talkmagic.co.uk

Dumpster wrote: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.

Knowing how the trick was done (well, based on stuff that I do know and how I'd have done it I'm about 85% sure), I agree ... why throw in a switch for the sake of things ... it seems unfair, and a LOT of acts could have done the same - Gazzo could have FILLED his act with fake transfers and explained them, but because they know about a f***** d***, they would have NEVER been fooled, its kind of unfair that knowing a move means they can explain the trick.

As for Colin, I have just (like 2 weeks ago) got his DVD (dont wanna reveal ANYTHING) - all I will say is that compared to the DVD performance, the TV version seemed VERY VERY obvious (I'm aware that this COULD be because I know the method, so know exactly what to look for?). As did Gazzo's routine, but I feel thats down to camera angles - the loads seemed CRAZY obvious - I think that the size of the table really really let him down, if he had had a small table, the loads wouldn't have mattered as his body language / angles would have come into play more; when he is on the street he has a tiny table and is surrounded; why put a HUGE table in the way when your angles are way better?

I wouldnt say weakest show by any means; I LOVE Gazzo, and his "you stoopid audience" lines, its great as its kind of a way of saying "I can do this and you're falling for it, its obviously not real, but I'm entertaining you, and you love it too ... you WANT to be fooled, so enjoy it", and I feel that they do enjoy it. The version I've seen him do though explains the final load better - he reveals 5 / 6 oranges, lifts the final cup and its empty ... so he gets a "huh?" from the audience ... then BAM the hat comes up and its a "haha!!! got you again" final reveal (Which I feel works better?)

Quick change ... mixed views really, imo, loose the dancing and the miming :/

Dan

Dumpster wrote:The only reason to do what they did was to make Penn and Teller claim there was a switch. Not fair.

Entirely fair. The idea is to fool Penn and Teller. This they did. Either with the whole trick or the fake switch at the end.

This thread is becoming a farce. You're damned if you fool P & T, you're damned if you don't.

Dumpster wrote: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.

Sorry, but there was *no* switch required to facilitate the effect.

Grimshaw wrote:This thread is becoming a farce. You're damned if you fool P & T, you're damned if you don't.

Yep ... its weird ... if a trick fools them, then people are all "its because they did this, or that" ... if they DONT fool them its all "They deserve to be in Vegas".

I think people are confusing the show's purpose - if it was a case of what act would go to Vegas based on their entertainment factor, then almost all would be going (and imo, many which "fooled" P&T really really WOULDN'T be going) and most people on this forum would agree with the entertainment - but (as I'm sure has been said) as magicians we over analyse what is going on and just because we may know how a trick / routine works, we feel cheated if it fools P&T (the maths one is what grinds my gears a little, but it was presented in a fun and entertaining way, so deserves to be going to Vegas, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THE SHOW WORKS!!!)

Dan

It seems pretty clear to me that there are two types of performance on this show: The ones for P&T and the ones for the lay folk.

Some of the performances are entertaining but never intended to fool, and some of them are purely constructed to lead other magicians down the garden path.

I'm no expert but this was driven home to me by Paul Brown, he's one of the guys teaching the magic course at Davenports in London (I did the beginner course a little while ago). His introductory lesson on sleight of hand included a basic silk vanish using a TT. In his routine, he showed off with a final ending where the TT vanished from the position he'd taught us to hide it at the end.

After we'd all squealed with delight at his performance he said "But who is that trick for? People aren't even supposed to know it's there or that it exists." Performing magic for other magicians is a very different beast, often less entertaining to watch, and I'm rather glad that the majority of the contenders on Fool Us haven't gone down that path.

-Stacy

It's a very entertaining show which can only make the public more interested in magic as a form of entertainment.

This thread has served a great purpose. It has made me even less likely to join a magic club or attend a convention when I see what one-up, trying to prove themselves as clever, chin-scratching, bitter, under-achieving, over analytical twonks many magicians are!

Lord Freddie wrote:It's a very entertaining show which can only make the public more interested in magic as a form of entertainment.

This thread has served a great purpose. It has made me even less likely to join a magic club or attend a convention when I see what one-up, trying to prove themselves as clever, chin-scratching, bitter, under-achieving, over analytical twonks many magicians are!

Say it how it is, Freddie

Lord Freddie wrote:It's a very entertaining show which can only make the public more interested in magic as a form of entertainment.

This thread has served a great purpose. It has made me even less likely to join a magic club or attend a convention when I see what one-up, trying to prove themselves as clever, chin-scratching, bitter, under-achieving, over analytical twonks many magicians are!

Hear Hear!!

This is the only contact I have with the magic community at all. The last show I did, magicians in the audience stole half my act, then had the cheek to text me, asking where they could learn MY OWN material.

The bitterness is so un-productive, it's best to just completely side step all of it.

Lord Freddie wrote:It's a very entertaining show which can only make the public more interested in magic as a form of entertainment.

This thread has served a great purpose. It has made me even less likely to join a magic club or attend a convention when I see what one-up, trying to prove themselves as clever, chin-scratching, bitter, under-achieving, over analytical twonks many magicians are!

I hear the word of the Lord! Well said, could not have put it better myself.

I hear what you're saying Phillip, many magicians have no imagination and pilfer other people's material as if it's a pick n mix. How many of them have added effects they have seen on P&T into their act thinking it will make them a top class performer but not realising that the audience will know what's coming and look for methods. Sadly, many are not as clever as they think they are...

Just imagine being trapped in a room with a load of these people....

phillipnorthfield wrote:

Lord Freddie wrote:It's a very entertaining show which can only make the public more interested in magic as a form of entertainment.

This thread has served a great purpose. It has made me even less likely to join a magic club or attend a convention when I see what one-up, trying to prove themselves as clever, chin-scratching, bitter, under-achieving, over analytical twonks many magicians are!

Hear Hear!!

This is the only contact I have with the magic community at all. The last show I did, magicians in the audience stole half my act, then had the cheek to text me, asking where they could learn MY OWN material.

The bitterness is so un-productive, it's best to just completely side step all of it.

To be fair, the main purpose of the magic community is for people to learn from each other and teach each other, to share ideas and concepts. If your primary concern is keeping your secrets secret from other magicians, I'm not surprised you don't want to be in the 'magic community', but I can't help but feel like you're missing out on something greater.

I was telling a friend the other day of something I call the magician's hypocrisy, that every magician wants to know other magicians' methods, but doesn't want other magicians to know theirs. If people are asking where they can learn your effects you should be flattered. It costs nothing to politely say that you're not selling them yet. Well, over a text message it might cost a few pence, but that courtesy may even make you a new friend. Maybe one day you will want to sell your methods, and then you'll have contact details for people who want to buy them.

Ignoring the obvious advantages to having more friends (do I have to explain that?), you say you don't want to be in touch with other magicians because they expect you to teach them, but by cutting yourself off you lose the opportunity to learn from others who are better magicians.

The only way this wouldn't be the case is if you were the best magician in the world and had nothing to learn, in which case well done, or if for some reason they didn't want to teach you (how selfish is that?)

Even if magic is now your 9-5 and you're a pro, you must remember the joy involved when you were first learning and develop your act. You must remember having other magicians you wanted to be like? Do you derive no pleasure at all from now being the one who is idolised and envied?

Optimism, folks!

-Stacy

The4thCircle wrote:

phillipnorthfield wrote:

Lord Freddie wrote:It's a very entertaining show which can only make the public more interested in magic as a form of entertainment.

This thread has served a great purpose. It has made me even less likely to join a magic club or attend a convention when I see what one-up, trying to prove themselves as clever, chin-scratching, bitter, under-achieving, over analytical twonks many magicians are!

Hear Hear!!

This is the only contact I have with the magic community at all. The last show I did, magicians in the audience stole half my act, then had the cheek to text me, asking where they could learn MY OWN material.

The bitterness is so un-productive, it's best to just completely side step all of it.

To be fair, the main purpose of the magic community is for people to learn from each other and teach each other, to share ideas and concepts. If your primary concern is keeping your secrets secret from other magicians, I'm not surprised you don't want to be in the 'magic community', but I can't help but feel like you're missing out on something greater.

I was telling a friend the other day of something I call the magician's hypocrisy, that every magician wants to know other magicians' methods, but doesn't want other magicians to know theirs. If people are asking where they can learn your effects you should be flattered. It costs nothing to politely say that you're not selling them yet. Well, over a text message it might cost a few pence, but that courtesy may even make you a new friend. Maybe one day you will want to sell your methods, and then you'll have contact details for people who want to buy them.

Ignoring the obvious advantages to having more friends (do I have to explain that?), you say you don't want to be in touch with other magicians because they expect you to teach them, but by cutting yourself off you lose the opportunity to learn from others who are better magicians.

The only way this wouldn't be the case is if you were the best magician in the world and had nothing to learn, in which case well done, or if for some reason they didn't want to teach you (how selfish is that?)

Even if magic is now your 9-5 and you're a pro, you must remember the joy involved when you were first learning and develop your act. You must remember having other magicians you wanted to be like? Do you derive no pleasure at all from now being the one who is idolised and envied?

Optimism, folks!

-Stacy

Thanks for the food for thought, It was something I was genuinely thinking about recently anyway.
I think that it is possible that I am shooting myself in the foot with regards to not having contacts, or people to bounce ideas around with etc. But at the same time, I enjoy not having people taking things that I spend countless hours coming up with. (I mean this in terms of lines & gags etc, although everyone jumping on the bandwagon of your routines is a tad annoying)

On the secrets front, theres nothing. I'm sure everybody could work out what I do if they have studied the basics, theres nothing there that is mind blowingly original, and I think we all concern ourselves too much with new methods anyway. I couldn't care less if magicians knew how I did what, I'm there to entertain people. Not 'Fool Them' * Them being magicians... not the audience

What I guess I'm trying to say, is that what I do is... well me, what everyone else does should be them. I spend more time on character/acting and other things more so than mentalism, and it takes me forever to find something that fits in with my premise etc.

I'm not saying that the way I see these things are the right way... there probably isn't such a thing. But if people did things that suited them rather than just copying/buying/stealing something they have seen that gets a great reaction, what they do would be so much better.

I'm nowhere near the best magician in the world, I'm constantly learning from people who have more experience, knowledge etc. As such this place has been invaluable, and thanks to everyone here.

Sorry for the rant, and if that sounded like an attack on anyone, it genuinely wasn't and I know a lot of people will disagree, it's just how I see things.

RE: the above few posts (Dont wanna "quote" cos it'll take up the whole page, lol)

I agree with you Stacey, sharing is great and if you see an effect and you think "WOW!!!" then you naturally want to perform it - I think that sharing is totally the way forward.

However, the best example of this to agree with Phil is on a Joshua jay DVD there is a trick called Esdyslexically Unshunuffled (Spelling :/) and its amazing ... the trick is BEYOND simple, but the patter is what gets a standing applause from a convention sized hall of magicians (His words pretty much).
The details expalined are that the trick is great, but its the patter and style of the performer which sells it - the guy was VERY VERY reluctant to sell it, mainly because it was HIS script, HIS patter to fit HIS style - so I think the point is, make the tricks YOURS and you're onto a winner - else, you're setting yourself up for an epic fail (eg I saw a guy do "Bank Night" recently ... WORD FOR WORD the same as John Archer ... which is kind of the point when you buy a magic DVD, but this was WORD FOR WORD, "jokes" and everything, which went down like a lead balloon, because the guy didnt have the stage presence and / or persona to pull off the jokes its a shame, because he seemed like a nice guy)

This thread is awesome, its exactly what the show is for - gets people talking

Dan

I can sort of see where you're coming from.

If it's patter they're taking from your act, lines, jokes, that kind of thing, it's sort of like they're stealing part of what makes you you. But twas ever thus. It's like people who feign being original and crazy through quoting the gags of Monty Python by rote.

Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, knows that people like that are faking it, because in a tight spot they end up breaking character. They didn't go through the thought processes involved in generating that stage persona, so they can't adapt it.

But Scott Adams (cartoonist) one said that originality was just plagiarism plus lack of talent multiplied by time. Through continually failing to emulate, people develop their own style. People are trying to emulate you - that's cool, no one's ever tried to emulate me, I'm rubbish.

That said, when I watch P&T's Fool Us, I frequently find myself saying "I'd have done that differently", which says more about my presentation style than it does about some flaw in the act.

Earlier in this thread, someone said that the guy who dealt winning poker hands, asking for complete quiet, should have added "Especially you, Teller."

It would have been hilarious, but it wasn't a comedy routine in that performers hands.

Just goes to show, some people are so bursting with persona that they wish others were taking some of it!!

-Stacy

Grimshaw wrote:The idea is to fool Penn and Teller ... This thread is becoming a farce. You're damned if you fool P & T, you're damned if you don't.

Like has been pointed out before in this thread, the programme is not called Penn & Teller: Entertain us!, it's called Penn & Teller: Fool us!

But quite a few of the magicians decided to do what they do best and entertain the audience (milk the national TV time they got), rather than try to fool the dynamic duo, just like Gazzo did.

As I know how Colin McLeod did his act (since South Shields), I feel P&T went slightly over the edge of exposure. And other great magicians, like James Brown, were tossed out of the line-up when they refused to allow over exposure by Penn.

But it's obvious that if P&T like the performer and the act, they don't say too much, but they kill other acts, like Penn did with Richard Bellars' first performance.