America's Got Talent WHAATTT?!?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Michael Kras, Jul 6, 2011.

  1. Memory serving, he got the boot last night (thank god! He and the poor little rich kid that wasted $50k on a 90-second preliminary audition and then had a bootleg of Harrary's "Janet Box" suffer technical problems. . . a prop that retails for over $20,000.00 normally, not working because it was made by a hack (I'm assuming, given the lack of deceptive style I'm used to seeing in the thing). . . but hey, who cares about quality in magic?

    AGT loves magicians in their show for one reason; they want to see them fail. Kevin James is still viewed as the "BEST" and most original magic act they've ever had on the show. He didn't go to the finals because the producers of the show want too much in way of salary cut, when they give you the big win and promote you for a year or two. Kevin had been around the biz way too long to put up with such games and wasn't nearly that desperate. . . which tends to be true for most; AGT was a quick PR visit that got them gigs and that was good enough.

    The old dude with the Cat. . . well, he flashes like a mad-man (I'm not a card guy and I can palm better) and too, he's trying to do Close-up Magic on a very big stage. . . worse, he's trying to stick with card tricks rather than stepping up to the plate and delivering something that fits the venue as well as expectations.

    When it comes to the line above "but it takes some serious guts to nut up and shut up and actually perform infront of that many people.? I couldn't help but chuckle; it's typically far harder (psychologically) to work for a dozen or less people regardless the kind of magic you may do (or any talent actually) simply because you don't have the numbers working to your favor; the more people, the "bigger" the reactions sound and of course, having 500 or more people gasping when you separate the two halves of the sawing cabinet is the sort of thing that punctuates the magic, something you cannot get when there's only 10 people in the room. . . trust me, I've had to endure such settings (anyone that's worked this stuff full-time knows said angst).

    Audience size should only be a consideration when it directly affects the style and type of performance you offer; the shows I offer now days would not work well for groups much more than 18 in size, because they were deliberately designed to cater to small audiences (I know of no seance that you'd do for 1,500 or more people that would be believable in today's world). The only other thing to be concerned with when it comes to audience size, is when it comes to depending on your percentage on the ticket take and how that compares to your operations nut.
  2. Call me stupid but i didn't understand about 50% of what you were trying to say.
  3. Someone commented on his abilities as a performer and a showman. WHAT!?!?!? What about his performance was remotely interesting, engaging, connecting, compelling, or logical? His technique was dreadful, his showmanship was that of every 60 year old uncle, and the AGT judges were either making fun or him or were completely out of their minds.
  4. I did BGT over here when i was 16. I knew I probably wouldn't get through, but I did it for the experience. I think the T11 dubbed 'Purple Leprechaun' probably did it for the same reasons.

    Yeah, the trick was at best pretty rubbish, and the patter took me back to an uncle showing me (rather badly) a trick when I was 7, but you've just got to love him! He has a warm personality that people can relate to and enjoy and laugh with rather than at.

    So what if we think he was a bit rubbish. He's in his 70's! There is no way that man is going to blow our minds with Dynamo-esque moves or anything like that. He now has his quotes from the Judges, just like I have mine, and he's now even more famous where he lives and his friends will look up to him more, cos thats just how it is :)

  5. Well regardless of how you feel (I rather liked him) we have three magicians (possibly 4) who made the top 48
  6. I actually kind of enjoyed him. Sure he flashed alot, but I think the reason why I liked him was because of how happy he seemed. It was like he was having the time of his life being there and his emotions overflowed into his performance despite how poorly it might've been put together.
  7. It is what I call the freak bonus. It may be interesting and amusing because he`s one of these dazzling personalities, but, and that is what matters, he wouldn`t make it in the long run. What Craig Browning says, they want to see him fail. Not laughing with him, but at him.
    Most of the time people will vote for what they know. That`s why singers are the most successfull on average, although we have a ****load of these.
  9. On a slightly unrelated note, I'm sick of seeing singers on America's Got Talent. The show's not called "America Can Sing"...
  10. I agree. It's good he's not being a doofus sitting watching TV all day. He's not rotting in a retirement home his whole life, either. Sure he was weird, but aren't we all?
  11. I know, right? It's actually more like, "America Can't Sing".
  12. I'm happy for the guy. Honestly, he is doing something to set himself apart from the stereotypical magician. How many of us can truly say that? I know I can't, although I'm working on that. It's nice to see someone different from the norm, even if his sleight-of-hand isn't perfect.
  13. He entertained me. What else can i ask for?
  14. #34 Craig Browning, Jul 8, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 8, 2011
    Not "Stupid" just inexperienced it would seem. . .

    I believe it was Michael Turco, one of the Illusionists that made it to Vegas, who's first audition involved three or four different production cabinets full of girls + a terribly built "Sub Trunk"... he did roughly 6 effects with a retail value of over $20,000.00 in under 90 seconds. . . nothing about it was "entertaining" it was little more than a kid with a bunch of neat toys showing off, free from any kind of logic, theme, script, etc.

    In Vegas the boy presented Harrary's "Janet Box" -- a multiple cutting -- which, when purchased from licensed manufacturers, retails at over $20,000.00. I'm betting this kid was using the $10,000.00 knock-off made in Mexico or the even cheaper version that comes out of China given the lack of deception set into the cabinet itself (the gimmick) and the over-all finish. . . it simply looks cheap and when it had the malfunction (when loading the girl) I was pretty-much resigned to the fact it was a knock-off and thus, the lad deserves NO SUPPORT whatsoever.

    Michael is the last act on this loop

    There's a huge misconception about big illusions; the lie we tell ourselves that owning a fancy cabinet will make us look "good" and of course, all you need is the prop and someone capable of working it. . . which is the real catch in that there is a big difference between working with a trained and disciplined box jumper vs. some girl you just happen to know in some way who is willing to help you out here and there with very little in way of rehearsal let alone knowing how to set the prop on stage, appropriate music (and sound levels in some cases), the sets that will prove most beneficial, etc. Big Magic means big headaches or responsibilities if you would.

    I'd think that my comment about crowd size was self-explanatory, I know that anyone that's been in this work for any period of time will certainly relate to it.

    About the Flashing. . . While I can give the old koot a bit of credit when it comes to being "entertaining" I have to likewise put on my big bear outfit when it comes to sloppy work and not being aware enough to focus on angle issues (particularly those pesky cameramen that are burning your hands). Albert Goshman flashed all over the place in certain of his routines and yet, it was never caught by cameras in the way this dude was. . . in other words, the tricks weren't EXPOSED.

    Sadly, the Purple Leprechaun is very representative of magic fans, very few active club members I've seen at SAM/IBM meetings being much better than he (most are worse). But look in this thread at how many made excuses for the guy and elected to ignore the slop in some way. . . this is the habit so many of us are guilty of and the reason so much of magic is viewed as "childish" and even "stupid" -- low end amusement that's certainly not worth more than $100.00 when it comes to a bit of home party entertainment.

    I know people hate hearing that sort of thing, but pay attention and you will notice it within the general public and even in movie scripts.

    I've spoken with the producers of AGT as well as one of the panel members, offering to either aid them as a consultant or at least, recommend qualified individuals that can better judge magic type contestants. Truth is, they could care less when it comes to such things, believing (and probably for the right reasons) the act should be ready to make it or break it in the moment; we should be able to wow the judges & audience by having an appropriate set that is polished, instead of thrown together slop; which seems to be what most of the magic try-outs bring to the table.

    Michael Kras made an observation here that is dead on. . . many of the "bad acts" don't realize they are the brunt of a joke when it comes to Howie (particularly) and Piers giving them "praise". I find this a very distasteful thing, but then I loathe the drooling Mr. Morgan seems to manifest every time there is a scantly dressed contingent of females wiggling their butts and jiggling their boobs (and of course, his sneers and obvious loathing of the Drag Queens and outwardly gay contestants. . . thank god they got rid of "the Hoff" who only compounded said homophobic energy). . . no, I have to side with Sharon when it comes to such acts in which women are living down to the level of sexual allure vs. talent. Not because I'm gay or a prude, but because its demeaning and perpetuates a collection of negative influences in society as a whole (I hate it when the lads do it too); One can project a special sort of sensuality without being blatant about it.

    Sorry. . . I'm running off on things today... broke my foot two nights ago and find myself struggling to not live in la,la land...
  15. I'm honestly kind of shocked that so many people here watch it. I always thought the show was kind of crap myself.But, hey, to each their own. I was puzzling in my mind the difference between AGT and BGT(I don't watch either btw) but I have been pretty unimpressed with the magic I've seen on AGT whereas I quite enjoyed David Penn's performance on BGT. Then on a lark I decided to check IQs. Britain has an average IQ of 100 and America has an average IQ of 98......Maybe that's why English TV brings us things like Penn & Teller's Fool Us and Derren Brown's Specials and American TV has EDITED BY USER....DIDN'T WANT TO START A FLAME WAR.
  16. Pretty sure we all know the show you were thinking of... But good on you for trying to prevent another one of those arguments. :)
  17. I haven't been speaking much here or in any on-line magic area at all, but the little bit I know has me wanting to side with this.

    I write. I'm in the middle of proofreading a huge project. The creative process is a matter of pure love to me, and this man really put together a creative act.

    It seems there was a similar act last year -- a fumbling old fool. Only, this man is at least showing some talent with magic. I don't really watch tv so I can't care too much. It does seem, though, that for all the self-aggrandizing hype about finding your own persona and not being a lifeless hack who relies on his props, going after this guy for doing exactly that is counter-productive.

    Do I think he's AGT material? No. I don't think the judges believe it either. This guy is another in a long line of disposable side shows to that program. As such, he will undoubtedly be dispensed with harshly enough for all of you to feel vindicated.
  18. Alrighty, so I was thinking about how Craig Browning said we were convincing ourselves that this guy is good. Well, I think I changed my mind about this guy and have now sided with Craig on this matter. Reason being that, I honestly have not ever really watched professional magicians and wouldn't know a good act from a bad act. I'm thinking that this is actually one of the reasons why everyone here is convincing themselves that this guy is a good entertainer. They don't know the difference between what's good and bad! I know I don't! Great, the purple leprechaun is getting out there and performing. Great, he's not another stupid crap magic geek only performing for his webcam. However, now that I think about it has this guy really put enough time and effort into his act for us to actually praise it? I think if he had, he wouldn't be flashing so much and he might have more entertaining patter and a better routine. I think the only thing I can really give him props for are his semi-creative outfit and the cat, but since when did your appearance dictate how good of a magician you are? Also to be honest, you can get about the same amount of creativity by watching a hippie on drugs. Therefore, I have decided to try and watch some more professional acts now and see what I can learn and what the differences are between pro acts and acts like the ones you see on America's Got Talent. If anyone has suggestions on acts for me to watch and could point me in the right direction it would be much appreciated.
  19. I have seen several professional acts, so I definitely know a good act from a bad one. I don't think his act is necessarily good, I just think we shouldn't be taking it so seriously. He's just an old man having some fun. Sure he flashed a lot, but it's not like any lay people are going to notice. They'll be too busy paying attention to the either the cat, the ridiculous outfit, or the girls. So his act was definitely effective with lay people. It's only bad from a magician's standpoint. But I don't think we should analyze every routine from the view point of a magician. Take David Blaine for example. Nothing he has performed has ever fooled me, and his really dull presence isn't very entertaining either. However, he gets incredible reactions from the average person, because he performs simple, hard-hitting tricks.

    Bottom line, the guy's act isn't the greatest. But his bizarre antics were at least somewhat entertaining, and I think we should stop criticizing him for having a little fun. It's quite rude. Plus, it's not like he's actually trying to win the show. He doesn't expect to be taken very seriously, therefore his act isn't very serious, and we shouldn't be taking it for something it isn't trying to be.
  20. You make me lol.

    Are you seriously trying to compare 'Fantastic Fig' to David Blaine? Also, I don't know what you mean by the 'average' person. Actually, maybe you're right. David Blaine is so un-entertaining that he has had multiple specials on television displaying his dull presence and magic tricks that are extremely easy for the 'above average' person to figure out.

    Everyone has their own opinion I guess. At least Fantastic Fig didn't try and eat the camera after his horrendous performance. Now if you'll excuse me, "It's time to dance"...

Share This Page

{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results