View Cart | View Account | Help
Order by phone: 800-880-2592
Check out our favorite NEW ARRIVALS
Need it fast? Order before 4pm Eastern and your order ships SAME DAY.

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 1:06 am 
Offline
born to perform.

Joined: 18 May 2006
Posts: 1784
Well generally yeah you're right, but I think Metamorphisis would be a rare exception in my opinion since it is such a classic effect that has been around so long performed a certain way so much. I think Metamorphisis is not only the specific effect but also the specific method as well, and other methods for doing it are just similar effects. At least thats my opinion about Metamorphisis....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:15 am 
User avatar
Offline
born to perform.

Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 898
LoyalAnanya wrote:
clarissa35f wrote:
To them it LOOKED like Metamorphosis. Because it was clothed to look like Metamorphosis.


I always thought Metamorphosis is just the effect, the part of the illusion people can see. Thus to disappear and reappear as fast as possible, whether it's done by getting caged in a box and reappearing on top of it, or with a cloth in a different way.
What I mean is that I thought, when it looks like metamorphosis, then it is- and the method, everything what happens out of view, is up to the magician, but doesn't change the illusion or the definition of it. Isn't an illusion almost always named after the effect?

Thanks clarissa, I learned something new today, though I'm still far away from understanding everything... :? :wink:
I don't get why different ways to do an illusion with the same visual effect are defined as different illusions. Of course that makes sense when it's discussed by magicians who know the details, but for the audience is only important what they see.


In My opinion, the method Used does matter. The Pendragons held a record, for doing Metamorphosis, exactly as Harry Houdini did it, Only a edited of a LOT faster. THAT is what the record was for.

Anyone can do it in half a second the way Criss did. Fact is, that if all that is being judged is the effect it is Possible to do the effect is...say 1/10th of a second. But then you tip the gaff to the audience.

They will see through it as fast as any of us do it.

While I can understand that all the audience sees IS the effect, and to them they are BOTH the same effect. To say " This Magician Holds the world's Record for THIS Illusion." well, every magician that has done it, has done it exactly as Harry Houdinin did it, just faster. It's Not about whether it is smoke..... or a cloth.... That is irrelevant.

The Method is not about smoke or a cloth. In my opinion the reason to use smoke is that that way, it is easier to hide cut edits than with a cloth.

I am sure that to get the world record he did not use a cut edit, since it is Possible to do it extremely fast without one. But for a TV show... I think he would use a cut edit that way he can do it at a leasurely pace, and not have to rush...in other words... the TV audience assumes since he can do it realllly fast in person they are getting the same treatment. I think his TV audience is gettin Gypped.


Sorry, I don't like Crissy.... I think he has a nasty a**ed attitude, and he has arrogance not backed up by skill, he has fallen into the easy trap of using camera edits and stooges for all his telivised performances.

Fact is, if I were looking for camera editing, I'd watch a Star Wars Movie. Not his magic show.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:22 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Penguin

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 147
Location: Far Far Away, coming back in November
clarissa35f wrote:
LoyalAnanya wrote:
clarissa35f wrote:
To them it LOOKED like Metamorphosis. Because it was clothed to look like Metamorphosis.


I always thought Metamorphosis is just the effect, the part of the illusion people can see. Thus to disappear and reappear as fast as possible, whether it's done by getting caged in a box and reappearing on top of it, or with a cloth in a different way.
What I mean is that I thought, when it looks like metamorphosis, then it is- and the method, everything what happens out of view, is up to the magician, but doesn't change the illusion or the definition of it. Isn't an illusion almost always named after the effect?

Thanks clarissa, I learned something new today, though I'm still far away from understanding everything... :? :wink:
I don't get why different ways to do an illusion with the same visual effect are defined as different illusions. Of course that makes sense when it's discussed by magicians who know the details, but for the audience is only important what they see.


In My opinion, the method Used does matter. The Pendragons held a record, for doing Metamorphosis, exactly as Harry Houdini did it, Only a edited of a LOT faster. THAT is what the record was for.

Anyone can do it in half a second the way Criss did. Fact is, that if all that is being judged is the effect it is Possible to do the effect is...say 1/10th of a second. But then you tip the gaff to the audience.

They will see through it as fast as any of us do it.

While I can understand that all the audience sees IS the effect, and to them they are BOTH the same effect. To say " This Magician Holds the world's Record for THIS Illusion." well, every magician that has done it, has done it exactly as Harry Houdinin did it, just faster. It's Not about whether it is smoke..... or a cloth.... That is irrelevant.

The Method is not about smoke or a cloth. In my opinion the reason to use smoke is that that way, it is easier to hide cut edits than with a cloth.

I am sure that to get the world record he did not use a cut edit, since it is Possible to do it extremely fast without one. But for a TV show... I think he would use a cut edit that way he can do it at a leasurely pace, and not have to rush...in other words... the TV audience assumes since he can do it realllly fast in person they are getting the same treatment. I think his TV audience is gettin Gypped.


Sorry, I don't like Crissy.... I think he has a nasty a**ed attitude, and he has arrogance not backed up by skill, he has fallen into the easy trap of using camera edits and stooges for all his telivised performances.

Fact is, if I were looking for camera editing, I'd watch a Star Wars Movie. Not his magic show.



Thank you for the explanation! And I respect your opinion about Criss, just wanted to let you know that. So I hope you respect mine too. :wink:
I appreciate the fact that it's after all possible to discuss about the man in a respectful way. I thought that this was the case when I entered the forum for the first time, then I got a little disappointed by scrolling through the topics and read a lot of hateful and heatedly posts... I understand your opinion about camera edits in Mindfreak and that other magicians get angry about the fact that he is nevertheless such a big star. I still love the show. He may not be the best magician of the world, but he created an art and a personal image that causes emotions beyond all I ever experienced before- on both sides. On the one side there is unconditional love- I know that some of us Loyals even make themselves look "scary" and "brainwashed"! :lol: On the other side there's extreme hate, and many people on both sides seem to love arguing about that. And that's one fact that just fascinates me about Criss. I still believe he has more skills than many people put it past him, but I don't want to try to persuade you. :wink:
Again, thanks for the clarification about Metamorphosis, I was really a little confused.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:20 am 
Offline
Penguin

Joined: 11 May 2008
Posts: 252
DaveV wrote:
Shot live in front of an audience doesn't mean it wasn't edited before broadcast. One doesn't prove the other didn't happen.

I don't think it was sped up anyway. He had plenty of time to do what he needed to do without extra "trickery."


still, I doubt that he edited this one. I'd be able to do it this fast, and exactly like this, and I could do it live (If I had the equipment..........)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:22 am 
Offline
born to perform.

Joined: 18 May 2006
Posts: 1784
metzykid wrote:
DaveV wrote:
Shot live in front of an audience doesn't mean it wasn't edited before broadcast. One doesn't prove the other didn't happen.

I don't think it was sped up anyway. He had plenty of time to do what he needed to do without extra "trickery."


still, I doubt that he edited this one. I'd be able to do it this fast, and exactly like this, and I could do it live (If I had the equipment..........)


Lol watch it in slow motion, then tell me that... I'm telling you you can almost see the cut lol.... just like other times he uses this editing method, its just a method you can kind of see happening if you know whats happening...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:30 pm 
Offline
Penguin

Joined: 29 Jul 2008
Posts: 4
Well maybe that was edited but i know a way to do it without editing and doing it under a second.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:50 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Moderator

Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 8861
Location: Las Vegas
thecooltonto wrote:

Lol watch it in slow motion, then tell me that... I'm telling you you can almost see the cut lol.... just like other times he uses this editing method, its just a method you can kind of see happening if you know whats happening...


You missed the point I was making, and metzykid after me. Criss didn't *need* to resort to camera trickery (mistakenly called "editing") to accomplish the illusion, and probably didn't. He has done this in a live venue before. The editing that probably did occur was for post production, which happens all the time in television. That's how they fit the shows in the time allotted and to allow for commercial breaks. If an editor sees a half second of extraneous smoke and he can make the cut without interrupting some other scene, then that would be the logical place to do it. It might mess with our concept of "no camera cuts" but there have been many shows that were ruined as far as magicians were concerned because some producer wanted to insert a reaction shot rather than keep one continuous take. Even Copperfield has fallen victim to this. During his torn and restore baseball card routine, the producers had the final say and cut to Wayne Gretzky for a reaction shot instead of focusing on the card like they should have done.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2009 Penguin Magic, Inc.