Blaine's use of gimmicks

kamalbensra · **Joined:** 13 May 2005 **Posts:** 235

markos84uk wrote:

Hi all

As I'm from UK, i'll add my two pennies.

Hit them, trick after trick in a routine, and don't give them time to think of the last trick.

Excellent point Markos.

Make that 4 pennies!

waxup · **Posted:** Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:23 am

I could not have said it better myself, Seriously, I couldn't.

It feels like a weight was taken off my shoulders, markos84uk. Thank you.
We got too many people on here who want an easy ride through magic without putting effort into anything. And it seems when they fail, they blame Blaine or someone else.

We should put your post on the front page.

markos84uk · **Joined:** 13 Jun 2005 **Posts:** 12

Glad you agree

magiclover1989 · **Joined:** 08 May 2005 **Posts:** 190

Ok in the Blaine street video, he may use alot of gimmicks and people no that you couldnt really bite the coin but there reactions to it are amazing cuz hes so good at slight of hand and swiching the coins they think that its really there coin.

coolsnail · **Joined:** 06 Jan 2005 **Posts:** 406

Quote:

Ok in the Blaine street video, he may use alot of gimmicks and people no that you couldnt really bite the coin but there reactions to it are amazing cuz hes so good at slight of hand and swiching the coins they think that its really there coin.

I'm normally never a spelling Nazi, but I really find it amazing how you can pack no less than 13 errors into such a short sentence.

1. Both the O and the K in OK should be capitalized
2. Comma needed after OK
3. A lot is two words
4. no is spelled k-n-o-w (for crying out loud)
5. couldn't requires an apostrophe
6. Comma needed before but
7. their instead of there
9. because or even 'cause instead of cuz
10. he's requires an apostrophe
11. sleight of hand not slight of hand
12. it's requires an apostrophe
13. their instead of there

I admit that the usage of the word cuz is colloquial and you were just trying to convey a casual attitude in your post, but the other 12 points are 100% legitimate.

I'm not trying to be nasty, but seriously, if you don't learn better communication skills nobody is going to take anything you say seriously on this forum or any other.

magiclover1989 · **Joined:** 08 May 2005 **Posts:** 190

Oh wow aren't you cool sitting there correcting everything. I guess you must be really bored.

Sunnydolan · **Posted:** Fri Jul 29, 2005 11:25 pm

coolsnail's a spelling nazi. Sorry, i forgot to capitilize your name.

gordob · **Joined:** 19 Aug 2004 **Posts:** 85

One of the things that some of you have been hinting at is that magic happens in the eyes of the spectator, not the hands of the magician. All the time around here I see people bashing magic DVDs or tricks because they are not magician foolers. People say Oz is a bad magician because his performance style is a little weird. That may be so to us, but the guy has his own show in New York City. What I'm trying to say is that we see magic differently than muggles/laypeople. When was the last time you were a spectator watching a trick, not a magician figuring out what is mechanically wrong with it. Now for Blaine's presentation. I don't like it and I want to call it weak, but it deffinately is not so. Blaine has, like some magicians before him, ripped magic of it's glamour and in doing so has made it more realistic to the audience. With the same outcome he has taken away the often present humor of magic. He has made his presentation of tricks raw and more casual. As I said I don't like it, but it works.

yankees · **Joined:** 15 Mar 2004 **Posts:** 3

Personally, I believe that Blaine has givin magic a GOOD name. Alot of people, like myself, weren't interested in magic until we saw blaine on t.v., doing those crazy stunts, and floating. Now, I do agree that he is not a traditional magician, but, he does what he wants and he loves what he does.

magicdude84 · **Joined:** 21 Apr 2005 **Posts:** 929

None of us acually know how Blaine performs. He may acually be patter heavy, we just dont know. Most of us dont even have a clue what Jay Sankeys patter is like because he does not use it for most of his videos. Just think for a moment that Blaine may not be performing these effects outside of his tv specials, and if he does, maybe he doesnt want every [edited] 15 year old using his patter

LOVEthe_Raven1974 · **Joined:** 10 Aug 2005 **Posts:** 61

tonyjones102 wrote:

Well, the two recently posted polls caused alot of commotion. Most of which included something along the lines of "Blaine is a fake. He's a poser for using gimmicks." :roll:

Now I'm not supporting Blaine, but I am certainly not against him. The same goes for my stand on gimmicks. In my opinion, you can be a great magician if 100% of your reportoire is gimmicked, and you can be a great magician if 100% of your reportoire is sleight of hand only. But I do think that in both cases, the magician can be missing out from magic's true potential. So of course, when I see people saying Oz is better than Blaine because Blaine uses too many gimmicks, I feel sick to my stomach.

Gimmicks has nothing to do with how good either one of them is. One of the main reasons why I feel David is actually a good magician is by one of the things he says to Leonardo DiCaprio in his interview on one of his TV specials. He sates that "Magic is an art. But today, if people want to learn about magic, they have to go a library and look under hobbies and games." He says this with a disgusted voice. This shows that he truely cares for his art. He also states alot of things through out the special that shows that he also has a wide knowledge of magic's history.

Now, this is mainly directed to the people who think that David uses ONLY or TOO MANY gimmicks, thus making him a bad magician (which is an absurd comment anyway). You probably won't understand that using them won't make you a bad magician, so if the following is the only way I can get my message to you, then so be it:

I watched the David Blaine Fearless DVD (Containing the best of all of his TV specials, except for Vertigo (Street Magic, Magic Man, and Frozen in Time.)

Here are the statistics:

Of the 50 effects peformed on the specials, 30% of them used factory manufactured gimmicks. (Examples include Bite Out Quarter, Rising Card Deck, Invisible Deck, etc)

69.94% of them were a mixture of both Impromptu effects, and effects needing slight set-up. (An example of an impromptu trick was the ACR, and an example of a trick requiring a slight set up was a Here then There Transposition). Of the 69.94 percent, 47.75% required some set up, and 56.25% of them were completely impromptu.

0.06% of them I consider to be a category X. These are effects that were mainly there for television purposes only, and would be extremely unpractical on the street, such as "Card in Spectators Shoe."

So to the people who were basing Blaine's skill on the fact that he uses too many gimmicks (and I'll say again, this is a dumb thing to base your opinion on), you are still wrong, as when you compare the amount of gimmicked tricks, to the amount of tricks requiring set-up, to the tricks that are completely impromptu, the latter takes the majority!

-Tony

ok great post, i agree with you completely. the point of a magician is to astound people and entertain them, so if gimmicks are your thing why does that make you a bad magician?
as long as there amazed your doing good gimmicks or not .

blaine rocks

LOVEthe_Raven1974 · **Joined:** 10 Aug 2005 **Posts:** 61

sk8board_2nd wrote:

if a magician were to use 100% gimmicks and get away with it that doesn't make him a magician, it makes him a good actor

no way that makes him a good magician. either sleight of hand or gimmicks, your cheating them some how. :twisted:

mattsharpe · **Posted:** Thu Sep 29, 2005 6:42 pm

LOVEthe_Raven1974 wrote:

sk8board_2nd wrote:

if a magician were to use 100% gimmicks and get away with it that doesn't make him a magician, it makes him a good actor

no way that makes him a good magician. either sleight of hand or gimmicks, your cheating them some how. :twisted:

Actually, a magician is an actor, playing the role of a magician. Quote from Robert- Houdin, as many of you know.

It's hard to interpret this quote, becuase some parts may have been lost in the translation, but from what I've gathered, basicly Houdin was saying that, as a magician, you know how your effects work, however the true test is your ability to sell an effect as real magic, this is acting. It's not saying you're not a magician, it's saying you're acting a certain role to your spectators, and that no matter what the method, you're acting for them.

So to respond to skateboard, no matter what the method being, a magician is a magician, however an actor at the same time.

TribbieSt · **Joined:** 01 Apr 2005 **Posts:** 120

Well spoken, matt. Frankly, whether or not we like Blaine's style, his use of gimmicks, or his sleight of hand (yes, believe it or not, he does use sleight of hand), Blaine brought magic back to the people for whom it was meant: non-magicians, and he does it without sequins and fog. What he's doing - for those of you who have bothered to actually research him, rather than simply bash him - is bringing back the Harry Houdini-style of magic - sheer, unadulterated (look it up if you don't know the meaning) astonishment. He's Houdini/Molini/Paul Harris wrapped into one.

"The means of getting there [to that moment of astonishment] is unimportant, so long as you get there."
- Paul Harris

mattsharpe · **Posted:** Sat Oct 01, 2005 12:05 am

TribbieSt wrote:

Well spoken, matt. Frankly, whether or not we like Blaine's style, his use of gimmicks, or his sleight of hand (yes, believe it or not, he does use sleight of hand), Blaine brought magic back to the people for whom it was meant: non-magicians, and he does it without sequins and fog. What he's doing - for those of you who have bothered to actually research him, rather than simply bash him - is bringing back the Harry Houdini-style of magic - sheer, unadulterated (look it up if you don't know the meaning) astonishment. He's Houdini/Molini/Paul Harris wrapped into one.

"The means of getting there [to that moment of astonishment] is unimportant, so long as you get there."
- Paul Harris

Exactly what people in this thread were trying to get at(for the most part).

Actually to be perfectly honest, Blaine was what caused me to get into the art, after watching his specials. I still love watching them, I learn different techniques each time I see him perform. Granted I may not use them, considering our styles are very contrasting, however it's still good to watch and learn.

Criss Angel is obviously now, also a very controversial guy. I've always felt, while watching his shows, that there is some camera editing used, but why should this bother me? Is he cheating me by doing this? No. I think people become angry because of this, because they can't just go and find out how to do it online, however if you were to take the time and learn, many things he does can be done without editing, the're just enhanced by it.

Granted there are some things that can't be done without editing, but if you expand your ansenol of effects, you can have much better effects of the same genre, to satisfy your spectators.

Blaine's use of gimmicks

Who is online