tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12658605.post113123517756006240..comments2023-05-23T15:12:59.365-07:00Comments on PeaceLove's Musings: On Stooges, Camera Tricks, and Strong MagicPeaceLovehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05571571887644175214noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12658605.post-1131348963289938802005-11-06T23:36:00.000-08:002005-11-06T23:36:00.000-08:00I'm not arguing FOR camera tricks; for the most pa...I'm not arguing FOR camera tricks; for the most part I think they're more of a risk than they are worth. With the first Blaine special, he showed the reactions of many different people to the levitation before he actually showed the levitation. I think that the rise he did was extremely strong, at least for many of his spectators. It would, however, be hard to convey that to an audience at home. So the "cheat" in a certain way conveyed the essence of the effect -- even though it showed a levitation that was in fact impossible.<BR/><BR/>Given the choice, I'd still have preferred if Blaine hadn't cheated, for the reason Jeff cites above. On the other hand, I don't have any TV specials and Blaine has had four.PeaceLovehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05571571887644175214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12658605.post-1131317540984613092005-11-06T14:52:00.000-08:002005-11-06T14:52:00.000-08:00People have always suspected "camera tricks" with ...People have always suspected "camera tricks" with magic on TV, way before computer graphics were easily available to create anything. The whole concept of doing tricks outdoors is to show, without saying so, that it's really happening and not a camera trick.<BR/><BR/>But the audience is still pretty good at catching onto things that are fishy. The levitation at the end of the first Blaine special, while spectacular, is the first thing people would mention to me as a "camera trick" when they talked about it. In Blaine's case, the rest of the special was so good, and Blaine was so charismatic, that they forgave him for that one.<BR/><BR/>I guess that means that if most of your TV special can actually be accomplished live, and you toss in one or two moments like that, you don't lose credibility, since the audience is already on your side.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12658605.post-1131311848682093442005-11-06T13:17:00.000-08:002005-11-06T13:17:00.000-08:00Thanks for the long comment! I don't think the fo...Thanks for the long comment! I don't think the folks holding the paper need to be stooges, although given the budgetary and time constraints of making a TV show there are obvious advantages to having your friends do the holding and reacting.<BR/><BR/>I have no trouble with accepting different behind-the-scenes rules for TV magic and live magic. The ONLY issue, for me, is whether or not you risk blowing your credibility. This has nothing to do with ethics or "real world" morality; it's entirely practical.<BR/><BR/>I agree that the camera trickery issue is a slippery slope. On the other hand, I've always felt that magic on television is AT BEST a fraction as effective as magic done live. Given this disadvantage, you need all the help you can get to try to make your TV tricks as powerful as possible. Blaine figured out how to do this with close-up magic (do it over and over on the street to real people and show the best reactions you get) but I think it's much, much tougher with big illusions. These really need to be experienced live, in my opinion.<BR/><BR/>Maybe magic on TV will always have a credibility problem, and maybe that's why, for the most part, no one but other magicians seems to particularly care about it.PeaceLovehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05571571887644175214noreply@blogger.com