The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Magic names and the media » » P & T's "Fool us", fools no one! They did it again! (31 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9 [Next]
TSW
View Profile
Regular user
Ohio, USA
108 Posts

Profile of TSW
Is anyone else tee'd-off at this?

https://tv.yahoo.com/video/penn-teller-r......687.html

All for the sake of "upping" the ante on one illusion?

How many other illusions that use a beveled base now risk exposure?
RCP
View Profile
Inner circle
Two Minnie's in The Hell's Half Acre, The Republic of Texas
2156 Posts

Profile of RCP
LOVE p&t.
Dave Le Fevre
View Profile
Inner circle
UK
1650 Posts

Profile of Dave Le Fevre
They are rather too fond of exposure, aren't they? In Fool Us they would sometimes say that they knew the method and would have a quiet word with the performer. But sometimes they'd announce the entire method to everybody. Quite unnecessary, and I found it distasteful and malicious.

Dave
The Ozzy Osbourne of the 34x27
MGordonB
View Profile
Loyal user
243 Posts

Profile of MGordonB
I'm not sure they "expose" things exactly, they say they do, and it looks like they do, but they often seem to hold something back. In any case the things they have exposed haven't really ruined things for other magicians. Take the cups and balls for instance, the "exposed" part of their routine is done so fast that even though you know how it works you don't really pick up on all the moves they make.
TSW
View Profile
Regular user
Ohio, USA
108 Posts

Profile of TSW
MGordonB,

They cut a cross-section of a beveled base and pulled it apart showing the interior. Now, granted what you're looking at in the interior is not what you think it is, but they still explain why a beveled base is deceptive and how it hides an assistant. I don't believe anyone who saw it will look at a beveled base the same way again. Perhaps you and I knew it was not as thin as it appeared but now it has, to a great extent, been compromised.
ZachDavenport
View Profile
Inner circle
Last time I posted I had one less than
1197 Posts

Profile of ZachDavenport
People complain about their exposure, but they have been doing it for decades, and it has not hurt anyone. It is not right, but most spectators don't care enough for it to matter. What annoys me about this trick is the lack of closure. She disappears, but then is just gone. No reappearance.
Reality is a real killjoy.
Tom Jorgenson
View Profile
Inner circle
LOOSE ANGLES, CALIFORNIA
4452 Posts

Profile of Tom Jorgenson
I dislike being thrown under the bus for their transient whims. It's not their call.
We dance an invisible dance to music they cannot hear.
jay leslie
View Profile
V.I.P.
Southern California
9495 Posts

Profile of jay leslie
Just saw a mentalist with a bank night envelope effect and PT said "We think you're hiding another envelope that you secretly slide into the last envelope"

If that isn't making money through exposure, what is? This is different then people investing time and energy to learn something.
The audience would not normally learn these secrets on their own.
magicwatcher2005
View Profile
Elite user
Washington state
446 Posts

Profile of magicwatcher2005
Much ado about nothing. As Jim Steinmeyer so astutely notes, "Magicians are guarding an empty safe." If anything, the Penn and Teller trick leads lay people AWAY from suspecting bevel bases - which, by the way, is an antiquated "secret" for those of still stuck in the millennium before this one. After all, the end result of this routine is that the audience will have forgotten all about the supposed "secret" that "other magicians" use, dwelling instead on the impossibility of the live assistant actually being grotesquely cut in half.

The bevel base they "expose" is so poorly made and immediately obvious to ANY casual viewer that all you "magicians" who are so worried about it somehow ruing YOUR magic ought to be ashamed of yourselves. In fact, if this exact prop had been used in a traditional performance by some hack on Youtube, I'll bet the same group of you posting here would have ridiculed that performance AND the performer. In other words, if you think this prop could have fooled anyone (had it been performed in the traditional manner) then you are clearly out of touch with the intelligence found in today's audiences.

Besides, a bevel base is NOT the real secret to a good thin-model Sawing in Half; in fact, it's not even necessary and is rarely found in any well-made contemporary version of that effect. Take a look at any GOOD version and you'd have a hard time arguing that this "exposure" has hurt anything at all. It's like they "exposed" that Copperfield's flying illusion was all done with giant electromagnets - nothing worse than that.

.
magicwatcher2005
View Profile
Elite user
Washington state
446 Posts

Profile of magicwatcher2005
Oh yeah, one other thing - how come none of you are up in arms against Kevin James and Ed Alonzo? They ALSO have exposed sawing-in-half in this public performance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vohu-jmyPqU Surely this is as bad as Penn and Teller's routine - or even WORSE! Maybe we should start a petition or something...

.
TheRaven
View Profile
Special user
597 Posts

Profile of TheRaven
If you didn't know the secret already, you would assume P&T were throwing you a red hearing with the thick table explanation.
MeetMagicMike
View Profile
Inner circle
Gainesville Fl
3209 Posts

Profile of MeetMagicMike
This looks like well motivated exposure to me. Magician's often make this kind of call. In Paul Daniel's ring routine he says "Magic shops sell a set of rings where one of them has a gap, but these are professional rings with no gap". Almost any one doing ambitious card will show that the card isn't "already on top". Magician's doing a levitation pass a hoop over the girl to show that there are no wires. Etc Etc.
Magic Mike

MeetMagicMike.com



I took the Pledge
Dave Le Fevre
View Profile
Inner circle
UK
1650 Posts

Profile of Dave Le Fevre
Quote:
On Aug 10, 2014, MeetMagicMike wrote:
well motivated exposure

I know what you mean, but that reads like an oxymoron. Like a caring and thoughtful smack in the teeth.

Dave
The Ozzy Osbourne of the 34x27
Jerskin
View Profile
Inner circle
2504 Posts

Profile of Jerskin
I love the show.
GrEg oTtO

MUNDUS VULT DECIPI
bowers
View Profile
Inner circle
Oakboro N.C.
7039 Posts

Profile of bowers
Me Too.
TSW
View Profile
Regular user
Ohio, USA
108 Posts

Profile of TSW
I like the show. I don't like the exposure.

If we're guarding an empty safe, why does Steinmeyer both to patent his illusions? Answer; because the secret has value. It's the same with P & T. They make money from the secret and in this case exposing an element of the secret. If they safe is empty, why did Teller litigate and win the case against Gerard Bakardy for the creation rights to his rose and shadow illusion? Answer; because it has value. If secrets have no value, why aren't illusion plans sold for the price of the printing plus a reasonable profit margin.

Why, after you buy the trick can't you return it to the dealer if doesn't fit your style. Answer; because you're also buying the secret.

The "empty safe" analogy works for those who have already removed their money from the safe!
Atom3339
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
3242 Posts

Profile of Atom3339
^ Right on, TSW!

Smile
TH

Occupy Your Dream
MeetMagicMike
View Profile
Inner circle
Gainesville Fl
3209 Posts

Profile of MeetMagicMike
Quote:
Quote:
On Aug 10, 2014, MeetMagicMike wrote:
well motivated exposure

I know what you mean, but that reads like an oxymoron. Like a caring and thoughtful smack in the teeth.

Dave
The Ozzy Osbourne of the 34x27


I agree "Well motivated exposure" sound like an oxymoron. I was actually struggling for something like "Well motivated and Not-too-harmful-when-compared-to-it's value" but that was too long.

I'm often on the against exposure side of these discussions but I have seen more and more examples of the kind of justified exposure that I gave examples of. Each magician must make this call and no matter what he decides he is going to "ruin" some other magician's big trick.

What if a magician makes a point of rolling up his sleeves before doing a coin routine? Is he exposing sleeving? David Roth does this and he comments "sleeves rolled up". He has made a calculation that a certain percentage of his audience think coins go up the sleeve. Some would say that he is throwing his fellow magicians under the bus by even hinting at this idea. On the other hand I believe that sleeving has become so well known over the years that it is considered a cliche among non-magicians and it is a good idea to point out that you are not doing that.

When I do my rope routine I ask the audience to examine the rope and make sure there are no magnets or velcro and that the rope is not stretchy. I really can't deny that this is exposure but I believe it is well motivated not to harmful for it's value exposure. I'm sure some magician's who use magnets will disagree with my call. I'm also sure that some magician's who use magnets will STILL fool their audiences even after I have clued them in to the idea of magnets.

My general rule would be that exposure is bad when it is only exposure. For a moment on the Penn and Teller clip I was appalled to think they were simply exposing the workings of an illusion with no magical end result.
Magic Mike

MeetMagicMike.com



I took the Pledge
cheesewrestler
View Profile
Inner circle
Chicago
1147 Posts

Profile of cheesewrestler
Quote:
On Aug 10, 2014, MeetMagicMike wrote:


What if a magician makes a point of rolling up his sleeves before doing a coin routine? Is he exposing sleeving?



No, he's rolling up his sleeves because approximately 100% of non-magician spectators have a vague idea that "It's up his sleeve!" explains every possible magic effect.
magicwatcher2005
View Profile
Elite user
Washington state
446 Posts

Profile of magicwatcher2005
Quote:
On Aug 10, 2014, TSW wrote:
I like the show. I don't like the exposure.

If we're guarding an empty safe, why does Steinmeyer both to patent his illusions? Answer; because the secret has value. [...]


Um, actually the answer there are two answers - neither of which you got right. Yes, the secret definitely "has value", but not the way YOU mean it. It's value is as commercially viable intellectual property, NOT simply because it is unknown (secret). If he wanted to keep it unknown he wouldn't patent it in the first place, since anyone who reads an understands a patent is legally entitled to build the patented item FOR THEIR OWN USE. The monopoly granted to the inventor by the US Patent Office simply prevents others from legally SELLING an item using the patented technology (without the inventor's permission).

That covers the SOLE reason Steinmeyer has patented some inventions under a "utility patent". Others (Origami, for example) he has only claim under the DESIGN PATENT designation, which does NOT protect anything to do with the "secret" to the trick.

.

.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Magic names and the media » » P & T's "Fool us", fools no one! They did it again! (31 Likes)
 Go to page 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.15 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