talkmagic.co.uk

Anjorno wrote:Editing isn't wrong, its wrong when its used to do the effect and or cover up what is going on

Right, editing as a method. why is this anything worse than any other method to cover up what is acctually going on? would an offstage assistant be wrong to use because an effect would be impossible in a diffrent format?

TheMentalist wrote:

Anjorno wrote:Editing isn't wrong, its wrong when its used to do the effect and or cover up what is going on

Right, editing as a method. why is this anything worse than any other method to cover up what is acctually going on? would an offstage assistant be wrong to use because an effect would be impossible in a diffrent format?

because its not magic or skill, anyone can edit a piece of video to make someone vanish, what is on tv should be what an live auidience can watch or if it not should at least be one shot.

Anjorno wrote:

TheMentalist wrote:

Anjorno wrote:Editing isn't wrong, its wrong when its used to do the effect and or cover up what is going on

Right, editing as a method. why is this anything worse than any other method to cover up what is acctually going on? would an offstage assistant be wrong to use because an effect would be impossible in a diffrent format?

because its not magic or skill, anyone can edit a piece of video to make someone vanish, what is on tv should be what an live auidience can watch or if it not should at least be one shot.

Why? anyone can do a self working card trick, it doenst mean that they can pull it off entertainingly. also, the reaction of the people on camera adds a layer of deception that convinces most people

In my opinion there just making the most out of the format. when David Blaine does a move off camera plan-séquence style, he is still using the properties of the frame to get away with it, why is this diffrent
Magigians have been using editing tricks since the invention of film, ever seen a Méliès film?

Allegedly, Blaine's street Balducci levitations were 'enhanced' after the real event with extra footage purely for the benefit of the TV cameras so, yes, it does seem to happen. Vanishing the Statue of Liberty/Tower Bridge/Space Shuttle/whatever uses similar techniques - i.e. purely for the TV cameras but they can't be done without a lot of preparation and careful setting of camera line of sight - plus, apparently, some 'actors' as audience members. Whenever you see a magish walk up a set of stairs, go into a box and the stairs wheeled away most of us know exactly what's happening so any added footage to cover that is a bit sneaky because it can't happen like that in real life. Might as well use CGI and be done with it! Hey Ho !!

Is camera trickery on a magic show that new?
I seem to remember David Nixon was castigated by some of his camera tricks where he had, for example, fairy's dancing on his hand. I seem to remember at the time some felt it made people think he used camera trickery to achieve his illusions.
Sadly today many TV magicians seem to be as competent as magicians without the camera, as poor old 1950's radio ventriloquist Peter Brough, looked when he tried to move from radio to TV.

In David Nixon's day such effects were cutting edge and brand new but I'm reasonably sure he only used them as interesting interludes rather than as magic. When he did magic it was all kosher. Perhaps that's how to differentiate - camera trickery doesn't require a magician but magic certainly does.

Indeed

Mandrake wrote:In David Nixon's day such effects were cutting edge and brand new but I'm reasonably sure he only used them as interesting interludes rather than as magic. When he did magic it was all kosher. Perhaps that's how to differentiate - camera trickery doesn't require a magician but magic certainly does.

As far as I know David Nixon never used camera trickery at all for anything but amusement & when he did use camera illusion it was because what was possible truly amazed him.
As far as I know David was a true magician who I believe even made his own props.
For me personally. Too much of TV magic now depends upon cheap (sub £10) gaffs & careful manipulation, not by the magician, but the production crew, so I tend not to watch much of it. I know I am no magician myself, but I do feel sad when I look at the magic suppliers & see a Dynamo or a David Blaine trick section & then find only cheap gaffs being sold, not books or DVD's on slights.
Too much of TV that is presented as reality is actually only based upon reality. My job use to involve repossessing HGV's from time to time & so I wanted to see a TV show about Americans who do it. But it felt all wrong & at the end of the show a disclaimer was shown stating the previous footage was a demonstration only & not a reality & that is true of many American programmes & that includes magic.
I know shows like DMC's are not honest magical illusion, in the fact that they present post performance editing as magic. But much of TV is dishonest & it was for that reason Tony Benn started asking how long a quote they wanted, as like that the editing could not misrepresent what he wanted to say & TV has got worse since then.