Some performers overdo it i.e creating magic that cannot be performed in real life because if someone walked up to Dynamo and says "here mate, walk across my pool please" what do you think he would do? Angel, Dynamo, Blaine and Mayne, to name a few, are phenomenal performers, the best if you will, purely because of the way they present their magic yet at the same time they de-value the newer non-tv magicians' work. Tell me you have not been asked to do a trick like Dynamo or Angel and I will say you're lying, that is the point some of us are trying to make. On the other hand it is extremely arrogant to blatantly assume that ALL magic is created solely for TV, given that it is created/written for TV but that does not de-value it's power in the real world as majority of the effects can actually be done in real life and this impossible magic that we see on television is created from a hunger of uniqueness which is ultimately destroying the future of TV magic if every performer levitates over the golden gate bridge as an opener to his sponge ball routine. I exaggerated that last sentence in order to make you guys understand the bar it sets for us real world performers.
David Blaine Street Levitation
- Thread starter Philipp S.(4)
- Start date
The only thing remotely Criss Angel-like I've been asked to do is levitate myself, and I generally just do the Balducci when that happens. I don't really bill myself as that kind of performer, and I honestly don't get asked to do particular effects. You can call me a liar if you want, but you'd be wrong.
The reason I do not like them is they make people think that magicians are all like that because that is what they see on TV. People think it is all actors and cameras , and with those two they are not far off.
I can honestly say I have never been ask to do a criss or dynao effect. Then again I work for people mainly over 30 who not the target demo for those guys and I'm in the Us where non-magicians have no clue who dynamo is. I get ask to do things they have seen me do at the wedding expose or trade shows where I get my other bookings. Things I find in Sphinx and Mahatma and other old magic magazines and books.
Some interesting posts. . . Pink, I think we agree a lot on this topic and for similar reasons.
Krab. . . I like that closing paragraph, which we had a thumbs up option around here.
Some of you however, need to get out and see some real magicians work vs. the talking heads on Tv. You also need to learn what it means to market oneself and how that creates the illusion of "fame". Criss pays a PR company at least 10 large monthly to keep his name and photos in the public eye and I'm certain Blaine does the same. Dynamo is a flash in the pan that people will eventually tire of because he's not an ENTERTAINER. I can say that about most of the others that stoop to the lows that have been discussed; they are all one trick ponies and when taken off youtube or the tube they can't do an actual show that replicates the level of amazement they are known for. . . that is, unless half the audience are paid stooges or they're doing video highlights all night long.
BUT, we can't put the entire blame on the shoulders of said performers, the producers of these shows carry the brunt of the blame if the truth were to be known. They are the one's that insist on doing material that out-does Blaine & Angel and going over the top. They are the one's that don't give a damn that the routines can't be done live and they are the one's the blackmail desperate young egos looking for a ride to the top.
Krab. . . I like that closing paragraph, which we had a thumbs up option around here.
Some of you however, need to get out and see some real magicians work vs. the talking heads on Tv. You also need to learn what it means to market oneself and how that creates the illusion of "fame". Criss pays a PR company at least 10 large monthly to keep his name and photos in the public eye and I'm certain Blaine does the same. Dynamo is a flash in the pan that people will eventually tire of because he's not an ENTERTAINER. I can say that about most of the others that stoop to the lows that have been discussed; they are all one trick ponies and when taken off youtube or the tube they can't do an actual show that replicates the level of amazement they are known for. . . that is, unless half the audience are paid stooges or they're doing video highlights all night long.
BUT, we can't put the entire blame on the shoulders of said performers, the producers of these shows carry the brunt of the blame if the truth were to be known. They are the one's that insist on doing material that out-does Blaine & Angel and going over the top. They are the one's that don't give a damn that the routines can't be done live and they are the one's the blackmail desperate young egos looking for a ride to the top.
A TV production is made to be watched on TV - the needs of television are paramount.
The techniques of television production serve to strengthen it as a TV show, not to strengthen it as a magic performance. You cannot serve two masters, and making a successful TV show is more important (to the producers) than making an authentic magic performance.
Every art and venue has its own values, aesthetics, goals and methods. In combination, one must be paramount, and the others must serve it.
The techniques of television production serve to strengthen it as a TV show, not to strengthen it as a magic performance. You cannot serve two masters, and making a successful TV show is more important (to the producers) than making an authentic magic performance.
Every art and venue has its own values, aesthetics, goals and methods. In combination, one must be paramount, and the others must serve it.
I used to go to a magic shop in Roanoke before it closed down, and it was run by a magician that I respect quite a lot. One time he told me that if you use a room full of stooges to make magic happen for just one person, you've still done your job as a magician. Furthermore, I've also heard it said that if people have to make outlandish guesses to try to work out your methods, you've done your job as a magician. Sure, some people will look at everything on TV and think "Oh, that's stooges/camera tricks/whatever other generally frowned upon method," even if it's not any of those things, and some people will watch it and simply think "Wow! That looks like magic! I wonder how they did that!" Either way, the TV magician has done his job by granting wonder and making people think. Many people are very skeptical of most of what they see on television, so making magic happen on TV at all is all the more challenging and it's hard for me not to respect performers who manage to do it or at least try.
Tell that to Copperfield, Henning, Sigfred, Blackstone and all the others that have done legit magic shows on TV for decades. That's horse pucky!
The problem is we have a group of whores willing to sell themselves short based on the "success" of two people that were slightly novel 15 years or so ago (1997 and forward). These two. . . especially Angel. . . raised the bar so to speak. . . because of the stooging, editing, etc. THEY are the one's guilty of taking the magic out of magic and planting this seed in the heads of hack producers that HAVE NO RESPECT for our art. When you couple their lack of respect with that of the ego's chasing Tv time you end up with CRAP on TV with a very thin veneer of magic that's highly disappointing for people that love that art.
You've missed my point.
To make things appealing on TV, you cannot shoot it exactly as you would see it live. I don't think that anybody shot a magic show with one stationary camera from a seat the audience - it would be unwatchable. I think that magic is best seen live, like a play.
To make things appealing for a TV audience, shots must be framed, composed and the camera(s) must be tight enough to capture the action. With a medium shot, the magic is weakened by allowing the possibility of things outside the frame being responsible for the magic (to the laity). When they cut from one camera to the next, there's the chance of an edit, etc. This weakens the magic, but is necessary for television.
The needs of a play are different than the needs of a movie or TV show. The sets may have to change in a few minutes between scenes, they should be mainly unobtrusive so as to throw focus onto the characters, etc. A movie has to be more realistic in its sets, and the speed at which they can be moved offstage is not really an issue, etc.
Copperfield, Henning, Sigfred, Blackstone et. al. served television a little more than magic. Angel and Blaine serve television a lot more than magic.
The performers you list certainly didn't rely on the techniques of television, and it was as strong as could be. Times have changed, and the overuse of TV techniques has (imho) weakened the magic terribly nowadays. The pseudo-realism thing of Angel and Blaine will become passe, and things will move in another direction sooner or later.
To make things appealing on TV, you cannot shoot it exactly as you would see it live. I don't think that anybody shot a magic show with one stationary camera from a seat the audience - it would be unwatchable. I think that magic is best seen live, like a play.
To make things appealing for a TV audience, shots must be framed, composed and the camera(s) must be tight enough to capture the action. With a medium shot, the magic is weakened by allowing the possibility of things outside the frame being responsible for the magic (to the laity). When they cut from one camera to the next, there's the chance of an edit, etc. This weakens the magic, but is necessary for television.
The needs of a play are different than the needs of a movie or TV show. The sets may have to change in a few minutes between scenes, they should be mainly unobtrusive so as to throw focus onto the characters, etc. A movie has to be more realistic in its sets, and the speed at which they can be moved offstage is not really an issue, etc.
Copperfield, Henning, Sigfred, Blackstone et. al. served television a little more than magic. Angel and Blaine serve television a lot more than magic.
The performers you list certainly didn't rely on the techniques of television, and it was as strong as could be. Times have changed, and the overuse of TV techniques has (imho) weakened the magic terribly nowadays. The pseudo-realism thing of Angel and Blaine will become passe, and things will move in another direction sooner or later.
I keep reading bout how "crappy" Angel's TV show was (I am speaking on his Mindfreak series). Look, I can't say I am a fan of his, but I CAN say that what he did was create an entertaining TV show that MILLIONS of people watched. Do you think in his meetings with producers that he expressed concern for what other magicians were to think of his show? WE know it's all crap. WE know that there are more camera tricks than there is real skilled magic. WE know all of this, but the millions of people watching, watched in disbelief. Same thing applies for Blaine...
These guys don't do it to impress magicians. (Copperfield LOVES to fool magicians, btw.) Hell, Blaine changed the game for TV magic, and it wasn't because he used some dupe levitation to make himself look like he was doing the impossible. Because if you sit and think about it, that's what the Balducci is SUPPOSED to do...create the impossible. But don't you think that showing something like that on camera would have everyone guessing how it's done? I remember watching Paul Harris perform/teach it on one of his old VHS tapes and it looked HORRIBLE for camera.
YES, Angel overdoes the stooge thing and YES it is very comical to US, but to the millions of viewers he entertained, it got the job done. But that was for TV. I agree with some points Craig made: look at how well Criss Angel is doing in Las Vegas. From a numbers standpoint, he has one of the worst selling Cirque shows in Vegas. That's not insider info...that's just a Google search away. Why is that? Because he tried to take what he was doing with the Mindfreak series, and translate it to stage. I remember MANY years ago when Angel had his show in NYC, WAY before his TV show, and I heard it was actually pretty decent.
In any form of entertainment, there will ALWAYS be haters within the same specialty. But you get offered contracts like some of these big names are getting, and you too will do anything to make that buck stay...
These guys don't do it to impress magicians. (Copperfield LOVES to fool magicians, btw.) Hell, Blaine changed the game for TV magic, and it wasn't because he used some dupe levitation to make himself look like he was doing the impossible. Because if you sit and think about it, that's what the Balducci is SUPPOSED to do...create the impossible. But don't you think that showing something like that on camera would have everyone guessing how it's done? I remember watching Paul Harris perform/teach it on one of his old VHS tapes and it looked HORRIBLE for camera.
YES, Angel overdoes the stooge thing and YES it is very comical to US, but to the millions of viewers he entertained, it got the job done. But that was for TV. I agree with some points Craig made: look at how well Criss Angel is doing in Las Vegas. From a numbers standpoint, he has one of the worst selling Cirque shows in Vegas. That's not insider info...that's just a Google search away. Why is that? Because he tried to take what he was doing with the Mindfreak series, and translate it to stage. I remember MANY years ago when Angel had his show in NYC, WAY before his TV show, and I heard it was actually pretty decent.
In any form of entertainment, there will ALWAYS be haters within the same specialty. But you get offered contracts like some of these big names are getting, and you too will do anything to make that buck stay...
I remember Criss from the late 80s & early 90s (yes, he's a lot older than he promotes himself) and he was creative, resourceful and a perfectionist of sorts. He did an awesome show in those days but he's lost it! He's become so reliant on stooges and editing techniques that he's forgotten how to perform magic . . . how to create true astonishment & enchantment. His influence on the young market planting seeds that are misleading and highly inaccurate when it comes to what magic really is and what it's about.
Blaine has taken the time to correct himself, get additional coaching as an actor (especially when it comes to speaking clearly) and move things towards a more traditional approach as we can see in his last broadcast. David loves the art for the sake of the art vs. using it as a way to stroke his own ego, which can't be said about Angel.
Blaine has taken the time to correct himself, get additional coaching as an actor (especially when it comes to speaking clearly) and move things towards a more traditional approach as we can see in his last broadcast. David loves the art for the sake of the art vs. using it as a way to stroke his own ego, which can't be said about Angel.
Not all of us. Some of us have self respect and set our own goals for our success levels. My first goal was to entertain people. Then it was making a living doing magic. Now my goal is to expand my book collection to pass on one day. It's never been my goal to make millions. To have to change who I am to "make that paper" or as you said "make that buck stay" would go against what I stand for. If it is all about the money, maybe you need to really think why you are doing it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Honestly I think they use stooges for SOME effects for no reason, example why would you pay someone to name the King of Spades if you can psychologically force them to name it later? Agreed that these magicians don't aim their shows to impress us as magicians but we are the next generation of magicians and it lessens our impact if we are forced to use stooges to make our shows entertaining, in my opinion, the use of a stooge is out of laziness. In the new Angel TV series Believe we get to see some of the work he puts into his major illusions behind the scenes which is fantastic because we can see the effort he puts into his newer illusions but why not put the same amount of work into the rest of your magic? The impact of their actions now affect the next gen of magicians in the future and it is to a great disadvantage for us.
If it was for the money, I wouldn't be doing it because I have lived a life of struggle to pay bills at points in my life just because I love performing magic. People do things for different reasons though. Some get into magic to pick up girls. Some to live a life of entertaining people. Others want to be big and famous. THOSE are the ones I am talking about who would gladly do anything for a buck. As long as their names are still in lights and they are adored by people from all over...THAT is who I am talking about...
You don't actually see "the work" as you're lead to believe, that's Bunk!
Major illusions now days require several minds, lots of R&D and THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to develop. The Flying Illusion evolved over a number of years, for an example. Some of the stuff Kenny and I worked on @ Creative took months if not years to make into a reality. What you saw in the Angel show was a scripted bit of shtick and nothing more . . . other than being an insult to the people that actually do research and develop such things. I will also point out that many of Criss' own developments are terrible; his suspended sawing in half and tree shredder blade stunt being two prime examples.
Well it's not fair to play on the show being scripted, if it wasn't, it would just be a mess of chaos. With research and development in mind I think that it isn't fair to say it's a bad illusion because he came with it in three months as opposed to something else that took 5 years, keep in mind research and development time can vary based on the creative crew you have behind you and Angel has some of the biggest and most experienced names in magic as his crew, such as Michael Ammar and Banachek who have way more years of performing and magic knowledge than Angel and to add on to that he also has some of the more modern performers like Krystyn Lambert and Luke Dancy who equally have more fresh and creative ideas. With that being said, the amount of collective experience throughout his entire team including Criss Angel himself is astronomical and can greatly decrease the amount of time R&D takes. As for the money, it's safe to say that they can definitely afford any illusion they want to build.
Do you know these claims as FACT? Or are you assuming that this HAS to be the case? Because I can tell you with experience that even with a huge team of super creative people, it still takes a LONG time before anything is implemented.
I believe I have not clarified my point. It is obvious that it helps with the amount of experience on the table and I'm aiming this at just the research and development phase as aforementioned. With that in mind I reiterate, is it fair to look down upon the final product of an illusion based upon the time it took to research and develop the means of achieving this? My point of argument is that the more experienced team will know the in's and out's which ultimately brings a slight amount of ease to the research phase as an immense amount of knowledge is at hand. I fully understand that the implementation time is of course LONG as is for any other illusion in magic but specifically when it comes to the money or the means of research and prior knowledge. I'm not challenging anyone or claiming these as fact but it's pretty obvious that the more experienced performer can present a million and one methods of achieving an effect based off their immense knowledge of magic and the history behind it then that of a more blossoming magician. Penn & Teller for example, they are so well versed in the world of magic that they challenge other performers to attempt to fool them, with that in mind, they probably already know the information that we would be looking for which means that one could spend less time on researching the effect (that's LESS time not no time at all) and focus more on the next thing such as building the effect and proof testing and so on and so forth. Again I speak for the part of researching the illusion and less on actual implementation.