So why do so many others rate this trick so low?
Why did a lot of viewers also feel let down and disappointed?
It's not just me, read the forums, not just this one.
It was fumbled at the end, and it was really not very spectacular, not what you'd expect for the final
The clue is in the title -BGT!
It wasnt just about his final act-incidentally many others fumbled as well- it was about the whole thing,as I said if you think Torn and restored signed card is not spectacular then what would you like?
It wasnt just about his final act-incidentally many others fumbled as well- it was about the whole thing,as I said if you think Torn and restored signed card is not spectacular then what would you like?
Fumbling is a bit more important if you're doing a magic trick!
His trick was clever but not spectacular, and not thrilling enough for the final
It wasnt just about his final act-incidentally many others fumbled as well- it was about the whole thing,as I said if you think Torn and restored signed card is not spectacular then what would you like?
Richard won the show. It is what it is. He won the public vote. Accept and breath .........
Whoever got the most votes deserves to win! But in my own opinion, no he didn't, very dull and boring, not enough actual magic, just all focusing on the military stuff.
In what way was it poorly performed? Did he drop the cards on the floor? Badly handle the sleights for the torn and restored card-if so where? As to mediocre ,what would you prefer,a dynamo style card cuts that have no point,fancy cuts and spinning cards all over the place? Who decides what is mediocre?
You clearly have no idea about entering a talent contest.
Whether something is mediocre or not is a matter of opinion, not a fact. You may not have thought it was mediocre, but it seems that quite a lot of other people did, myself included.
I didn't think so. His talent was below average, I could tell that he wasn't even shuffling the cards as he was walking toward the judges' table. He was doing a pretend shuffle to an obviously stacked deck. Being a soldier or pandering to blatant sentimentality is not a talent. People can pat him on the back for his service all they like, but it doesn't make his act any better, imo.
It was an off the shelf, almost word for word version of a trick that had been done on the same talent show previously.
His a whole three acts were lifted, he is a phoney.
Does that mean the ex PoW who was shown at the end was just some random old bloke?
The other uniformed guardsmen were just actors maybe?
If that is the case then we've been duped, but maybe he was everything Richard said and he developed the off the shelf card trick around the true story.
Does anybody really think that Copperfield really made the Statue of Liberty disappear?
Spectacular trick/illusion, no idea how any of the things are done but it's fun to watch.
In my opinion crooners are not fun to watch or interesting and voters seemed to agree.
Richard was mediocre, doing an average card trick, and milking his military status
Bringing on the old man was a mawkish , sentimental ploy in order to play on the " hero" aspect, and was cringeworthy
No one was going to criticise this aspect, though, and it won him votes. Surprisingly, Simon was easily pleased with this act
His audition and semifinal tricks were OK, but not spectacular, but his act in the final, judging by the comments, disappointed many viewers, frequently describing it as underwhelming.
Previous magicians in other series were so much better, but Richard got through by playing on the the fact that he was a soldier.
There were many acts more deserving of winning
BIIB -Surprisingly? Simon Cowell laps up this kind of thing. I am in no doubt that it was at SC's instigation that Richard milked the whole 'soldier as hero' thing that Simon loves so much.
I hardly ever come here on DS any more, but having watched the BGT finals, I felt very strongly about this and wanted to comment.
As a lover of magic, I am frankly outraged that Richard Jones won. Absolutely outraged. Now please do not think that I have any hostility towards Richard Jones himself. He seems like a lovely man and he simply did his best. There was nothing particularly "wrong" with anything he did, I have nothing against him, and am happy for him.
But this is without doubt the most undeserving winner ever and an absolute catastrophe for the show. BGT is supposed to be a talent show, meaning the winner should be someone who has one of the following…
1. An amazing natural talent
2. A skill which took years of practice to perfect
3. A natural creative flare and sense of artistry
4. A brilliant mind that is able to come up with an original routine
5. A strong and captivating personality
6. A keen sense of showmanship and drama
Many of the best magicians have some of these, some even have all. But Richard Jones, I'm afraid, has none (at least none that we saw on the show particularly).
The fundamental elements which make a magic act great are things like skill, talent, sleight of hand, creativity, artistry, personality, and showmanship. But instead, the British public voted for a man who had merely "learned how to do some tricks".
The tricks Mr Jones performed are not difficult to do and require no skill. Anyone can simply go out and buy them and perform them. You can go on YouTube right now, learn how to do card tricks like this, and repeat it for your family. That's all well and good, but it doesn't make you the winner of Britain's Got Talent. Knowing a few tricks doesn't mean you have talent. It doesn't mean you have personality or star quality. You're just a bloke who knows tricks. (Other people's tricks, too, not your own.)
So what amazing magic routine did the public vote as the best act of the night? No routine, just one trick. A card trick. A very old card trick. A card trick which is neither difficult to figure out, nor difficult to perform. Possibly one of the most simple card tricks ever performed which is so lacking in mystery or excitement it is perhaps wrong to even call it a trick. And it went wrong.
I might have had a touch more respect for Mr Jones if he had tried to win the audience over on the strength of his own magic in the final. But instead, the entire routine was based around the idea of national pride, and bringing Fergus Anckorn on stage and getting everyone to applaud him, as though bringing a minor celebrity onto the stage somehow translates to "talent". To me, this is just cheap. He was just trying to feed off of Mr Anckorn's reputation and applause.
I could have understood doing something like this for the Royal Variety Performance, where it would have been perfect. But this was the grand final of a competition. Mr Jones was supposed to be competing, and showing his own talent. You can't use another man's reputation to secure votes. Secure your own votes by being good.
Why do the British public seem to love pedestrian magicians who don't invent their own tricks, have no personality, and no sense of showmanship? Last year we had the dreadful Jamie Raven coming second, which I could not understand. But looking back, Jamie Raven seems like a veritable David Copperfield compared with the banality of Richard Jones.
I can think of dozens, probably hundreds, of British magicians who would be more worthy of winning BGT than this man. Just to give one rather obvious example: Piff the Magic Dragon who appeared on America's Got Talent. He isn't the greatest magic act ever, but he certainly is a funny and totally original act.
If a magic act is to win the whole of BGT, it surely cannot be an act which just walks on stage with a bag of small, shop-bought tricks and says "look what I bought and learned to do in 5 minutes". It must be a unique act which creates, innovates, captivates, and puts their personal stamp on the artform.
Let me close by saying once again I am definitely not here to have a go at Richard Jones. I actually like the man, and as a lover of magic, I "salute" anyone who has a go at magic, however good or bad they are. But what on earth were the British public thinking here?
For the record, I loved Ashley Banjo's spectacular collaborative performance during the results. It was the best thing on the show for years and reminded me of how worthy winners Diversity were. It ticked every box in my above list! I think Diversity should have won again on the basis of this!
I. BGT is supposed to be a talent show, meaning the winner should be someone who has one of the following…
1. An amazing natural talent (very few on the show had that)
2. A skill which took years of practice to perfect (very few had that)
3. A natural creative flare and sense of artistry (very few had that)
4. A brilliant mind that is able to come up with an original routine (see above,got bored of repating lol )
5. A strong and captivating personality( I think he had that.)
6. A keen sense of showmanship and drama (and that)
Many of the best magicians have some of these, some even have all. But Richard Jones, I'm afraid, has none (at least none that we saw on the show particularly).
Some David Blaine ,Dynamo have none hasnt done them any harm.
The fundamental elements which make a magic act great are things like skill, talent, sleight of hand, creativity, artistry, personality, and showmanship. But instead, the British public voted for a man who had merely "learned how to do some tricks".
He's an amateur at the end of the day and I thought he came across confident and personable.
The tricks Mr Jones performed are not difficult to do and require no skill.
Not true.
Anyone can simply go out and buy them and perform them. You can go on YouTube right now, learn how to do card tricks like this, and repeat it for your family. That's all well and good, but it doesn't make you the winner of Britain's Got Talent.
You can learn lots of tricks on youtube that are bought ,Derren Brown performs tricks that are bought most modern magicians do,as magic is more accessible now compared to when Paul Daniels et al started out. He won because he was liked,his final routine didnt do it for me but I have high standards.
Knowing a few tricks doesn't mean you have talent. It doesn't mean you have personality or star quality. You're just a bloke who knows tricks. (Other people's tricks, too, not your own.)
How many modern magicians invent their own effects and perform on TV?Please cite me some examples. To say performing shop bought tricks makes you bad is wrong.
So what amazing magic routine did the public vote as the best act of the night? No routine, just one trick.
Were you watching same show as me? He did three different tricks technically,the first was dealing cards for the dates,second was the ripped and restored card then the picture reveal.And yes one card was wrong,but many acts made mistakes it happens.
A card trick. A very old card trick. A card trick which is neither difficult to figure out, nor difficult to perform. Possibly one of the most simple card tricks ever performed which is so lacking in mystery or excitement it is perhaps wrong to even call it a trick. And it went wrong.
Once again youre wrong the torn and restored version he did is probably 10 years old and the picture revealed is less than 5.
I might have had a touch more respect for Mr Jones if he had tried to win the audience over on the strength of his own magic in the final.
Yeah like Jamie Raven didn't,like AGT finalists didnt.
But instead, the entire routine was based around the idea of national pride, and bringing Fergus Anckorn on stage and getting everyone to applaud him, as though bringing a minor celebrity onto the stage somehow translates to "talent". To me, this is just cheap. He was just trying to feed off of Mr Anckorn's reputation and applause.
I could have understood doing something like this for the Royal Variety Performance, where it would have been perfect. But this was the grand final of a competition. Mr Jones was supposed to be competing, and showing his own talent. You can't use another man's reputation to secure votes. Secure your own votes by being good.
Cant argue with that.
Why do the British public seem to love pedestrian magicians who don't invent their own tricks, have no personality, and no sense of showmanship? Last year we had the dreadful Jamie Raven coming second, which I could not understand. But looking back, Jamie Raven seems like a veritable David Copperfield compared with the banality of Richard Jones.
You have no idea how many magicians dont invent their own tricks! Some you likely think are amazing.
I can think of dozens, probably hundreds, of British magicians who would be more worthy of winning BGT than this man. Just to give one rather obvious example: Piff the Magic Dragon who appeared on America's Got Talent. He isn't the greatest magic act ever, but he certainly is a funny and totally original act.
But Piff doesnt invent his own tricks! How dare he be popular. And he buys them from a shop!
If a magic act is to win the whole of BGT, it surely cannot be an act which just walks on stage with a bag of small, shop-bought tricks and says "look what I bought and learned to do in 5 minutes". It must be a unique act which creates, innovates, captivates, and puts their personal stamp on the artform.
Where the trick originates from is irrelevant. PauL Daniels fooled many with a cup and a ball,how dare he walk on with something like that bought from a shop.
Well even piff the magic dragon did a pedestrian show on AGT (we even saw an assistant bringing his dog on stage) but he didn't win. The other magicians on AGT are much better
than him and Richard Jones.
I would have liked to have seen beau 100 voices of gospel or the jazz singer guy win.
I feel like he was average not as good as Jamie from last year if he hadn't been wearing an army uniform and turned up in regular clothes would he have won?.
So you vote for the clothing is that why you wanted the choir to win more clothing to choose from ? :cool:
I hardly ever come here on DS any more, but having watched the BGT finals, I felt very strongly about this and wanted to comment.
As a lover of magic, I am frankly outraged that Richard Jones won. Absolutely outraged. Now please do not think that I have any hostility towards Richard Jones himself. He seems like a lovely man and he simply did his best. There was nothing particularly "wrong" with anything he did, I have nothing against him, and am happy for him.
But this is without doubt the most undeserving winner ever and an absolute catastrophe for the show. BGT is supposed to be a talent show, meaning the winner should be someone who has one of the following…
1. An amazing natural talent
2. A skill which took years of practice to perfect
3. A natural creative flare and sense of artistry
4. A brilliant mind that is able to come up with an original routine
5. A strong and captivating personality
6. A keen sense of showmanship and drama
Many of the best magicians have some of these, some even have all. But Richard Jones, I'm afraid, has none (at least none that we saw on the show particularly).
The fundamental elements which make a magic act great are things like skill, talent, sleight of hand, creativity, artistry, personality, and showmanship. But instead, the British public voted for a man who had merely "learned how to do some tricks".
The tricks Mr Jones performed are not difficult to do and require no skill. Anyone can simply go out and buy them and perform them. You can go on YouTube right now, learn how to do card tricks like this, and repeat it for your family. That's all well and good, but it doesn't make you the winner of Britain's Got Talent. Knowing a few tricks doesn't mean you have talent. It doesn't mean you have personality or star quality. You're just a bloke who knows tricks. (Other people's tricks, too, not your own.)
So what amazing magic routine did the public vote as the best act of the night? No routine, just one trick. A card trick. A very old card trick. A card trick which is neither difficult to figure out, nor difficult to perform. Possibly one of the most simple card tricks ever performed which is so lacking in mystery or excitement it is perhaps wrong to even call it a trick. And it went wrong.
I might have had a touch more respect for Mr Jones if he had tried to win the audience over on the strength of his own magic in the final. But instead, the entire routine was based around the idea of national pride, and bringing Fergus Anckorn on stage and getting everyone to applaud him, as though bringing a minor celebrity onto the stage somehow translates to "talent". To me, this is just cheap. He was just trying to feed off of Mr Anckorn's reputation and applause.
I could have understood doing something like this for the Royal Variety Performance, where it would have been perfect. But this was the grand final of a competition. Mr Jones was supposed to be competing, and showing his own talent. You can't use another man's reputation to secure votes. Secure your own votes by being good.
Why do the British public seem to love pedestrian magicians who don't invent their own tricks, have no personality, and no sense of showmanship? Last year we had the dreadful Jamie Raven coming second, which I could not understand. But looking back, Jamie Raven seems like a veritable David Copperfield compared with the banality of Richard Jones.
I can think of dozens, probably hundreds, of British magicians who would be more worthy of winning BGT than this man. Just to give one rather obvious example: Piff the Magic Dragon who appeared on America's Got Talent. He isn't the greatest magic act ever, but he certainly is a funny and totally original act.
If a magic act is to win the whole of BGT, it surely cannot be an act which just walks on stage with a bag of small, shop-bought tricks and says "look what I bought and learned to do in 5 minutes". It must be a unique act which creates, innovates, captivates, and puts their personal stamp on the artform.
Let me close by saying once again I am definitely not here to have a go at Richard Jones. I actually like the man, and as a lover of magic, I "salute" anyone who has a go at magic, however good or bad they are. But what on earth were the British public thinking here?
For the record, I loved Ashley Banjo's spectacular collaborative performance during the results. It was the best thing on the show for years and reminded me of how worthy winners Diversity were. It ticked every box in my above list! I think Diversity should have won again on the basis of this!
You have no idea how many magicians dont invent their own tricks! Some you likely think are amazing.
No, I do understand that all professional magicians use other people's tricks (even the biggest names). And if this had been just a standard magic show, I would have no complaints about a simple routine of old tricks. I can watch dozens of different magicians performing the same trick and really enjoy it.
But BGT is a talent competition, and so for me if a magician is going to do well in it (let alone win the whole thing), he needs to bring something very original and striking to the table: something people haven't seen before that will really impress.
But perhaps you're missing my point. This is not just about originality, it's the whole package. Darcy Oakes from a few years ago performed "old" tricks with great skill, and he was great. I would have been very happy if he'd won the series. All I want in a BGT winner is something which shows either a bit of rehearsal, a bit of skill, a bit of original thought, a bit of humour… just something other than a guy who went out and bought a trick. Because that does not constitute talent.
There are thousands and thousands of amateur performers all over the country who do cabaret, theatre plays, or stand-up. They can stand on a stage and speak to the audience and make people laugh and feel good. They can work a crowd and connect with an audience, and that to me is talent. It is part confidence, part experience, part nature. It is a stage presence which makes someone a star, and that is what a magician needs to have if he's going to win the whole show of BGT. Really, he needs to be funny. And it is completely missing in men like Jamie Raven and Richard Jones. They're just members of the public with a few tricks.
By the way you cited David Blaine and Dynamo as examples of men who have done very well despite not ticking any of my boxes and not bringing anything original to the table. Well in my opinion Mr Blaine was actually very innovative and did things with his TV shows and stunts I'd never seen before, as well as majoring on performance and character, crafting a TV persona I had never seen before in a magic act. Mr Blaine was original in the sense that he popularised TV street magic as well as the "deadpan" act. As for Dynamo, I really have no idea how he has become so successful and popular. I regard him in a similar way that I regard Richard Jones: OK magicians, but not the big deal they are made out to be.
Comments
It wasnt just about his final act-incidentally many others fumbled as well- it was about the whole thing,as I said if you think Torn and restored signed card is not spectacular then what would you like?
Fumbling is a bit more important if you're doing a magic trick!
His trick was clever but not spectacular, and not thrilling enough for the final
Richard won the show. It is what it is. He won the public vote. Accept and breath .........
Whether something is mediocre or not is a matter of opinion, not a fact. You may not have thought it was mediocre, but it seems that quite a lot of other people did, myself included.
I didnt see any fumbling. To quote Penn and Teller "card tricks are intrinsically boring".
However it's worth noting that 83% of viewers didn't vote for him.
His a whole three acts were lifted, he is a phoney.
Does that mean the ex PoW who was shown at the end was just some random old bloke?
The other uniformed guardsmen were just actors maybe?
If that is the case then we've been duped, but maybe he was everything Richard said and he developed the off the shelf card trick around the true story.
Does anybody really think that Copperfield really made the Statue of Liberty disappear?
Spectacular trick/illusion, no idea how any of the things are done but it's fun to watch.
In my opinion crooners are not fun to watch or interesting and voters seemed to agree.
When was that?
As a lover of magic, I am frankly outraged that Richard Jones won. Absolutely outraged. Now please do not think that I have any hostility towards Richard Jones himself. He seems like a lovely man and he simply did his best. There was nothing particularly "wrong" with anything he did, I have nothing against him, and am happy for him.
But this is without doubt the most undeserving winner ever and an absolute catastrophe for the show. BGT is supposed to be a talent show, meaning the winner should be someone who has one of the following…
1. An amazing natural talent
2. A skill which took years of practice to perfect
3. A natural creative flare and sense of artistry
4. A brilliant mind that is able to come up with an original routine
5. A strong and captivating personality
6. A keen sense of showmanship and drama
Many of the best magicians have some of these, some even have all. But Richard Jones, I'm afraid, has none (at least none that we saw on the show particularly).
The fundamental elements which make a magic act great are things like skill, talent, sleight of hand, creativity, artistry, personality, and showmanship. But instead, the British public voted for a man who had merely "learned how to do some tricks".
The tricks Mr Jones performed are not difficult to do and require no skill. Anyone can simply go out and buy them and perform them. You can go on YouTube right now, learn how to do card tricks like this, and repeat it for your family. That's all well and good, but it doesn't make you the winner of Britain's Got Talent. Knowing a few tricks doesn't mean you have talent. It doesn't mean you have personality or star quality. You're just a bloke who knows tricks. (Other people's tricks, too, not your own.)
So what amazing magic routine did the public vote as the best act of the night? No routine, just one trick. A card trick. A very old card trick. A card trick which is neither difficult to figure out, nor difficult to perform. Possibly one of the most simple card tricks ever performed which is so lacking in mystery or excitement it is perhaps wrong to even call it a trick. And it went wrong.
I might have had a touch more respect for Mr Jones if he had tried to win the audience over on the strength of his own magic in the final. But instead, the entire routine was based around the idea of national pride, and bringing Fergus Anckorn on stage and getting everyone to applaud him, as though bringing a minor celebrity onto the stage somehow translates to "talent". To me, this is just cheap. He was just trying to feed off of Mr Anckorn's reputation and applause.
I could have understood doing something like this for the Royal Variety Performance, where it would have been perfect. But this was the grand final of a competition. Mr Jones was supposed to be competing, and showing his own talent. You can't use another man's reputation to secure votes. Secure your own votes by being good.
Why do the British public seem to love pedestrian magicians who don't invent their own tricks, have no personality, and no sense of showmanship? Last year we had the dreadful Jamie Raven coming second, which I could not understand. But looking back, Jamie Raven seems like a veritable David Copperfield compared with the banality of Richard Jones.
I can think of dozens, probably hundreds, of British magicians who would be more worthy of winning BGT than this man. Just to give one rather obvious example: Piff the Magic Dragon who appeared on America's Got Talent. He isn't the greatest magic act ever, but he certainly is a funny and totally original act.
If a magic act is to win the whole of BGT, it surely cannot be an act which just walks on stage with a bag of small, shop-bought tricks and says "look what I bought and learned to do in 5 minutes". It must be a unique act which creates, innovates, captivates, and puts their personal stamp on the artform.
Let me close by saying once again I am definitely not here to have a go at Richard Jones. I actually like the man, and as a lover of magic, I "salute" anyone who has a go at magic, however good or bad they are. But what on earth were the British public thinking here?
For the record, I loved Ashley Banjo's spectacular collaborative performance during the results. It was the best thing on the show for years and reminded me of how worthy winners Diversity were. It ticked every box in my above list! I think Diversity should have won again on the basis of this!
He's an amateur at the end of the day and I thought he came across confident and personable.
Not true. You can learn lots of tricks on youtube that are bought ,Derren Brown performs tricks that are bought most modern magicians do,as magic is more accessible now compared to when Paul Daniels et al started out. He won because he was liked,his final routine didnt do it for me but I have high standards. How many modern magicians invent their own effects and perform on TV?Please cite me some examples. To say performing shop bought tricks makes you bad is wrong. Were you watching same show as me? He did three different tricks technically,the first was dealing cards for the dates,second was the ripped and restored card then the picture reveal.And yes one card was wrong,but many acts made mistakes it happens.
Once again youre wrong the torn and restored version he did is probably 10 years old and the picture revealed is less than 5.
Yeah like Jamie Raven didn't,like AGT finalists didnt.
Cant argue with that.
You have no idea how many magicians dont invent their own tricks! Some you likely think are amazing.
But Piff doesnt invent his own tricks! How dare he be popular. And he buys them from a shop!
Where the trick originates from is irrelevant. PauL Daniels fooled many with a cup and a ball,how dare he walk on with something like that bought from a shop.
A worthy winner - no
I personally believe there was a little of the lets tug the nations heartstrings with this.
Beau should have won
than him and Richard Jones.
So you vote for the clothing is that why you wanted the choir to win more clothing to choose from ? :cool:
Nonsense he was class
I soon as I caught him blatantly palming a piece of paper he was gonna sneak into an envelope, I switched off.
The LATE GREAT Paul Daniels would never make such embarrassing fails.
Nonsense and how do you explain the burning and the matching page and Beckham cut out ? You can't :cool:
And Paul Daniels wasn't Great
But BGT is a talent competition, and so for me if a magician is going to do well in it (let alone win the whole thing), he needs to bring something very original and striking to the table: something people haven't seen before that will really impress.
But perhaps you're missing my point. This is not just about originality, it's the whole package. Darcy Oakes from a few years ago performed "old" tricks with great skill, and he was great. I would have been very happy if he'd won the series. All I want in a BGT winner is something which shows either a bit of rehearsal, a bit of skill, a bit of original thought, a bit of humour… just something other than a guy who went out and bought a trick. Because that does not constitute talent.
There are thousands and thousands of amateur performers all over the country who do cabaret, theatre plays, or stand-up. They can stand on a stage and speak to the audience and make people laugh and feel good. They can work a crowd and connect with an audience, and that to me is talent. It is part confidence, part experience, part nature. It is a stage presence which makes someone a star, and that is what a magician needs to have if he's going to win the whole show of BGT. Really, he needs to be funny. And it is completely missing in men like Jamie Raven and Richard Jones. They're just members of the public with a few tricks.
By the way you cited David Blaine and Dynamo as examples of men who have done very well despite not ticking any of my boxes and not bringing anything original to the table. Well in my opinion Mr Blaine was actually very innovative and did things with his TV shows and stunts I'd never seen before, as well as majoring on performance and character, crafting a TV persona I had never seen before in a magic act. Mr Blaine was original in the sense that he popularised TV street magic as well as the "deadpan" act. As for Dynamo, I really have no idea how he has become so successful and popular. I regard him in a similar way that I regard Richard Jones: OK magicians, but not the big deal they are made out to be.