|
|
Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
freefallillusion1 Elite user Cincinnati, OH 446 Posts |
OK, here's an honest-to-goodness question regarding camera tricks on TV magic shows. I, as well as (probably) the vast majority of others have always held the stance of camera tricks being wrong. From the word go, many years ago, I had always felt that if you can't do it in front of real people, it isn't "magic"- you're doing nothing different than Steven Spielberg. However...
The problem is, we live in the TiVo age of every video being easily reviewed. Add in YouTube and it only compounds the problem. And you've got to admit, LOADS of good stage illusions will simply NOT stand up to repeated viewing. Many, like an illusion involving a switch (think Burton's gramophone) are at least partially obvious once the video has been seen the second time and the surprise is gone. Also, think Lady to Lion- when seen in it's entirety on TV (and then seen again), would the audience eventually notice the move with the s****s? I think so. It might take several viewings and more if the misdirection is good, but is it wrong to simply edit out the part of the video with that move? Here's where it becomes difficult for me. I used the Lady to Lion example because that's one specific example from Criss Angel. Yes, I think he goes way too far with his "creative" camera work. But in this case, there were simply no s****s on the illusion. The lady entered the cage, the cloth was dropped, the camera zoomed in to allow the lady to do her thing (painfully obvious, of course, if seen in person), the camera zoomed back out, cloth is whisked away, and there's the big cat. Presto, instant illusion that can't be figured out on YouTube. So- is that wrong? Criss gave the impression that he can perform an illusion which transforms a lady into a lion. And, he can back it up by doing it live. Of course, there's that one slight difference, but if performed well, only a magician would ever notice. The audience would walk away thinking that they had seen the same thing both live and on TV. What Criss did here was to simply video-proof the illusion. The way I see it, times have changed and that dictates that we either 1) keep up with the fact that audiences have ways of dissecting magic these days, or 2) never perform great illusions like Lady to Lion on TV again, because it will be exposed. Again, I'm not in favor of doing things on TV that could NEVER be done live. But- if I give the audience the impression that I can do something on TV and then afterwards, they see me do it live, only this time it happens to be inside a theater where the conditions are a bit more friendly, then ??? Remember, we're magicians! Again, it's difficult for me because we are in that rare position of having a job where stretching the truth is acceptatble. It's like when I say "I have an empty box...". From the beginning of the show, the audience is fully aware that nothing a magician says can be taken at full face value. Think of Houdini! He was one of the greatest publicists ever. Most of us have nothing but admiration for what Houdini accomplished and the fact that even today, he's part of the reason that magic is popular. But, most of us also know the ugly truth that lots of what Houdini said was either a huge exaggeration or an outright lie. Harry ruthlessly used every means at his disposal, in those days, to get his name out and to further his own "legend". If he were alive today, would he use a creative camera edit to make it impossible for the at-home audience to expose him to the masses? I think we all know the answer! Okay, enough from me, I'd love to know everyone's thoughts on this! Phil |
|||||||||
Pakar Ilusi Inner circle 5777 Posts |
Welcome to the New World.
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
|||||||||
freefallillusion1 Elite user Cincinnati, OH 446 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-04-05 11:31, Pakar Ilusi wrote: As I said, I have had strong feelings on this for many years, as have the vocal majority of magicians. I have been a full-time professional for 18 years and was raised on Copperfield, but then again, even David did some "creative" stuff! |
|||||||||
Dan Bernier Inner circle Canada 2298 Posts |
The thing that I am personally against is exploiting magic to the point that it's no longer magic in the sense that it used to be. The word magic has become the one word to describe a lot of various types of magic, but we magicians do not perform studio magic (special effects). We are either close up magicians, or stage magicians.
T.V. magicians are actors playing the role of a magician using camera tricks and special effects to help convince the audience that they are indeed magicians. Criss Angel gets away with it because he is not talented or creative enough to be successful in other venues. Criss Angel took advantage of what many other magicians before him accomplished with performing magic on television, and exploited it with careless pride. Sometimes a bit of camera tricks is okay when used properly. For instance, when David Blaine levitates on camera. First shot shows the real reactions of the bystanders. David then does a second shot while explaining how it would look like if he did use an apparatus. Then a second shot of Davids feet leaving the ground is shot and edited with the first one. This was done to enhance the effect for the home audience. The bystanders still got to see David levitate. What Criss does is short cuts to keep his t.v show fresh and new. He's not very creative in the magic arts, and is very limited as far as real skills goes. He fills his show with special effects and stooges because it makes for good t.v. That is until everyone starts to realize that most of what Criss Angel does on T.V. is accomplished by special effects and confederates. At that point, t.v magic will no longer be trusted by the home audience. Just my thoughts and opinion.
"If you're going to walk in the rain, don't complain about getting wet!"
|
|||||||||
edh Inner circle 4698 Posts |
My opinion is if you can't do the effect in real life, then it is not magic. It's just camera tricks.
Editing parts of a trick that would not pass scrutiny on viewing a second or third time is o.k. As long as it can be done in real life as it appears on T.V. Unfortunately Chris has gone beyond editing for the sake of TV proofing an effect.
Magic is a vanishing art.
|
|||||||||
outsider-80 New user 78 Posts |
Camera trickery causes (some) spectators to have unrealistic expectations of what a magician should be able to do in person therefore hurting the art.
|
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
Old school here.
If the camera looks away at certain times, that's fair game, but in real time. Otherwise . . . well it doesn't take much to get good with iMovie.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
freefallillusion1 Elite user Cincinnati, OH 446 Posts |
Quote:
Not entirely accurate. While I wholeheartedly agree that CA has taken the whole camera trick thing way too far (by seemingly doing things that could never be convincingly done even under controlled conditions), it's just plain wrong to call Criss a talentless hack. Years ago, Criss Angel firmly established himself as a unique individual in the world of magic. Ask anyone who's worked with him, even though lots of those relationships turned sour for whatever reason, and they'll tell you that Criss is one heck of a creative guy. He's performed at magic conventions and absolutely KILLED. Now, that being the case, I don't understand why he's felt the need to take the camera tricks so far. The average home audience, no doubt, is finding it a bit hard to believe. And, I can only guess as to why his live show is failing so badly- perhaps it's a bad collaboration with Cirque- but his live shows in the past always did well. So, I totally respect the guy for what he's capable of, but not for what he's doing by using so much digital editing. I'm in total agreement with the poster above in that if it's shown on TV, it should be presentable in front of real people. However, I don't think there's anything wrong with a cut or edit on the video version in order to make the illusion bulletproof for those who would dissect it on YouTube. |
|||||||||
Pakar Ilusi Inner circle 5777 Posts |
That Criss at one time was a really good Magician makes the situation now even sadder imho...
I use to be a fan of his even BEFORE Mindfreak, when no one really knew of him... During his WWF days... (Did you know he once made The Ultimate Warrior vanish from the ring in a cloud of smoke?) But that he has resorted to all these Camera Tricks is really sad to see... Well, you know... The Almighty Dollar...
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
|||||||||
Cyberqat Inner circle You can tell I work on the net from my 2209 Posts |
If you allow camera tricks, magic on TV is 100% meaningless. Mark Wilson was right.
I can beat ANYTHING anyone can do in real ife by creative use of green screen. Imagine a deck of green screen cards where the computer just paints in any face I want on any card, that's possible right now. In the near future we will get to the point where I can generate it ALL, even the magician, and convince you. (Avatar got pretty *** close.) As someone with feet in both worlds, let me tell you simply that: If you allow camera tricks in magic then magic becomes pointless. As for DC's "creativity",, he broke my heart when he stooped to that. I only *barely* excuse the grand canyon in that he was under extreme pressure to "top" the statue of liberty and I thin he and his crew had hit the limit of what they could do at all fairly.
It is always darkest just before you are eaten by a grue.
|
|||||||||
freefallillusion1 Elite user Cincinnati, OH 446 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-04-10 14:39, Cyberqat wrote: And that's exactly the problem- at what point does it become blatantly cheating? There's a huge difference between using a camera trick to video-proof an illusion that you CAN do live, and using the camera to make it up 100%. Agree? Disagree? |
|||||||||
Pakar Ilusi Inner circle 5777 Posts |
Agreed 100%.
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
|||||||||
Todd Robbins V.I.P. New York 2922 Posts |
TV is just a different platform for the performance of magic and there are things that work in this media that do not work in others. There are tricks that play in a one on one environment that do not work in a formal close up show. There are tricks that work in a formal close up show that won't play in a parlour stand up show and there are things from this kind of performance that won't play in a full stage show. And, of course, there are tricks from a stage show that should never be seen close up.
The same goes for TV magic. It is a different genre. And even this genre has evolved though the years. Much of what was done by Mark Wilson, and even David Copperfield, will no longer play for the TV audiences of today. Taste and styles have changed. And those that have found success doing magic on TV have understood this. This is not to say that all magic being seen of TV today is good. Much of it is not. Putting magic on TV is VERY difficult to do well. And the answer is never as simple as "if it can play live, it will play on TV." What all magic has in common is that it tells a story. A card is chosen, a card is lost, a card is found. All good magic has a beginning, middle and end. And to tell that story well requires adapting it to where it is being told. One on one, close up, stage and TV all have their own unique challenges and opportunities. Those that are successful in each of these venues have discovered how to overcome the former and exploit the latter. When it comes to TV magic the question is not how it's being done, but how well it's being done. |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
A camera trick is a mere tool. The problem I have with camera tricks is that (in my tool analogy) people tend to use a hammer, when a screwdriver is needed. They have never been taught how to properly use the tools. An all to common problem with magic and magicians in general.
Camera tricks have a place in TV magic. Look at the Hello Sucker special. NOBODY complains about that camera trick, because till the book Wise Guy came out NOBODY KNEW HE WAS DOING ONE! It wasn't till you tried to do the Needle Through Arm that you finally figured something was up. What was up? Watch the special and when he plunges the needle in his arm, then the bell sounds and he just takes it and jabs it in his arm, this is the camera trick. IT IS FOOTAGE OF HIM REMOVING THE NEEDLE FROM HIS ARM RUN BACKWARDS! They noticed the shot in editing if I remember the story right. A camera trick and it flew over every head that watched it. Amazing. It looked SO good that it was incredible. So the point is that I think it is much like anything else. Do it, just don't get caught. I dislike when it is the ONLY explination and it is obvious. Pretty sad in most cases. (P.S. To continue the "tool" analogy I have always said that it is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.)
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
Quote:
Think of Houdini! He was one of the greatest publicists ever. Most of us have nothing but admiration for what Houdini accomplished and the fact that even today, he's part of the reason that magic is popular. But, most of us also know the ugly truth that lots of what Houdini said was either a huge exaggeration or an outright lie. Harry ruthlessly used every means at his disposal, in those days, to get his name out and to further his own "legend". If he were alive today, would he use a creative camera edit to make it impossible for the at-home audience to expose him to the masses? I think we all know the answer! http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/2034139846 Harry Houdini using obvious camera trickery! |
|||||||||
bsears Inner circle Cincinnati, Ohio 1040 Posts |
Good discussion you've got going here Mr. Dalton. I'll just add this: It is astounding how many lay people know that there are sometimes camera tricks, editing, and actors/stooges being used on TV magic specials. This was not always the case, and it is hurting everyone who performs magic on TV.
|
|||||||||
bsears Inner circle Cincinnati, Ohio 1040 Posts |
Also, I find it ironic that, with all the aforementioned camera trickery, recent performers on Letterman couldn't even get the producers to cut to a shot that wouldn't expose some of their loads and steals!
|
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
Bsears: I don't think you realize how little influence guests on a show like Letterman have over their performing situation and camera shots.
You may not even be told what those conditions will be--they probably didn't get to discuss it much with the "producers." It isn't like an appearance on local news. |
|||||||||
kennewhitson New user Kansas 69 Posts |
The greater question sis how will this influnece performance magic in the futer. Many in the younger age bracket are only linked through media and will possibly only perform this way. So the magic they develop could potentially be dependant on the medium, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will ruin the magic, just persents it in a differnet light. Just like the move from street to stage/parlour.
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Camera tricks??? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2 [Next] |
[ 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 < |