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 [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9 [Next]
lunatik
View Profile
Inner circle
2762 Posts

Profile of lunatik
Quote:
On Aug 19, 2014, Mad0hatter wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 19, 2014, lunatik wrote:
@MadoHatter

What about restaurant performers that have reported that after performing an effect, someone at table whips out there smartphone and finds a YouTube video exposing the method? It not only ruins the effect for everyone else, but changes the mood/vibe at the table....completely unnecessary! Magicwatcher2005 still hasn't taken me up on my offer, I'm thinking it's because when the rubber hits the road, he truly doesn't want his effects to be exposed. He knows the ramifications but is content being an armchair quarterback.

Those are what you call poor performers, they were unable to engage the audience allowing the minds to wander. I would add that they probably did not take the time to get their hostages on their side before whipping out their pack of cards. Also if you are performing an effect so strait forwardly that simply putting it's description it to google finds the real method you should look into to how you present that.


This has happened to experienced professionals. You can try to mitigate these circumstances but there are some people that will still look it up because they know a lot of videos are out there. Even if they don't do it while you're performing, they can go home and find it and share with those who attended. The next time they visit, they'll be more likely to be watching for the move, not being entertained any longer and more apt to voice what's going on. That's exactly what ALL performers want, an educated spectator! *Rolls eyes*
"Don't let your Dreams become Fantasies"
MeetMagicMike
View Profile
Inner circle
Gainesville Fl
3209 Posts

Profile of MeetMagicMike
Neither MagicWatcher2005 nor I have advocated exposure for the sake of exposure. I am against youtube videos etc that simply expose magic. Giving out magic secrets AT a show would impact the show and I am very much against that. It's not so much evil behavior as it is childish behavior.

But there is something here that is too subtle for some people. Not all exposure is exposure for the sake of exposure. Performing magicians do take into account what the audience knows or thinks they know and use it against them. We have given examples of Bill Malone, Paul Daniels, Michael Ammar and others doing this.

If you refuse to see this distinction or if you simply can't wrap your head around it then yes the debate is easy for you. Expose Baaad. Not Expose Goooood.

But that only works if you want to claim that almost all working magician's are guilty of harmful selfish exposure. IF this is what you believe then so be it.

If you reject that kind of simplistic thinking that doesn't mean you have to like Penn and Tellers Sawing. If you think that particular routine is not justified and does more harm than good then make THAT argument.
Magic Mike

MeetMagicMike.com



I took the Pledge
magicwatcher2005
View Profile
Elite user
Washington state
446 Posts

Profile of magicwatcher2005
Quote:
On Aug 20, 2014, lunatik wrote:
[...]
Oh, I wouldn't interrupt your show, I'd just be outside the venue exposing some of your effects, before and after the show. [...]

As for your heavy handed security, HILARIOUS!


The security staff at that particular venue monitor the entire premises, including the sizable parking lot. You'll have to set up across the street or down the block a ways - and though you clearly crave attention, I don't think you'll get much out there. But hey, knock yourself out.

Now, having accepted your challenge ("offer"), I'll re-issue my own, I've repeatedly asked you to explain what magic principles you feel Penn and Teller "exposed" in their "Fool Us" performance of Sawing a Woman in Half, linked at the beginning of this thread. The topic at hand here is NOT Youtube exposure videos, or the imaginary specter of some jerk-off outside another magician's show exposing his methods to teach him a lesson, or whatever. The topic is this specific routine performed by Penn and Teller on public television.

I'm sure everyone on this forum agrees that actual exposure is bad, so there really is no further need for you to prattle on and on about how bad it is. We get it. Exposure = BAD. But where we disagree is what actually constitutes exposure, SPECIFICALLY with regard to the Penn and Teller Sawing routine. So again, please tell us WHAT valuable magic secrets you feel Penn and Teller exposed on that show?

Your ongoing failure to answer that one very simple question, combined with your endless, obsessive whining about Youtube, pretty much shows us that the real source of "yip yap" in this thread is YOU.

.
Russell Davidson
View Profile
Inner circle
Hampshire, England
1104 Posts

Profile of Russell Davidson
Exposure is a fact of life these days. Those moaning about it the most are probably the least affected. If you were actually out there performing you'd realise that it's not really an issue. Unless you're a poor performer!

Hell, I still use a TT and it flys by those that know they exist. Why? Because I don't vanish a silk with it (although you'll find the majority of laymen will still be fooled with the vanishing silk).

Try improving your performance & methods if you have to but don't blame exposure for your lack of initative and skill. Spoon fed, easy to do, needless gimmicked magic causes more harm IMO. Easy come, easy go.
Tim Cavendish
View Profile
Inner circle
1348 Posts

Profile of Tim Cavendish
They "expose" an explanation for the trick (the woman's body dips down to avoid the blade), and then cancel it by lowering the blade and slicing the body -- a body which is revealed to be a fake when guts pour out of it. So their explanation is revealed to be false.

For the audience, this cancels their whole explanation and it gets dismissed as a joke -- and yet there's the woman, sawn in half. The mystery remains.

It's beautifully constructed.
ZachDavenport
View Profile
Inner circle
Last time I posted I had one less than
1197 Posts

Profile of ZachDavenport
Quote:
On Aug 23, 2014, Tim Cavendish wrote:
They "expose" an explanation for the trick (the woman's body dips down to avoid the blade), and then cancel it by lowering the blade and slicing the body -- a body which is revealed to be a fake when guts pour out of it. So their explanation is revealed to be false.

For the audience, this cancels their whole explanation and it gets dismissed as a joke -- and yet there's the woman, sawn in half. The mystery remains.

It's beautifully constructed.

I agree, but when she gets cut in half it is obvious it is a fake body so it becomes a vanishing act. The only problem is there is no reappearance. If she reappeared in the back of the theatre it would be a wonderful routine.
Reality is a real killjoy.
TSW
View Profile
Regular user
Ohio, USA
108 Posts

Profile of TSW
Why would magicwatcher2005 have stage security deal with lunatik if he showed up outside magicwatcher2005's performance venue? Because exposure would ruin magicwatcher2005's show.

Exposure is exposure, and the results of exposure are the same, whether it be 2 seconds after the trick is performed or 6 months later. To 'faux-expose' a method not in use is one thing (Who hasn't done a "sucker" trick? [although I'm not real keen on that type of presentation and have done them myself])... but to expose a REAL method widely in use, currently, is another matter. Such is the exposure by P & T of the wedge/bevel base. It's exposure aided in their deception by (mostly) another method, but how many illusions themselves rely on a wedge/bevel base as their main methodology? The illusions are almost too many to list.

And, exposure to millions on television or Youtube is quite different than the exposure to a few to fool millions, ala Chris Angel, for instance. (Sometime, I'll tell you of my experience of being in an audience during the taping of a David Copperfield special).

Bottom line, there is a lot of grey area until you've stepped over that 'bottom line'. I think we are sometimes too close to judge objectively when and where that is exactly. Some examples are obvious, others not so easily determined. I think discussion about exposure is good as long as we don't make it personal and we remember that we all are here, together, because we share a love of something special. I don't believe anyone one either side of this discussion, wants anything but the best for this art.
ZachDavenport
View Profile
Inner circle
Last time I posted I had one less than
1197 Posts

Profile of ZachDavenport
Quote:
On Aug 23, 2014, TSW wrote:
Why would magicwatcher2005 have stage security deal with lunatik if he showed up outside magicwatcher2005's performance venue? Because exposure would ruin magicwatcher2005's show.

Exposure is exposure, and the results of exposure are the same, whether it be 2 seconds after the trick is performed or 6 months later. To 'faux-expose' a method not in use is one thing (Who hasn't done a "sucker" trick? [although I'm not real keen on that type of presentation and have done them myself])... but to expose a REAL method widely in use, currently, is another matter. Such is the exposure by P & T of the wedge/bevel base. It's exposure aided in their deception by (mostly) another method, but how many illusions themselves rely on a wedge/bevel base as their main methodology? The illusions are almost too many to list.

And, exposure to millions on television or Youtube is quite different than the exposure to a few to fool millions, ala Chris Angel, for instance. (Sometime, I'll tell you of my experience of being in an audience during the taping of a David Copperfield special).

Bottom line, there is a lot of grey area until you've stepped over that 'bottom line'. I think we are sometimes too close to judge objectively when and where that is exactly. Some examples are obvious, others not so easily determined. I think discussion about exposure is good as long as we don't make it personal and we remember that we all are here, together, because we share a love of something special. I don't believe anyone one either side of this discussion, wants anything but the best for this art.

I'd love to here the Copperfeild story.
Reality is a real killjoy.
lunatik
View Profile
Inner circle
2762 Posts

Profile of lunatik
Quote:
On Aug 20, 2014, magicwatcher2005 wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 20, 2014, lunatik wrote:
[...]
Oh, I wouldn't interrupt your show, I'd just be outside the venue exposing some of your effects, before and after the show. [...]

As for your heavy handed security, HILARIOUS!


The security staff at that particular venue monitor the entire premises, including the sizable parking lot. You'll have to set up across the street or down the block a ways - and though you clearly crave attention, I don't think you'll get much out there. But hey, knock yourself out.

Now, having accepted your challenge ("offer"), I'll re-issue my own, I've repeatedly asked you to explain what magic principles you feel Penn and Teller "exposed" in their "Fool Us" performance of Sawing a Woman in Half, linked at the beginning of this thread. The topic at hand here is NOT Youtube exposure videos, or the imaginary specter of some jerk-off outside another magician's show exposing his methods to teach him a lesson, or whatever. The topic is this specific routine performed by Penn and Teller on public television.

I'm sure everyone on this forum agrees that actual exposure is bad, so there really is no further need for you to prattle on and on about how bad it is. We get it. Exposure = BAD. But where we disagree is what actually constitutes exposure, SPECIFICALLY with regard to the Penn and Teller Sawing routine. So again, please tell us WHAT valuable magic secrets you feel Penn and Teller exposed on that show?

Your ongoing failure to answer that one very simple question, combined with your endless, obsessive whining about Youtube, pretty much shows us that the real source of "yip yap" in this thread is YOU.

.


I don't think anyone is worried about the $9/hr security staff lol. At any rate, P&T exposed a legitimate method, as they have in other video's. It may not be the one YOU use, but very well may be what others do. One would have to be very naive not to acknowledge everyone else who does not like what P&T does. That group is pretty large. You claim to be against exposure, but are ok with exposure if you're a fanboy of P&T.

So what if I construct my entire show around exposing the methods of your effects, but I then use a totally different method to trick the audience? According to yours and others position, it would be perfectly ok and aligns with what P&T do. I expect you to double back and make an excuse as to why I shouldn't do that, but everyone will then know that you're just yip yapping just to hear yourself.
"Don't let your Dreams become Fantasies"
MeetMagicMike
View Profile
Inner circle
Gainesville Fl
3209 Posts

Profile of MeetMagicMike
TSW's last post made a lot of good points. But in saying


Quote:
Why would magicwatcher2005 have stage security deal with lunatik if he showed up outside magicwatcher2005's performance venue? Because exposure would ruin magicwatcher2005's show.


I hope TSW realizes that this is not a point that MagicWatcher2005 or I have argued against.

And TSW seems to contradicts himself in saying "Exposure is exposure" and then going on to explain that he doesn't mean faux-exposure.

Well, he doesn't really contradict himself he just defines things a little differently. You could say that "exposure is exposure" IF you define exposure well. But you can't say "exposure is exposure" if you say that revealing ANY method in any way is exposure as Lunatic2000 seems to argue.

I think the expression faux-exposure is a very useful one.
Magic Mike

MeetMagicMike.com



I took the Pledge
TSW
View Profile
Regular user
Ohio, USA
108 Posts

Profile of TSW
ZachDavenport,

While I found the incident very illuminating, I'm not sure everyone else here would share in my 'ah-ha' moment; some here might even find it boring. If you however you're interested PM me and I'll relay all the details.
Dougini
View Profile
Inner circle
The Beautiful State Of Maine
6826 Posts

Profile of Dougini
Quote:
On Aug 19, 2014, Mad0hatter wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 19, 2014, lunatik wrote:
@MadoHatter

What about restaurant performers that have reported that after performing an effect, someone at table whips out there smartphone and finds a YouTube video exposing the method?


Those are what you call poor performers, they were unable to engage the audience allowing the minds to wander.


Well. I must be a poor performer. That happened to me, a NUMBER of times! I must be an old hack now. Maybe it's time to give it up...

Doug
Tim Cavendish
View Profile
Inner circle
1348 Posts

Profile of Tim Cavendish
Let's talk about focus.

While Penn talks about an architectural principle of illusion, Teller is removing the front facade from the apparatus and reveals what appears to be the woman's butt hanging out the bottom of the illusion. Storytellers are encouraged to show, not tell -- why? Because showing is stronger than telling. Here, Teller's action of showing takes the viewer's focus and what Penn tells doesn't register with any strength. Further, what Teller is showing has its focus on the body hanging out beyond the profile of the illusion, not on an architecture of containment.

The architectural principle, although discussed in the open, passes unnoticed because there is something more compelling on which to focus.

Some here have heard of a performance art called magic. In that art, a magician can openly place a card under a beer glass -- in plain view -- and have it completely fail to register with the audience! Yes, it is true! This is accomplished by placing the focus on another more compelling action performed at the same time, such as spreading a deck of cards on the table.

Penn and Teller have some familiarity with this principle of focus management and are applying it here.

When Penn talks about the architectural principle, he's blowing on a dog whistle that only magicians will hear.
ZachDavenport
View Profile
Inner circle
Last time I posted I had one less than
1197 Posts

Profile of ZachDavenport
If anyone here has ever had a performance fall flat, and there is a good chance it was because of Penn and Teller please post it here.
Reality is a real killjoy.
magicwatcher2005
View Profile
Elite user
Washington state
446 Posts

Profile of magicwatcher2005
Quote:
On Aug 23, 2014, TSW wrote:
Why would magicwatcher2005 have stage security deal with lunatik if he showed up outside magicwatcher2005's performance venue? Because exposure would ruin magicwatcher2005's show.

[...]


I don't know if you're obtuse, or just overly argumentative like lunatik (who certainly lives up to his mis-spelled name). ANY venue would eject some jerk-off who was outside approaching customers as they entered or left. It has nothing to do with exposure - especially in my case, since I perform fully scripted routines, rather than the latest Youtube-level card tricks lunatik is so concerned about. So some mentally-challenged guy standing outside my performance venue offering to "expose" my "tricks" would have the exact same impact as standing outside a theatrical performance of Peter Pan shouting "Hey everybody, that little guy can't really fly! They have super-thin wires that hold him up!"

My response to lunatik (and you, TSW) is that I am not even remotely afraid of his fantasy "threat" of standing outside one of my performances and exposing my "secrets", because the audience already knows my biggest "secret" - I'm entertaining and funny, and they laughed their axes off. So what's lunatik gonna tell them, "The goose is just a puppet and he can't really write with his beak - the guy holding him was secretly doing the writing!"?... or "He secretly loaded that signed bill into the lemon when you weren't looking!"? Oh my god, the horror of it all!

BUT - and this is more for lunatik than you - I hereby challenge him to follow through with this "threat" for ANY performer, at ANY venue ANYWHERE - and have a friend video it for Youtube. He won't, because even though he claims he would he hasn't got the guts. But he certainly can prove me wrong with some simple video.

Most importantly, as others have already explained, Penn and Teller didn't "expose" anything with their Sawing routine that ANY decent magician would think needs "protecting". which I guess explains why the two of you are so concerned.

.
ZachDavenport
View Profile
Inner circle
Last time I posted I had one less than
1197 Posts

Profile of ZachDavenport
Ok that is a bit harsh. Based just on this discussion you are saying they are bad magicians. I don't think it is exposure of something that matters, but that is just a rude comment.
Reality is a real killjoy.
magicwatcher2005
View Profile
Elite user
Washington state
446 Posts

Profile of magicwatcher2005
Quote:
On Aug 24, 2014, ZachDavenport wrote:
Ok that is a bit harsh. Based just on this discussion you are saying they are bad magicians. I don't think it is exposure of something that matters, but that is just a rude comment.


I'm not saying they're bad magicians, they are saying they're bad magicians. I'm simply reading between their lines and clarifying the point.

Ask any great magician - Mac, Lance, DC, whomever - if he's against exposure and he'll absolutely say he is. Now ask him if he has ever feared his success would be ruined by Penn and Teller or Youtube exposure videos and when he's done laughing he'll say "No." Good performers don't rely on "secrets" to entertain their audiences, they rely on their theatrical skills, engaging personalities, and performing talent. Others in this very thread have given voice to one universal truth - you only need fear exposure if the bare-bones secret is all you've got going for you... which is the hallmark of a bad magician.

Don't shoot the messenger. If it walks like a chicken and [especially] SQUAWKS like a chicken, it's probably a chicken.

.
ZachDavenport
View Profile
Inner circle
Last time I posted I had one less than
1197 Posts

Profile of ZachDavenport
I'm sorry, but their opinion on YouTube exposure, and their ability to perform magic well are 2 different things entirely. If your opinion is that those who think YouTube exposure is wrong are clearly bad magicians, then you think that many well respected magicians and mentalists are terrible magicians.
Reality is a real killjoy.
magicwatcher2005
View Profile
Elite user
Washington state
446 Posts

Profile of magicwatcher2005
Quote:
On Aug 25, 2014, ZachDavenport wrote:
I'm sorry, but their opinion on YouTube exposure, and their ability to perform magic well are 2 different things entirely. If your opinion is that those who think YouTube exposure is wrong are clearly bad magicians, then you think that many well respected magicians and mentalists are terrible magicians.


Not what I said, and not at all what I meant. If, after reading what I wrote, you conclude that my opinion is "those who think YouTube exposure is wrong are clearly bad magicians" then you need put a lot more work into your reading comprehension skills.

.
silvercup
View Profile
Loyal user
223 Posts

Profile of silvercup
It's becoming a clear fact that magicians prefer video to books to learn simply because they are unable to read. How this forum persists confuses me daily.
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 [Previous]  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 0.22 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