Sigh...

[darosa.justin]

wow! Serious editing done to my previous post, and I presume, Steerpike's. So much for freedom of speech!

 

[Steerpike]

So much for freedom of speech!

Freedom of speech does not apply to privately owned messageboards. Remember that thread of mine you barged into earlier today just to take a shot at me? I addressed that very issue.

A privately owned messageboard is legally considered the same as private property: you are subject to the rules, guidelines, and restrictions as established by the owners. Freedom of speech itself means that Congress cannot pass legislation that abridges the individual's right to public expression except in cases of slander or libel. It was created to protect everything from political dissent to jingoistic patriotism, from the most offensive and disgusting fascist hate speech to the most vapid and hollow hippy talking points.

Ever been in a religious person's house and you knew you weren't allowed to swear or use blasphemous or sacreligious expletives in their home? Same thing here.

 

[dragon521]

First is the issue of the full performance. The simple truth is that some methods are ballsy and they're particularly ill-suited to a recorded performance because the camera picks up everything. What do you do about that?

Why not film it like a spectator would see it?

Second, the background information is something I would expect to learn in the actual source material. Let me give a quick illustration. In the trailer for Silver Dream, it's pretty concise. A few graphics, some title cards, and a performance video of Justin being Justin. That'll do for me.

I think it's always nice to see how live spectators see it and interpret it. When I personally (as a magician) watch an effect being performed, I'll make the assumption that I see it differently than a spectator would. After all, we perform more for the spectators than for ourselves.

And are not reviews individually meant to be taken with a grain of salt?

I agree, but if you have the knowledge of who the reviewer is and how he/she performs, you can take the review with a lot more than a grain of salt

(word count)

 

[The Dark Angel]

Guys, be respectful. If you can't be civil and respectfully disagree with each other, then there's no need for the thread to continue on. We try and keep things here as fun and light-hearted as we possibly can, and these threads are just not conducive to that sort of environment.

Thanks everyone,
TDA

 

[Steerpike]

Why not film it like a spectator would see it?

That's the thing. Cameras aren't like the human eye. Humans have to focus on specific points of interest.

Try this. Face whatever room you're in and move your eyes as far left as they'll go. Now try to smoothly move your eyes across the room to the far right. You can't do it smoothly, because your eyes keep jumping to points of detail to focus on.

Now do the same, but hold your index finger out and slowly move it from left to right. Now your eyes have something to focus on that makes the movement smooth and easy.

This is not the case for the camera. It captures everything. To put magic on camera requires the greatest cooperation between both the performer and the cinematographer.

I think it's always nice to see how live spectators see it and interpret it. When I personally (as a magician) watch an effect being performed, I'll make the assumption that I see it differently than a spectator would. After all, we perform more for the spectators than for ourselves.

I'm not sure how this addresses the point I was trying to make. Was this meant to be a reply to another part of my post?

I agree, but if you have the knowledge of who the reviewer is and how he/she performs, you can take the review with a lot more than a grain of salt

Granted, but I was speaking in a general sense.

 

[dragon521]

I'm not sure how this addresses the point I was trying to make. Was this meant to be a reply to another part of my post?

I was just saying I like to see live performances in a trailer for that reason, as opposed to just watching some guy perform it for the camera

 

[Tyler Johnson]

Trailers should show several things and give some information. Things it should show:

- An actual live performance either for the camera or people
- Some background information on the origins of the trick
Here's something we need to inject a little nuance into.

First is the issue of the full performance. The simple truth is that some methods are ballsy and they're particularly ill-suited to a recorded performance because the camera picks up everything. What do you do about that?

Actually, if you read my list it says "An actual live performance either for the camera or people". I never said it had to be a FULL performance, as I know some tricks are ballsy or can be picked up on camera. My point was for someone to show the trick actually working for a live audience with either spectators as the audience, (or if the trick can fool magicians) magicians watching a camera performance as the audience.

Second, the background information is something I would expect to learn in the actual source material. Let me give a quick illustration. In the trailer for Silver Dream, it's pretty concise. A few graphics, some title cards, and a performance video of Justin being Justin. That'll do for me. There's plenty of time on the DVD to go into the origins of Silver Dream. Why take up more time showing it all in the trailer? Isn't that just a little superfluous?

I find it good to know where the trick comes from. Also note I said "some" background information. Not ALL background information. Just give me a little nibble of who inspired the trick and so forth.

I know there are reviews for tricks to inform people, but some are misleading. Such as I saw a review for "The Ultimate Card Through Window", a trick that is completely impractical, that praised it saying it was one of the best tricks that the person owned. Those of you who bought it will know what I mean when I say it's unusable, even with amazing presentation.

Ah, therein lies the rub. Who writes the reviews? Do we go by name recognition? Preferred venue? Or is it a committee handpicked by the distributor(s)? A bizarrist is going to have a different perspective on, for example, Distortion than a children's magician or a corporate entertainer would. Isn't it up to the buyer himself to decide? And are not reviews individually meant to be taken with a grain of salt?

Usually magicians, customers, or friends of the creator, write reviews. In a perfect world, there would be a handpicked committee by magicians, full of magicians from every venue trusted to review tricks for those certain venues. But seeing as we aren't in a perfect world, I doubt that will ever happen. So, I don't think reviews that blast the trick out of proportion should be allowed. I also think it would be wise for reviewers to state what venue of magic the tricks fall into. But most don't and therefore buyers cannot make a good educated decision.

I agree with pretty much everything you said Tyler, and you basically spilled out everything I wanted to say.

Do you think length of previews should be thought about so much? i.e. should a company spend the time giving information in the preview that some people may not really care about, such as the history of the effect? Should previews be kept short and sweet, or detailed?

Well, I'm glad I said everything you wanted to say, saved us both the trouble. I don't think what I said will ever happen, but it is the "ideal" way to present a trick.

As far as the length of trailers, I think any length under four minutes is acceptable. That's plenty of time to put in many of the "ingredients" of a good magic trick trailer. Some people care about the history and want to hear it. If some people don't care about the history and don't want to hear it, they can skip over that part of the preview, it only takes a click. Previews should be detailed, I want to know what I'm buying before I buy it. With gas prices the way they are (which affect the prices of many other products), people are in need of money and can't spend it on something they won't ever use. Detail is good, detail is fine, detail is what we want. Peace!

Tyler

 

[Steerpike]

Actually, if you read my list it says "An actual live performance either for the camera or people". I never said it had to be a FULL performance, as I know some tricks are ballsy or can be picked up on camera. My point was for someone to show the trick actually working for a live audience with either spectators as the audience, (or if the trick can fool magicians) magicians watching a camera performance as the audience.

Fair enough.

Although in some cases I'd be willing to watch a more tightly edited trailer if it meant not having to listen to every other brat kid bragging about how they reverse engineered the method from watching the video (remember when Fallen was released?).

I find it good to know where the trick comes from. Also note I said "some" background information. Not ALL background information. Just give me a little nibble of who inspired the trick and so forth.

It still strikes me as being somewhat superfluous. What could they say in hte trailer that couldn't be better expressed in the product description?

Sell the sizzle, not the steak, as they say in sales.

So, I don't think reviews that blast the trick out of proportion should be allowed.

Why not just disregard reviews like that? If it sounds too good to be true, try to find advice from someone you trust more.

I also think it would be wise for reviewers to state what venue of magic the tricks fall into. But most don't and therefore buyers cannot make a good educated decision.

If the reviews don't tell you, you could always ask in places like the product questions forum.

Keep in mind that my perspective comes from my experiences trying to track down material for bizarre magic and spirit theater. Finding reviews on such books can be difficult at best, and more often than not I end up having to bite the bullet and buy the thing sight unseen. Most of my research comes from what I can gather about the author. For example, I've found a couple of articles written by Brother Shadow and learned that he's a member of the Inner Circle of Bizarre Magick, so his books are probably a safe bet. Mark Edward is the resident medium at the Magic Castle, so that gives him credibility.

Maybe it's just these experiences of mine, but I find it difficult to have sympathy for people who don't like their purchases, didn't do any research, bought too much into hype, or whatever else the reason for being unhappy with the decision may be.

 

[Rabid]

Steerpike - Is there a need to criticize EVERYTHING people say?

Now, for the actual discussion.

I agree with pretty much everything you said Tyler, and you basically spilled out everything I wanted to say.

?

Hahahahahahahahahaha....that gave me a good laugh.


Tyler,
Quick question:

With all the detail you'd like to see in the previews, do you not think that takes away some of the anticipation? For example (and obviously this may just be me) I get pretty excited about the arrival of some magic on my doorstep. I've usually spent the entire time from ordering to opening, running the effect through my head, wondering how it's done. It gives me great satisfaction to grab a cuppa and a rollie and sit down to either watch the method unfold before me or settle down to read it.

I can understand that some people would want to know if it has a gimmick or not, do you need to make it if it has, how much is the likely cost to the gimmick, what are the angles, how many people should I perform it for, the history of the effect and the creator etc. However, mostly this happens to a certain degree in the final preview (if it's been teasered) and / or the product page. The last few T-11 trailers have been pretty good in that respect, specifically in the background info from the creator of the trick.

A preview should be just that, a preview. It's there to whet our appetites for the main event.
In one form or another, from novels to movies, music to magic, this basic process hasn't changed in over a hundred years, so I wonder why it needs to change now?

Personally, I like to be kept guessing, keeps me thinking like a layman and I love that; that my knowledge of magic and its secrets haven't stopped me from being being overwhelmed by the presentation. And trailers etc are just another form of presentation.


Be interested on your thoughts on the above.


Rabid

 

[Tyler Johnson]

With all the detail you'd like to see in the previews, do you not think that takes away some of the anticipation? For example (and obviously this may just be me) I get pretty excited about the arrival of some magic on my doorstep. I've usually spent the entire time from ordering to opening, running the effect through my head, wondering how it's done. It gives me great satisfaction to grab a cuppa and a rollie and sit down to either watch the method unfold before me or settle down to read it.

Well, I think that teasers are fine. I work as a video producer/editor of documentaries for a production company and I release teasers. Usually I release teasers before everything is edited, so it's definitely fine to release teasers. BUT, in a full preview I want some information. I get excited about something arriving on my doorstep also, although I don't try to figure out how it's done. But, I get excited about it arriving because I'm not sure what it holds, I mean, I know the trick and everything, but I don't know the secret method. It's like knowing that there is a secret about Billy, but not knowing what the secret is. So you can still be very excited about a trick coming even with more information given about it.

I can understand that some people would want to know if it has a gimmick or not, do you need to make it if it has, how much is the likely cost to the gimmick, what are the angles, how many people should I perform it for, the history of the effect and the creator etc. However, mostly this happens to a certain degree in the final preview (if it's been teasered) and / or the product page. The last few T-11 trailers have been pretty good in that respect, specifically in the background info from the creator of the trick.

As for the information you listed as being given, I think some of them can be omitted. Such as: do you need to make a gimmick if it has one, how much does it cost to construct the gimmick, what are the angles, how many people should I perform for. I don't think those things are terribly important except of course if the gimmick costs an insane amount, the angles are horrible, and you can only perform it for one person.

But, for every advertisement it is key to have whether it is impromptu or has a gimmick (because those are the two basic groups tricks can be separated into), and some history on the effect. The reason for the history of the effect is this. Almost every single trick created today is either an old trick dug out from the bottom of the barrel and brought to the top or a trick that has been modified so that it works better (i.e. Easy Money, Hundy 500, Prophet). If some magician that put out a lot of unusable or crappy tricks was the inspiration of the trick, it helps you know two things: what kind of trick it is, whether it might be good or not.

A preview should be just that, a preview. It's there to whet our appetites for the main event.
In one form or another, from novels to movies, music to magic, this basic process hasn't changed in over a hundred years, so I wonder why it needs to change now?

Personally, I like to be kept guessing, keeps me thinking like a layman and I love that; that my knowledge of magic and its secrets haven't stopped me from being being overwhelmed by the presentation. And trailers etc are just another form of presentation.

What you said about movies, music, etc., is correct. But, think about it, if a movie is based on an old book or story, what does the trailer almost always state? It almost always says "Based on the book ----- ------- --------". That is some history of where the movie came from and since all of our tricks from this day and age are inspired by older tricks, we should give some origins as well.

I like to be kept guessing as well, guessing as to how the trick is done. Laymen always wonder how we do things because what we do amazes them. If you don't know the method of a trick, then seeing the preview (if the trick is good and fools you) will only make you more excited. Because you'll have no idea how it's done or accomplished.

Although in some cases I'd be willing to watch a more tightly edited trailer if it meant not having to listen to every other brat kid bragging about how they reverse engineered the method from watching the video (remember when Fallen was released?).

Reverse engineering a method is ethically wrong. I find it worse than a YouTube exposure video. The objective of the trailer IS NOT to help us figure out the trick, it is to let us SEE the trick. We shouldn't be reverse engineering, it's wrong. Also, you won't get all the subtitles/performance help that the creator will teach you.

Well, that's it for now, I have to go pick up my girlfriend in a couple minutes. Oh, and I don't remember what Fallen was released because I dare not get excited or buy such crap Steerpike. I'm only kidding Steerpike. This is turning into a good discussion. Peace!

Tyler

 

[Steerpike]

Reverse engineering a method is ethically wrong. I find it worse than a YouTube exposure video. The objective of the trailer IS NOT to help us figure out the trick, it is to let us SEE the trick. We shouldn't be reverse engineering, it's wrong. Also, you won't get all the subtitles/performance help that the creator will teach you.

I'm in no way trying to suggest I condone reverse engineering. But when you post videos of magic, there's a very real chance that people will try to pick it apart and figure out the method for themselves.

If there are certain parts of a routine that are just plain bold or ballsy, it really pays to edit.

 

[Tyler Johnson]

I'm in no way trying to suggest I condone reverse engineering. But when you post videos of magic, there's a very real chance that people will try to pick it apart and figure out the method for themselves.

If there are certain parts of a routine that are just plain bold or ballsy, it really pays to edit.

I knew you weren't condoning reverse engineering, I was just making sure everyone else knows it's wrong.

But, you are right Steerpike. Remember what I said in my post not to long ago though, "My point was for someone to show the trick actually working for a live audience with either spectators as the audience..."

You don't necessarily have to show the whole performance of the trick. BUT, show it truthfully working for a live group of people. Taking the camera and going behind the magicians back just so you can see the spectators faces is good enough for me. The point of showing this is so that magicians know it's usable, practical, and works on a live audience. Although it is preferred that a performance of the trick where you can see the trick is shown.

But, I gotta get to bed. Peace!

Tyler