talkmagic.co.uk

Where would the world be, if there were not one of us who could vanish the Statue of Liberty or an airplane?

I'm confused by this. Are you saying that David Copperfield didn't do this not. Are you saying that these too are camera tricks> Or am I missing your point?

Now here's something worth watching. This is without a doubt, a camera trick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQZey97i ... ed&search=

Barnabas wrote:I'm back.

You, as a magician could say "No, and he can't either, it is just camera tricks and the people off the street were either his employees or paid to react as they did." That could have two possible out comes. 1) The spectator realizes that the guy on TV is lying and then disregards any televised performance as camera tricks. or 2) The spectator thinks that you are just bitter and jealous because the other guy is better than you. In both scenarios magic and magicians have been damaged in that spectator's eyes.

This seems a bit off. I can see how many magician would get mad at Chris for performing an illusion that we can't possibly compete with. But this doesn't give us the right to call him a liar - especially if you truly don't know if Chris is lying or not. Why not call David Copperfield or Siggfried and Roy cheaters. I personally would perfer to promote the better magician over myself then wrongfully acuse them of magic crime without evidence.

I agree, I would not say that one should calim that the magician cannot perform an effect or claim that it is just a camera trick if one does not know. I probably should have ben more clear with that statement. I certainly would not tell anyone that anything any magician was just a camera trick if that were not the case, and I would rather give the other magician the benefit of the doubt until I knew for sure. My statement was ment for the case when the magician knew that the TV performer used camera tricks.

What I said was that anything is fair game to feed your family, as long as it ENTERTAINS....BUT, I prefer magic that uses no camera trickery or other mechanical or other kinds of devices....

Magicians who invent or propagate some stringent restriction on others' methods of entertaining are usually spectators.....

Grab up a scorpion and tell it how to perform.....It will respond by doing what a scorpion does in its own way.........

Good job keeping this topic going......have a Corona on me....

Mark 16:20.......in their own way.....

opie

opie wrote:What I said was that anything is fair game to feed your family, as long as it ENTERTAINS....BUT, I prefer magic that uses no camera trickery or other mechanical or other kinds of devices....

Magicians who invent or propagate some stringent restriction on others' methods of entertaining are usually spectators.....

Grab up a scorpion and tell it how to perform.....It will respond by doing what a scorpion does in its own way.........

Good job keeping this topic going......have a Corona on me....

Mark 16:20.......in their own way.....

opie

In the event that your comments were directed at me, I will try to clarify my opinion.

First, the discussion is about camera tricks in magic. I know we all know that but I thought I would state it just for those who are just joining the discussion.

My issue with camer tricks is that the effects are being presented as if the magician just walked up to people on the street and performed the effect(s) in question when in fact the effect is acomplished using camera tricks and the "spectators" are stooges. I believe that most people realize that magicians are going to trick the audience, that is the nature of the art. The problem I have with it is that the television audience is lead to believe that what they are seeing is the same as what the people on the street are seeing. I am willing to bet that if the show began by notifying the audience that camera tricks were being used that most people would watch another program.

As for putting stringent restrictions on other's methods of entertaining, I do not feel that I am. Although I personally do not use gimmicks I do not place that restriction on any other magician. What I object to is what I can only label as dishonesty. As I stated before, spectators expect that there will be some deceit during the performance, but I also believe that the spectators expect that if the performer states (of implies) that the effect is performed live before strangers who are not "in on it" that the effect is actually being performed live before strangers who are not "in on it". I am not trying to place restrictions on any magician, I just believe that the "dishonesty" I described above does a disservice to all magicians and to the art of magic. It may be entertaining, and I certainly am not saying that if the performer can get paid to use camera tricks that they should not do it (that is that performer's decision), I just think that is should not be labeled as "magic" anymore than the "magic" that Harry Potter does in the movies.

Now, about that Corona.....

Actually, I was talking to Barnabas, but it is okay that we all be able to express ourselves to one another.....That's what makes the world go around...

I think I was just making a point in general that we all need to be original, since we ourselves are unique.......

I don't mind being first to buy a round....

opie

Barnabas wrote:

Several camera tricks are used in His shows, some of us on this forum have a little inside knowledge and know what is going on, as the details could be considered exposure, i will leave it at that. I have respect for Angel, he is not the first to resort to this tactic.

Hum... So it seems we must belief your comment purly on the fact that you have inside knowledge. I understand that you can't reveal this bit of info. In fact I'd prefer if you didn't, to carry on the secret of the trick. But let me ask you something. Are you refering to all of his tricks in general or just one or two. And I myself happen to share the knowledge of how he performs about 1/3 of his illusions. Interestingly enough, not one of them uses a camera trick. So we're meeting at a stand still. Its your "secret knowlegde" vs. my "secret knowledge." This is why we need hard evidence. Not assumptions.

Barnabas, I think Stevenmagic was making a statement that he knows for a fact, not making an assumption, that some of Angel's effects are achieved by camera trickery. I am also certain that his post was in no-way intended to be confrontational or trying to bring the argument to a standstill as that is not the way things are done around here (nor do we tear people apart for expressing an opinion that differs from ours, so you can rest assured on that front too).

For what it is worth, my opinion is that camera trickery for the laity is no problem, afterall, the job of the magician is entertainment and it cannot be doubted that Angel entertains, whether or not he uses camera trickery. On the other hand the points raised with regard to devaluing the art are valid in some ways; the ideal would be to neither appear bitter or less able when asked about tricks in which you suspect camera trickery, so perhaps you should admit that you cannot perform that exact effect 'but I can do this...' and launch itno something equally as impressive that you can do.

my two pennies worth are this:

yes, as cardicians/magicians we have skills, misdirection, sleight of hand and mouth and all sorts of other things what we do is basically...well...

telling a lie...at least one way or the other...

ok, if you're uncomfortable with that word, then "manipulation", but it is underneath it all, lying in some way...whether it be lying through words, or "visually lying" - by that i mean fooling someone into thinking you've just placed their card in a certain spot, only for it to appear elsewhere..

so to me, camera trickery - if done well, is no better and no worse...it still takes a certain element of skill to set it all up in my opinion...

plus, i always try and forget i have some knowledge in magic whenever i watch a magic-show...i just concentrate on the enjoyment, nothing else...

I agree entirely with Abraxus on this. Using camera trickery is fine. Street magicians perform in front of people just feet away. Stage magicians perform in front of hundreds of people at a time, from a slight distance with a few more angles covered. Mentalists can do it where they want. If you're performing magic on TV, then you're a TV magician. The camera is yet another one of the tools available to you, that is not available to other magicians.

A camera trick would not upset a layman anymore than a single-force deck would.

You use what you can to create astonishment in the medium in which you perform.

Camera tricks, I suspect, only upset magicians who don't have access to them, but would like to use them.

nice topic, good to see various veiws
I myself prefer not to see camera tricks, but then I suspect these are the ones that are done badly, the great camera tricks we proberbly don't know have happened.
To try to clarify, the best bank robbery is one were noone notices the money is ever missing
I think film is a hard medium to work properly and at the same time an easy way to get lazy with your magic as audiences demand newer and newer tricks. Film does let you take short cuts (no pun intended) but exposes you bad if done wrong. Freeze frame must be a nightmare to contend with. How many of us would like our magic filmed and then taken apart frame by frame to expose a tiny bit of card or such.
Remember in the 'good old days' famous magicians would tour music halls with just one or two routines that hardly ever changed for years. Why? because the chances of someone seeing your show twice was small.
Now with tv these guys need to reinvent (for want of a better word) themselves far more often. In my opinion sometimes to the detriment of the quality of the magic they perform.
Just think how much quality magic you need to fill ten half hour shows every year for your whole working life and I think you will see the problem these guys have. Should some of them do less shows? perhaps.

Just to finish on a light harted note the best camera trick I ever saw was copperfeild (I think) when I was about 12 years old. He was levitating over the Grand Canyon. Presented as a very serious peice it was done very badly. I laughed so much for so long it hurt

Stated Earlier

Barnabas, I think Stevenmagic was making a statement that he knows for a fact, not making an assumption, that some of Angel's effects are achieved by camera trickery. I am also certain that his post was in no-way intended to be confrontational or trying to bring the argument to a standstill as that is not the way things are done around here (nor do we tear people apart for expressing an opinion that differs from ours, so you can rest assured on that front too).

For what it is worth, my opinion is that camera trickery for the laity is no problem, afterall, the job of the magician is entertainment and it cannot be doubted that Angel entertains, whether or not he uses camera trickery. On the other hand the points raised with regard to devaluing the art are valid in some ways; the ideal would be to neither appear bitter or less able when asked about tricks in which you suspect camera trickery, so perhaps you should admit that you cannot perform that exact effect 'but I can do this...' and launch itno something equally as impressive that you can do.

What I would love to hear is what particular tricks Steven is talking about. Surly he isn't refrencing them all. What amazes me most is that when Chris performs a trick (that we know he didn't use camera tricks on, such as how he fooled the police) with such elegance and fluid skill, we still seem to think that his skill ends there. When I watch his shows there is amolst always a trick or two that I can easily figure out, but the way he performs it is astonishing. I can see how it would fool a layman. So when Chris lavitates 5 feet off the ground I find it hard not to think that he's capable of doing it.

Another thing that is increasingly annoying is how skeptics seem to always want to accuse Chris of stooge audiance even when the trick is done live in front of hundreds of Vegas spectators. I can name a few times.

1) Chris vanishes during a 100 foot bike jump while watched by hundreds of spectators at Planet Hollywood.

2) Chris vanishes a women (whether she was a stooge or not) on a public square in downtown Las Vegas while hundreds of viewers stood within feet of the illusion.

3) Chris teleports from under a pale with well over forty bystanders surrounding him.

Yes Chris may be rich, but come on. He didn't get rich by buying out false audiances. Do you think maybe he has a big family or alot of good friends.

Just to finish on a light harted note the best camera trick I ever saw was copperfeild (I think) when I was about 12 years old. He was levitating over the Grand Canyon. Presented as a very serious peice it was done very badly. I laughed so much for so long it hurt

Are you joking?

Just for refrence, David was already world renown and about 27 years old in that video. If you need a brain refresh (not as an insult but as a treat) go to the below adress.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... opperfield

However I am willing to give you the benefit of a doubt on this one for a few reasons. On every single Copperfield television special I've seen - David always claims to not use camera tricks. Sometimes he mentions this on several occations in one special. However in this episode this claims is unusualy absent. Also, he usualy has a trick of this magnitude held of until last for a finally. Yet he does this one first in the video. Another thing to consider is that if this were such a fantastic illusion why is so much time focused on the singer, and not him.

I still don't believe this was a camera trick, but I'll believe this one over many others to be one.

Another thing that is increasingly annoying is how skeptics seem to always want to accuse Chris of stooge audiance even when the trick is done live in front of hundreds of Vegas spectators. I can name a few times.

There is an edit on the bike jump trick. Here is the quote from one of the live audiences.


My family and I were fortunate enough to be at the taping of Criss' motorcycle jump back in April. Let me just tell you this.....the way it aired on television was NOT the way it happened in real life. We were very disappointed by the way they edited that particular episode. He is a VERY nice guy though (met him 2x while we were there)!

Let me say that my family and I are big fans (we purchased a lot of Criss Angel memorabilia from his website) so my intention is not to de-bunk him. The way this particular stunt happened is as follows: 1.) He appeared in the crowd before the jump, not after as it appeared on tv 2.) He spoke to the crowd for several minutes then proceeded to do several warm up laps & small jumps on his motorcycle 3.) Criss made the big motorcycle jump from one ramp to another 4.) About 5-10 minutes later after Criss was off the motorcycle they announced there would be a small explosion (since Criss loved pyrotechnics) 5.) When we were leaving the Aladdin that night after getting his autograph (a couple of hours later) we noticed his motorcycle was being hoisted into the air by a crane directly over the ending ramp. Obviously they dropped the bike from the crane. The 'spectators' they had commenting on how he vanished into the explosion were not truthful. So...now you know they can edit something to death.

Link to the discussion
http://boards.aetv.com/thread.jspa?thre ... 2294848939

barnabas thanks for the video link I am very respectfull of davids work and will enjoy the clips tremendously.
Thanks also for answering politely and for giving me the benefit of doubt.
I would like to be more specific with my previous message, especialy the last bit which was ment to be funny but also to make a serious point. The video of davids levitation IS a truly amazing peice of magic, the begining loops and the ending were he comes through the loop and starts walking is very smooth. Here you will have to take my word a bit and I am willing to conceed that my memory may be a bit hazy. The vid on the web is not high quality and I seem to remember a distinct shimmer around his body (hope this is not exposure mods). It only happened for a couple of seconds while he was over the canyon looking about but it blew the performance apart (I say performance rather than trick because it was presentation and could easily have not been included) distracting totaly from the true magic at the begining and end.
I have seen this happen a few times with some tv shows, they go just that bit too far with the cammera trickery for their own good. This is what I mean by my previous text stating that it had better be good because if it is bad it realy is bad for the trick as a whole and for the reputation of the performer.
Remember I was very young and immature so laughed at it all (I knew how that was done, when all I new was how a couple of seconds was done), now I look at it and apreciate the good bits (sorry astounding bit's) but back then it just seemed to become a joke, something I think we should all be aware of and guard against if we wish to use such trickery.