|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9~10 [Next] | ||||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Wow could you miss the point more?
We are speaking of video trailers which are edited to make the effect look stronger. I am saying that magic can indeed be done for the camera, and done well and be entertaining, without edits to accomplish the work. Naturally it is all a matter of choice of effect. That should be self explanitory.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5925 Posts |
The burgers never look the same in real life and the cars never look as cool as they do in the commercials. Recognize it and get over it.
|
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Tom you really don't get it do you?
Get over it means that we keep putting up with it and it keeps happening and it gets worse and worse. Yea great solution there you have. Way to be involved in the process. Sorry Tom, but when things are wrong, flat out WRONG, I am not going to "get over it" as you suggest. (actually it seemed more of an order LOL) We are talking about tricks being edited and made to seem different than they are, basically almost bait and switch. Incidently there are rules for advertising. Tom is your position that since it happens and nothing can be done, we should support those who do it? I am confused by your position.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
matthew leatherbarrow Loyal user 240 Posts |
You joke, smile, point, chuckle, make a connection, pull a serious face, make light of a noisy passer-by, say 'look here' and they do – all these things to create that momentary flick of the eye; to misdirect.
On a single shot video which occupies a four inch box on a website, you simply do not have the scope for this huge part of performance. So you watch the demo and the camera cuts or swings out the way when 'the dirty' is happening. Consequently you don't see that ten card palm, but then neither should your spectator. Personally I still think editing a misleading demo is bad practice. Editing to recreate a spectators point of view is an entirely different matter. |
|||||||||
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
1) If we are to put your opinions into context - unless you back them up with specific examples - then we do need to know who you are and what your experience is. Ideally, we would have examples of your work. Otherwise, your words are just that - words. Without context they have no meaning.
2) If my dealer ad said "Spectator thinks of ANY card in the deck. Magician shows his empty hand and then removes their card from his pocket" that would be a good trick. Now, your instructions say, "Have the spectator peek a card from the deck, hold a break. Sidesteal the card into palm and load it into your pocket." Would that be false advertising. I think we would agree it is. But what if that is what we SAW in the demo video? I mean, with editing, you could make it look just like that. Is that false advertising? The burger may not look the same as it does on TV (TOM) but at least you're buying a freakin burger. |
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5925 Posts |
Quote: Doesn't surprise me as you chose to jump to conclusions before asking what my position was. Simply, I think video trailers should be as misleading as they can make them. They should be totally dismissed in the buying process. Real life experience of the effect is the much better tool. A video experience's only hope in approaching simulating a real life experience is to edit.
On 2008-03-17 01:52, Dannydoyle wrote: Real life, for the most part, looks fake and unimpressive on film. Brad, food is more important in life than a magic trick, is it not? If one is, in a video demo, recreating the effect that a trick has on an audience, and the audience believes through well scripted performance that any card was thought of, then in the demo the reality is pointless. As it has been for decades if not centuries. Only the medium has changed. |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Thanks for your sarcasam Tom, funny how the staff can get away with it and belittle people and say things, but when another does it they get banned.
Moving along down your slippery slope, who is to say what effect a particular trick has on an audience? It is not represenative of what the audience sees happening Tom. Not by a long shot. It is represenative of what the guy who edits the video is wanting people to BELIEVE the effect is on an audience. Yea Tom the medium has changed, but guess what? A lie is a lie right? Brad is right, you still get the burger. The best representation of the burger is what is put forth, not a fake burger. Is video editing selling the best representation of the trick? Not often enough I am afraid.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Andy the cardician Inner circle A street named after my dad 3362 Posts |
Let me push this to the limit. Imagine a video where a card is clearly pushed between two cards by the spectator. The next shot show that the card has vanished. This is THE ULTIMATE CANNIBAL TRICK.
What you do not know - between the two shots, the magician will take the small pack away and steals the card out of it, before giving the pack back to the spectator. Next scene: the spectator - a very well curved young lady - sceams "Oh my GOD, this is unbelievable" and beams at the magician. Her eyes seem to say . . . (okay, I will not continue . . ) Andy
Cards never lie
|
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-03-18 02:17, Tom Cutts wrote: Well Tom some of us would argue that using magic is a way to buy food is it not? Ahh never mind.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
Tom,
Next time we meet up at Mindvention let's sit down and really talk. I don't know if you only say such stupid things online, or if you have the nerve to say them in real life too. We are not creating video demos for laypeople. We are creating video demos for magicians. I can - with presentation - convince a spectator they could have selected any card. Does that mean in my print ad I can say "no force." After all, that's what it seems like to the audience? Of course not, and you know it. Lying with words. Lying with images. If you promise the buyer one thing, and deliver another, you are a liar. Do you advocate lying to your customers Tom? It seems like you do. Brad Henderson |
|||||||||
matthew leatherbarrow Loyal user 240 Posts |
Truthteller, surely we are dealing with the problem of ambiguity here?
Whatever the medium, you're basically trying to demonstrate the effect – effect being the operative word; and this causes ambiguity. If you describe/show exactly what happens during the effect, do you not stand to reveal the method? How far do you take the hard line, and who decides? A very simple example (the one already used): Lets say it's a basic mind-reader effect where you force a card. Now lets look at the various possible ad's. “Any card is chosen, you instantly know it's value.” “Any card is chosen, you read the spectators mind and name the chosen card.” “Any card is named, you read the spectators mind and name the card.” “A card is forced, you pretend to read the spectators mind and name the chosen card.” All the above descriptions are conceivable. So which do you feel most comfortable with? Why? |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
You guys want to add gray area where there is none.
Read the title of the thread, MISLEADING is the word used and this is the problem. I don't care what you think is a "concievable" description, misleading is wrong in the end. No way around it, a lie is a lie.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5925 Posts |
Danny,
No sarcasm, just facts and my view, any other emotional baggage you are connecting to what I wrote is not mine. I do agree with you, to "get over it" is perhaps going to let it get worse. When people wise up and stop assuming that video demos or print media are there to be accurate rather than put the best spin on the product they can, they may stop relying on them and the hype may loose its ability to influence decisions. And that is the way I think it should be. I'm not on the slippery slope. I've gotten to the bottom of that slope and started up a different hill. The one I learned about in a magic store when I was 15. If you don't see a routine live you simply have not experienced it. You have not felt its effect on you (for whatever that may be worth) and you have not witnessed it performed for a lay audience. Purchasing a magic trick you have not experienced is just a risk. If I am happy taking that risk, and I sometimes am, I know it is a risk and I weigh that possible expense against the cost of seeking it out at a convention or at a store to see it live. If you are comforatble saying you still get a burger, why can we not say, "You still get a magic trick." Yeah, it looks nothing like the one in the commercial, no where near as fulfilling or enticing, but it is still a magic trick. Brad, If you feel my view is stupid that is your perrogative. Where did I say video demos were created for lay people? What I tried to say is that a video demo could and maybe should represent THE EFFECT a trick has on a lay audience. Magic adcopy has been doing this for decades if not centuries. Are video demos to be held to a new higher standard than print adcopy has enjoyed for all those years? Quote: I wouldn't pay attention to your adcopy so write whatever you want.
I can - with presentation - convince a spectator they could have selected any card. Does that mean in my print ad I can say "no force." Do you believe that the knowingly false images portrayed by burger joints which do not honestly represent their product are lies? If so, it seems you are happy with these lies from your statement above. |
|||||||||
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
Mathew,
When you study the history of magic you learn that we have a long standing tradition of informing the customer (magician) about certain qualities of the trick in order to induce them to buy. For example, it is common to read in ads: No force, impromptu, use any deck of cards. You can give quite a lot of information about the trick - accurate information, I might add - which both entices and informs the prospective customer WITHOUT revealing the method. However, Tom would like us to believe it is ok to out and out lie to someone in order to sell a product. (At least, that is what he seems to be saying.) And, depending on the use of editing, you seem to be supporting that position as well. If the video does not accurately reflect what the audience sees - or the process/venue required for the succesful performance of the effect, then you are misleading your customer base. If I were to write, no force, and use a force, Tom might think that's ok - most ethical magicians wouldn't. Likewise, if I were to portray a trick on a video that implies the spectator merely thinks of a card, and in no way inform you that this is NOT an accurate representation of the process required - then I too would be lying. I would be selling you a trick where the spectator thought of a card in their mind - as a magician, that's something I might value and want. But yet when I open the box, I realize I did not get what I want nor what I was promised. I am the victim of false advertising. Remember, we are selling a product to a magician, not producing a magic show for them to watch. If you sell something, you need to reflect it with reasonable accuracy. The Burgers on the commercials are reflected with reasonable accuracy, admittedly they are placed in ideal settings with ideal lighting - but when I taste it, I (if the company is good) get what I expected when I opened the box. Can we say that about magic, Tom? If the restaurant fails to deliver what they promised, they stop getting my business. Clearly a lot of people feel they are not getting what they were promised in their magic boxes or were wouldn't be having this discussion. Now, there is nothing wrong with making sure the product looks smart.If you want to perform demo's of the trick in front of hyperactive audiences that love everything - that's ok. If you want to stage the trick in a lush theater with a handsome magician performing, that's fine too. But when you promise us one thing, and deliver (or not deliver - right, Tom) another, then you are engaged in false advertising and no amount of rationalization can change that. Brad Henderson |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-03-18 17:41, truthteller wrote: Now this is exactly the point. "Get over it" is not an option now is it Tom? Use all the silly gray area arguements you want to, a lie is a lie. There is no gray area.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Josh Riel Inner circle of hell 1995 Posts |
My momma always used to say: Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see.
This is definitely not "getting over it", It's sad acceptance. A smart consumer, because of the false nature of some of the advertisements, will not believe any of them. Now I don't buy the junk, but have several buddies that do. I hear "Don't buy that thing, it's garbage" more often than not. Now that's a sad thing. At least it shows that magicians, with all their pomp and imperative denunciations, are no more ethical than anyone else. Hooray for us! We're finally in the median, is that a step up?
Magic is doing improbable things with odd items that, under normal circumstances, would be unnessecary and quite often undesirable.
|
|||||||||
hendoo New user 99 Posts |
Dear Danny and Brad-
I have seen both of you perform. I have also paid a visit to your websites. Honestly I think both of your websites are more than a bit misleading. Relate what you are advertising to what others advertise and please explain. Or is there a difference? Product is product? Yes? The hubris is thick in here. |
|||||||||
matthew leatherbarrow Loyal user 240 Posts |
Quote:
And, depending on the use of editing, you seem to be supporting that position as well. Nah, you're welcome to your deduction – but you're wrong. I'm against editing that is designed to actively mislead, especially when supported by copy that affirms the lies. Editing that simulates misdirection is fine. Where you draw the line is up to you. If for example a trick requires a palmed card, I see no problem with cutting or swinging the camera so the palm is not the central focus. So long that you don't claim 'no palming used' in your ad copy, I don't think any lies have been told. In a live demo (in a shop) if the performer is worth his salt, you won't be burning the deck during a palm. Why should the camera allow such a privileged view? Especially when a video can be re-watched multiple times. There is a grey area because a live performance (in a shop) is a totally different experience to watching a video demo. Some real big names like Mark Mason have taken to heavily editing their demo's. Not, I would say, with an intention to mislead. |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-03-18 20:01, hendoo wrote: First off I doubt seriously you have ever seen me perform. Second of all oddly enough I don't have a web site so for it to me misleading, is not that possible. As for the claims I make, I claim to do a relativly amusing show, which does not embarass anyone. HMMM seems to me that is exactly what they get. So where is the hubris? (and why not define what you think this means as I am not sure you know what you are accusing me of.) Where exactly did you see me perform? I would be curious. The ONLY web site you can find me on is one that is not even tagged. It is not a sales site, but rather a tool the company I work with can use to see who and what is going on. So there is NO WAY it can be a "misleading" anything as it is simply one for data and scheduling. Where is there anything misleading about it if you don't mind me asking? If you are claiming to have "seen me perform" by the 10 or so minute clip of the show, well then oddly enough you make the point for Brad and I. The clips are what they are, and the show is what it is, nothing is edited to make it more dramatic or look better. So go ahead explain to me how a scheduling tool has misrepresentations of anything on it if you please? This should be pretty cool. Matthew, oddly enough I don't really think you edit to make effects better. I think you may cross lines I would not, but I don't think you do it to intentionally misrepresent anything. I am sorry if I implied it earlier. I do get what you are saying. Again a line I personally would not cross. I would have to see actual examples to know if I thought it was wrong or not. Just because I would not cross it, does not make it the UNIVERSAL LINE though LOL. (Incidently this is not a shot at you I hope you know, just tring to peer through the glass a bit differently at times is all.) Tom however seems to have this "get over it" attitude as if it will just keep happening. That is just odd to me.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5925 Posts |
Quote:
When you study the history of magic you learn that we have a long standing tradition of informing the customer (magician) about certain qualities of the trick in order to induce them to buy. There is an equally long history of deceptive advertising or advertising which leaves out what would be paramount to know to "protect the secret". I see little difference if this is done with video. Are you, Brad, talking about a specific instance where the video specifically lies? If so, please state which so we can all join in the same framework. When I see a burger with a big thick patty sticking out from the bun, lettuce that hangs from all sides of the bun, and a big thick slice of tomato which pretty much is the size of the patty; and I get a "burger" which is mostly bun, the lettuce is non existant, the patty can't be seen from any angle without opening the bun to find out it is half the size as seen in the ad. WELL? Is that misleading? Have they lied? IS it accepted becasue we all know what to expect, less than advertised. IF that is the case, how is that different than getting a trick which is less than advertised? Saying "you got a burger" is like saying "you got a card trick". Now if you ordered a card trick and you got a coin trick, that is an entirely different subject. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Misleading advertising - video trailers? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9~10 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.08 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 < |