People aren't arguing that the effect failed. They are arguing its unfair he used editing.
That doesn't make sense. I didn't bring up failed effects, you did.
If an audience believes a magician did something tricky through skill or gimmicks, the effect is a failed effect.
I guess when you wrote that I should have replied "People aren't arguing that the effect failed. They are arguing its unfair he used editing."
A camera trick in fact well defined.
I must have missed that definition in my official magician's dictionary and in many discussions in the last 50 years about exactly what counts as a camera trick. I'm hoping you can provide me with the reference to the definition so I can point people to it next time the subject comes up- I'd hate to have to tell them that it's true because Firecoins says so.
Anyhting using a camera to create an effect including angles are camera tricks.
Your well defined definition isn't very clear there. A camera can only film from one angle- the director has to decide which angle will be filmed. If more than one camera is used, the director has to decide which angles will be filmed and which won't. The the director or editor have to decide which angle will be shown on TV. By your definition, the only way to do magic on TV without using camera tricks is to have enough cameras to film every angle, then show every angle on TV.
Copperfield certainly can use camera tricks in his live shows. Since i am not familiar with what tricks he does in is act on stage nor his exact methods. Copeerfield had used camera angles on his television specials.
I'm reasonably familiar with almost everything he's done on TV (including the methods). Since the mid to late 80's most of what he's done has been taped during live shows.
I agreed that he had used camera angles on his specials. I even said that he had used camera tricks (which, despite your claim does not always include camera angles).
I am familiar with live tricks that can not be performed surrounded. I perform them.
Then you should know they're not camera tricks.
Whatever it takes to create the effect for the television audience from anlges to scenes, they are all camera tricks.
When you say "whatever it takes"... "from angles to scenes", you need to include a little more information. What's included between angles and scenes? If you do a chop cup routine for television, you require the cup and ball. A cup and ball now constitute camera tricks according to your definition.
If you do a routine that can be viewed from the rear it's okay when you do it live, but if you do the same trick for television and don't allow the camera to film from the rear you're using a camera trick?
And if a trick can be done surrounded but the television camera only films it from the front, that's a camera trick? Your "well defined" definition has some holes.
People believed Blaine actually was the real thing. None of them deserved any of the critisicm they received.
Who didn't deserve it? The people that believed it was the real thing (that would be a 'them', or Blaine (who would not be a "them")?
I say so.
Actually it does. On a television show you control what the television audience sees with angles and editing.
In a live show you control what the live audience sees with angles. In a live show you can't use editing- that's a big reason that magic is better suited to live performances than television. A live audience can be reasonably sure that you're not using editing to create the magic.
Everything on television is edited. Sometimes it controls what the audience sees, sometimes it's required to make the trick work, and sometimes it's done for any of a hundred other reasons such as shortening the time required to show it. Just selecting the points where the camera will be started and stopped is editing.
If Angel is using the editing room to create magic that never happened, you could make an argument that it's okay as long as he never gets caught.
I am making that argument.
Fine. Whether or not it's okay is opinion. But the fact is that he gets caught.
Yes it is. But I don't see how this eliminates the use of camera tricks on television.
I didn't say it eliminated anything. The excessive use of camera tricks could eventually eliminate magic on television.
There was plenty of bad magic on television like World's Greates Magic. It did prevent magic from being televised until Blaine.
Did anyone say there was never any bad magic on television before? I didn't.
And even the World's Greatest Magic had a lot of good magic on it- Bill Malone's performance of Sam the Bellhop, the Pendragons Metamorphosis, Mark Kalin and Jinger, Jeff Hobson's Egg Bag, Rene Lavand's 'I Can't Do It Any Slower', Penn & Teller's Bullet Catch, Tabary's rope routine, Lennart Green's performance. I'm sure there's something in there you liked if you actually saw all 5 shows.
Its my opinion in general that magic is a live art and television is not the correct medium.
I'd agree if you said that television was not the best medium for it. There is no correct medium- just some that are worse than others. Dunninger, Banachek and others have successfully done magic on radio, and radio is not the best medium either.
A lot of magicians were jealous of Blaine because of the "simple" effect Blaine made famous.
And a lot of magicians criticized Blaine for other reasons. Not every criticism is made because of jealousy.
I am doubtful of any magician who critizes a magician purely based on methods and not whether that magician is successful in to the lay audience.
What exactly do you doubt?
This is doesn't make any sense.
What part do I need to explain?
There's a lot of knowledgeable magicians who've never been on TV but know a great deal about the difference.
It doesn't make sense that people can know a great deal about something even if they've never done that 'something' themselves?
Many of them know the difference between doing magic and creating special effects, then calling it magic.
I'll rephrase that one:
"Many of the knowledgable magicians I referenced in the previous sentence know the difference between the following two things:
1- doing magic on television
2- creating movie special effects using various methods and then calling it magic.
Various methods would include such things as filming 2 different scenes and then going into the editing room and putting parts of each of those 2 scenes together to make it appear that only one scene was filmed. For example- filming a magician standing against a blank wall waving his hand and later filming another scene with a young woman standing against the blank wall. Later, in the editing room, the 2 scenes are edited so that it appears that the magician there waved his hand and the young woman magically appeared standing next to him.
Or filming a magician standing still and holdin a pose, then matting that into a scene with a different background so it appears that he's floating 50 feet off the ground.
Make sense now?
