talkmagic.co.uk

There we go then.
That's cheating too.

Using a "camera trick" (which I doubt it was, I came up with a fair few ideas of how it could be done) is no different from using a gimmick...

It's using something other than your "skill" to produce an effect yes?

Stop the War and give peace a chance

And now, please stand for the national anthem of Peasonia: "All we are saying... Is give peas a chance!"

Seriously, though. If you think about it to the Nth degree, even sleight of hand is a "cheat". By definition, all sleights say one thing and do another on purpose. They'd be useless if they didn't.

Does this mean that self-working magic is the only way to be totally honest about our actions?! If so, what about the presentation? Well, we're hardly going to say say, "For my next trick, I will divine a card using the formula 7(2N+1)+X. Now, I'd like you to think of a card..." So, what we say is a lie too.

Looks like we're in the business of lying for entertainment. Does it really matter what the lie is as long as it's entertaining?

Things you think of at this time of night, eh? I dunno... mad, some of it.

those of you that think this is a good use of camera trickery obviously haven't seen the Matrix

camera trickery for 'magic' is either
poor magic (fake audience/fake illusion)
or
poor special effects (like a low budget SF flick)

Just because its on TV doesn't mean we don't expect to be viewing the same routine as the live audience

EckoZero wrote:Using a "camera trick" (which I doubt it was

I, too, and fully aware of methods that can be employed to produce a similar effect. In this case, however, there is no doubt that a camera edit was employed. Again, simply look for yourself.

Let us consider three simple illusions:

1) I walk up to a group of complete strangers, roll up my sleeves exposing bare arms, ask one of them for one of the lit cigarettes they are smoking, and then proceed to extinguish and vanish the cigarette using my TT.

2) I walk up to a group of people, among them is planted one of my stooges. I ask them all to concentrate on their date of birth, and I feign inability to read each of the group until I reach the stooge--then I announce his birthdate to which he reacts with shock and surprise. He produces his driver license to prove to the rest of the group that I am, indeed, correct.

3) I walk up to a group of random people, and tell them that I will perform an amazing feat. I snap my fingers and nothing particularly interesting happens, but I ask them all to remain still while I move off-camera. Then, when I present this bit of footage on my television special, I cut the tape together so that immediately after I snap my fingers the footage shot with me out of frame is spliced on. An amazing vanishing act.

Which is the most true to the spirit of magical illusion? Which is least? Which requires the most skill in a magical discipline?

Like I said, I appreciate the debate on the issue. Having spent so many years performing and also working with some truly gifted performers, I do like to engage in stimulating discussions of the merits and skills of others in the field.

Obviously we won't agree on the human torch segment. However, you mentioned another effect as being obvious camera trickery. Again, I have to say you're dead wrong. The "pulling" the lady in half is NOT a camera trick. Once again, it's a variation of an effect that has been around for quite some time.

You mentioned being a working professional for a long time, and that's very cool. You also mentioned that you have worked with talented people in the art of illusion. I find this statement speaks volumes. It also leads me to another problem I have with the "Angel only uses camera tricks" debate.

Johnny Thompson
Banacheck
Luke Jermay
Richard Kaufman
Jeff McBride

These are just 5 of the people who have consulted on Mindfreak. I am sure I'm not in the minority when I say that these are very big names in the magic world - all of which are largely considered experts in their chosen craft. I have to believe that if it was all camera edits, none of these people would:

A) be needed to consult on anything.

and

B) would remain part of the show.

I realize this debate will go absolutely nowhere. I've seen the argument time and time again, ad nauseam. Since you have offered a few examples, I ask you this.

After 28 years of performance, can you tell me how both effects you have "debunked" can be performed live, without camera tricks/edits?

Demitri wrote:Obviously we won't agree on the human torch segment.

It isn't really a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, really. There is only what is factual and what is not factual. That there is an edit at precisely the moment the camera is obscured by the extinguishers is a fact. If you, yourself, would only take a moment to view the footage frame-by-frame you would quite easily confirm that.

You're perfectly welcome to your opinion on the stunt, I respect your position.

Demitri wrote:However, you mentioned another effect as being obvious camera trickery. Again, I have to say you're dead wrong. The "pulling" the lady in half is NOT a camera trick. Once again, it's a variation of an effect that has been around for quite some time.

Be careful. The illusion as performed by Angel for television is not the same as the effect that originated with half-man Johnny Eck in the 30's. Take the time to view the footage and the camera edit becomes GLARINGLY obvious, as does the substitution that takes place which necessitates the edit.

Demitri wrote:problem I have with the "Angel only uses camera tricks" debate

Also, I never said that Angel "only" uses camera trickery so take care not to paint that as my position. I have pointed out two of his illusions in which he obviously did use camera tricks.

This is not a black vs white issue. Angel doesn't employ camera tricks to achieve all of his effects, he does employ them to achieve SOME. The footage itself provides the truth.

Simply view the footage frame-by-frame for yourself if you wish to be convinced. If you do not, then you are perfectly welcome to continue to think that no edits were involved.

I'm simply presenting the factual references for you. If you do not wish to take on the effort of reviewing the footage then that is certainly your choice and your right.

Who has got the time to sit and watch frame by frame? I know I havent - wot with having a life......

Rdw1971 wrote:Who has got the time to sit and watch frame by frame? I know I havent - wot with having a life......

Well, some practicing magicians view televised performances and analyze them in-depth as a learning tool. It is something that I have done for years.

The way I see it is:

There WAS a camera edit, but not the one mentioned in the original post. My guess is that the suit had velcro on the front and when he fell onto the mat, it just stuck to it without any problems because the back part had burnt off already. However I dont think he "appeared" as an assistant as quickly as the video suggests. That is where the edit was. He had the extra suit on underneath the velcro/burning one, and instead of taking the 3-4 seconds that we see, it took about 10-15 seconds for the "reveal". In those 10 seconds, he stood up in all the mist, an assistant handed him a fire extinguisher and he pulled a hood over his head.

I could be completely wrong, but this makes a lot more sense than the original post. And if this is exactly how its done, my apologies for revealing the secret. Please dont ban me!

That's not how it's done - and the transposition CAN be done as quickly as you saw it. It has been done many times by many other illusionists.

As for the clothing - have you ever seen any acts that do instant clothing changes? I've seen a husband and wife act perform the change 12 times in a row, every change taking less than 1-2 seconds - under a minimal amount of cover (far less cover than the fire extinguishers offered). As I was standing 5 feet away from the stage, I'm pretty sure a camera edit wasn't used....

faxinator wrote:

EckoZero wrote:Using a "camera trick" (which I doubt it was

I, too, and fully aware of methods that can be employed to produce a similar effect. In this case, however, there is no doubt that a camera edit was employed. Again, simply look for yourself.

Let us consider three simple illusions:

1) I walk up to a group of complete strangers, roll up my sleeves exposing bare arms, ask one of them for one of the lit cigarettes they are smoking, and then proceed to extinguish and vanish the cigarette using my TT.

2) I walk up to a group of people, among them is planted one of my stooges. I ask them all to concentrate on their date of birth, and I feign inability to read each of the group until I reach the stooge--then I announce his birthdate to which he reacts with shock and surprise. He produces his driver license to prove to the rest of the group that I am, indeed, correct.

3) I walk up to a group of random people, and tell them that I will perform an amazing feat. I snap my fingers and nothing particularly interesting happens, but I ask them all to remain still while I move off-camera. Then, when I present this bit of footage on my television special, I cut the tape together so that immediately after I snap my fingers the footage shot with me out of frame is spliced on. An amazing vanishing act.

Which is the most true to the spirit of magical illusion? Which is least? Which requires the most skill in a magical discipline?

Like I said, I appreciate the debate on the issue. Having spent so many years performing and also working with some truly gifted performers, I do like to engage in stimulating discussions of the merits and skills of others in the field.

The questions you present are irrelevant to the effect that was acchieved.

Personally, if you were to show me all three tricks on film I'd be most impressed by the date of birth reading one.

Just so y'know...

Personally, I wouldn't ever be that impressed by a vanish I saw on TV. Even if it absolutely wasn't a camera trick, I've seen lots of tv, lots of movies, lots of special effects and camera tricks. I'd assume it was one, and that would probably ruin it for me.

I do find TV magic impressive in a "I wonder how he did that" way, but usually my theories are all stooges, camera tricks, added in computer whatsits, things like that. Nothing beats magic performed in front of your eyes, even if it is using a stooge.

On the other hand, I agree with others that it's the result that matters, now how it's obtained. Someone mentioned earlier that even Sleights are set-ups really. Because you aren't ACTUALLY performing magic, and very few people truly believe you are. But if you can make it appear believeable, and make people think "wow that was amazing" despite knowing that you don't actually have magical powers, surely that's what counts how ever it's acheived.

I don't think there's anything wrong with camera tricks, just think that they aren't usually the most convincing bits of magic

We know Criss Angel used Stooges/Camera tricks on one episode but that doesn't mean that he uses them all the time. He has all those people working on the show for a reason

Taiven_Grant wrote:I do find TV magic impressive in a "I wonder how he did that" way, but usually my theories are all stooges, camera tricks, added in computer whatsits, things like that. Nothing beats magic performed in front of your eyes, even if it is using a stooge.

But here is where the huge problem I have comes into play. In your case, you haven't done so - but in many cases that is the conclusion people jump to - and IMMEDIATELY run onto a website to "expose the fraud". Rather than try to research similar effects, or look into the inspirations to the effects performed - people disregard hundreds of years of magical history and innovation for what is the easiest (and 99.99% of the time WRONG) conclusion.

In many ways, I feel these conclusions are drawn simply to explain away the fact that they were honestly fooled.