We Remember The Magic Café We Remember
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » New to magic? » » What is your opinion on video editing magic ? (25 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5 [Next]
Terrible Wizard
View Profile
Inner circle
1921 Posts

Profile of Terrible Wizard
It probably explains why I find stage illusions boring - I locate most of the skill in the engineers and prop designers. Nevertheless, at least the performer is actually doing something that requires skill, knowledge, practise and art - and it is presented as such and the audience experiences it as such in real time. However TV edited magic is presented solely as a skilled performer, but is really a skilled editor.

I think the real time, and even more the 'before your eyes', aspects are actually important in the live performing art of magic. Without those elements magic loses something, or even be ones unmagical entirely. Why do we not, for example, consider superhero movies magic?

Let me ask you to respond to a more fitting and analogous example to get my point across better:

Let's say you tune in to watch a ventriloquist show. The vent does their act remarkably well - their lips really don't appear to move at all, and the puppet 'speaks' clearly even when the vent is drinking!, The script is passably funny and the audience seem to love it.

But afterwards you are told that the audience were all plants who were instructed to act as if the act was great even though the vent's skill was actually non-existent because the puppets voices were dubbed in later through the 'magic' of TV editing. This is not how the show was billed or presented.

Do you feel any sense of loss? Any sense of being cheated?
And do you tune into the next three episodes in the series with excitement?
Wizard of Oz
View Profile
Inner circle
Most people wish I didn't have
4909 Posts

Profile of Wizard of Oz
After following this thread closely, I still fail to see why there is even a remote argument.

If we see a magic performance live, we are seeing reality. I don't care how many technicians, engineers, builders, plants, stooges are involved, or what angle we are viewing it, or any other conditions. If we are seeing it through our own eyes - even if we are the only people on location - that is a "live" magic performance. If one puts something on video that is not an honest and truthful representation of what we can see that same performer do, in similar conditions...live...then that is just misleading and false. In other words, B.S.
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
Aus
View Profile
Special user
Australia
891 Posts

Profile of Aus
Quote:
On May 5, 2017, Wilktone wrote:

Quote:
Aus wrote:
Firstly I don't accept the premise of the question that video editing is invisibly done because in my experience nothing I'v seen over the last 20 years has represented that.


Perhaps, but perhaps the reason you haven't noticed invisible editing because it's invisible?

As I mentioned above, a change to a different camera view is, by definition, video editing and this has been widely used to make magic on video more deceptive (and occasionally with poor editing, exposing a method). Are you fine with that technique of editing? Where do you draw the line?

But even more importantly, what are the thoughts of a lay audience? You may not be fooled by some clever video editing, but if a lay audience is, does that matter to their experience of magic?

Hypothetically speaking, we could video record a performance of a classic effect and make it appear it uses a classic method, but actually achieve the effect through video editing. At the end of the video the magician does something that disproves the method you thought and you were fooled. Does that change your experience of magic?

Again, I feel that the most important thing that we should be thinking about is what the spectators of a magic video feel. Do they suspect video editing? If so, even it the performance was "legit," it probably doesn't matter. Their experience of magic isn't as powerful. On the other hand, if they think what they see on the screen is the same as what they would see live, then does it matter?

Dave


How do I know that I have not seen any invisible video editing in the last 20 years? The answer to that is knowledge. I don't profess to be the ultimate guru but I do know a thing or two about magic, and what is possible and what isn't to the average magician. The bad editing is obvious as I have already exemplified with Dynamo, but the things that you term as invisible video editing in light of knowledge is as transparent as a glass of water.

It is a very difficult thing in magic to invent something 100% original without any influence of something else. With our history reportedly going back as far as 2700 BC in ancient Egypt its safe to say that our forebears have invented just about everything there is to invent in the full sense of the word.

All we have done in the subsequent decades has been refining, adding, modifying and substituting things in varying lengths and degrees and if there was a revolutionary new way to do something we would know about it before it appeared on any TV special.

But lets forget magic for a minute and look at the natural evolution of things.

How will the world look in fifty years? What will your everyday life be like? With which items will you surround yourself?

People who pondered this question fifty years ago had fanciful notions of how "the future" would look: Highways in the skies. Cities that resemble glass worlds. Bullet trains winding between gleaming skyscrapers. We would live in plastic capsules, work in underwater cities, vacation on the moon, and consume everything in pill form. We wouldn’t conceive offspring anymore; instead we would choose children from a catalogue. Our best friends would be robots, death would be cured, and we would have exchanged our bikes for jet packs long ago.

But hang on a second. Take a look around. You’re sitting in a chair, an invention from ancient Egypt. You wear pants, developed about five thousand years ago and adapted by Germanic tribes around 750 BC. The idea behind your leather shoes comes from the last ice age. Your bookshelves are made of wood, one of the oldest building materials in the world. At dinner time, you use a fork, a well-known "killer app" from Roman times, to shovel chunks of dead animals and plants into your mouths. Nothing a great deal has changed, and magic is no different.

Assume that most of the technology that has existed for the past fifty years will serve us for another half century. And assume that recent technology will be passe in a few years time. Why? Think of these inventions as if they were species: Whatever has held its own throughout centuries of innovation will probably continue to do so in the future, too, in magic terms we call these things "the classics". Old technology has proven itself; it possesses an inherent logic even if we do not always understand it. If something has endured for epochs, it must be worth its salt. You can take this to heart the next time you are in any sort of strategy meeting. Fifty years into the future will look a lot like today. Of course, you will witness the birth of many flashy gadgets and magic contraptions, if that happens in magic terms places like the Magic Café and other media like the wizard product review will be shining the light on them in their moments of glory.

But where video editing becomes transparent is where it try's to subvert the above evolutionary process by misrepresenting the natural order of things, and when that happens a knowledgeable magician sees things as they truthfully are. That's why I haven't seen invisible video editing because it doesn't exist because I can see straight through it. I know what magic is and I know what it isn't, I'v studied it for a long time and it has nothing to do with invisible editing.

Magically

Aus
Wilktone
View Profile
Loyal user
Asheville, NC
203 Posts

Profile of Wilktone
Quote:
After following this thread closely, I still fail to see why there is even a remote argument.


No argument from me, I'm just curious why magicians don't see video editing as just another possible method. Considering the wide-spread use of post production editing in almost everything we consume on screen these days, it's virtually impossible to get away from it. Where different folks draw the line is of interest.

Quote:
If one puts something on video that is not an honest and truthful representation of what we can see that same performer do, in similar conditions...live...then that is just misleading and false. In other words, B.S.


So if I understand your thoughts correctly, for you a magic video should be at least a somewhat accurate recreation of a live performance. What I find interesting is that qualities you put on an edited video as "misleading" and "false" are, essentially what a live magic performance is as well.

Quote:
If we are seeing it through our own eyes - even if we are the only people on location - that is a "live" magic performance.


I agree with you that live performances are so much better than experiencing something on video.

Quote:
Let's say you tune in to watch a ventriloquist show. The vent does their act remarkably well - their lips really don't appear to move at all, and the puppet 'speaks' clearly even when the vent is drinking!, The script is passably funny and the audience seem to love it.

But afterwards you are told that the audience were all plants who were instructed to act as if the act was great even though the vent's skill was actually non-existent because the puppets voices were dubbed in later through the 'magic' of TV editing. This is not how the show was billed or presented.

Do you feel any sense of loss? Any sense of being cheated?
And do you tune into the next three episodes in the series with excitement?


That's an interesting thought experience. Not being a ventriloquist or having a particular interest in the techniques, I don't really have any skin in the game beyond whether or not I enjoyed the show. I had to learn after I watched the show that it was edited, so the editing was essentially invisible to me.

I'm not a particular fan of professional wrestling, but many fans do absolutely know that it's scripted, but kayfabe . In your ventriloquist hypothetical example I guess I would just go along with it and enjoy the act.

Quote:
How do I know that I have not seen any invisible video editing in the last 20 years? The answer to that is knowledge. I don't profess to be the ultimate guru but I do know a thing or two about magic, and what is possible and what isn't to the average magician.


If the target audience aren't magicians, do you think that they are going to catch the video editing as well as you? If a lay audience is fooled and entertained, does it really matter to them?

I have an instructional DVD by an extremely well regarded magician that is considered a classic. On the performance demonstration for one routine in particular I'm fairly certain that the audio was dropped post production to cover the sound of coins talking. It took me a while to notice it, I only did on repeated viewings while struggling to avoid the sound of coins talking.

Is ducking the audio down to cover unwanted sounds OK, in your opinion? Or is this just another example of post production misrepresenting the magic?
Carderrez
View Profile
New user
Arlington, Texas
95 Posts

Profile of Carderrez
I am pretty sure Fender was shocked when he first heard Jimmy Hendrix, just as shocked as I was when I first heard Venom or Steel Panther. That's not how an electric guitar should be used. That's not even music.

Hate the evolution, complain about evolution, try to convince others how horrible the evolution is and there will be a hundred more copycats tomorrow. Some take root and others fade into oblivion. Evolution works in unexpected ways. Many good things go extinct, while others that should don't.

If someone in the audience calls it music. Its music. That person's paradigm is not going to change no matter how much you may plead with them or disagree. Its moot. Its' music...

If someone has the means to create these performances and someone in the audience calls it magic. Its magic to them. There's no stopping it. The issue is moot again.

A friend of mine knows I perform magic and is forever sending me YouTube videos of video magic and he's a camera freak, so go figure. He has however never sent me one of Zach King's videos, but his work is clearly special effects, even a laymen could figure that out and I have no problem with his work. Its meant to be taken for face value as a special effects project.

Its the other videos he sends me, where the magic is clearly staged and using video editing as if it were live, and it is convincingly real to a laymen, especially when stooges are used in a live setting.

I give it some thought before I reply to him and say, no, but I can show you where the inspiration came from and send him a link to one of the masters performing a live effect (one the video magic is based of of whenever possible).

He's stopped questioning me these days, but early on his response was, "but the other guy did it better."

And I would say, "He or she didn't hire Lucas Light and Magic either. You know light sabers really do not exist. Although they seem very real in Star Wars."

The fact that someone would go so far as to create a video misleading the laymen into believing its a live performance seems pointless to me, but again it is entertaining to the laymen. However when one of these performers is asked where someone can come to see them perform it live, their answer will have to be YouTube.

In the meantime a 10 year old with a cape and top hat is performing at her or his first magic show LIVE as I type this. That is something video magicians will never experience. The subtle adrenaline rush of successfully getting the patter right before executing a vanish, all the time vulnerable to, but keeping the heckler in the third row in check.

Nothing anyone can say or do can take that away from any magician who performs live and the reverse is true as we all know.
danaruns
View Profile
Special user
The City of Angels
610 Posts

Profile of danaruns
I think Aus' ventriloquist analogy is perfect. It's not ventriloquism if you have to edit in the voice in post-production. And it's not magic if you have to edit the video because you couldn't do the trick live. Either one, if done without prior announcement to the audience, is a fraud imho.

Quote:
On May 6, 2017, Wilktone wrote:

I have an instructional DVD by an extremely well regarded magician that is considered a classic. On the performance demonstration for one routine in particular I'm fairly certain that the audio was dropped post production to cover the sound of coins talking. It took me a while to notice it, I only did on repeated viewings while struggling to avoid the sound of coins talking.

Is ducking the audio down to cover unwanted sounds OK, in your opinion? Or is this just another example of post production misrepresenting the magic?


You weren't addressing me, but I would find the cover of coins talking by ducking the audio to NOT be okay. All that says is that the performer couldn't do the trick (no matter how well-regarded he is), and they had to fake it to make it presentable. Maybe in an instructional video that's more acceptable than in a performance video; I'd have to see the context. But generally, any editing you do because you couldn't really do the trick is a fraud in my book.
"Dana Douglas is the greatest magician alive. Plus, I'm drunk." -- Foster Brooks
Terrible Wizard
View Profile
Inner circle
1921 Posts

Profile of Terrible Wizard
I'm surprised, wikitone, you'd tune in the next episode - what would you be getting out of the show?

Again, the kayfabe comparison isn't really a good analogy - firstly because kayfabe is pretty much dead and everyone knows that pro-wrestling is largely scripted, but secondly, and more importantly, because what is entertaining is the skilled performers doing their 'stunt-fighting' act. I imagine that if the wrestling fans learned afterwards that the match was actually CGI and that no humans were actually flipping, spinning and pinning each other in a violent choreography they would feel cheated and lose some interest in the proceedings - it would become something else, more like a film. In which case, why not just do a great action film/TV fight scene?

Think of other similar thought experiments: jugglers where the balls are actually on wires; memory acts where they are just reading of information behind a camera; mathematic acts where they just use a hidden calculator; athletics where the winner is predetermined ... Would you feel as much interest in this phony versions as you would in the real deal? Hasn't juggling become more boring when the skill is entirely removed?
funsway
View Profile
Inner circle
old things in new ways - new things in old ways
7911 Posts

Profile of funsway
In the early 90's I was part of a recruiting project for a large company. They were concerned because many applicants seemed not understand the company's rules and expectations despite the material being presented during the process. We tried five approaches:

1) having them read a written brochure
2) having them watch a video of person explaining the material
3) having an audio explanation while watching video of people working at jobs
4) a live presentation as a lecture
5) a live presentation with the presented standing behind a limiting frame as if he were on TV.

Number 3 turned out to be the most effective, but I was surprised by the difference between 4 and 5

Those receiving #5 had three times the retention results of #4.

and this was pre-internet fascination. So, it easy to accept that people will see the world differently on a limited screen than when seeing "the whole thing."
Did we do something wrong by 'faking' the screen as a pretend TV presentation? The actual video (#2) did not work as well.

Bu the question here (for me) is whether what they observe on the limiting screen is magic? Some keep saying "magical" that is not the same thing.
Neither is "finding it entertaining" or "exciting" or "mysterious."

For a magician planning on performing live, the concern should be if watching effect son video prepares you to perform live.
Is the spectator conditioned to seeing impossible things on video prepared to appreciate your live performance?

A decade ago I suggested a table-hopping performer should just set a device on the table and allow the viewer to select the desired performance.
For them, what is seen might be magic -- and certainly more skillful than what I can do.

I could then practice special effects for the rare occasion where I have a live audience that expects and appreciates magic as art and an experience with affect as well as "must be magic."
For those impromptu moments I carry a slide rule and to entertain the masses with impossible calculations using ancient crafts.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst



ShareBooks at www.eversway.com * questions at funsway@eversway.com
Wilktone
View Profile
Loyal user
Asheville, NC
203 Posts

Profile of Wilktone
Quote:
If someone in the audience calls it music. Its music. That person's paradigm is not going to change no matter how much you may plead with them or disagree. Its moot. Its' music...


I've been purposely avoiding the music analogy because music is my profession and I am prone to seeing relationships there that might not be particularly relevant.

Regardless of my thoughts about the artistic value and quality of music that has been heavily edited, it's still music and people can still be moved by it. Once in a while even I find myself moved by it. The music analogy breaks down, however, because music doesn't include deception as part of the experience the same way magic does.

Quote:
You weren't addressing me, but I would find the cover of coins talking by ducking the audio to NOT be okay.


Thanks, Dana. I was hoping others would chime in with thoughts.

Quote:
I think Aus' ventriloquist analogy is perfect. It's not ventriloquism if you have to edit in the voice in post-production.


I'm torn with it, to be honest. But with this analogy I think I can speak from the outside, since my level of interest in ventriloquism is probably about the same as the general public has for magic.

With all of the ventriloquism acts I can recall watching the entertainment value isn't on how skillful the ventriloquist is at not moving his or her lips while talking, but the characters and jokes. I can't recall the ventriloquist's name or where I saw it, but part of his act was the dummy giving him a hard time for his lips moving. I think that watching a ventriloquist make small talk about the weather with her dummy would be boring, no matter how skillfully done it was. The techniques being used are secondary.

But ventriloquism is perhaps a better analogy than the music one because there is also an aspect to the performance where the artist is pretending something impossible is happening and the audience is playing along by just enjoying the dialogue.

I doubt that ventriloquist audiences today are really stumped by how the dummy is talking, but I'm not certain about how ventriloquists of yore played it. Does anyone know? Was there a time in the history of ventriloquism where it was supposed to fool audiences?

Quote:
I'm surprised, wikitone, you'd tune in the next episode - what would you be getting out of the show?


I found the first show enjoyable, right? I thought it was funny, the characters were engaging, and the plot was interesting? I'm tuning in next week for those things, not for the skill of the ventriloquist. In this case, maybe cartoons can be a helpful analogy. I can appreciate the skill of a well drawn or well animated cartoon, but if the story isn't engaging I'll loose interest soon. On the other hand, cartoons like xkcd or South Park I enjoy, in spite of the lack of skill demonstrated in the drawing or animation.

Quote:
Think of other similar thought experiments: jugglers where the balls are actually on wires; memory acts where they are just reading of information behind a camera; mathematic acts where they just use a hidden calculator;


Yeah, I think I would feel cheated if I learned that those particular acts were faked. The point of juggling, for example, is to demonstrate exceptional skill (and be entertaining while doing it). The skill is central to those performances.

Quote:
athletics where the winner is predetermined


Well, isn't this kayfabe? It's the veneer of an athletic event that most of the audience understands is scripted, but they enjoy both the skill of the performers as well as looking for and appreciating those moments between the scripting. Maybe a similar analogy is jazz, where the form of the tune is predetermined, but how the musicians get there are improvised.

Quote:
Hasn't juggling become more boring when the skill is entirely removed?


Yes indeed, but I still contend that you're thinking like a magician instead of a lay audience.

As magicians we strive to hide the very thing we're skillful at (excepting the skill of being entertaining). At its core magic involves deceiving the audience, not impressing them with real skill. Some tricks are very simple to perform, but played correctly will make an audience believe that it must have taken a lot of skill because there's simply no other way it could be done. Magic isn't real, they think, right?

Stepping outside of my magician's perspective and trying to see things from the spectator's point of view, I don't think the method itself is important but the spectator's experience. If the video editing enhances or even is responsible for that experience, but it still deceives and entertains, how is this different to you? Is this similar to sleight of of hand purists? It's just not your thing?

Dave
Wizard of Oz
View Profile
Inner circle
Most people wish I didn't have
4909 Posts

Profile of Wizard of Oz
Do you remember seeing the first film you ever saw with special effects that blew you away, and being so amazed but your parents telling you that it was only pretend? You understood that, and continued to enjoy the film after further viewings even knowing it wasn't real. Why? Because it was in your imagination.

Do you remember seeing your first live magic show or performance? Probably. Maybe your parents also told you it wasn't real, just like the special effects in the movie, but the difference is that you were there for the magic. You were witness. You saw what you saw with your own two eyes. The movie was storytelling. A recounting of a past event. The magic was "real."

What is magic? What is this thing we do? I contest that it is putting something mysterious and beautiful in front of people that makes them be in awe, if only for a moment. It makes them think they really saw, heard, felt, smelled, even tasted something very special. Something visceral. Something sensual. Something unreal in the real world.

Yes, science and technology constantly change our perceptions of what magic is and isn't, but what we have to offer is always something extraordinary in the world of the ordinary. If we offer something unreal in reality, we are begging the question, "how?" If we offer something unreal online, on television, or any other digital medium, we are begging no questions. It is already assumed. Reality isn't in play. It can all be special effects.
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
Carderrez
View Profile
New user
Arlington, Texas
95 Posts

Profile of Carderrez
Quote:
I've been purposely avoiding the music analogy because music is my profession and I am prone to seeing relationships there that might not be particularly relevant.

Regardless of my thoughts about the artistic value and quality of music that has been heavily edited, it's still music and people can still be moved by it. Once in a while even I find myself moved by it. The music analogy breaks down, however, because music doesn't include deception as part of the experience the same way magic does.


I appreciate your response, but you have taken my music analogy out of context, perhaps that was my fault. I was simply comparing three among countless changes. It was not meant to be a comparison to magic or deception, but a comparison as to how the evolutionary changes are perceived and how change is even less appreciated when it is perceived as lacking discipline or can even be interpreted as reckless by musicologists, and yet revered by their fan base. I meant to demonstrate how the layperson doesn't care about the artistic disciplines. They're in it for the beat...

However, It could be argued, but I don't want to digress beyond what has already been stated, if ever there were an industry that has thrived on deception, we need only to look to The Monkey's, The Partridge Family, or Karen Carpenter who had a magnificent voice, but it's not the "one" we've been listening to all these decades. And were all those great live albums from the 1970's really, really live?

Its seems to me the nucleus of this discussion is what and what cannot be considered legitimized deception, which deceptions are proper and which deceptions are not, and which deceptions are not as deceptive because of the time and dedication it took to learn them, and not to be overlooked when the deception is entirely inappropriate.

I gravitate towards this example:

If I purchased a video to learn a deception and paid good money for it. It is wholly inappropriate to edit the performance when the tutor cannot perform the deception properly without camera or audio manipulation. If that's the case it is not someone I want to learn the technique from. I am paying to learn the subtleties of the moves from someone who can teach me how not to make those mistakes, and not from someone who cannot execute the moves properly. Anyone condoning this in a training video even if they are the world's leading expert would be in the wrong.

Unfortunately, the performer doesn't always get know until after the fact. They may not even be aware of it until after the video has been packaged and distributed. Think Adele's touched up photos in Vogue. All she could do was damage control after the fact, and she had nothing to do with the Photoshop photos they released of her.

None the less this is an inappropriate use of deception, but it's not in the context of the magic itself. It is a misrepresentation of expertise we are paying to learn from and not be entertained by, at least in this example. Had the performer known of the mistake and had a chance to go back and perform the routine again, instead of it being pushed through production without his/her knowledge there would be nothing to discuss, but no matter how it happened it was wrong, and if the performer is to blame shame on them for the money grab.

Making subtle corrections in a live performance such as bad camera angles, other missteps are routine in the live video industry. Those two or three nights at one venue, with a camera crew where the artists use the same wardrobe for all three performances. There's reason for that and its not to deceive anyone, although editing the best segments from the three nights into a single performance is a deception, but not one to be taken out of context either. They do it to present the best possible performance in their video release.

Beyond this scope when and where the doctoring of a performance is an acceptable deception lies within the integrity of the performer and the performance.

I agree with Wizard, if your audience is entertained, belief is suspended by your own doing and you love what you do. Who am I to judge. Just because it not something I would not do does not make my choice of deception any better and there's not a living soul on this planet who can do magic without it in a live performance or otherwise.

I am going to make this my last post in this thread and move on to something more constructive. The reason I joined was to gain insight into improving my performance and seek advice from the experts on the new magic emerging. Ironically one of the reasons I quit posting on message boards for over 9 years ago was because I was getting caught up in way too many moot issues. I don't want to start doing that again here.
Terrible Wizard
View Profile
Inner circle
1921 Posts

Profile of Terrible Wizard
Wikitone, I was seeing it from a spectator POV - indeed, I was recalling my boredom and irritation at magic on TV before I ever got into magic and learned any methods at all.

I've always found phony magic done by TV editing a bit dull. Smile. Of course, other people's mileage may vary. Some people find all kinds of things fun that I find weird or boring or lacklustre. I see non-live magic as you see juggling by wires. Pointless.
Wilktone
View Profile
Loyal user
Asheville, NC
203 Posts

Profile of Wilktone
Quote:
On May 6, 2017, Carderrez wrote:
I appreciate your response, but you have taken my music analogy out of context, perhaps that was my fault


Sorry, the error was mine in that I didn't explain that I was using your analogy as a jumping off point into my own thoughts about the relationship of magic to music. Regardless, your last post is an excellent summary and pretty closely mirrors my thoughts on the subject.

Quote:
On May 7, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
I've always found phony magic done by TV editing a bit dull. Smile. Of course, other people's mileage may vary. Some people find all kinds of things fun that I find weird or boring or lacklustre. I see non-live magic as you see juggling by wires. Pointless.


Yes, I agree that magic on video is not as interesting or moving as live magic. Still, it has some entertainment value to me and, I suspect, to a lay audience as well otherwise we wouldn't see any magic at all on TV.

Out of curiosity, I showed my wife (not a magician) the video of David Blain performing the Balducci levitation routine. In the clip there were a few performances where the camera was focused only on the audience on the street and she commented that she was bothered because it didn't show the trick. When it came around to showing the levitation with the special effect she told me she was impressed. I explained that it was done with digital editing and she shrugged her shoulders. I asked her if she felt cheated at all and she told me she really didn't think it was a big deal and went back to her book.

Sample of one, so take it with a grain of salt.

Dave
Terrible Wizard
View Profile
Inner circle
1921 Posts

Profile of Terrible Wizard
Sure. I wonder what a larger sample size would result in? Especially if we focussed on those who wanted to watch magic and tuned in specifically to watch magic on TV.
funsway
View Profile
Inner circle
old things in new ways - new things in old ways
7911 Posts

Profile of funsway
Quote:
On May 7, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
Sure. I wonder what a larger sample size would result in? Especially if we focussed on those who wanted to watch magic and tuned in specifically to watch magic on TV.



????

people who want to watch magic will not find it on TV -- that is is the entire issue

except, that many people today would not recognize good magic if they saw it -
so they will take the Lemming approach of assuming what is called magic on video/TV is actually representative of what they might see live or find in real life.

So, we find a large sample of people up at 2AM bored with reruns who will answer a survey about something they have never experienced but might find entertaining.

This info can then be used to self some "self-performing" miracle on video only that will blow the sox off of someone awake at 2AM in the morning.

Just having fun, of course,

I am very serious about the future of performance magic and saddened by what I see.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst



ShareBooks at www.eversway.com * questions at funsway@eversway.com
danaruns
View Profile
Special user
The City of Angels
610 Posts

Profile of danaruns
Quote:
On May 7, 2017, funsway wrote:
people who want to watch magic will not find it on TV -- that is is the entire issue



I'm not sure what you mean by that. I would say, just off the top of my head, that viewers of "Fool Us" are seeing some darned fine magic.
"Dana Douglas is the greatest magician alive. Plus, I'm drunk." -- Foster Brooks
funsway
View Profile
Inner circle
old things in new ways - new things in old ways
7911 Posts

Profile of funsway
Quote:
On May 7, 2017, danaruns wrote:


I'm not sure what you mean by that. I would say, just off the top of my head, that viewers of "Fool Us" are seeing some darned fine magic.



Just my opinion, of course. I do not see any performance limited to a small screen under someone else's control as being 'magic' in the same way as live effects I have seen and perform.
If one accepts that what is offered on this limiting venue as being magic, then some is certainly better than others. -- and may be the best an individual ever experiences.

This should not be expanded to equate to the best magic experience possible. The measure is the story told to grand children,
and any that starts off with, "I saw something neat on TV" doesn't come close.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst



ShareBooks at www.eversway.com * questions at funsway@eversway.com
danaruns
View Profile
Special user
The City of Angels
610 Posts

Profile of danaruns
Quote:
On May 7, 2017, funsway wrote:
The measure is the story told to grand children,
and any that starts off with, "I saw something neat on TV" doesn't come close.


This I agree with 100%. I understand where you're coming from, now. Thanks.
"Dana Douglas is the greatest magician alive. Plus, I'm drunk." -- Foster Brooks
Terrible Wizard
View Profile
Inner circle
1921 Posts

Profile of Terrible Wizard
This discussion about at what point in the line magic ceases to be magic and becomes something else got me thinking. What about stooges? They seem a contentious 'method', though perhaps more accepted than video editing.

But what if the entire audience were just plants? Every trick, the whole show - nothing but acting. Isn't that equivalent to video editing, and perhaps more cost effective? Smile

Doesn't it at some point along the stooge-scale cease being magic and become a vey weird drama?
Wizard of Oz
View Profile
Inner circle
Most people wish I didn't have
4909 Posts

Profile of Wizard of Oz
TW, this is a good post. It had me thinking.

I loved The Amazing Randy's exposures of the fake healers who very successfully used stooges to promote their successful "healings," and understand where you are going with your assertion. It's justified. Something seemingly real fooling the masses. Yet I still contest, if a magician can't reproduce her or his effect live...and I don't care what lighting, angles, theatrics, stooges, props, gimmicks she or he uses...and can only show it on video with editing and/or special effects...well, that's not magic, and they are not magicians. That is special effects and she or he are special effects artists. Also great. But not the same kind of magic.
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
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 © 2001-2018 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.45 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