talkmagic.co.uk

I'd like to see more stage based performing "celebrities" though. I thought Ashley Banjo brought something useable to the show that the other 2 were missing.

Klangster1971 wrote: I must defend the BBC Licence Fee, however. It does infuriate me when folks point at the guff on BBC1 when they complain about the fee - how about the dozens and dozens of local BBC radio stations up and down the country? The world-class website (with dedicated local content)... the iPlayer (still the best catch-up service in the country). As someone else pointed out - it's a heck of a lot cheaper than Sky... and Murdoch STILL shows you adverts between the prgrams that you've already paid a premium for!!

But if I choose not to pay for Sky (and I don't) but want to watch other channels, I don't get taken to court ...

Next week will be the show I went to see.
I felt the tricks were slightly better next week than this week. Though it may not be up to the standard of people here.

I can't remember if it was mentioned in the show, but I remembered from the show I went to see, that each week had a theme, hence the cardboard boxs this week. I had forgot this untill after the show, thinking that their props were just rubbish.

I don't mind the celebrity addition, no matter how outdated or random they may be. But they really needed be more involved. As someone mentioned, they had no chance to 'fail'. This made the voting hard, as I wasn't voting on the celebrity, neither reallly the magician, but the actual trick performed.

I really hope the forfeits actually get better, as I saw no point of them so far.

I will be watching next week. I would like to see it all together, and the few bits we didnt get to see. But I will spend most the time trying to find myself on camera than paying attention to the show.

nameless wrote:

Klangster1971 wrote: I must defend the BBC Licence Fee, however. It does infuriate me when folks point at the guff on BBC1 when they complain about the fee - how about the dozens and dozens of local BBC radio stations up and down the country? The world-class website (with dedicated local content)... the iPlayer (still the best catch-up service in the country). As someone else pointed out - it's a heck of a lot cheaper than Sky... and Murdoch STILL shows you adverts between the prgrams that you've already paid a premium for!!

But if I choose not to pay for Sky (and I don't) but want to watch other channels, I don't get taken to court ...

Fair comment - but, in truth, do you really only watch/listen to commercial broadcasting?? How do you find time to think for yourself, in amongst all the reality shows and chavs shouting at each other!?

Meanwhile, I watched a different program, called The Magicians on BBC1. Catch it on iPlayer, it was pretty good

I agree with you.

I give the writers credit for giving Lenny "Wow how did you do that?" lines rather than "yeah but there's a mirror just there, you're rubbish" if they were so apparently bad. It was about time we had a saturday night show which didn't have the cliché judges.

Yup, yup, yup.

The bad points.

Bruno!? His magician didn't seem to get on with him, but regardless someone should have told him, not to be so over the top (yes that is him) but no-one performs magic with flamboyant hand gestures, and prancing, anymore do they? That was bad magic, and the old stereotypes we are trying to get away from.

The crossbow effect - they left the audience with a pseudo explanation for how the trick was done. I can imagine using that presentation, with the trick i've seen where about 50 wooden sticks go into the box. You watch the original and starting, thinking ok she's moved there, there, there, oh wait, there's no more room...
With this version, the box was huge!

The street magic sections, interesting idea, but I think they could have been better quality, or a close up magic effect, filmed in a seperate stuido.

The walk of fire, forfeit.

The good points.

Barry and Stuart - miscounting the box trick, they know how to perform magic, they have that dark edge, which we don't see enough of in magic - magic is often sickeningly sweet, and I'm hoping that in the coming weeks, see more of that darker edge like they had in their 'magick' programme from a few years back.

The theme - one theme, three interpretations, creativity - it's interesting to see the different ideas that they've come up with.

Ashley and Diversity - he really seemed to enjoy it, ok and his combination of dance and magic, is a great creative avenue, which could be explored further. His box trick, was amazing. This guy got what it was to perform, but then perhaps that was because he already is a performer, he had a head start.

Magicians would be much worse, if...
...it was all close up magic - I love close up, and it's totally mind blowing when it's live, but on TV you want that feeling of spectacle, you want a show, which the BBC did.
...paul daniels was in it - he's too old and grumpy, now.
...it was made specifically for magicians - we are magicians remember, we know what to look for.

It seems to me that some people always think they can do magic better. I agree that we should push magic to be an art that is respected, and is taken on more than just the face value of, 'ok it fooled me, very clever'
but I think with they made a start on that, by putting together a show that had several differing styles of performance, and that went a little further than just a clever trick.[/quote]

In summary, 5/10

this one isnt by a magician ,,, though reading it it could well be!!

alex

http://www.suite101.com/content/the-mag ... ne-a326634

Klangster1971 wrote:
Fair comment - but, in truth, do you really only watch/listen to commercial broadcasting?? How do you find time to think for yourself, in amongst all the reality shows and chavs shouting at each other!?

If the TV Tax were optional and we could opt-out of receiving BBC then I'd probably agree, but the fact is the option is "you want TV, you pay for BBC" when I'm sure many people could quite happily do without the BBC.

As for the show, once I'd got over the debacle I suppose it's good that magic is being given another showcase. You never know, it might even make someone want to be an assistant one day.

magicbyfish wrote:this one isnt by a magician ,,, though reading it it could well be!!

alex

http://www.suite101.com/content/the-mag ... ne-a326634

ALREADY posted TWICE!

nameless wrote:But if I choose not to pay for Sky (and I don't) but want to watch other channels, I don't get taken to court ...

aporia wrote:If the TV Tax were optional and we could opt-out of receiving BBC then I'd probably agree, but the fact is the option is "you want TV, you pay for BBC" when I'm sure many people could quite happily do without the BBC.

Oh please. Are you seriously suggesting that you've never watched or used any service whatsoever that BBC either make or are involved with? You don't watch their news? You don't listen to any of their radio stations (national, local, or DAB)? You don't read any of their magazines? Never watched any of their DVDs? Never taken advantage of GCSE bitesize (Assuming you were of the right age)? Never used a website which makes use of BBC Glow? Never used a BBC Micro at school? Never used Ceefax or any other teletext service (which BBC helped to make)? Never watched TV in HD (BBC helped with that, too)? Never used a website with uses a W3C technology such as HTML or CSS (BBC are a member company)?

If you've ever done or ever do watch or used any BBC service you are morally obliged to pay the 39p a day it costs. Because I very much doubt you'll be able to find a cheaper alternative

Even so, as long as you're not watching it live, you can watch any TV program on the Internet without needing a TV licence. Just throw away your TV and don't watch any channels as live

But don't forget that the TV licence - all 39p a day of it - not only goes towards every single BBC service but it also goes towards non-bbc projects such as the digital tv switchover (and maybe soon the digital radio campaign), the world service (who do an amazing job for the UK even if it's not aimed at you), S4C, and general investment in new technology which means we have some of the best quality (in terms of technology) TV, radio, and online services in the world. This investment even provides technology that I use in my day to day job - which isn't telly

I don't like everything the BBC does, mostly because not all of it is aimed at me, but I enjoy some of their output so have nothing against paying the licence fee. It's not an amazing way to do things (because in my opinion it breeds "I pay for the licence fee therefore they should only make the stuff I like" comments) - but it's much better than the alternative

Jing wrote:Barry and Stuart - miscounting the box trick, they know how to perform magic, they have that dark edge, which we don't see enough of in magic - magic is often sickeningly sweet, and I'm hoping that in the coming weeks, see more of that darker edge like they had in their 'magick' programme from a few years back.

Oh I love Barry and Stuart, and I thought they did really well. Even the box trick wasn't so bad (but I agree, the box was far too big). They're paired with Ade Edmondson next week which I'm really excited about

to jordan C

TO BE SURE TO BE SURE

Removed for work reasons

kolm wrote:If you've ever done or ever do watch or used any BBC service you are morally obliged to pay the 39p a day it costs.

I must disagree. One is morally, and legally, obliged to pay the license fee only if one agrees to the contractual terms, ie, if one watches prgrammes as they are being broadcast. One is under no moral or legal obligation to pay the license fee for using any other BBC services. This includes iPlayer. They have a 'live' section one can watch, for which one agrees to pay the license fee. The rest is free from all encumbrance and/or liability. To suggest that one should continue to pay for a license if one has ever used a BBC service is frankly ludicrous.

This is a quote from the tv license website: "You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast." Available here.

And before you ask, yes I have no problem with taking things and not paying for them assuming they have been freely offered, which iPlayer is as far as I'm aware......if it turns out I'm mistaken and one is contractually obliged to pay the license fee for using the non-live part of iPlayer then I'll have to stop using the site.

Incidentally, I rather enjoyed the show. I didn't think it was the most amazing piece of telly, magic based or otherwise, and bits of it were c*** (not the best), but overall I enjoyed it. Personally speaking, I would have wanted less celebs, well, no celebs and more professional magic, but still I can't really complain as I don't pay for a TV License.

Jordan C wrote:

magicbyfish wrote:this one isnt by a magician ,,, though reading it it could well be!!

alex

http://www.suite101.com/content/the-mag ... ne-a326634

ALREADY posted TWICE!

The author of this review is a professional ranter, you could put something perfect infront of him and he would be able to find fault with it.

Gary Dickson wrote:I must disagree. One is morally, and legally, obliged to pay the license fee only if one agrees to the contractual terms, ie, if one watches prgrammes as they are being broadcast. One is under no moral or legal obligation to pay the license fee for using any other BBC services. This includes iPlayer. They have a 'live' section one can watch, for which one agrees to pay the license fee. The rest is free from all encumbrance and/or liability. To suggest that one should continue to pay for a license if one has ever used a BBC service is frankly ludicrous.

OK, maybe not ever - but if you use a BBC service right now shouldn't you pay (even if as you rightly pointed out in some cases you don't have to)? Isn't it worth the money even if you use just the one service?

kolm wrote:

Gary Dickson wrote:I must disagree. One is morally, and legally, obliged to pay the license fee only if one agrees to the contractual terms, ie, if one watches prgrammes as they are being broadcast. One is under no moral or legal obligation to pay the license fee for using any other BBC services. This includes iPlayer. They have a 'live' section one can watch, for which one agrees to pay the license fee. The rest is free from all encumbrance and/or liability. To suggest that one should continue to pay for a license if one has ever used a BBC service is frankly ludicrous.

OK, maybe not ever - but if you use a BBC service right now shouldn't you pay (even if as you rightly pointed out in some cases you don't have to)? Isn't it worth the money even if you use just the one service?

I must agree with kolm - even if I didn't own a TV set, I feel that I would want to buy a licence, simply because of the amount of use that I and my family get out of the services that the BBC provide. Otherwise, it seems like a case of trying to get something for nothing.

Which reminds me - the thread in question was locked before we got to the solution, Gary - how did the whole 'Conditional Acceptance' saga end up over in The Dove's Head? Would be very interesting to know (and, no, that isn't a hidden dig - just a genuiune curiosity!)

Sean