I think the idea of the 'cool' magician has become a dated cliche in itself now. Which is ironic because magicians only started acting cool to get away from the previous stereotype of a magician.
I like Pete Firman though. I like his style, he can be quite funny. You seem to infer that he's ugly though. I wouldn't have said so myself. He just has a boyish look if that makes sense. I prefer his mischievous style rather than most magicians who swagger around as though they're too cool for school and don't have emotions, as if they're jaded by magic like it's a superpower they're bored of.
No, I'm a fan of Mr Firman and he has even dragged me up on stage to 'assist' him. I'm not saying that he is ugly at all, but he is not muscly, designer stubble, boy band pin-up either. Just watch his egg bag routine live and you will see that whilst the trick is as old as the hills, Pete Firman can work an audience like the pro he is and obtain genuine belly laughs from an audience.
Derren Brown doesn't do 'box jumping' and as far as box jumpers go, Copperfield is still king and did it without looking like a Boyzone reject.
(Box Jumpers is the in term for illusionists, if you hadn't guessed. (More so of their assistants as it's normally them who do most of the box jumping))
..................Take Darcy's metamorphoses (Houdini's Trunk Illusion) - His only added thing was Perspex sides, which he draped his sheet over and so hid them, rendering that null and void. .....................
Isn't the trick even older than Houdini's use of it? However, I thought the main objective was in how quickly the sheet could be raised and then lowered.
I've seen it done with what seemed to be no pause at all. In this version, the sheet was up for a number of seconds. And the box seemed to be a lot larger than is usual for this trick.
Isn't the trick even older than Houdini's use of it? However, I thought the main objective was in how quickly the sheet could be raised and then lowered.
I've seen it done with what seemed to be no pause at all. In this version, the sheet was up for a number of seconds. And the box seemed to be a lot larger than is usual for this trick.
Well yes, all in all, the change-over wasn't the slickest on record by any means. I've seen some amateurs do it quicker!
The Pendragons are noted as being pretty slick in metamorphosis but then they have/had been doing it for decades.
Copperfield's version doesn't even use a box and the speed is bloody fast!
Well i thought it was good! I couldnt work out how he did any of the tricks.
The only things i didnt like about the show were bleakley, and the bits where he was in blackpool. Im not keen on street magic on tv because it always seems "fake" in the sense that it could easily be edited. I much prefered the on stage stuff.
I actually think he seems quite nice. Sometimes too much charisma ruins a show. The only thing he seems to lack at the minute is energy. Most illusionists are high octane, and very enthusiastic. I cant really blame him from that show because it was very slow paced for the benefit of itv, but there seemed too much resting in between acts and not a lot of pazazz.
When he did the trick with the motorbike i did think to myself ooh hes looking to replace criss angel! I think with a little bit of work on showman ship, and some fine tuning he could be better than criss angel.
The credit card trick let him down too. He forgot to include the sort code and the title Mr.
Well i thought it was good! I couldnt work out how he did any of the tricks.
The only things i didnt like about the show were bleakley, and the bits where he was in blackpool. Im not keen on street magic on tv because it always seems "fake" in the sense that it could easily be edited. I much prefered the on stage stuff.
I actually think he seems quite nice. Sometimes too much charisma ruins a show. The only thing he seems to lack at the minute is energy. Most illusionists are high octane, and very enthusiastic. I cant really blame him from that show because it was very slow paced for the benefit of itv, but there seemed too much resting in between acts and not a lot of pazazz.
When he did the trick with the motorbike i did think to myself ooh hes looking to replace criss angel! I think with a little bit of work on showman ship, and some fine tuning he could be better than criss angel.
The credit card trick let him down too. He forgot to include the sort code and the title Mr.
Really?
Angel actually innovates, he doesn't do straight copies. His version of metamorphosis is not only different but slicker than the one presented on this show and highly theatrical in comparison.
To be fair Angel is a student of Lance Burton and Burton and Copperfield are peers. Angel's never tried the scale of Copperfield's work, his thing is using gothic indoor settings or brightly lit outdoor situations, he doesn't do anything as comprehensively inventive as Copperfield or his mentor Burton. That kind of stagecraft comes with time and I think Angel recognises his isn't as good which is why he does more assisted theatrics and set pieces compared to Burton and Copperfield who pride themselves in appearing alone in the illusion for their bigger set pieces.
Angel actually innovates, he doesn't do straight copies. His version of metamorphosis is not only different but slicker than the one presented on this show and highly theatrical in comparison.
I think darcy is more likeable than criss angel, and although criss is good, he relies a lot on just running around the stage screaming "are you ready" and having his performers carry some of the acts for him. I cant slate him for his magic but he does come across a bit too arrogant at times, but i suppose that comes with the fame maybe?
Criss angel also has the benefit when performing live of having the sound effects, the music, the lighting, the performers and i guess the freedom to do as he pleases. With darcys show you could tell it was very constructed and didnt have the natural flow that you get at a live show. Maybe for the live audience it was better?
With regards to whether the men were plants, does that really matter? When the woman was being supported by just one hand, is that more to do with her ability than whether the man was a plant? Obviously a plant would work better but i dont think that took anything away from the illusion. Ive seen that trick done before where the woman was supported by the back of a chair under her shoulders so im guessing this is the same principle.
I think darcy is more likeable than criss angel, and although criss is good, he relies a lot on just running around the stage screaming "are you ready" and having his performers carry some of the acts for him. I cant slate him for his magic but he does come across a bit too arrogant at times, but i suppose that comes with the fame maybe?
Criss angel also has the benefit when performing live of having the sound effects, the music, the lighting, the performers and i guess the freedom to do as he pleases. With darcys show you could tell it was very constructed and didnt have the natural flow that you get at a live show. Maybe for the live audience it was better?
With regards to whether the men were plants, does that really matter? When the woman was being supported by just one hand, is that more to do with her ability than whether the man was a plant? Obviously a plant would work better but i dont think that took anything away from the illusion. Ive seen that trick done before where the woman was supported by the back of a chair under her shoulders so im guessing this is the same principle.
The difference is essentially guys like Angel and Copperfield innovate or change old tricks with new twists. This was essentially a tribute act to other performers acts with no innovation. It's like a bad cover version of the original song rather than a reinvention of it. This show was Limp Bizkit singing Behind Blue Eyes by The Who as opposed to Angel who is like Mark Ronson doing Valerie by The Zutons. You see the influence but it's a funkier, stylistic reinvention.
Darcy Oake did nothing new or different. That is because he is a clearly a practiced performer but not an innovative illusionist working with qualified tricksters/engineers to create a unique act as much as try get people that like Max from The Wanted to buy tickets to see him flex his muscles doing a tribute act.
I appreciate that, but this wasnt really his show was it?
I dare say if he had full reigns it wouldve been more of a show and would be more inventive. We only saw a few of his acts and yes i agree that the majority have been seen in some other form. But as i suspect, it was an itv show aimed at a specific audience so they probably had an input as to what acts they wanted broadcast, and also had a limited time.
I think as he is at the minute hes good, but he has the potential to be better. He knows his stuff but he just needs some fine tuning and to find his "thing" that makes him stand out.
I appreciate that, but this wasnt really his show was it?
I dare say if he had full reigns it wouldve been more of a show and would be more inventive. We only saw a few of his acts and yes i agree that the majority have been seen in some other form. But as i suspect, it was an itv show aimed at a specific audience so they probably had an input as to what acts they wanted broadcast, and also had a limited time.
I think as he is at the minute hes good, but he has the potential to be better. He knows his stuff but he just needs some fine tuning and to find his "thing" that makes him stand out.
His name is on the marquee, others might be fronting the production costs but if he's meant to be the illusionist, then the onus is on him and his team to present a stage show that has a unique selling point or trademark trick. If he's not in charge of his stage show, then he shouldn't be on stage and should have his mentor/teacher do the job properly for him.
The problem is if he's at this level without a trademark trick of his own, then he won't last long. Shayne Ward found being a tattooed muscular guy Cowell likes for a while doesn't exactly ensure longevity in show business at the highest level. Same deal as George Sampson. Diversity have been very fortunate compared to a lot of flash in the pan acts Cowell has promoted briefly.
Im sure his looks dont have anything to do with it, and at the risk of sounding ignorant i couldnt tell you who shayne ward or max from the wanted are!
To me, as an absolute magic know nothinger, i couldnt tell you who has what signature trick (except for penn and teller maybe). So i just judge on how good a trick looks without thinking of who invented it. I do often think "that was good but i preferred magician x's version" but thats as far as it goes for me. Im able to watch it and enjoy it without thinking hes just ripping off someone elses act. Thats all i expect from a relatively unknown magician on a xmassy tv show.
To be fair Angel is a student of Lance Burton and Burton and Copperfield are peers. Angel's never tried the scale of Copperfield's work, his thing is using gothic indoor settings or brightly lit outdoor situations, he doesn't do anything as comprehensively inventive as Copperfield or his mentor Burton. That kind of stagecraft comes with time and I think Angel recognises his isn't as good which is why he does more assisted theatrics and set pieces compared to Burton and Copperfield who pride themselves in appearing alone in the illusion for their bigger set pieces.
That's another thing with Copperfield that shows a weakness in Darcys show: Copperfield mostly (and live totally) introduces the illusion by himself. He talks, joke and gets serious directly with the audience and sets up what they are about to see. Darcy's use of a woman presenter just made it look like he couldn't present it himself and also didn't endear himself to his audience. And all the female presenter could say was just how wonderful he is and add sexy innuendo. So added nothing and put a barrier in place of getting to know Dercy (Acted or real)
Im sure his looks dont have anything to do with it, and at the risk of sounding ignorant i couldnt tell you who shayne ward or max from the wanted are!
To me, as an absolute magic know nothinger, i couldnt tell you who has what signature trick (except for penn and teller maybe). So i just judge on how good a trick looks without thinking of who invented it. I do often think "that was good but i preferred magician x's version" but thats as far as it goes for me. Im able to watch it and enjoy it without thinking hes just ripping off someone elses act. Thats all i expect from a relatively unknown magician on a xmassy tv show.
Having a signature trick that other magicians can't do is essential to join any of the world's circles of magicians. It is pretty much required to be considered a proper act like Burton's advanced version of the Miser's Dream where he pulled doves and walking sticks from nowhere instead of a coin from behind a child's ear.
Given the audience at Christmas, I'd have hoped for something more impressive than just a muscular young bloke doing old tricks without innovation.
Im sure his looks dont have anything to do with it, and at the risk of sounding ignorant i couldnt tell you who shayne ward or max from the wanted are!
To me, as an absolute magic know nothinger, i couldnt tell you who has what signature trick (except for penn and teller maybe). So i just judge on how good a trick looks without thinking of who invented it. I do often think "that was good but i preferred magician x's version" but thats as far as it goes for me. Im able to watch it and enjoy it without thinking hes just ripping off someone elses act. Thats all i expect from a relatively unknown magician on a xmassy tv show.
Well one (of so many) of Copperfield's signature illusions was "Walking through the Great Wall of China". A big illusion on a grand scale, but one that used exactly one of the same methods that Darcy used to open this show. That shows the difference and the innovation: Both took that same method/principle of magic and one walked through the Great Wall of China and the other appeared out of a box.
In fact that shadow effect that Darcy used to appear to be coming out of the poster was an EXACT TOTAL and DIRECT RIP-OFF of Copperfield's "Walking through the Great Wall of China".
So Darcy took an old method, didn't come up with anything new and instead did an exact copy of part of the illusion that inspired him.
I could go out next week and do exactly the same. Great magicians take these old methods and use them in new ways to create what looks like something totally new. So different that the normal lay person wouldn't know that it's in fact just the old XXX principle done very differently.
Also in the Copperfield 'Flying' clip I posted earlier, a true showman creates great theatre by telling an emotional story and then making the magic happen. That way "How does he do it" isn't the massive part to it or that important. The bloke has overcome his massive problems and flown and so can you! - Oh yes! How did he do it, comes after that.
There is none of that with Darcy and all he presents is a puzzle for you to figure out. there is nothing else so the only thing to do at the end of everyone is question "How did he do that then?".
This isn't just a problem with Darcy, but also with many "cool" magicians now. They learn a trick and then think the whole point of magic is to look clever. They leave out all the showmanship, all the theatre and all of the emotional meaning. So no wonder many are out to 'get the magician and expose how he does it' as that's all the magician has given them to do. The posing and acting clever doesn't help either!
Having a signature trick that other magicians can't do is essential to join any of the world's circles of magicians. It is pretty much required to be considered a proper act like Burton's advanced version of the Miser's Dream where he pulled doves and walking sticks from nowhere instead of a coin from behind a child's ear.
Given the audience at Christmas, I'd have hoped for something more impressive than just a muscular young bloke doing old tricks without innovation.
Signature pieces are also good advertising, branding and promotion: "The Great XXX - The man who YYY"
They are known for their signature piece and if anyone else does it, they are seen as just poor copies.
It's nothing new: Chefs have signature dishes and Houdini had signature illusions - All they are known by.
Darcy had no signature piece. So now he is Darcy the man who.... errrr ummm did some tricks that others have done before and made no attempt to add anything new to them.
Signature pieces are also good advertising, branding and promotion: "The Great XXX - The man who YYY"
They are known for their signature piece and if anyone else does it, they are seen as just poor copies.
It's nothing new: Chefs have signature dishes and Houdini had signature illusions - All they are known by.
Darcy had no signature piece. So now he is Darcy the man who.... errrr ummm did some tricks that others have done before and made no attempt to add anything new to them.
Agreed. This is a nice piece on the problem of "magic theft" and the honor code that is dying out these days now folks don't study magic as much as buy props and learn old routines. Teller is actively still defending his trademark Shadows trick because someone stole parts of it using an old method. They didn't steal all of it because Teller never taught it and these days he uses a different method completely.
Agreed. This is a nice piece on the problem of "magic theft" and the honor code that is dying out these days now folks don't study magic as much as buy props and learn old routines. Teller is actively still defending his trademark Shadows trick because someone stole parts of it using an old method. They didn't steal all of it because Teller never taught it and these days he uses a different method completely.
I think it's a telling sign he's using tricks of dead performers for the most part so they can't sue him. He's like a free domain material magician.
Actually within the magic community, Penn and Teller are highly regarded. There is a story that Penn and Teller saw an amateur magician doing a trick and they wanted to do part of it their own show. They had the ethics to ask the amateur if they could use it in their show and of course the amateur was blown away and said "yes of course! It would be an honour". Penn and Teller then wrote him a substantial cheque and stuffed it in his pocket. So they really do put their money where their ethics are.
I don't think Copperfield would be too impressed with a man appearing to come out of flat poster using the same method Copperfield used to appear to come out of the Great Wall of China. Maybe he will be getting a call!
Even magical apparatus is ripped off today. Someone invents something new and within weeks you can get the massively cheaper version direct from China!
Actually within the magic community, Penn and Teller are highly regarded. There is a story that Penn and Teller saw an amateur magician doing a trick and they wanted to do part of it their own show. They had the ethics to ask the amateur if they could use it in their show and of course the amateur was blown away and said "yes of course! It would be an honour". Penn and Teller then wrote him a substantial cheque and stuffed it in his pocket. So they really do put their money where their ethics are.
I don't think Copperfield would be too impressed with a man appearing to come out of flat poster using the same method Copperfield used to appear to come out of the Great Wall of China. Maybe he will be getting a call!
Even magical apparatus is ripped off today. Someone invents something new and within weeks you can get the massively cheaper version direct from China!
Well that was the honour system of stage craft when it had to be taught and there wasn't an app for it.
P&T were taught and Teller is the technician while Penn is the showman even though they play Penn as the bragging master and Teller as the patsy most of the time. They respect the time and effort going into making a great trick because they do it themselves, Teller in particular. They purchase gimmicks and tricks, they don't steal them. That's how it should be done.
I don't think Darcy Oake likely has a real mentor and if he did, he never "graduated" because he doesn't appear to have an original trick and no mentor of repute would let someone move on from apprenticeship if they didn't have an original trick in their set or at least a new prestige reveal based on an old one.
Actually within the magic community, Penn and Teller are highly regarded. There is a story that Penn and Teller saw an amateur magician doing a trick and they wanted to do part of it their own show. They had the ethics to ask the amateur if they could use it in their show and of course the amateur was blown away and said "yes of course! It would be an honour". Penn and Teller then wrote him a substantial cheque and stuffed it in his pocket. So they really do put their money where their ethics are.
I don't think Copperfield would be too impressed with a man appearing to come out of flat poster using the same method Copperfield used to appear to come out of the Great Wall of China. Maybe he will be getting a call!
Even magical apparatus is ripped off today. Someone invents something new and within weeks you can get the massively cheaper version direct from China!
Lance Burton has performed shadow box and numerous others,it's not Copperfield's method,for the record I don't know who invented it. ;-)
I must say I thought P&T would never have lunched anywhere in Las Vegas again and be reduced to doing street magic, and be been shunned by the community for their inexcusable treachery of giving away the trade secrets of many of the big illusions.
They must have been in a bad place career-wise to do that.
I must say I thought P&T would never have lunched anywhere in Las Vegas again and be reduced to doing street magic, and be been shunned by the community for their inexcusable treachery of giving away the trade secrets of many of the big illusions.
They must have been in a bad place career-wise to do that.
Obvious trolling is obvious.
They haven't revealed anything without approval to do so, it's not like they are giving away Steinmeyer's gimmicks. They don't even fully explain on Fool Us how a performer does a trick, they just clue them in they know.
They haven't revealed anything without approval to do so, it's not like they are giving away Steinmeyer's gimmicks. They don't even fully explain on Fool Us how a performer does a trick, they just clue them in they know.
I must have imagined them explaining, and showing , in great detail, how the little bloke survived being run over by a 3 axle trailer, still it's obvious you are the boss of this thread judging by the number of nit - picking and verbose contributions.
Comments
No, I'm a fan of Mr Firman and he has even dragged me up on stage to 'assist' him. I'm not saying that he is ugly at all, but he is not muscly, designer stubble, boy band pin-up either. Just watch his egg bag routine live and you will see that whilst the trick is as old as the hills, Pete Firman can work an audience like the pro he is and obtain genuine belly laughs from an audience.
Derren Brown doesn't do 'box jumping' and as far as box jumpers go, Copperfield is still king and did it without looking like a Boyzone reject.
(Box Jumpers is the in term for illusionists, if you hadn't guessed. (More so of their assistants as it's normally them who do most of the box jumping))
Isn't the trick even older than Houdini's use of it? However, I thought the main objective was in how quickly the sheet could be raised and then lowered.
I've seen it done with what seemed to be no pause at all. In this version, the sheet was up for a number of seconds. And the box seemed to be a lot larger than is usual for this trick.
Well yes, all in all, the change-over wasn't the slickest on record by any means. I've seen some amateurs do it quicker!
The Pendragons are noted as being pretty slick in metamorphosis but then they have/had been doing it for decades.
Copperfield's version doesn't even use a box and the speed is bloody fast!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYFOsSKCH9w
The only things i didnt like about the show were bleakley, and the bits where he was in blackpool. Im not keen on street magic on tv because it always seems "fake" in the sense that it could easily be edited. I much prefered the on stage stuff.
I actually think he seems quite nice. Sometimes too much charisma ruins a show. The only thing he seems to lack at the minute is energy. Most illusionists are high octane, and very enthusiastic. I cant really blame him from that show because it was very slow paced for the benefit of itv, but there seemed too much resting in between acts and not a lot of pazazz.
When he did the trick with the motorbike i did think to myself ooh hes looking to replace criss angel! I think with a little bit of work on showman ship, and some fine tuning he could be better than criss angel.
The credit card trick let him down too. He forgot to include the sort code and the title Mr.
Really?
Angel actually innovates, he doesn't do straight copies. His version of metamorphosis is not only different but slicker than the one presented on this show and highly theatrical in comparison.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNf3_VGYHEo
To be fair Angel is a student of Lance Burton and Burton and Copperfield are peers. Angel's never tried the scale of Copperfield's work, his thing is using gothic indoor settings or brightly lit outdoor situations, he doesn't do anything as comprehensively inventive as Copperfield or his mentor Burton. That kind of stagecraft comes with time and I think Angel recognises his isn't as good which is why he does more assisted theatrics and set pieces compared to Burton and Copperfield who pride themselves in appearing alone in the illusion for their bigger set pieces.
I think darcy is more likeable than criss angel, and although criss is good, he relies a lot on just running around the stage screaming "are you ready" and having his performers carry some of the acts for him. I cant slate him for his magic but he does come across a bit too arrogant at times, but i suppose that comes with the fame maybe?
Criss angel also has the benefit when performing live of having the sound effects, the music, the lighting, the performers and i guess the freedom to do as he pleases. With darcys show you could tell it was very constructed and didnt have the natural flow that you get at a live show. Maybe for the live audience it was better?
With regards to whether the men were plants, does that really matter? When the woman was being supported by just one hand, is that more to do with her ability than whether the man was a plant? Obviously a plant would work better but i dont think that took anything away from the illusion. Ive seen that trick done before where the woman was supported by the back of a chair under her shoulders so im guessing this is the same principle.
Darcy Oake did nothing new or different. That is because he is a clearly a practiced performer but not an innovative illusionist working with qualified tricksters/engineers to create a unique act as much as try get people that like Max from The Wanted to buy tickets to see him flex his muscles doing a tribute act.
I dare say if he had full reigns it wouldve been more of a show and would be more inventive. We only saw a few of his acts and yes i agree that the majority have been seen in some other form. But as i suspect, it was an itv show aimed at a specific audience so they probably had an input as to what acts they wanted broadcast, and also had a limited time.
I think as he is at the minute hes good, but he has the potential to be better. He knows his stuff but he just needs some fine tuning and to find his "thing" that makes him stand out.
His name is on the marquee, others might be fronting the production costs but if he's meant to be the illusionist, then the onus is on him and his team to present a stage show that has a unique selling point or trademark trick. If he's not in charge of his stage show, then he shouldn't be on stage and should have his mentor/teacher do the job properly for him.
The problem is if he's at this level without a trademark trick of his own, then he won't last long. Shayne Ward found being a tattooed muscular guy Cowell likes for a while doesn't exactly ensure longevity in show business at the highest level. Same deal as George Sampson. Diversity have been very fortunate compared to a lot of flash in the pan acts Cowell has promoted briefly.
To me, as an absolute magic know nothinger, i couldnt tell you who has what signature trick (except for penn and teller maybe). So i just judge on how good a trick looks without thinking of who invented it. I do often think "that was good but i preferred magician x's version" but thats as far as it goes for me. Im able to watch it and enjoy it without thinking hes just ripping off someone elses act. Thats all i expect from a relatively unknown magician on a xmassy tv show.
That's another thing with Copperfield that shows a weakness in Darcys show: Copperfield mostly (and live totally) introduces the illusion by himself. He talks, joke and gets serious directly with the audience and sets up what they are about to see. Darcy's use of a woman presenter just made it look like he couldn't present it himself and also didn't endear himself to his audience. And all the female presenter could say was just how wonderful he is and add sexy innuendo. So added nothing and put a barrier in place of getting to know Dercy (Acted or real)
Having a signature trick that other magicians can't do is essential to join any of the world's circles of magicians. It is pretty much required to be considered a proper act like Burton's advanced version of the Miser's Dream where he pulled doves and walking sticks from nowhere instead of a coin from behind a child's ear.
Given the audience at Christmas, I'd have hoped for something more impressive than just a muscular young bloke doing old tricks without innovation.
Well one (of so many) of Copperfield's signature illusions was "Walking through the Great Wall of China". A big illusion on a grand scale, but one that used exactly one of the same methods that Darcy used to open this show. That shows the difference and the innovation: Both took that same method/principle of magic and one walked through the Great Wall of China and the other appeared out of a box.
In fact that shadow effect that Darcy used to appear to be coming out of the poster was an EXACT TOTAL and DIRECT RIP-OFF of Copperfield's "Walking through the Great Wall of China".
So Darcy took an old method, didn't come up with anything new and instead did an exact copy of part of the illusion that inspired him.
I could go out next week and do exactly the same. Great magicians take these old methods and use them in new ways to create what looks like something totally new. So different that the normal lay person wouldn't know that it's in fact just the old XXX principle done very differently.
Also in the Copperfield 'Flying' clip I posted earlier, a true showman creates great theatre by telling an emotional story and then making the magic happen. That way "How does he do it" isn't the massive part to it or that important. The bloke has overcome his massive problems and flown and so can you! - Oh yes! How did he do it, comes after that.
There is none of that with Darcy and all he presents is a puzzle for you to figure out. there is nothing else so the only thing to do at the end of everyone is question "How did he do that then?".
This isn't just a problem with Darcy, but also with many "cool" magicians now. They learn a trick and then think the whole point of magic is to look clever. They leave out all the showmanship, all the theatre and all of the emotional meaning. So no wonder many are out to 'get the magician and expose how he does it' as that's all the magician has given them to do. The posing and acting clever doesn't help either!
Signature pieces are also good advertising, branding and promotion: "The Great XXX - The man who YYY"
They are known for their signature piece and if anyone else does it, they are seen as just poor copies.
It's nothing new: Chefs have signature dishes and Houdini had signature illusions - All they are known by.
Darcy had no signature piece. So now he is Darcy the man who.... errrr ummm did some tricks that others have done before and made no attempt to add anything new to them.
Agreed. This is a nice piece on the problem of "magic theft" and the honor code that is dying out these days now folks don't study magic as much as buy props and learn old routines. Teller is actively still defending his trademark Shadows trick because someone stole parts of it using an old method. They didn't steal all of it because Teller never taught it and these days he uses a different method completely.
http://www.esquire.com/features/teller-magician-interview-1012
I think it's a telling sign he's using tricks of dead performers for the most part so they can't sue him. He's like a free domain material magician.
Actually within the magic community, Penn and Teller are highly regarded. There is a story that Penn and Teller saw an amateur magician doing a trick and they wanted to do part of it their own show. They had the ethics to ask the amateur if they could use it in their show and of course the amateur was blown away and said "yes of course! It would be an honour". Penn and Teller then wrote him a substantial cheque and stuffed it in his pocket. So they really do put their money where their ethics are.
I don't think Copperfield would be too impressed with a man appearing to come out of flat poster using the same method Copperfield used to appear to come out of the Great Wall of China. Maybe he will be getting a call!
Even magical apparatus is ripped off today. Someone invents something new and within weeks you can get the massively cheaper version direct from China!
P&T were taught and Teller is the technician while Penn is the showman even though they play Penn as the bragging master and Teller as the patsy most of the time. They respect the time and effort going into making a great trick because they do it themselves, Teller in particular. They purchase gimmicks and tricks, they don't steal them. That's how it should be done.
I don't think Darcy Oake likely has a real mentor and if he did, he never "graduated" because he doesn't appear to have an original trick and no mentor of repute would let someone move on from apprenticeship if they didn't have an original trick in their set or at least a new prestige reveal based on an old one.
Lance Burton has performed shadow box and numerous others,it's not Copperfield's method,for the record I don't know who invented it. ;-)
They must have been in a bad place career-wise to do that.
Obvious trolling is obvious.
They haven't revealed anything without approval to do so, it's not like they are giving away Steinmeyer's gimmicks. They don't even fully explain on Fool Us how a performer does a trick, they just clue them in they know.
I must have imagined them explaining, and showing , in great detail, how the little bloke survived being run over by a 3 axle trailer, still it's obvious you are the boss of this thread judging by the number of nit - picking and verbose contributions.
What a pity we can't make you vanish :kitty: