|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] | ||||||||||
Bulla Special user Honolulu, HI 674 Posts 
|
This is actually turning out to be a great debate. I think both sides have made excellent statements. I think sometimes when people ask can he really do that, they are being completely serious about it and not asking if it can be performed in front of a live audience but does he actually possess the power to do that. There are still very gullible people around nowadays.
I don't feel like people watch magic the same way they use to back in the day. A magic special on television is just another program on the list. These are made for laymen and not magicians so I find it kinda funny that magicians would even get remotely upset about the methods that are employed. |
|||||||||
|
magicfish Inner circle 7016 Posts
|
Bulla, I agree that there are still people out there who believe that real magic might exist.
Ive experienced this first hand. Some magicians will argue to the death that theres not a person on earth who believes in real magic. |
|||||||||
|
Bulla Special user Honolulu, HI 674 Posts
|
Yep. As long as there are faith healers and fortune tellers and psychics around there will always be people who want to believe that magic is real.
|
|||||||||
|
Dynamic New user 34 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2014-02-19 19:45, ScottishMagician wrote: But using wires, mirrors, instant stooges, body doubles or in one famous example twins, dual reality on stage, performing things 40 feet away from the audience there is no way they could do if the audience was closer etc etc is fine? Still don't really understand the difference, but as I said, I can't see either of us changing the other's mind, so not much point carrying on. |
|||||||||
|
Bulla Special user Honolulu, HI 674 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2014-02-20 04:39, Dynamic wrote: It's not about the audience being closer, it's just the fact that they're there. You're on stage and you use all the gimmicks props etc to perform your illusions. That's ok because you do it in front of the audience. On tv, when you make camera edits and splice certain clips together to make it seem like a single shot/take, that is something that is done in post production, away from the audience. I hope that was clear enough for you to understand what they were talking about above. The arguement was basically that if the method of the illusion can be done in front of people, doesn't matter if they are up close or if you're on stage, then that would be deemed "genuine" magic. If the method used can only be done with special effects and camera work etc which happens away from people, then that would be fake and cheating. I don't think I can make it any clearer than that. |
|||||||||
|
magicfish Inner circle 7016 Posts
|
I don't think it CAN be stated any clearer than that.
|
|||||||||
|
Dynamic New user 34 Posts
|
I understand your thinking, I just disagree with it. Method, is method, is method. Instant stooges for electric chair or 'regular' stooges for a vanishing ball. Can't see a difference. Preshow for mentalism on stage, something happening off camera you don't see for TV. Using twins for years to do illusions, or using a body double on TV. It's the same to me. Not to you. And that is cool. All allowed our different opinions.
|
|||||||||
BarryFernelius Inner circle Still learning, even though I've made 2537 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2014-02-19 19:09, Dynamic wrote: Some people in Troy's audience thought he disappeared. So what? You know he didn't, and intelligent people have a simple explanation: it was done by editing and camera tricks. In your definition of magic, the presence of gullible individuals can create magic in almost any situation. I think of magic as creating the memory of an impossible event. Here's Michael Close's definition: Magic is a series of events that cannot be explained by natural law. No logical explanation is possible, and no rationalized explanation satisfies. Pop Haydn calls our subset of the theatrical arts the Theater of the Impossible. The goal of the magician is to create The Dilemma. The Dilemma is an event that creates a memory that acts like a burr under the brain's saddle. It goes like this: I know that there's no such as thing as real magic. BUT What just happened was impossible; it could only have happened by magic. So the problem with TV magic? There's ALWAYS a way to rationalize it away! My friend Jeff McBride says that to watch a magician on TV is redundant, and I tend to agree with him about this. If you have a premise, a mediocre actor, carefully selected camera angles and edits, and don't mind using stooges, you can create MIRACLES on TV. Intelligent spectators will always be able to explain what happened. You might argue that in a live performance, an intelligent spectator can always come up with an explanation. If the explanation is correct or logical (but incorrect), I say that the magician has failed to create the Dilemma. I've seen performances of magic that didn't create the Dilemma. This isn't the fault of the conditions; it's the responsibility of the performer to create the experience of the impossible. I want to create an event that can't be explained by logic, and if an audience member tries to rationalize what happened, he won't be satisfied. This often means that a magician has to go to extra lengths to create a convincing illusion. Consider two performances of the Haunted Pack. Performance One - magician takes out a deck, a card is selected, and it's returned to the pack. The deck becomes animated, the pack cuts itself, and the selected card is left sticking out of the deck. The magician puts the deck away. This might fool some people for a short time, but then they start thinking of explanations. The magician never showed the faces of all the cards. Maybe there are duplicates of the card, and the deck has a built-in mechanism that displays a duplicate of the selected card. Or maybe it's some other type of trick deck. After all, he never let us handle the deck. And he put the cards away right after the trick. There are many rational explanations that can be formulated. Performance Two - the magician's wife has friends over for a game of Bridge. The friends bring the playing cards. The magician is dressed in casual clothes. He has the deck of cards shuffled by the audience. He has an audience member select a card while the deck is in her hands. He takes back the deck, and cleanly puts the card in the middle. Then, the deck becomes animated, the pack cuts itself, and the selected card is left sticking out of the deck. The magician immediately has the spectator take the selected card and deck. He then goes into the kitchen to fix himself a drink. If the second scenario is performed correctly, the magician will create the Dilemma, and that's the goal of magical performance. TV magic can never convince an intelligent person that he saw something impossible.
"To achieve great things, two things are needed: a plan and not quite enough time."
-Leonard Bernstein |
|||||||||
|
Bulla Special user Honolulu, HI 674 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2014-02-20 08:19, Dynamic wrote: Well first of all, if you've read my posts above, you'll realize it's not my way of thinking. I'm actually on the other side of the arguement. I was just trying to help explain what others meant in their post. It seems like you still don't fully understand what they are trying to say. All the examples you just listed are not what they are talking about. What they are referring to is the use of "camera tricks." In a live performance there is no way to duplicate that. For example, editing clips is not something that can be done outside of tv magic. I can't do it on stage therefore that's cheating. Using a body double on tv is fine because I can use a body double on stage. You see the difference? Just to clarify it's not my thinking but I hope now you know what the actual debate is about and can understand both sides. Ok, hopefully that's the last time I have to explain that. |
|||||||||
|
Dynamic New user 34 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2014-02-20 11:33, Bulla wrote: I didn't quote you in my reply, that means I wasn't replying to you. Thanks though. |
|||||||||
|
Dynamic New user 34 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2014-02-20 10:48, BarryFernelius wrote: So what? Well, that demonstrates that people thought he disappeared. Like people thought Blaine levitated. Like people think a tiger on stage disappears and like how people like a girl floats on stage. Quote:
On 2014-02-20 10:48, BarryFernelius wrote: I've made no attempt to define magic. I've just repeatedly asked what the difference is between instant stooging, and stooging on a TV show. What the difference is between pre-show for a mentalism show and off camera pre show for a TV show. The difference between using a twin for a stage illusion and a body double in a TV show. No one seems willing or able to answer. Quote:
On 2014-02-20 10:48, BarryFernelius wrote: So people never think that the guy jumping out of his chair during Electric Chair is in on it? They don't think there are wires when a girl levitates? 
Quote:
On 2014-02-20 10:48, BarryFernelius wrote: The job of TV magic is to make a show people want to buy ads in. We're magicians, we'd LOVE to see a 'proper' magic show. But the TV audiences don't want that. So the TV companies make what they want. Anyway, as I keep saying, if you think using an instant stooge is fine but a stooge on TV is bad, then we don't agree, and that is just fine! |
|||||||||
|
Bulla Special user Honolulu, HI 674 Posts
|
Quote:
Dynamic I have already given you an answer. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. |
|||||||||
|
BarryFernelius Inner circle Still learning, even though I've made 2537 Posts
|
Dynamic,
In one way, I agree with you; you should never rule out any method. But the methods that you choose to use should help you to accomplish your performance goal. This is my performance goal: My goal is to create a series of events that cannot be explained by natural law. No logical explanation is possible, and no rationalized explanation satisfies. I'm arguing that magic on TV won't ever satisfy that goal. I have seen live performances of magic that met the goal. If you have different goals, I agree that different methods are perfectly acceptable. In my opinion, it's a good idea to understand what you're trying to accomplish with your show. By the way, when a magician levitates a lady on stage, why do you suppose that the magician passes the hoop around her? Perhaps to convince the audience that their first explanation (wires they can't see) can't possibly be true?
"To achieve great things, two things are needed: a plan and not quite enough time."
-Leonard Bernstein |
|||||||||
|
Dynamic New user 34 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2014-02-20 12:53, BarryFernelius wrote No one is arguing against you. If that is your goal, that is great. People are arguing that stooges are bad, unless it is instant stooges, then it is ok. This is what I am trying to understand. Quote:
On 2014-02-20 12:53, BarryFernelius wrote And on a TV show, because they are so close to seeing the person levitate, there is no need for the funny hoop. So, in some ways, you could say it is better, or more convincing as there is no need for the 'convincer' of the odd movement of a hoop round a gooseneck! :) |
|||||||||
|
Bulla Special user Honolulu, HI 674 Posts
|
How is it possible to shout on here?! LOL. I was just emphasizing because you have yet to understand what exactly is being debated here. Yes we are on the same page but you need to fully understand what some people are referring to you, otherwise how is it possible to carry on an intelligent debate?
P.S. You did say no one gave you an answer which is why I provided you with one. |
|||||||||
|
magicfish Inner circle 7016 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2014-02-20 08:19, Dynamic wrote: All the things you mentioned are valid methods of deception. You left out the one that isn't- camera tricks. |
|||||||||
|
Dynamic New user 34 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2014-02-20 15:51, magicfish wrote: Sorry, I missed the memo from about camera tricks. To me, there is no difference at all doing preshow or doing an edit. No difference between dual reality and an edit. No difference between a very famous illusionist relying on his twin to a camera edit. You think there is, and I totally respect your opinion on that. It's a big world and we're all allowed our opinions. When my TV deal goes through, I'll be happy to use any method to make it look like I am doing magic, from a gaffed deck, to a stooge to a camera trick. You draw the line at a camera trick and I respect your opinion on that, just disagree with it. I think Troy is a charming, likeable magician and I am enjoying his show. |
|||||||||
|
Bulla Special user Honolulu, HI 674 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2014-02-19 17:38, Dynamic wrote: Here is where you ask about the difference. Because you didn't fully understand what the debate was about when you posted this, you probably didn't realize what you were asking about. Like I said before, the main debate is about using camera tricks/edits, methods that cannot be duplicated on stage. If you want to have a tv show where you appear to be a magician but use all these camera tricks in it and are unable to perform the same effects away from the screen, then don't fool yourself in labelling it magic or calling yourself a magician. Just be honest, you're a special effects technician and that's that. Nothing wrong with it if that's what you want to be. You won't get magicians to support you but you'll gain a lot of followers. That is until they meet you in person and realize the sad reality that you can't perform the things they've seen and everything was fake. P.S. I love your optimism about getting a tv deal. Best of luck!! |
|||||||||
|
Dynamic New user 34 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2014-02-20 18:37, Bulla wrote: Well, I knew what I read and what I typed in response. Seems I understand more than you as you keep replying to me when I am talking to someon else lol! Quote:
On 2014-02-20 18:37, Bulla wrote: What effects does TRoy do on camera that cannot be duplicated on stage? He leviates. He disappears. etc. All standard stage effects. My point, and I am genuinely sorry you keep not getting it, is that magicians use any manner of sneaky methods to make it look like they are doing magic. Dual reality, stooges, wires, mirrors, trick decks, etc. I can't see the difference between them and camera tricks. The audience end up thinking you can do magic. My aim is to make people think I can do magic. I don't care what the method is. the result is what is important. To me. Quote:
On 2014-02-20 18:37, Bulla wrote: It's not optimism. Already had meetings with two production companies. One doing street magic with a twist, the other a different thing, compeititve hidden camera magic. Should be fun whichever pans out. |
|||||||||
|
Stu Montgomery Veteran user St Petersburg FL 354 Posts
|
Dynamic...you're about to reach 50 posts on this one topic, and gain access to restricted information. I don't think you're ready for that. Anyway, not to dumb things down, or go over and over it all again, regarding the use of body doubles: I'm a twin, we use each other to the Nth degree. That's perfectly acceptable. What isn't at all acceptable, is the way doubles are used in the way I've described...without the knowledge or consent of the original, genuine onlookers, to dishonestly enhance an effect outwith what can be achieved in reality, in a manner designed to suggest to TV viewers that the effect as broadcast, was identical to how it would've appeared on the street. That is being dishonest. It matters not a jot if mentalists use pre-show, or illusionists use wires, or close-up use double lifts...these are established, acceptable methods and nothing like the dishonest enhancement used by TV street magician's. It's been explained to death now...if you still can't see it, maybe reaching 50 posts isn't such a good idea!
"Round about what is, lies a whole mysterious world of might be" Longfellow.
|
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Troy (3 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Feb 20, 2014 02:59 am 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 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 < 
|