talkmagic.co.uk

That's understoood but in the past we've known sites selling items where the images etc used were far too explicit ad actually exposed the 'secret' - one famous one was selling The Raven and showed a photo of the complete dingus! The image was removed from here just to be on the safe side.

But the public don't know about the site, thr problem was the underside being shown

Anyone else find the word "dingus" offensive somehow?

It made me physically sick. Following on from what seige said about Revolutionary Coin Magic earlier I might post a vid of Sankey's Blackstack production. I can manage about 10 coins from my bare hands and it costs slightly less than 600 quid.

rcarlsen wrote:Totally agree... misunderstand me correct - he performs smooth, and have what we require of a magician, but he's very into props and stuffs...

And... whats teh matter with that... Some magicians tend to forget that the EFFECT is what is important the method despite how HARD, practical or heavily gimmicked the effect requires the overall visuals and presentation is what counts... Do whatever you need to do in order to accomplish an effect!

That is my "argument" when people (well.. magicians) comment on Cyril's magic. They say he uses expensives gimmicks, gaffs, props and whatever.. but who cares? As you said it is the EFFECT that counts. Not the method. No offense to these people but a lot (not all) of the people who make negative comments about Cyril's magic for using props and stuff are the magicians who are completely against gimmicks, gaffs and props. They are the ones who think they are "elite" and better than everyone else because they just do magic tricks with just a deck of cards.

I know there might be a few of those on here.. and if you dont like using props then fair enough, I'm not saying you are one of these people. I just dont understand what the big fuss is. If it looks like he put his arm through a fish tank.. who cares how he did it? It doesnt matter if he used a fake fishtank or magical fish that can create a warphole so he can place his arm through. Its the EFFECT that counts to me and that is why Cyril is one of my favourite magicians.. because his magic is EFFECTIVE.

Anyway, rant over. Cyril rocks

BizKiTRoAcH wrote:That is my "argument" when people (well.. magicians) comment on Cyril's magic. They say he uses expensives gimmicks, gaffs, props and whatever.. but who cares?

But I suppose this "who cares" attitude doesn't extend to the use of stooges.

Rune, you mentioned in your post that he is in to gimmicks, gaffs and props. I believe that you do card magic correct. What would you call a deck of cards if not a prop to get to the magic? Also on one of your posts you do a certain routine that uses r/s. Isn't that a gimmick?

I say this because let's not try to be eliteist about magic. Some people do stage magic that makes use of props, David Copperfield for one. That doesn't negate his magic in any way. Try and do a stage show without props or gimmicks. Look at Siegfried and Roy. Try doing their act without props. I don't think you'll get to far. Others do close-up magic that use gimmicks and gaffs. There magic does not suffer because of the method(if they are any good at presentation). Dai Vernon used gaffs. Does that make him a lesser magician?

Please don't take this the wrong way. I am merely commenting on your statement.

All manners of magic is good. It's just a matter of personal taste as to whether you like it or not.

bronz wrote:I might post a vid of Sankey's Blackstack production. I can manage about 10 coins from my bare hands and it costs slightly less than 600 quid.

This guy has a sense of humour. Whilst the Explosion gimmick costs £600 (which will probably be up to a £1000 like the dollars after P&P) Bronz understands that the effect is the most important thing and with Sankey's method you get a much simpler version of the same thing. And for those with the time on their hands they could probably use Sankey's idea to recreate the explosion trick. It would require some "chops" though.

I have to think to myself would your audience enjoy 10 coins from nowhere or 10 coins from nowhere whilst showing off? I think to most lay-audiences they are the same thing.

edh wrote:Rune, you mentioned in your post that he is in to gimmicks, gaffs and props. I believe that you do card magic correct. What would you call a deck of cards if not a prop to get to the magic?

Of course magic uses props - unless you do some "where did the end of my finger go???" style magic. But even then your fingers could be considered props. To that effect, if a card magician were to borrow a deck of cards from someone else and show him something amazing, wouldn't it be as much of a prop than his own fingers?

I completely follow the idea of "it's the effect that counts" in my magic. Even though I'm predominantly a card magician and my performing is mostly in impromptu situations I'm still not adverse to carrying a few gimmicks with me though (card related or other). Whether your audience are AMAZED or just amused at the end of your performance you've done your job in my opinion.

Demitri wrote:

BizKiTRoAcH wrote:That is my "argument" when people (well.. magicians) comment on Cyril's magic. They say he uses expensives gimmicks, gaffs, props and whatever.. but who cares?

But I suppose this "who cares" attitude doesn't extend to the use of stooges.

I should have seen that one coming

I do not approve of stooges but I do approve of assistants. If you are doing a card-through window trick and you palm a card and need to pass it to an assistant who places it on a gimmick that you are using for the effect then that is fine. However, if you are doing the same effect but the person you are doing the trick to is in on it all, I dont approve of that. Obviously no-one really cares what I think, but I think assistants are okay and stooges arent. Although if you are doing the trick for a real person and a stooge is involved slightly, I dont think thats too bad.. say a magician hands a certain object to the stooge and says "Thats legit right?!" and the stooge says yes and the magician continues to do the trick on the real person.. I think thats okay as long as he does the main trick to a real person and not a stooge.

BizKiTRoAcH wrote:Although if you are doing the trick for a real person and a stooge is involved slightly, I dont think thats too bad.. say a magician hands a certain object to the stooge and says "Thats legit right?!" and the stooge says yes and the magician continues to do the trick on the real person.. I think thats okay as long as he does the main trick to a real person and not a stooge.

Sorry, but this begs the question...if a "speccie" (or stooge if you prefer) on the TV says that the props are okay and they perform the trick to the televised masses are they no longer performing magic you can appreciate? Clearly your opinion only fits certain definitions of what a stooge is. Surely the most important thing of all is the effect. If you need someone to pretend their amazed to show a trick to thousands/millions of people on TV who will be genuinely amazed then haven't you still done your job. We use gimmicked and ungimmicked props, we use misdirection and we use the gift of gab to entertain people however we can. Why should we not use people as part of the set up to achieve what we need on any scale.

All in all...a stooge is a stooge. If it works - GREAT! If it doesn't - find a new method!

Okay I lose

I just think that its more obvious when he is doing the trick for a stooge rather than a real spectator. A decent amount of Criss' tricks and stunts just wouldnt work in front of real spectators. Now dont get me wrong, I still love some of his tricks regardless of how many stooges might be involved or not.. I just think he should try and challenge himself a bit more and do some tricks that he could perform for anyone

You're still forgetting the fact that when an assistant or confederate is used, that person is not the spectator - everyone else is.