Dynamo

[Matt Morrison]

Surprised no one else started this topic especially considering all the chat about magic in the Penn & Teller thread of late.
Perhaps you guys don't watch as many shitty channelled-programmes as I do but the adverts have been heavy for a few weeks.

Anyway I watched the first episode and have watched half of this week's but thought I'd ask about what you lot thought.
Some pretty impressive stuff (bearing in mind I don't know much about magic and not very good at working out how stuff might be done).

Some of it is a bit David Blaine-y and too obviously "behind the scenes" fake, like walking on water.
But then some stuff is still David Blaine-y but impressive, like the Matrix thing, or putting a mobile phone into a bottle.
Other stuff is kind of semi-obvious in a "I can see he's done something with that hand, but I don't see what or how it could help" such as the putting-hand-through-glass thing.
Finally some of it is just "WTF!1"-level incredible.

Opinions, etc.?

[Matt Morrison]

Also he has to get points round here for being the geekiest-looking and stupidest-voice-sounding un-magician-like magician physically. Was hilariously unexpected when we first heard him speak.

[Jon Corby]

I've watched the first one last week and started on this week's but am only up to the first advert break I think. It's quite enjoyable viewing, but again I have the slight issue where (like with Derren) I'm never actually quite sure of the effect that I'm seeing and judging, in the sense that some tricks are out-and-out stooges (like the woman with her tan lines), some are with props that he's blatantly planting and then editing out (for example the one where he goes to the guy on the street "can I just try something with this?" and takes from him an utterly squeaky-clean Coke bottle which there's no way he'd just be carrying i.e. it hadn't just been drank from) and some like the walk-on-water are just daft setups where there isn't really anything to think other than "well you're on some kind of platform or stilts".

(Incidentally the "beer bottle twist" trick is available for sale on the net for about £70. That doesn't mean I have any idea how it works, and I'm even more baffled when it says it can be performed on most brands, on full or empty bottles, only involves one bottle, which can be examined thoroughly both before and after twisting! But the point is, he's using a prop bottle, and we don't even really see if he's being clever about switching it out.)

So the problem I then have is when I see something that should be really cool (and quite possibly is), I just can't rule out that it's all just something stupid, and the people going "woah!" are in on it, etc etc.

It's a shame because I really do enjoy magic. I love seeing it done in person, because as I say I then know the full effect that I'm judging, and if the magician has to use a prop he has to be clever about switching it in. He can't just edit it in taking a bottle from me and using a particular phrasing to con me that it was mine all along!

[Lesley Hines]

I saw a how magic's done-type programme a while back and the walking on water's done by them walking on (small) perspex sheets just under the surface, and here was probably moving on some sort of underwater thing for full effect.

Still pretty cool though; we enjoyed it. I like stuff like that. Getting people like Noel Fielding / David Haye / Ian Brown / etc. in for credibility was a really smart move.

I was listening to Paul Daniels on the radio and he was saying that trying to work out how stuff's done takes the fun out of it and I'm inclined to agree*. It's fun just being impressed rather than going into it too much.

*Not necessary in his case

[Craig Beevers]

I've watched the first one last week and started on this week's but am only up to the first advert break I think. It's quite enjoyable viewing, but again I have the slight issue where (like with Derren) I'm never actually quite sure of the effect that I'm seeing and judging, in the sense that some tricks are out-and-out stooges (like the woman with her tan lines), some are with props that he's blatantly planting and then editing out (for example the one where he goes to the guy on the street "can I just try something with this?" and takes from him an utterly squeaky-clean Coke bottle which there's no way he'd just be carrying i.e. it hadn't just been drank from) and some like the walk-on-water are just daft setups where there isn't really anything to think other than "well you're on some kind of platform or stilts".

(Incidentally the "beer bottle twist" trick is available for sale on the net for about £70. That doesn't mean I have any idea how it works, and I'm even more baffled when it says it can be performed on most brands, on full or empty bottles, only involves one bottle, which can be examined thoroughly both before and after twisting! But the point is, he's using a prop bottle, and we don't even really see if he's being clever about switching it out.)

So the problem I then have is when I see something that should be really cool (and quite possibly is), I just can't rule out that it's all just something stupid, and the people going "woah!" are in on it, etc etc.

It's a shame because I really do enjoy magic. I love seeing it done in person, because as I say I then know the full effect that I'm judging, and if the magician has to use a prop he has to be clever about switching it in. He can't just edit it in taking a bottle from me and using a particular phrasing to con me that it was mine all along!

I agree about the whole editing/special effects/stooge elements. To a point it becomes a question of everything in the show could be one or many of those things, so it's like being amazed by some expensive BBC ident or Hollywood film. It goes away from being magic.

[Jon Corby]

I was listening to Paul Daniels on the radio and he was saying that trying to work out how stuff's done takes the fun out of it and I'm inclined to agree*. It's fun just being impressed rather than going into it too much.

No, I agree too - I'm not really into working out how "it" is done - I just want to be clear what "it" is. With all the editing, stooges, props etc., it becomes virtually impossible to be sure in each scene. Spoils it for me.

[Mark James]

I was listening to Paul Daniels on the radio and he was saying that trying to work out how stuff's done takes the fun out of it and I'm inclined to agree*. It's fun just being impressed rather than going into it too much.

No, I agree too - I'm not really into working out how "it" is done - I just want to be clear what "it" is. With all the editing, stooges, props etc., it becomes virtually impossible to be sure in each scene. Spoils it for me.

I think it depends on the trick. As Penn & Teller say, well Penn anyway, they will only show how a trick is done if the explanation is more interesting than the trick like in their Blast Off sketch but if you found out how they got the woman's glasses on Teller's head while he was inside the cement block it wouldn't be as impressive as the trick and could diminish it. Although I still kinda wanna know. It can depend on the magician too. I'd rather watch the masked magician explain Criss Angel's stuff than actually watch Criss Angel.

[Gavin Chipper]

I was listening to Paul Daniels on the radio and he was saying that trying to work out how stuff's done takes the fun out of it and I'm inclined to agree*. It's fun just being impressed rather than going into it too much.

No, I agree too - I'm not really into working out how "it" is done - I just want to be clear what "it" is. With all the editing, stooges, props etc., it becomes virtually impossible to be sure in each scene. Spoils it for me.

I'm completely the opposite. It's what the magicians want you to think - if they revealed their tricks they'd struggle to impress with other ones - but I find it strange when people actually want to not know. I suppose it's another of the tricks up the magician's sleeve - to convince the viewer that it is actually they who don't want to know rather than the magician not wanting them to know.

[Jon Corby]

but if you found out how they got the woman's glasses on Teller's head while he was inside the cement block it wouldn't be as impressive as the trick and could diminish it. Although I still kinda wanna know.

From memory, I don't think we saw Teller's (very heavily gloved) hands move at all, and he was clothed right up to the block, so my guess is that at least one was a fake arm and that he had one free to manoeuvre the glasses which Penn fed him. But that is just a guess.

[Matt Morrison]

The two coolest tricks on this week's then were the ring-to-sea-to-shoelace and the walking through glass.
The ring one was pure cool but the glass one was a bit annoying in that it was just too confusing, I kept watching the faces of the people outside and none of them seemed to be shocked or aware of what was going on.

[Matt Morrison]

some tricks are out-and-out stooges (like the woman with her tan lines)

As I don't know much about this stuff, I have to ask why is that so slash obvious?

[Jon Corby]

some tricks are out-and-out stooges (like the woman with her tan lines)

As I don't know much about this stuff, I have to ask why is that so slash obvious?

Because I've seen it exposed before. Spoiler:The tan line high under the sleeve is genuine (which is why it's hidden at the start of the trick, and can be examined at the end). The watch one isn't.

[Matt Morrison]

Oh yeah makes sense Jon.

I just watched the walking-through-glass one again.
Obviously the bouncers are staged, they're awful actors. I noticed the one on the right steps back and covers the light coming through the window, essentially creating a path for him to run round and go out the front door if he's quick enough. Which obviously makes every single person outside a stooge, and which means it's just TV magic.

I prefer the close-up more personal stuff like the ring on the boat. The ring-in-snowball was a good one too. He loves the ring.

[Jon Corby]

I prefer the close-up more personal stuff like the ring on the boat. The ring-in-snowball was a good one too. He loves the ring.

I do too, but I'm not enjoying his use of the edit. So many of his tricks seem to start with him going "can I just try something with this?" which is supposed to lull us into thinking that "this" (usually a bottle!) belongs to his volunteer, when in reality it's probably just his own gimmicked item that he's just handed them/placed down seconds or minutes earlier. It's getting on my tits as I'm finding myself having to do a lot of extra work myself to pin down exactly what's going on.

If a magician does a close-up trick to us involving a prop, a huge amount of the trick is often getting that prop into play. Otherwise it's kinda pointless. He just seems to skip past all that. It annoys me because it probably ruins some tricks where this kind of assumption isn't correct. EARN MY TRUST, DAMN YOU. His voice also reminds me of Ryan Taylor's.

The Penn & Teller show is pretty cool in this respect, because I feel well assured that WYSIWYG.

[Gavin Chipper]

It's getting on my tits as I'm finding myself having to do a lot of extra work myself to pin down exactly what's going on.

Let's get this straight - do you like to be amazed by tricks and not want to know what's going on, or do you actually like to be able to work out what's going on? For someone who definitely doesn't want to know, you do a lot of "detective" work.

[Jon Corby]

It's getting on my tits as I'm finding myself having to do a lot of extra work myself to pin down exactly what's going on.

Let's get this straight - do you like to be amazed by tricks and not want to know what's going on, or do you actually like to be able to work out what's going on? For someone who definitely doesn't want to know, you do a lot of "detective" work.

I'm obviously explaining myself badly because I've sensed that you have issues with my stance, whereas it all makes perfect sense to me.

I like to be amazed by tricks. However, I can only really be amazed if the parameters are clear. If I'm shown a clip of magician talking to somebody on the street as if he doesn't know them, I'm supposed to accept that he doesn't know them. If I'm unclear on this point, or it becomes obvious that he's misled me with his scene-setting, that's shithouse.

It's a bit crap if he brings his own wine glass out of his special magician's bag, and puts somebody's ring on the stem. It's much better if he takes somebody's wine glass from them and puts their ring on the stem. Yes, it's still the same trick wine glass* from his special magician's bag, but he's had to switch it without anybody noticing. Therein really lies the skill. He puts no effort at all into showing us this side of the act. We just get the clip starting with him going "can I try something with this please?", taking a squeaky clean (i.e. not just drunk from) Coke bottle from a stranger on the street, and then there's nothing else to think other than "he didn't just have that bottle with him. You've given that to him a minute ago, and you just didn't show us that bit".

Then you get other tricks which actually rely on the "stranger" being an out-and-out stooge.

So actually, you have no idea what it is you're supposed to be looking at. Are they an actor? Is that a prop? Did you plant that a minute ago? Etc etc. You have to try and figure it all out yourself. It's hard work. And it doubtless means that that trick, where he really did do something with genuine items with a genuine stranger was actually really cool, and you didn't appreciate it because you assumed it was something much more mundane.

*I actually have no idea how this trick is done, but I'm assuming it's some kind of trick wine glass. Otherwise, y'know, magic. Or a trick ring I guess, but then that would mean he stole their real ring

[Mark James]

Yes Jon, that all makes sense to me. It's why I don't like those street magician shows. There's far to much set up that you don't get to see. And I hate that driving blindfolded trick. How many magicians have done that at this stage. Imagine if every comedian told the same joke.

[Matt Morrison]

Yeah I agree with that Jon - it's especially evident in stuff like the ring on the wine glass stem, which suffers greatly for it.
Then there's the more impressive stuff like mobile phone in bottle which yes of course is some kind of trick bottle, yet that knowledge doesn't really help us explain it whereas we could probably all take a stab at some kind of wine glass that would allow the wine glass ring one to work.

Then there's the ring-overboard one which again is definitely going to be some sort of special shoelace prop, but still seems like better magic because the object being manipulated (the wine glass, the bottle, this time the shoe/shoelace) is never purported to be 'random' so doesn't get in the way so much.

But then there's the ring-in-snowball which, seeing that we see the guy create the snowball in the first place.... ah well actually if he's a stooge I guess they already have an identical ring buried just underneath the surface that he creates the snowball round in the first place. Hmm that only just occurred to me, I'm starting to see things your way. But it sucks to me, if all this is really the case, that at least half the tricks are solely TV tricks and require biased knowing participants.

[Gavin Chipper]

Is this the same guy who I saw as a spotty little teenager several years ago on TV doing the twisted bottle trick? I thought he looked vaguely familiar when I saw this. I haven't seen his programme because it's on some imaginery channel or something.

[Jon Corby]

I haven't seen his programme because it's on some imaginery channel or something.

It's on "Watch". If you don't get "Watch", you can catch it on "Watch+1".

[Jon Corby]

Gah, I caught a bit of his new series at the weekend and had to turn it off. In addition to his normal "can I just use this for a second?" to bring in a gimmicked prop which clearly belongs to him and has been placed just out of shot before the section starts, every single trick was sandwiched between a few minutes of him walking around giving some completely dull intro, and then a few minutes afterwards of the people near the trick saying what they had just seen. That's right, they're telling you what they saw, which is the same thing as what you just saw, except they're telling you from their perspective, which was a few centimetres to the side of the camera angle which you just saw it from. Plus, obviously, in amongst their description of the same-thing-that-you-just-saw-yourself, they simply have to drop in how they couldn't believe it and they were right there and how freaky it all was. Utterly excruciating