|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 | ||||||||||
chrisrkline Special user Little Rock 965 Posts |
No, magicians cheat with a wink of the eye and the audience's full participation and understanding. Gellar was a fraud because he actively attempted to make people believe he had real powers. I don't mean that magicians need to state that they are fakes. That is silly; I simply mean that they should not actively strive to get people to believe. Magicians do not normally go to universities to get scientists to test them for psychic powers and then try to convince the scientists that they are genuine. What does that have to do with what most magicians do when they go up on stage? Nothing.
As far as the "Who hates Blaine, stuff." Go visit the other forums here at the Café and find out how indifferent people are to him. No one cares. It is in this one forum where the love and hate resides, and it is mostly a kid thing. When Blaine was unknown, the kids loved him. When he became popular a lot of them decided to hate him for that reason--it isn't cool to do what everyone else does. Once too many started to hate him, that was seen as trendy, so a whole bunch started to love him again.
Chris
|
|||||||||
philippos1979 New user 64 Posts |
Chriskline:
That is your opinion and it does find me in disagreement. You need not care about this but if you do, or if you are simply curious, go on and read further. Ever heard of the following quote chris: "You can foul all people for some time; you can foul some people for all time; but you can never foul all people for all time.(i think it was by Abraham Lincoln)" Geller fouls some people for all time. He may not foul you or he may not foul me. But still, to be able to do that and have so much impact on audiences, via a 'theatrical' form of deception, for me is difficult and great; for you it may be 'wrong'. But, right or wrong, can you do that? Can you actively propagate a reputation and make so much out of it? Note that what he claims (psychic powers) were NEVER proved to be nonsense. It is simply a complicated and chaotic subject. In other words, Geller deception (and perhaps it is not, how do you know it certainly IS a deception?) is not based on e.g aliens with 9 legs and 13 heads who look like elvis and live on the moon. He is based on something which finds many people in interest and belief many times. Now THAT is clever. He pioneered in terms of widely propagating his ability, in his situatioon of eg spoon bending. Forget about the 500 'other' ways of spoon bending which became popular after Geller; and yes I am literate enough to know that there was metal bending before Geller. But how popular or sought after was metal bending? Can you do that? Can you foul so many people for so long? I doubt it. (perhaps you can. if this is the case, bravo for you) You said: Gellar was a fraud because he actively attempted to make people believe he had real powers. " So what Chris? Good for him. Is the word 'actively' the word that makes a difference between magician and fraudster? too weak of an argument to separate the two. Your argument is too weak Chris. (my humble opinion) Then you said: "I don't mean that magicians need to state that they are fakes. That is silly;" There you go. That is true. But, as I stated above, to imply that Geller's 'active' claims for psychic powers are stronger evidence of fraud than the magicians implied way of letting it presumed that they are not fakes then I may assure you that these only shows that Gellar simply possesses better theatrical skills than the rest; it only shows that Geller is a better market-er and better in promoting himself. You are still a fraudster; albeit inferior than geller in terms of self-promotion (maybe you are as good as geller, in that case well done), this is my opinion and your positive appreciation of it is unnessesary. Then you said: "I simply mean that they should not actively strive to get people to believe. " Says who? You? Well that's your opinion. I totally disagree. On the other hand, you are of course allowed and entitled to suddenly cast your ethical insecurities upon this subject. This is merely an ethical point of you you made. Personally I doubt it that many people agree that your ethics mean anything at all here. Then you go: "Magicians do not normally go to universities to get scientists to test them for psychic powers and then try to convince the scientists that they are genuine. " Sounds fun! You should do it if you can. CAn you? Nope. too much of an ethical type of guy. Funny that you are in magic. Magic and ethics?? Hmmm..... not the best combination. Wait.... My opinion always...(pheewww am I covered by this??) I wholeheartedly disagree with you on all points raised. You use ethics to disguise your hate for Gellar. As for Blaine, well, you havent been in enough forums and/or threads yourself and you havent liaised with many magicians in real life (respectful magicians). Indifference? Yes, many are indifferent about Blaine. But as many do hate him. Whatever. Enough for today.. Take care Philippos p.s: The fact that I spend more than 30 minutes defending geller and blaine knowing that doing it only serves the peace of my consiousness makes me also feel like a fool anyway; should be doing better, more constructive things than deconstructing the stupid arguments of people like you.
-Magic? No,sleight of hand.
-The fact I MAY move my hand;your ability to reason;the motion of the universe; these are magical. Your logical inquiry into the possibility of something extraordinary is itself extraodrinary and that i define as magic... |
|||||||||
Jim Wilder Special user Birmingham, AL 954 Posts |
Philippos1979:
The debates about Blaine and Gellar are redundant (much like chrisrkline's use of the words "Gazzo" and "banter"). However, though Gellar's demonstrations may not have been proven to be absolute flim-flam, he certainly has not proven them to be anything above simple trickery. As well, I recall that Gellar had quite a time using his "abilities" when given controlled conditions on The Tonight Show with Carson. Too, Chris did not state that anyone (magician) go and prove their abilities in a college or university science lab. He only made a statement in regards to Gellar's ambition of proof. Regardless, to call any argument on this forum stupid perpetuates a belief that yes, you should be doing more constructive things. You certainly aren't deconstructing the argument. |
|||||||||
philippos1979 New user 64 Posts |
Arguments can be stupid. Do you deny that? Can you deny that? The argument I called stupid was stupid in my opinion. It doesn't have to be stupid in your opinion.
Do you subscribe to this point? (You don't have to as I don't have to subscribe to yours) Stupid arguments cannot always be deconstructed; because someone with a paranormal ability named 'common sense' is needed to realise when such a deconstruction (or lest a deconstruction attempt to be more modest and humble) takes place. Philippos p.s yes, I AM in a fighting/hostile mood when I am confronted with stupid arguments. I never expressed a noble attitude against them. Fight fire with fire.
-Magic? No,sleight of hand.
-The fact I MAY move my hand;your ability to reason;the motion of the universe; these are magical. Your logical inquiry into the possibility of something extraordinary is itself extraodrinary and that i define as magic... |
|||||||||
Jim Wilder Special user Birmingham, AL 954 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-05-17 13:50, philippos1979 wrote: No... I agree whole-heartedly- many arguments are stupid. But to call it as such, when one has been an active participant in the argument, turns it into reductionism lead by either frustration or defeat. |
|||||||||
philippos1979 New user 64 Posts |
Jim:
Ok, stupid IS a strong word; I don't expect someone to tolerate it, especially if the word is directed towards them. But to close this subject, yes some arguments deserve to be called with strong names so that the inspirators behind them may, via disrespect or frustration if you like, have an inward look and see what causes THEM to hate/underestimate famous people and not what is wrong with the celebrities. I am certainly not famous and do NOT aspire to become one. I DO aspire to be great in what I do but heavy publicity is not my cup of tea-perhaps I cannot achieve it; or perhaps I may not be able to handle it; or simply I may prefer the sly 'behind the scenes' work. Whatever you might wonder, who cares. Well this is just to say that I don't support geller or blaine because they are my ideals - I could hardly care about them - what I oppose to is simply the argument that they are 'worthless', 'undeserving' or some other synonym that escapes my mind right now.
-Magic? No,sleight of hand.
-The fact I MAY move my hand;your ability to reason;the motion of the universe; these are magical. Your logical inquiry into the possibility of something extraordinary is itself extraodrinary and that i define as magic... |
|||||||||
drkptrs1975 Elite user North Eastern PA 452 Posts |
I like Blaine, yet whoever said don't we all do tricks that are not ours, good point. I like him because he uses everyday items, I am kinda a little prejuidice agianst tricks that involved trick items, or where the items cannot be checked out. Otherwise, any idiot can relize that if the items cannot be looked at, then he/she can purchase the trick at the old magic shop. Some of tricks do have trick items, but for the most part, he used normal items.
|
|||||||||
Corey Harris Inner circle Kansas City, MO 1229 Posts |
I hate to jump in on this topic, But I figured I would share my thoughts. I don't hate blaine, I don't nessicarilly dislike him either. But I personally do not find him entertaining. I also find him over dramatic with a lot of things. I think he could be more entertaining if his presentation was better. Again just my opinion.
|
|||||||||
irishguy Special user Ohio 629 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-05-17 16:57, drkptrs1975 wrote: I am going to have to disagree with that. I would say that easily 60-70% percent of any given special uses gaffs, gimmicks, and/or duplicates. |
|||||||||
Kent Wong Inner circle Edmonton, Alberta, Canada 2458 Posts |
Wow,
All of this wasted time and energy critiquing someone else's abilities and success. That time and energy could have been much better used by furthering your own abilities and marketing yourself. Now, I will be the first to admit that, artistically, I am not a huge David Blaine fan. However, I also realize that I cannot make myself better by spending my time criticizing others. I can only make myself better by spending time criticizing myself, and then by doing something about it. I may not have much chance of ever becoming as rich and famous as David Blaine; but if all I do is sit here at my computer and criticize the man, then one thing is certain - I will NEVER be as successful as him. Kent
"Believing is Seeing"
<BR>______________________ <BR> <BR>www.kentwongmagic.com |
|||||||||
KidCrenshaw Special user USA 537 Posts |
I've never seen a discussion complaining about Copperfield because he claims he learned how to fly. Don't think he didn't? Think again. He never said it was an illusion, he left that to the viewers.
Plus he prances around a stage like a girlie-boy, but he doesn't deserve such critism just as Blaine doesn't. P.S. I like them both. They are both great actors. And, since when have we become more than actors playing the part of magician?
"Put your faith in Providence, but always cut the cards"
|
|||||||||
Jluvlace New user 33 Posts |
Ok, people are taking this a little too far. Yes, maybe Blaine is a little overdramatic but it adds more realism to the effect. Everyone can agree that there is none quite like Blaine. He takes magic to places it hasn't been before. I do agree though that it wasn't good to use camera effects, but overall, he's created a new edge to magic.
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Street Magic » » Why is Blaine hated? » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (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 0.04 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 < |