talkmagic.co.uk

Oh... and the current ad for the new Dynamo series... There's gasps and cries of amazement from the audience as he does things to a mobile phone, but when the camera shows you the audience, they don't exactly look like they've been cheering to loud... not that I'm suggesting the sound track has been added on or anything...

artychris wrote:Oh... and the current ad for the new Dynamo series... There's gasps and cries of amazement from the audience as he does things to a mobile phone, but when the camera shows you the audience, they don't exactly look like they've been cheering to loud... not that I'm suggesting the sound track has been added on or anything...

Somewhat off topic, I recall reading an interview with a BBC sound effects chappy who was given the job of adding canned laughter to a comedy sitcom that was recorded in front of an audience. The reason being that the sitcom was so dreadfully unfunny that no-one was actually laughing.

Unfortunately within the BBC sound effects library an unfortunate mislabelling had occured, so the engineer hit the overdub button at the punchline of each gag and the show broadcast, with each and every joke met with a chorus of coughs and splutters!

Strange isn't it? We made a choice to be involved in an art where we come to know a hell of a lot about misdirection, subterfuge and hype - yet the marketeers assume we'll be taken in but the same things when they promote stuff. Perhaps the message we need to send back to them is to just give us the bottom line, we'll arrange out own bullshine when we perform thank you very much.

Mandrake wrote:Strange isn't it? We made a choice to be involved in an art where we come to know a hell of a lot about misdirection, subterfuge and hype - yet the marketeers assume we'll be taken in but the same things when they promote stuff. Perhaps the message we need to send back to them is to just give us the bottom line, we'll arrange out own bullshine when we perform thank you very much.

I think this is why magicians generally tend to be irritated by people claiming to be the real deal.

There is a VERY active thread about Dynamo on fb right now ... the issue with his show seems to fall under the same idea of Chris Angel ... its "real life" / "street Magic" / "close up" magic being presented ... but the reality is that there are actors, stooges and a HELL of a lot of camera trickery going on ... THAT is the issue with trailers too I feel, you miss out KEY sections of the trick and the trailer only shows the reactions :/

Dan

Not to highjack this thread with discussions of Dynamo but.....my two penneth worth:

In the industry we are in, whereby the bottom line is entertaining people and "creating magic"

Why is using a camera trick or an actor or a stooge any worse than two magicians working together, after all we are all in the illusion and entertainment business...surely?

So if i employ 10 people to gasp in amazement at something i supposedly did then edit the footage to show me performing the effect in a sterile area and then 5 or 6 million people at home are entertained then surely i have achieved what we set out to do as magicians?

Sorry if this sounds a bit pious and preachy, but just my thoughts

Much love

Aza

I did a new post earlier (to be deleted please ) as follows:

Hey guys, not sure if this is already a thread - sorry if its a repeat, I couldn't find anything via the search function.

Basically, I got an awesome email from MOM and its almost the perfect trick for what I do and how I present myself (seems similar to the heirloom wallet props).
my issue is, there is no presentation actually shown in the demo video, its just reaction shots and the description ... I know that if it was a stage trick, or a card move, that a full demo could allow a skilled magician to work the trick out and not have to buy the trick (eg if someone was selling an ambitious card routine using the DL, P*** or simply P******). However, I dont see how if the gimmick is that good, that a full demo cant be shown ... :/

On the flip side, Peter Nardi of Alakazam has recently released a trick and has shown a FULL presentation of it - most likely the same real world demo which will be on the instructional DVD, and its only using cards, I have no clue how it is done, but after seeing a FULL demo I am much more likely to but it ...

Thoughts?

Dan

Demo / trick is here
http://www.magicshop.co.uk/p22045/Herit ... ff6a3738ff

The issue I have, is that the trailers often mis-sell a trick, based on the story or the IDEA ... when the trick might be a bit pants :/

Missing out key sections is one interesting thing in magic trailers which I think ought to be done in moderation.

On the one hand, some effects need suitable misdirection and if you could just watch a video of a performance in full view you could easily discern the entire method for free. Obviously, cutting away at those moments is just a common courtesy to the performer.

However some trailers leave out important information about what exactly it is you're buying. I recently delved into some reviews of an effect called Coin Waltz. Trailer is a standard affair. Lots of text, footage of a guy in overly trendy clothes saying "Imagine signing two coins and then seeing them visually merge together" then one shot of him banging two coins together in his hands, on the third bang one vanishes and he reveals that the remaining coin is signed on both sides.

Text says "Comes with utility gimmick and bonus effects".

I was thinking to myself (as a performer of the anniversary waltz with cards) I wonder how you get away with the method. What manner of gimmick would offer that functionality? Anyone who does this effect will know what I mean, in AW you can lose the two cards in the deck, how do you bury the coins in the same way leading up to the merge?

The answer, which is neatly skirted around on the trailer, is that you don't. In fact the gimmick is nothing to do with the specifics of the effect. Rather what you're buying is another bleedin' device for performing a coin vanish.

Now I understand that if they just said "This is a suggested effect with a device for vanishing a coin, which is what you are buying" it would be a lot less inviting (particularly to the people who already have umpteen methods of vanishing a coin) and also point out that vanish aside, the coin waltz is pure naked coin magic, and you can probably suss the rest of the method yourself.

But then who would buy it?

It's a fine line really. We're magicians, we think up this stuff anyway, unless the sold trick is really does use something revolutionary and new, we'll be able to come up with our own solution. The history of magic is one of performers inventing their own methodological solutions to theoretical problems, (and if you watch old lectures on the classics, you'll hear a lot of this.)

The future of magic on the other hand is apparently one of magicians refusing to show their effects to other magicians because every person who invents their own solution is the loss of a sale.

And no one is going to pay to watch you mess around with chewing gum (Seriously, how many effects on the market right now are to do with blister packets of gum?)

-Stacy

And in addition to your comment Stace,

If i was chewing gum then restored it to a brand new wrapped stick....would you want that in your mouth after it's been in mine?! lol

Much love

Aza

Back to the topic of the thread, sh*t magic trailers show:

The performer doing things that are nothing to do with the effect, like skateboarding. Seriously I saw a trailer last night which opened with the guy skateboarding for about 2/5th the length of the trailer. Similar activities would be footage of the performer doing his favourite bits of card manipulation before introducing a self working gimmick.

-Stacy

One thing that annoys me is if a specific item of clothing is required, but not told before you buy!!

Such as a certain card to wallet requires you to wear a button up shirt, and as i perform usually in a t-shirt and suit jacket rarely in a button up shirt i could have potentially wasted 50 odd quid.....

Surely they should have to specify items required, as they definitely advertise what isn't required...

Annoys me!!

Much love

Aza

Aza wrote:One thing that annoys me is if a specific item of clothing is required, but not told before you buy!!

Such as a certain card to wallet requires you to wear a button up shirt, and as i perform usually in a t-shirt and suit jacket rarely in a button up shirt i could have potentially wasted 50 odd quid.....

Surely they should have to specify items required, as they definitely advertise what isn't required...

Annoys me!!

Much love

Aza

I know the one you mean, I was shown it in a magic shop in Vegas. Ironically not being a card performer I'd been utterly uninterested in the sold effect but when the utility was shown to me I realised it was actually something I could use with all manner of other things. The shirt thing was the only reason I didn't immediately buy it (blouses tend to have greatly variable button spacings whereas mens shirts as far as I can tell are pretty much standard. )

Maybe this is the crux of what's wrong with magic effects as sold, we don't even know whether or not we want them because no one will tell us what they are.

-Stacy

Aza wrote:One thing that annoys me is if a specific item of clothing is required, but not told before you buy!!

Such as a certain card to wallet requires you to wear a button up shirt, and as i perform usually in a t-shirt and suit jacket rarely in a button up shirt i could have potentially wasted 50 odd quid.....

Surely they should have to specify items required, as they definitely advertise what isn't required...

Annoys me!!

Much love

Aza

If it is the card to wallet I think you mean the utility is far far more useful than that. It is worth performing in a button up shirt for the utility!

but i never wear a shirt!! well rarely!!

I know what you mean though soveda, many applications for the utility.....hmm maybe as i age i'll wear a shirt more when i perform lol

Much love

Aza

Aza wrote:but i never wear a shirt!! well rarely!!

I know what you mean though soveda, many applications for the utility.....hmm maybe as i age i'll wear a shirt more when i perform lol

Much love

Aza

To be fair as a 40 year old man who tends to wear a suit to work and perform I'm rarely not wearing a shirt. The device would work with casual/Hawaiian shirts if you want to rock that look.