talkmagic.co.uk

I've noticed recently demo videos using this sort of language.

And I've had to check myself when I think "Wow, that looks awesome!" because what they're showing isn't the card trick you're buying, it's a filmed reconstruction of how the routine appeared to a layman. No visible sleights, because although the trick may use these the layman didn't see them, so when the routine is reconstructed it's all done with editing.

Am I alone in thinking that, as the video isn't aimed at a layman, this is rather dishonest?

fiftytwo wrote: as the video isn't aimed at a layman, this is rather dishonest?

A point which as been raised several times before. There's no need to 'fool' a magician/purchaser into buying something which turns out to be not as shown. I always thought it was our job to 'fool' people as we entertain them !

If I am understanding you correctly then I have to say I don't think it is dishonest at all. In fact I think it is one of the most honest ways to advertize magic. To see it the way the spectator sees it. Magic is in the mind of the spectator not the magician. What is important is what the layman see's not what the magician actually does.

Too many times I hear magicians complain that they didn't get what they paid for. What? Did you actually think that floating object was not attatched to IT? Did you actually think that the magician predicted the selected card by reading a person's mind? Did you honestly think the effect was going to make you the worlds greatest magician and you would have people banging on your door to perform? There is always method, always practice. and quite often it is simple and lame and the practice is long and frustrating. But when done right, it slaughters the layperson. They just don't see what we do, they don't know what we know, and more often than not we forget that.

what one has to remember is the guy demonstrating the effect to you is probably very accomplished, if only at that one effect. He/she just didn't pick it up and start performing, the magician may have been performing that effect for a good long time. Then when you get it and work your way through it you may get frustrated because it just doesn't look the same and that is mostly due to your inexperience with that particular trick. At that point you have to ask yourself, can the trick actually look like that? Almost always the answer is yes.

When I was demonstrating in the shop many a magician would purchase an effect then come back and tell me that it doesn't work, it doesn't look like what they saw when I performed it for them. They want their money back.

My response was always the same. But it does look like that, you saw me do it, and I always demonstrated an effect as described in the instructions. I also tell them I spent a long time learning the effect. I'm not about to demonstrate something I can't demonstrate well because then you wouldn't buy it. I didn't take it out of the box and start demonstrating it a few days later, sometimes I would wait weeks possible months, (rarely months, not often weeks because I didn't have to build a routine around it, I was demonstrating not performing).

The dishonesty would be if they showed you a clip of what the audience see's but in reality there is no way the audience can see what the adversizer said they would see. For example if they said your hands never leave sight of the spectator, but then in the instructions they tell you to put your hands behind your back, or something along those lines.

But as long as the effect has the ability to do what is shown then I see nothing dishonest about it. It is not the fault of the creator or seller if you don't really understand how magic works. Just as it is not the responsiblity of the guy who sells you a computer to know how computer literate you are. You learn.

A decent magic shop will ask you your skill level, or you could offer it. Most of us really don't want to sell you something that is beyond your grasp. We want you as a customer for life, not just the quick sale. Well reputable dealers anyway.

bmat wrote:I always demonstrated an effect as described in the instructions

I think that's commendable. What I'm meaning isn't "someone very skilled performs it for me personally" but when editing is used to remove whole phases that are required to set up the climax.

If you performed, and I'm picking a random example (not a trick where this happens to the best of my knowledge), McDonald's Aces and wanted to have the _____ examined first, you'd have to do an extra step after the exam before then starting the trick.

If I came back and said, "but there's ____" you could say, "Yes, and what I did when I [thing you did to fix that] was get ready, see?" But it's likely I'll have spotted it (because I do know how magic works, thank you!)

However if it was a video trailer which cuts straight from examination to the effect, then something is omitted. The words "Fully examinable before and after!" aren't an exact lie - almost any trick can have that if we s____h things around.

For example, if a trailer cuts straight from "Think of a card, okay?" to "What is it? Wow, I have that right here!" and cuts out the "think of the number only, courts are tens, and multiply by nine. Now add the two digits together. If it's an even number then it's a red card..."

That's not "silly customer, buying an effect they haven't worked hard enough on to get right", to my mind.

If the routine were filmed live and in one continous shot, as the specs would actually see it and as it would be demoed in a magic shop or convention booth then surely there could be no basis for concer?

If they are saying, "This is what the spectator see's" and then shows you only part of what the spectator see's then it is false advertizing. If they are changing the effect or adding or taking away portions based on their personal knowledge of magic then it is false advertizing.

It has to be 'as described' in the instructions. That is what we as consumers are purchasing. As I said when I would demo an effect it was always as in the instructions because that is what is being sold. Sure I can demo a plastic 4 dollar cups and balls and make the balls vanish from thin air, throw in a final load of limes, but when that customer goes home and there is nothing about any of that in the instructions then I have lied about what I have sold them.

What I may do is next time try to sell them Mark Wilson's book, and at that time I may remind them of the cups and balls they purchased last time. And at that time I may make the ball vanish as in Mark Wilson's book. I may throw in a different ending. But I will do so as described in Mark Wilson's book. And at that time describe the amount of practice that is involved and at the same time start 'training' my customers to also look at the potential of an effect beyond the instructions and as their ability increases so can the impact of effects they already own.

But to sell something by demonstrating an effect beyond what the instructions describe is false advertizing. Or by saying this is what the audience see's and then leaving out parts of what the audience see's is false advertizing.

Often however I have found that magicians forget that what the audience see's is just that, they often forget that what the audience see's is not necessarily what is going on.

And I think we are discussing the same side of the coin.

I pretty much agree with bmat. Editing a demo film seems to serve a few possible purposes (and they can overlap).

It might be to disguise a method that is actually poor and unworkable.

It might be used to prevent reverse engineering of an effect by magicians. I think that's OK, as long as the approach is honest. The difficulty lies in tricks where there is a "something" that is a giveaway to performers and it might actually stop them from buying, if they knew the "missing" bit. As an example, a prolific producer of new (and rehashed) effects released a trick about a spectator choosing an item from a big list, and the performer knows what was chosen. I immediately guessed the method, even though some key information about the selection process was left out. The truth is that, had the full details been given many performers would not like the method, while others will steal the presentation because they know the basic principle.

The third thing is to let magicians get an accurate idea of how the trick actually looks in performance. Yes, you might realise that there was a pass there, if you saw the whole thing in one take, but the spectator doesn't even see it in an actual performance because of the misdirection structured into the routine.

Part-Timer wrote:I pretty much agree with bmat. Editing a demo film seems to serve a few possible purposes (and they can overlap).


The third thing is to let magicians get an accurate idea of how the trick actually looks in performance. Yes, you might realise that there was a pass there, if you saw the whole thing in one take, but the spectator doesn't even see it in an actual performance because of the misdirection structured into the routine.

My point being it doesn't matter if the pass was there, the pass if done correctly is not what the spectator sees. Just because a performer does not like the pass doesn't mean they didn't get what they paid for. You pay for the effect and what it entails.