically get a LOT of big illusions on stage. Maybe one or two. So that's where Creative Magic has fit for me - it looks much nicer than cardboard and audiences can see you didn't just "throw something together" for them. And they really have no expectations as to what a live show should look like. They aren't in Vegas...so they don't really expect that either. It's fairly open-ended which gives us a lot of freedom to knock their socks off!

So while you COULD justify a cardboard box, you'd need a great story to go along with it (gosh...ideas are coming to me ninety-miles-an-hour) or it wouldn't be a good fit, IMO. It would drag your show down and make you look like a "hack." At the same time - if you don't have some personal pizzaz with your freshly painted magic box, you are going to look stupid walking around trying to "play" illusionist.

Let me quickly analyze why I feel the Spencers fell a bit flat. 1) I think they should have varied the show a bit more. It was definitely weighted towards big box tricks and they some more variations, IMO. 2) The venue was terrible - way too large! They had the local civic center hall and it was ginormous...and the audience didn't come close to filling it. Maybe a couple hundred people. So EVERY year they've been back they now get a smaller venue and I can only assume they thought the same thing as I did about 5 years ago. I really think point number 2 was the main issue - because 200 people in a 5000 seat area versus 200 people in a 300 seat area is a BIG difference...one being that you can actually hear the people clapping in a 300 seat area because you aren't as spread out. haha.

Anyway, in closing - for my own show I've originally shyed away from using "big boxes" because of the closeup magician mentality. BUT...that's changing for me the more involved I've gotten with illusions - and it's partly because I'm starting to appreciate the illusion itself, but I'm also understanding that the audience truly doesn't think like we do. Sure, there are similarities - we are all human after all. But even 5 years ago when I was "less" into magic, I still thought more like a magician than I realized.

So in conclusion I don't think there's a right or wrong way to do it (using boxes or not) - but there IS a right and wrong way to present your magic regardless of the props you use. This year I'm thinking I'll offer my audiences anonymous feedback cards. I want to hear what they think about the show for real. How foolish would it be to think the people who tell me after EVERY show that it was awesome are representative of the whole group? I mean think about it...if you hate a show, are you going to go tell the guy? No way! So let's not be deceived into thinking we have an awesome show because Aunt Maude said it was the best she's ever seen. At best, it was probably the better of the two live magic shows she's seen in her 80 years of life. And based on the average talent of magicians we've all seen, that's really not saying much.