On 2007-01-16 22:28, todsky wrote:
Bill, I have formed the Fine Whine Magic Club, and I just kicked out Penn and Teller.

On 2007-01-16 18:48, todsky wrote:
I don't think it matters the quality of method that was exposed, the point is they tell audiences one method for accomplishing an illusion, and from then on a spectator seeing a similar illusion will likely assume they know the method, even if they know the wrong method. Even worse, I think, is that P&T present magic as a puzzle to be worked out, which in my opinion lessens the art and experience of magic.

On 2007-01-17 02:51, Joey Stalin wrote:

Quote:

On 2007-01-16 18:48, todsky wrote:
I don't think it matters the quality of method that was exposed, the point is they tell audiences one method for accomplishing an illusion, and from then on a spectator seeing a similar illusion will likely assume they know the method, even if they know the wrong method. Even worse, I think, is that P&T present magic as a puzzle to be worked out, which in my opinion lessens the art and experience of magic.

Please. So if I invent some crazy super complicated way to vanish a rabbit, that has nothing to do with any other way in use or created, that only works on TV, I would be doing wrong? Please....

Last I heard telling specs a false explanation is great misdirection to hide the true method.

People always make guesses about how an illusion is done. They already make assumptions as to how it is done. Usually they are wrong. Sometimes they are right. Yet this hasn't done damage to magic at all. And sorry to tell you but people, adults anyway, always see magic as a puzzel to be solved. What is the first question they ask you after your do and effect? "How did you do that?" Kids younger than 10 may believe in magic, but sorry to tell you, adults don't. They know there is a real explanation to what they saw.

Did you read what I typed up from that issue of Genii?

On 2007-01-16 23:26, Bill Palmer wrote:
Incidentally, nobody seems to be upset about Franz Harary's exposure of his vanishing submarine, which was not a CGI thing.

On 2007-01-16 08:31, Joey Stalin wrote:
GENII magazine March 2006 said:

GENII: Were you and Penn in the editing room or did NBC edit in isolation?

TELLER: I edited a version of the Underwater Standup Routine. I presented our producers and NBC with what I thought was, from a magic point of view, the best edit of that sequence. But keep in mind that editing yourself on video is virtually impossible because you know what you intended. You can't seen what is really on the screen in the pure way an editor can. That's why we have editors and directors. So that someone with a fresh eye can look at what you are doing and know the difference between what you wish you did and what you did for real.

GENII: Would you say that at some point in all of this you lost control of the show? It's happened to well-known Hollywood stars and directors....

TELLER: You can't lose control of what you never had.

GENII: Were you aware that you did not have the final cut?

TELLER: Yes, absolutely, there is contractual language that stated that NBC had the final cut. So I went in with one vision and came out with another. Something which happens in every word of art.

GENII: In this case, that resulted in camera shots that exposed two illusions.

TELLER: When we went into it, we had designed some tricks to be shown from the magician's point of view. Neither the Metamorphosis nor the Million Dollar Mystery were intended as such segments. Because in both, we believed, the effect would be stronger than the explanation. But, as I said, cameras were rolling all the time from every angle during the shoot. And when Star Prince went in assemble it, he saw the backstage footage of those two tricks and found them more dramatic and interesting than the effect themselves. I saw the first cut with laymen. They assume they were seeing tricks that could work only underwater. I couldn't imagine when looking at us swimming around a cage and relating that to, say, the Pendragons' spectacular version of the Metamorphosis. And I think it would take and expert magician to realize that the tu**el going into the Million Dollar cabinet was covered with mi**ors. It wasn't really until Johnny Thompson looked at it and was concerned that I had any qualms at all. Johnny's been defending us for years on a couple of artistic points, one of which is that we virtually always invent the tricks that we expose. There is no one I respect more than Johnny. So I took his concerns to NBC. NBC said, "No, we like what we have; it's a really good part of the show."

GENII: They wouldn't budge?

TELLER: They were willing to bend a little on the particulars. They allowed us to rewrite the narration to direct the viewer's attention to Penn and Teller's discomfort and stupidity, rather than to the parts of the method that overlap with standard technique. that's how we came to put so much attention on the weight of the helmet and our hidden wire to support it - which evidently worked, since you asked about it. In the Million Dollar we emphasized Penn's Clumsiness and Teller's bad disco dancing and deftly removed the word "mi**or* from the text of the script. We also switched in some angles which looked funnier and more strenuous - and, coincidently, showed no reflections in the mi**ors. By the time we were done, the sequence was, I believe, a little funnier and more dramatic. And even if a lay spectator were to finish watching Off the Deep End and go right to a magic show featuring Metamorphosis and Million Dollar Mystery, he would be clueless. Of course, my frank opinion is that no exposure ever gets in the way of magic.

GENII: Do you think that because of the way in which the pendragons do metamorphosis that the public simply wouldn't believe that they could be doing what they had seen exposed?

TELLER: I don' think the public sees it as even remotely related. They public saw a show of underwater magic, not a trunk trick. But even specific discussion about tricks seems to have no effect. There's been lots and lots and lots of detailed speculation about our "Bullet Catch" all over the internet. And yet we do it nightly and everybody's amazed.

GENII: Does anybody know how it's done? I think it's a pretty well-kept secret.

TELLER: It's a pretty *** good trick, but that doesn't stop people from coming up with explanations, some of which I believe are right.

On 2007-01-17 09:20, todsky wrote:

Well said, but my point was influenced by my recent reading of Magic and Meaning by Burger and Neale, which got me thinking that magic is more powerful and meaningful to the spectator if it is presented in story form, and doesn't directly challenge the spec to figure out the method. In other words, does magic have more impact as a puzzle or as a dramatic experience? P&T are just presenting a puzzle, and then solving the puzzle for the audience. Entertaining yes, but not magic that is a moving experience, except to some magicians who view their exposures and have an uncontrollable urge to move their bowels.

Please. So if I invent some crazy super complicated way to vanish a rabbit, that has nothing to do with any other way in use or created, that only works on TV, I would be doing wrong? Please....

Last I heard telling specs a false explanation is great misdirection to hide the true method.

People always make guesses about how an illusion is done. They already make assumptions as to how it is done. Usually they are wrong. Sometimes they are right. Yet this hasn't done damage to magic at all. And sorry to tell you but people, adults anyway, always see magic as a puzzel to be solved. What is the first question they ask you after your do and effect? "How did you do that?" Kids younger than 10 may believe in magic, but sorry to tell you, adults don't. They know there is a real explanation to what they saw.

Did you read what I typed up from that issue of Genii?

On 2007-01-17 03:34, nabil wrote:
Cheers Payne! And thanks to the guys who posted the oath, I needed a good laugh. A few questions to the oathers: first, what entitles you to carry this knowledge? What is it about people who don't perform the art that makes them unentitled to have that knowledge? How does one gain entitlement? Common guys... the entitlement mentality?!? Are you serious?


Posted: Jan 17, 2007 3:38am
-------------------------------------------
And to the guys out there who figure Penn & Teller, Mac King, and Derren Brown must not be very good or they wouldn't need to expose...What?!?!?!

GENII magazine March 2006 said:

GENII: Were you and Penn in the editing room or did NBC edit in isolation?

TELLER: I edited a version of the Underwater Standup Routine. I presented our producers and NBC with what I thought was, from a magic point of view, the best edit of that sequence. But keep in mind that editing yourself on video is virtually impossible because you know what you intended. You can't seen what is really on the screen in the pure way an editor can. That's why we have editors and directors. So that someone with a fresh eye can look at what you are doing and know the difference between what you wish you did and what you did for real.

GENII: Would you say that at some point in all of this you lost control of the show? It's happened to well-known Hollywood stars and directors....

TELLER: You can't lose control of what you never had.

GENII: Were you aware that you did not have the final cut?

TELLER: Yes, absolutely, there is contractual language that stated that NBC had the final cut. So I went in with one vision and came out with another. Something which happens in every word of art.

GENII: In this case, that resulted in camera shots that exposed two illusions.

On 2007-01-17 16:07, nabil wrote:
Much more recently, Phil wrote: "Isn't exposure still wrong? What am I missing here? "
Once upon a time I said the same thing. I think a good quality thing (or person) can't be EXPOSED. It can be revealed, taught, explained, shared, sold, given, etc. Some bits of knowledge may cause disappointment, others bit may fascinate. "Exposed" is a word better suited for things or people of very little value, that are being wrongly perceived as more valuable then they really are. So for me, EXPOSURE is not wrong, never was wrong, and never will be wrong. It benefits society. Just think of all the people helped by groups like the Better Buisiness Bureau and shows like Penn and Teller's show BULL****. Exposure is fair, exposure is just.

On 2007-01-18 02:46, freefallillusion1 wrote:

O.K., DO I HAVE TO DEFINE WHAT I MEAN BY EXPOSURE?????? I MEAN SPILLING THE SECRET BEHIND MAGIC!!! I really can't believe that actual magicians are debating this. ISN'T IT WRONG FOR A MAGICIAN TO REVEAL HOW IT'S DONE (tell the secret, tip the method, spill his guts to the lay public...)? Wasn't it always wrong? Has something changed now that some of us apparently see no problem with it?