talkmagic.co.uk

I'm probably alone in saying this but I alwas think P & T are the weakest on the show.

I personally can't stand them, but obviously most people seem to enjoy what they do. Tonight was a bit anti-religious unnecesarilly, and their handling of that poor kid was shocking. Is exposure of their methods/routines acceptable?

Seeing as no doubt Alakazam will email you trying to sell it anyway, the routine is from Colins DVD set Opening Minds. It's the first effect on there. (Shame to see if go after finally getting used to it, but there you go)

You are not alone! I use Colin's routine as my current cabaret opener, it is a lovely, quick and strong routine to kick off my show.

Stephen Ward wrote:You are not alone! I use Colin's routine as my current cabaret opener, it is a lovely, quick and strong routine to kick off my show.

It's a great piece once you get used to it. You still planning on using it?

I've spent ages trying to come up with a new presentation & script, but haven't found one that fits. It's the only piece that I do as it was released

It will get retired for a while then go back in eventually. It is a wonderful routine.

Yeah, I agree. Think I'll do the same, too good to let go, the reactions are phenomenal.

TimEden wrote:I too can't understand why they put in standard routines like cups and balls/quick change. Has the emphasis changed? What happened to "fool us"? What's next week - sawing a lady in half and three card monte?

I hear it's the zig zag lady next week.

Enjoyed the old cups and balls though. Nice to see the classics one in a while, though certainly not a fooler.

not the strongest show of the series... i did like the clasic cut & restorfed turban closer though. At one time it was a popular trick, but i cant recall seing it since Paul Daniels did it in the magic show.. it was that long ago!

Perhaps I've just gotten more used to the show and can now see it as entertainment rather than a challenge to magicians, but I enjoyed last night's show.

I can forgive anything Penn did at the end because he called that kid a "sceptical little freak", which had me laughing so hard I missed a lot of what followed.

I live in Bath, so was surprised to see Gazzo on there. Only a few weeks ago I'd seen him performing in the town and insulting people as they watched him. Sometimes it feels like his persona misses. In an awkward fashion it has to be said. Still, its him that'll get beaten up one day.

My wife was baffled why they commended Gazzo so highly as she thought it was obvious what was going on. Maybe the camera angle was from a higher viewpoint than the audiences eyeline but I thought it fairly obvious every fne he loaded the cups.

Robmonster wrote:My wife was baffled why the commended Gazzo so highly as she thought it was obvious what was going on. Maybe the camera angel was from a higher viewpoint than the audiences eyeline but I thought it fairly obvious every fne he loaded the cups.

I too thought the TV coverage of Gazzo was extremely unfair... the audiences' viewpoint would have been much less revealing.

Effects such as cups and balls which rely on the kinds of misdirection that Gazzo uses are *not* well translated to TV at all.

My own tuppence on this is that the editors of the show—which we know isn't live—should be a little more cooperative with someone in the industry when selecting camera angles and cuts/edits.

I found Gazzo's performance to be quite wonderful, but as previously mentioned, I'm unsure as to how it was intended or purposed to fool P&T, as even the novice magician with a few books in their collection would have known how it was done.

I was desperately hoping that he'd pull something quite spectacular out of the bag, but in reality he did nothing more than demonstrate his abilities.

I thought Gazzo's routine was just a standard street performance and his loading was too awkward. His persona is dreadful and isn't how you win an audiences favour. I've seen far better on the street and he was selected as a token rep for classic street magic.

I find quick change tedious and I don't understand why it's considered to be magic on it's own as it is hardly taxing to figure out.

I thought the camera was harsh on Colin. I'm no mentalist but it was made blatant before P&T gave it away. I was hoping he'd get them.

The dummy in the last act was a beauty! While I think they'd have fooled without it, it made it even more astounding and fun for me.

So those Swedish guys - If there wasn't a switch then they absolutely definitely mimed one. They acted as if there was a switch deliberately. If there was no switch then there was no reason to remove the card from his mouth with tongs. No need to obscure it from view before it was unfolded. They could have done the Tom Mullica move where the card is unfolded int he mouth and pushed up from the tongue. It looks a lot better. The only reason to do what they did was to make Penn and Teller claim there was a switch. Not fair.

There's a definite flaw in this show. The stuff that goes to Vegas is either the stuff that Penn and Teller want to have on their stage over there, or the stuff that can't be explained on the night, live.

Graham Jolley's card trick, for example, was completely self working. To fool Penn and Teller you've either seen that trick before or you haven't. But you couldn't work it out on the night, the maths is too complicated. I'm a magician, I'm not the best in the world, but I knew that trick and I perform it because it's easy.

Now, Cubic Act, that's an incredible piece of work. That was FAR better than the Swedes last night. Are we to assume that they didn't get to Vegas because Teller worked it out during the performance? Or maybe there was a specific mechanism or magical principle that applied to what they were doing? Or is it because this act travells the world and they were too busy performing and couldnt make it to Vegas anyway? We know that Ali Cook was asked specifically to perform his chicken/duck trick because Penn and Teller loved it, but there was never any question of going to Vegas because he was already booked up for the following 6 months.

I don't think it's as straightforward as they make out who goes and who doesn't. I think that Penn and Teller have a specific Vegas show planned, and they view each act as to how well it will fit into their plan. If the performer is what they are looking for, then Penn and Teller appear fooled.

Basically what I'm saying is that there WAS a switch, the swedes lied and Penn and teller went along with it because they were an act that would do well on the show in Vegas. The American audience in the Rio would enjoy seeing John Archer, the fat funny man from Stockton on tees, Graham Jolley and his mad John Cleese style, far more than they would enjoy a big stage illusion like cubic. Their winners always seem to have odd British quirks or regional accents.

Dumpster wrote:Basically what I'm saying is that there WAS a switch, the swedes lied and Penn and teller went along with it because they were an act that would do well on the show in Vegas. The American audience in the Rio would enjoy seeing John Archer, the fat funny man from Stockton on tees, Graham Jolley and his mad John Cleese style, far more than they would enjoy a big stage illusion like cubic. Their winners always seem to have odd British quirks or regional accents.

I'll assure you, there wasn't a switch. It was a red herring to give P&T a fail on their 'one-shot' guess.

And it was a cleverly done fake switch too... convincing

That fake switch really made me smile when i watched it late last night. Very clever way of trying to fool them. A bit off topic ... but nice to see you back Seige, i hope you will visit us all a bit more.

Sorry if I didn't make it clear - there WAS a switch, whether or not anything was actually switched isn't the point, they performed a switch, to the detriment of the performance.

It's like juggling 6 balls, but using 3 invisible ones. What's the point of having a magician-fooling act, then sticking a deliberate, visible switch near the end just to fool Penn and Teller? The fact remains that even though they may not have actually switched anything, the judges saw it, the audience at home saw it, and the trick looked a lot easier and simpler than it actually was.

The group of people I watched it with all saw the switch and commented on it, then simply didn't believe them when they said their was no switch. Ruined the performance.