|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] | ||||||||||
SoyMilky Regular user 144 Posts |
Joe Joe is a straight up shooter and his contribution to the magic community is not to be underestimated.
I am using his super spinner for my gigs now. |
|||||||||
Mr. Woolery Inner circle Fairbanks, AK 2149 Posts |
Sorry to be late answering the questions put to me.
David Blaine and Chris Angel do have the skills and are certainly magicians. When they use SFX to achieve a false presentation of what we are supposed to believe was done live, in front of a real audience, they are not doing magic. That's when they turn into liars. And like Dougini, that's not the kind of magician I want to be. I've enjoyed watching Zach for a couple of years now. Very good stuff. Not a magician, so not relevant. If he presented his videos as examples of things he can do in person, it would be germane to the discussion, but he doesn't so it isn't. In terms of the magic world, I am indeed a nobody. Thank you so much for the belittling comment. However, is this meant to say that I don't have a right to an opinion about the matter? I am an amateur and not ashamed of it. My own experience is largely entertaining kids. In person. They would not stand for me showing them a video of a trick that I can't show them in person. That's not real magic. Wizard of Oz summed up my feelings in a lot fewer words than I did: "What I think is the issue here are false representations of truth. The notion that a video is showing us real footage - accurately rendered - when in fact it is nothing of the sort. The performer is not only lying about what his or her audience witnessed, but also about what skills he or she actually possesses." -Patrick |
|||||||||
jacobsw New user London 67 Posts |
Quote:
On Mar 21, 2017, SoyMilky wrote: I think the contract between a magician and an audience member is "The Magician will deceive the Audience, in order to temporarily challenge the Audience's beliefs about how reality works." As far as I'm concerned, that's the contract in full. Obviously if somebody hypes their TV special as "No special effects! No edits! Exactly what you'd see in the audience!" then they are adding that promise to their contract with the audience. But if they don't say those words, then no form of deception is off the table. Again, I don't LIKE unacknowledged video trickery. To me, it's like using stooges: iIt's unimpressive to me as a magician, and it's disappointing to me as an audience member when I learn that it was done. But it's not morally wrong. |
|||||||||
hitlab New user Perth 19 Posts |
Personally I am not a fan of video editing magic. It is kind of like a cop-out. When you see sleight of hands/live magic you rack your brain trying to figure out how a trick is done, and that is where the fun comes from. But when you see something on TV, when you can't figure it out, you will just think "it's probably done by video editing"
|
|||||||||
Mr. Woolery Inner circle Fairbanks, AK 2149 Posts |
My first university degree was in broadcast journalism. Mostly audio work, so serious video editing was never in my skill set and all the equipment I learned on is totally obsolete anyway. However, I just spotted where I disagree with this:
"I think the contract between a magician and an audience member is "The Magician will deceive the Audience, in order to temporarily challenge the Audience's beliefs about how reality works." As far as I'm concerned, that's the contract in full. " If deception is your only goal as a magician, I think you are selling yourself short. But that's not the issue. The issue is that with video editing, the magician does not deceive the audience. That's the guy in the back room editing the video. He does the deception, not the star. So, in that case, the contract is violated. The whole point to live audience reactions (or what is presented as live audience reactions, at least) is to say clearly that what we see on camera is what we would see in person. That's the message, regardless of how true it is or isn't. If I watch a video and am amazed at the skills of the magician, then later find out that he could not even do what he presented, I have been lied to. The nature of the deception in question makes a huge difference. -Patrick |
|||||||||
Dick Oslund Inner circle 8357 Posts |
THAT sums it up, for me, too!
Thanks Patrick!
SNEAKY, UNDERHANDED, DEVIOUS,& SURREPTITIOUS ITINERANT MOUNTEBANK
|
|||||||||
RowB New user 13 Posts |
I'm anti editing. It removes from the hard work.
|
|||||||||
jacobsw New user London 67 Posts |
Quote:
On Apr 6, 2017, Mr. Woolery wrote: If the magician does the editing, does that change things? And as another thought experiment, if a magician in a stage show has an offstage assistant who makes the trick possible (and perhaps even does most of the work), is the magician a fraud? If a stage trick only works when the lighting guy gets the lights exactly right, is the magician a fraud? Unless you invent your own tricks from scratch, and build all your own props, any magic performance is a collaboration. |
|||||||||
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts |
Jacob, in thinking about your thought experiment I agree that all (most?) magic is collaborative - even if you did design your trick and props entirely from scratch, you still need an audience.
However, I don't think such a thing would affect my opinion on edited TV magic. The awareness of editing and camera trickery utterly reduces my ability to enjoy and engage with the 'magic', which I see as a performing art and thus difficult enough to capture on camera without the involvement of editing (can you imagine watching a juggler on TV where the balls had been added by cgi? Or a televised race where the winner only appeared to win because of editing, but in reality came last?) |
|||||||||
danaruns Special user The City of Angels 808 Posts |
Part of it, for me, is that video is intended to record and preserve a magic performance, not falsely create the appearance of one that never occurred. Absolutely anything is possible with video technology, but none of it is magic.
"Dana Douglas is the greatest magician alive. Plus, I'm drunk." -- Foster Brooks
|
|||||||||
Mark Williams Special user Las Vegas, Nevada 513 Posts |
Quote:
On Apr 21, 2017, danaruns wrote: Although, I edited in a bunch of quotes in my own video, the magic still remains. Take a look... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuPhfEkadck Best Magical Regards, Mark Williams
"Once is Magic!! Twice is an Education!!"
|
|||||||||
Mr. Woolery Inner circle Fairbanks, AK 2149 Posts |
Dana stated my feelings exactly. Please re-read her most recent comment and assume a big "ditto" from me.
I'm not sure why this is hard to explain to you, Jacob. If what you see on camera is not an accurate representation of what is seen in person, it is a deception of an entirely different sort than what is achieved by sleight of hand or tricky props or misdirection. It isn't about who actually does the editing in the back room. What matters is that the editing in what makes the "magic" happen. When you posted a link to one of Zach's videos, I responded why that isn't magic. Who does the editing does not change the situation. Either you are performing magic or you are pretending you can perform magic. If my whole purpose is to deceive, I can just tell you lies. I just ate a Snickers bar. My IQ is 144. My dad is a helicopter pilot. There! Am I am magician, now? I am sure you actually understand what we are all telling you. You keep arguing against it and I can't see why. You asked for opinions. We gave you the requested opinions about video editing, then you started telling us that we are wrong. I don't get it, buddy. I just don't. -Patrick |
|||||||||
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9982 Posts |
Quote:
On Apr 22, 2017, Mr. Woolery wrote: an interesting statement that can be applied to every performance by a magician. In one sense, we all "pretend at magic" and hope the observers at least might think, "So that is what real magic looks like." but, I understand that here the reference is more towards "is the performer creating the impression that they are the cause of the illusion," or "Is the performer merely the MC or stage manager of an illusionary event?" Those that feel "it is all about entertainment" may see no distinction. Those who feel that performance magic can (and should) have an affect beyond entertainment will realize that neither option deals with the important issues. One (for me) is whether today's audience is capable of appreciating a good magic performance, or are they conditioned to skill demonstrations and shock as "being magical?" As to editing -- all things seen on a TV or Computer screen are edited. Someone else has decided on the angle of the shot, the degree of close-up, the lighting and sustain on a scene. In a live performance the observer gets to enjoy the personal choice of such things -- and embrace the energy of the crowd, the smells and other distractions of life, the bias of what came before this trick and what came after -- and the stories told after by others who shared the experience. Many posts here address "who" should do the editing, and this is an important distinction. Some address "what is edited out and what is added." Also important. but please, do not confuse these considerations with that of whether ANY magic event seen on a limiting screen under the direction of another can be the same as experience a magic effect live. Sadly, I feel that most in a live audience today will already judge a magic performance against what the can find on YouTube as an "explanation." Their thinking has already been edited. Their world view has been edited. "Magic" as I know of it has been edited out altogether. They do not complain that the photo of an Arby sandwich does not resemble what you get at the counter. Why should they care how the "magical" event is orchestrated?
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts |
Good points funsway
One thing that affects my opinion is how I view magic as a skill based performing art, like juggling, music, stand-up comedy and ventriloquism. If the skill is taken from the performer and placed in the editing suite, I feel a bit cheated and bored by the show - its not magic, it's movie making - something I wasn't looking for. Just like if I watched a ventriloquist show and the puppet voices were simply being dubbed in at a later stage. |
|||||||||
danaruns Special user The City of Angels 808 Posts |
Do you consider this video to be "magic?"
(Here's a direct link in case the embedding didn't work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34Q0BB8-2nA) If so, how? If not, how is the Zach video posted by Jacob qualitatively different than Action Movie Kid?
"Dana Douglas is the greatest magician alive. Plus, I'm drunk." -- Foster Brooks
|
|||||||||
Ben_Fox New user 5 Posts |
Using video editing to create effects that can't be replicated in person, or to misrepresent the reaction of spectators seems awful self-destructive to me, especially for a professional. At some point, that bill has to come due -- the people whose checks you're cashing notice that people don't start freaking out in reaction to a torn-and-restored card like they do in your videos, or that there's always some reason you can't perform that one effect you do that no other magician can replicate. Over-promising and under-delivering is one of the most surefire ways to lose customers that I can think of, the customers in this case being the people booking you. I just can't see how doing something like this is anything but a Bad Idea (TM) for someone trying to pay the mortgage with magic.
|
|||||||||
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9982 Posts |
Quote:
On Apr 24, 2017, danaruns wrote: opinions, right? no magic here except maybe the jumping into the puddle. The Zack is upbeat, creative and based on helping others. The other is destructive, depressing and of little social value. I feel sorry for the kid having his perceptions mangled, and for the parent who thinks this is a good way to prepare the child for life. The first might encourage a viewer to use their imagination. The second might get a kid to kill someone. No magic there!
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
Mr. Woolery Inner circle Fairbanks, AK 2149 Posts |
Funsway, your ventriloquist example is perfect. That is exactly what I was attempting to get at.
In fact, it reminded me of watching a Jeff Dunham DVD a couple of years ago. Good show. Then I watched the bonus material and realized that at least one skit had been shot twice. Peanut's hair fell off in the out take. There was a good recovery, but the skit was reshot and the do-over was used. This was presented as a live show and the very strong implication was that it was a one-take performance. I felt cheated. I felt lied to. I felt like the contract with the audience had been violated. Part of why Depeche Mode's 101 is my favorite album by them is that it tells a lot about how well that band could do a live concert. Cheap Trick Live at Budokan is iconic for a good reason. The live recording made that band. If people found out later that what was advertised as a live performance had really been faked up in a studio, they would feel cheated. It could ruin a band. But isn't the sole extent of the contract that people pay to hear music? I've got a two word answer to that one. Milli Vanilli. I might never be the Metallica of magic, but I promise I will never be a Milli Vanilli of magic, either. Patrick |
|||||||||
jacobsw New user London 67 Posts |
Funsway, I'm puzzled by your reaction to the Action Movie Kid. How is the kid having his perceptions mangled? He acts out a scene using his imagination (whether it's a scene he invents or one the dad suggests.) Then the dad adds in special effects after.
So, the kid (a) has the chance to exercise his imagination, and (b) learns not to trust everything he sees on video. Imagination and skepticism are vital life skills, as is the ability to find a balance between them. The kid is getting an early education in all of that, at the same time he's getting fun playtime with his dad. I genuinely don't see the downside there. What am I missing? |
|||||||||
jacobsw New user London 67 Posts |
Dana, your question has made me think a lot about how I define magic and where I draw the line. If I'm honest, I haven't come up with an answer that feels completely right yet.
The best I can come up with is that it's a difference of presentation. Zach presents himself as a "digital magician". Therefore, I consider it magic. Action Movie Kid is presented as (logically enough) an action movie. Just to be clear, I don't think "presenting yourself as a magician" is the ONLY requirement for being considered a magician! But I do think it's one of many. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » New to magic? » » What is your opinion on video editing magic ? (25 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.05 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 < |