|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4..10~11~12 [Next] | ||||||||||
Steven Conner Inner circle 2724 Posts 
|
Quote:
On May 28, 2017, Jared wrote: Will certainly raised the bar for sleight-of-hand magicians...I'm happy for him. Really! Best Steve
"The New York Papers," Mark Twain once said,"have long known that no large question is ever really settled until I have been consulted; it is the way they feel about it, and they show it by always sending to me when they get uneasy. "
|
|||||||||
Jared Inner circle Rhode Island, USA 1602 Posts
|
Quote: "But I agree, it is 100% eye candy and very good presented. But it is in the end only the presentation of a technical marvel (the table). And what when this comes out? What is left of the magician? Isn't this the trick that is TOO perfect?
I don't know the answer myself. Just thinking." This is an excellent point and more or less where I was going with my comment about raising the bar for sleight of hand magicians. You cannot accomplish this exact same routine using standard sleights. Will's table is a technical marvel but most layperson's will assume that he was using sleight of hand. Can you imagine how difficult it's going to be for the next magician wanting to perform a matrix type routine on AGT?...Yup, Will's act is hard one to follow. Anyway, I really enjoyed his routine. |
|||||||||
MeetMagicMike Inner circle Gainesville Fl 3519 Posts
|
The audience could think:
a) It's Real Magic b) It's Skill c) It's Special Effects (CGI or trapdoors for instance) As a performer, I'm going for the Skill explanation. I want them to think I'm fooling them. I'm not going for "real magic" because I don't want my audience to leave my show dumber. This has been the subject of debate on other threads. I realize that many magicians want to convince the audience that there is real magic. I don't. At the moment Will Tsai's coins began jumping around without cover it seems to me, skill is eliminated as an explanation. It's either real magic or special effects. It's unlikely for the home audience to conclude it's real magic because they are watching on TV so what's left is special effects. Maybe I'm wrong. Love to hear other viewpoints. |
|||||||||
|
Gaz Lawrence Inner circle 5991 Posts
|
Quote:
On May 28, 2017, MeetMagicMike wrote: I agree 100 % with your assumption Mike it's bang on the money Tarik 😊 |
|||||||||
|
Merenkov Elite user 420 Posts
|
Will's performance was beautiful and stunning. With an effect that powerful and visual, you don't need "showmanship" or "personality"; the effect speaks for itself. It was jaw-dropping for the judges, the audience, and for me...
|
|||||||||
|
Steven Conner Inner circle 2724 Posts
|
You can buy special effects that a child can perform but that's not magic. When its melted into sleight of hand, now you have something. It would appear this is the new wave of magic, (special effects or camera tricks).
Steve
"The New York Papers," Mark Twain once said,"have long known that no large question is ever really settled until I have been consulted; it is the way they feel about it, and they show it by always sending to me when they get uneasy. "
|
|||||||||
JonathanW Regular user 137 Posts
|
Not to start a fuss, but some of this you actually can do live closeup. I don't mean using a special table. I am talking about just a regular mat or table and you can wave over, coins change etc..
As far as the table he used. It'perfect for that setting. People seem to forget that there are more venues than walkaround. |
|||||||||
|
SimonCard Special user 601 Posts
|
This is stage illusion not close up magic. This can be perfectly fit into a stage illusion show like David Copperfield's grandpa's Aces trick.
|
|||||||||
|
MichaelJae Loyal user 281 Posts
|
When this hits the market, you won't see a blurb that say "It looks like real CGI". I know this quote has been said many times for other tricks, but this one, I doubt.
|
|||||||||
|
MeetMagicMike Inner circle Gainesville Fl 3519 Posts
|
I can see the point about stage illusion. When a stage magician waves his hand and a person vanishes and a tiger appears no one thinks he was palming the tiger. Those who don't believe in magic are left to conclude something mechanical happened but they are still fooled. They credit the magician with presenting the magic and they may even assume he created the trick.
So I agree that Will Tsai's trick could be taken that way. Clearly, his hands have nothing to do with the coins moving. He chose to expose that fact. The audience can reason backward and understand that when he covered the coins he was merely hiding the action. He wasn't causing the action. The audience is still mystified (assuming they don't jump to CGI). The judges know it isn't CGI so their reactions are legit. I don't love stage magic as much as I love sleight of hand magic. This kind of blurs the line. Some will appreciate that. I would rather not have the audience think coins can jump around on their own on the right table. (I don't know the specifics of how this trick is done. It could be that it is a marvelous display of sleight of hand using techniques that I am not familiar with. That would be a fun discovery for me. For now, it looks like a trick table) |
|||||||||
|
Tim Cavendish Inner circle 1408 Posts
|
Quote:
On May 28, 2017, SimonCard wrote: I saw the traveling version of The Illusionists last fall, and it did indeed use a similar fancy table for a closeup bit during Darcy Oake's turn on stage. I believe Darcy's table produced mice. To his credit, I believe Darcy's routine involved manual sleights before that, though. |
|||||||||
|
Melies Regular user Boston 114 Posts
|
I find it odd that so many folks are upset about the method here. Are we forgetting Robert-Houdin's countless technical innovations? Tsai's routine is a stunning piece of magic--mind-blowing. "If we could do real magic, this is what it would look like"--isn't that what we say? Well, this routine really is indistinguishable from real magic, and anything that thrills an audience is a success by definition.
Steve, you write: "You can buy special effects that a child can perform but that's not magic. When its melted into sleight of hand, now you have something." But is that really so? Yes, sleight of hand is the pivot for much of our art. But it isn't the whole story. Paul Daniels produced some videos before he died of him taking silly kids' magic gimmicks and turning them to account in performance. It's not in the method, it's in the effect--always. And in this case, the effect is staggering, regardless of how it was done. |
|||||||||
|
MeetMagicMike Inner circle Gainesville Fl 3519 Posts
|
Melies wrote:
Quote:
It's not in the method, it's in the effect--always. And in this case, the effect is staggering, regardless of how it was done. So you would be just as impressed with Will Tsai if you learned that this was all CGI? I'm genuinely curious about what you mean when you say regardless of how it is done. |
|||||||||
|
SimonCard Special user 601 Posts
|
This routine, just like Shin Lim's dream act and 52 shades of red, is a beautiful piece as a magic show, just that they are stage illusions not close up magic.
If not considering methods, I find Zack King's videos most amazing. |
|||||||||
|
SimonCard Special user 601 Posts
|
For a brief moment, I thought that table was a tablet kindda thing till he picked up those petals.
|
|||||||||
|
Steven Conner Inner circle 2724 Posts
|
Quote:
On May 28, 2017, Melies wrote: What I'm saying is, this indeed looked amazing, but was obvious. It reminds me very much of a chess board created in the eighties called the Excaliber Phanton where the pieces literally moved by themselves. It was an incredible piece which I also used for psychic chess. IMO, we are sending the wrong message when the trick is that obvious from the apparatus. Best, Steve
"The New York Papers," Mark Twain once said,"have long known that no large question is ever really settled until I have been consulted; it is the way they feel about it, and they show it by always sending to me when they get uneasy. "
|
|||||||||
|
MeetMagicMike Inner circle Gainesville Fl 3519 Posts
|
||||||||||
pepka Inner circle Uh, I'm the one on the right. 5041 Posts
|
I had several laymen friends comment on this that "I bet he can't do that on a real table." 'Nuff said.
|
|||||||||
|
blurrylines Regular user 185 Posts
|
Quote:
On May 28, 2017, pepka wrote: The table looked pretty real to me... |
|||||||||
|
mh1001 Special user 602 Posts
|
No one would believe Will is using sleight of hand, especially the moment when he snaps his fingers and the coins teleported, that explanation definitely becomes impossible. Since it removes one possible solution, either the spectator is left with no explanation or (if he is still very skeptical) that a special prop is used.
I don't know what it means to say "it's too perfect". For me, the issue is that when an effect is too simple for people, they guess right. Once, I was doing an ACR, everyone near me were blown away, but one girl (a child...) sitting at the other end of the table, far away from me, said she understands how it's done, and her hypothesis was correct. I tend to think that if we add complexity to our effects, it's much more difficult for the public to guess right, because it needs more imagination. For instance, if you make a silk vanish in your hands and then reappear in your hands, it's more likely they guess right than if you make the silk disappear and then reappear inside a card box, himber wallet, or else. Similarly, it's much safer to use sleeving for switching or impossible location effects than making it travel from your left to your right hand because in the first case there are two ideas/concepts whereas in the latter case you apply only one concept. I don't know how people would generally react to Will's performance, but I don't think the working of this effect is that simple to imagine. However, I can understand the feeling of those who think that because it's so strong that it eliminates one possible explanation (i.e., sleight of hand), its strength is also his greatest weakness. Quote:
On May 28, 2017, MeetMagicMike wrote: Even if you don't know exactly the method, if you understand the concept or idea, then, you're not fooled. If you understand I'm using sleight of hand, you're not fooled, even if you don't know which techniques I'm using. pepka, I'm wondering if your friends are more exposed to magic than others. |
|||||||||
Posted: May 28, 2017 07:55 pm 