Is it possible for a magician ever to make the final. James More was great but we have had other really good magicians in the semi finals before and it is the same story every time - they go home.
Magic
People obviously are mainly voting for kids and singers :yawn: Wish we could have more variety in the final.
He was brilliant, I'd have loved to see him in the final we need some variety, right now its looking like an X Factor show.
Originally Posted by Thrasymachus:
“Maybe next year we could have a magician who also sings during their act”
“Maybe next year we could have a magician who also sings during their act”
And a child!
Then they have a chance
Originally Posted by myscimitar:
“And a child!
Then they have a chance”
“And a child!
Then they have a chance”
So we need an eleven year old magician who sings as part of their trick but who also has the experience to pull off something death defying to a high enough standard that the audience cannot see how it is done and with a 'wow' factor.
I think that means that no magician can ever make the final.
If you had someone of the level of say Dynamo on then I think they would sail through. Look at AGT the level of magicians on that is on a different wavelength - hence they do well. Its really all about staging and presentation rather than the actual trick in my opinion. Which is why I was a little disappointed for James last night, he was definitely in the right ballpark for what you should be doing.
The thing with James More is that he tried to make out that he was something fresh and different and was trying to modernise the traditional image of a magician and bring it to audiences of the 21st Century.
The problem with that is that by saying that he himself is dated because that's what magicians have been doing for about twenty years.
Most magicians on television for the last twenty or so years have had a modern angle of sorts.
The idea of updating the traditional image of a magician and modernising it is nothing fresh, different, or new.
Just about all the popular magicians we're aware of today all do that anyway.
When I saw his act I didn't find anything particular fresh or modern about it. It was a traditional magicians illusion.
Don't get me wrong, I thought he was very good and performed his trick really well. But I think he made a mistake with the way that he sold himself and perhaps the public didn't buy into what he was trying to present himself as.
It just looked like a traditional stage illusion where a magician gets into a box, gets covered up, the cover is pulled back to reveal that he's vanished. But oh hello, look, he's somewhere else in the theatre. Tah Dahhh.
Who on here hasn't seen this trick done many times before?
In fact it was just a variation of the trick done by the pink magician guy.
Nothing wrong with James More, he came across as a decent bloke and performed his trick well. But I have to say that I thought that what he was saying about being on there to bring the image of magic into the 21st century was just nonsense. His act would have appeared no more modern if he had performed it in exactly the same way back in the 1990s. Well performed, but seen it all before many times.
The problem with that is that by saying that he himself is dated because that's what magicians have been doing for about twenty years.
Most magicians on television for the last twenty or so years have had a modern angle of sorts.
The idea of updating the traditional image of a magician and modernising it is nothing fresh, different, or new.
Just about all the popular magicians we're aware of today all do that anyway.
When I saw his act I didn't find anything particular fresh or modern about it. It was a traditional magicians illusion.
Don't get me wrong, I thought he was very good and performed his trick really well. But I think he made a mistake with the way that he sold himself and perhaps the public didn't buy into what he was trying to present himself as.
It just looked like a traditional stage illusion where a magician gets into a box, gets covered up, the cover is pulled back to reveal that he's vanished. But oh hello, look, he's somewhere else in the theatre. Tah Dahhh.
Who on here hasn't seen this trick done many times before?
In fact it was just a variation of the trick done by the pink magician guy.
Nothing wrong with James More, he came across as a decent bloke and performed his trick well. But I have to say that I thought that what he was saying about being on there to bring the image of magic into the 21st century was just nonsense. His act would have appeared no more modern if he had performed it in exactly the same way back in the 1990s. Well performed, but seen it all before many times.
I really enjoy watching magic, but I think BGT is not the show for them. It is the nature of BGT that it will attract amateurs and this seriously puts magicians at a disadvantage. For amateur singers, dancers etc it is easy for them to come across as fresh, new or different (even if their talent or skill is a little rough around the edges). In comparison, amateur magicians tend to be acts who have purchased a magic trick or illusion off the shelf of a magic shop and unfortunately these tend to be old tried and tested illusions that we have all seen before.
Thats not to say that classic magic cannot be entertaining if performed well, but the majority of magic acts on BGT seem to think that once they've purchased and learnt the trick all they have to do is just perform it to an audience. But there is much more to it than that. Unless the act is something we have never seen before, there needs to be some personality or showmanship included in the act to make it stand out.
Some people like to be wowed and mystified by a magic trick and others prefer the artistic interpretation of a trick. To go far in BGT as a magician I think you need to incorporate both aspects into your act. I feel I fall in the second group of people - I can really enjoy a basic trick or illusion if performed beautifully, but there are many other people who need to be puzzled and stunned by magic before they can enjoy it.
Unfortunately I don't think any magic act on BGT has ever managed to tick both these boxes and until they do I don't think we'll see a magician winning this show.
Thats not to say that classic magic cannot be entertaining if performed well, but the majority of magic acts on BGT seem to think that once they've purchased and learnt the trick all they have to do is just perform it to an audience. But there is much more to it than that. Unless the act is something we have never seen before, there needs to be some personality or showmanship included in the act to make it stand out.
Some people like to be wowed and mystified by a magic trick and others prefer the artistic interpretation of a trick. To go far in BGT as a magician I think you need to incorporate both aspects into your act. I feel I fall in the second group of people - I can really enjoy a basic trick or illusion if performed beautifully, but there are many other people who need to be puzzled and stunned by magic before they can enjoy it.
Unfortunately I don't think any magic act on BGT has ever managed to tick both these boxes and until they do I don't think we'll see a magician winning this show.
Originally Posted by LankyLizard:
“I really enjoy watching magic, but I think BGT is not the show for them. It is the nature of BGT that it will attract amateurs and this seriously puts magicians at a disadvantage. For amateur singers, dancers etc it is easy for them to come across as fresh, new or different (even if their talent or skill is a little rough around the edges). In comparison, amateur magicians tend to be acts who have purchased a magic trick or illusion off the shelf of a magic shop and unfortunately these tend to be old tried and tested illusions that we have all seen before.
Thats not to say that classic magic cannot be entertaining if performed well, but the majority of magic acts on BGT seem to think that once they've purchased and learnt the trick all they have to do is just perform it to an audience. But there is much more to it than that. Unless the act is something we have never seen before, there needs to be some personality or showmanship included in the act to make it stand out.
Some people like to be wowed and mystified by a magic trick and others prefer the artistic interpretation of a trick. To go far in BGT as a magician I think you need to incorporate both aspects into your act. I feel I fall in the second group of people - I can really enjoy a basic trick or illusion if performed beautifully, but there are many other people who need to be puzzled and stunned by magic before they can enjoy it.
Unfortunately I don't think any magic act on BGT has ever managed to tick both these boxes and until they do I don't think we'll see a magician winning this show.”
“I really enjoy watching magic, but I think BGT is not the show for them. It is the nature of BGT that it will attract amateurs and this seriously puts magicians at a disadvantage. For amateur singers, dancers etc it is easy for them to come across as fresh, new or different (even if their talent or skill is a little rough around the edges). In comparison, amateur magicians tend to be acts who have purchased a magic trick or illusion off the shelf of a magic shop and unfortunately these tend to be old tried and tested illusions that we have all seen before.
Thats not to say that classic magic cannot be entertaining if performed well, but the majority of magic acts on BGT seem to think that once they've purchased and learnt the trick all they have to do is just perform it to an audience. But there is much more to it than that. Unless the act is something we have never seen before, there needs to be some personality or showmanship included in the act to make it stand out.
Some people like to be wowed and mystified by a magic trick and others prefer the artistic interpretation of a trick. To go far in BGT as a magician I think you need to incorporate both aspects into your act. I feel I fall in the second group of people - I can really enjoy a basic trick or illusion if performed beautifully, but there are many other people who need to be puzzled and stunned by magic before they can enjoy it.
Unfortunately I don't think any magic act on BGT has ever managed to tick both these boxes and until they do I don't think we'll see a magician winning this show.”
I agree with your points. I think that BGT is an instant gratification low attention span type of show.
There's an atmosphere of impatience on this show where the audience don't want to hang about waiting for something to happen. Which of course is what magic is all about.
Even with some non-magic acts who have appeared on this show, I've thought that they were very good, but you can almost sense the atmosphere of impatience as you're watching with Simon's hand looming over his buzzer and it even creates a sense of tension within myself when in normal circumstances I would be able to sit down, relax, and enjoy the act.
It's the same as any act, not just magic, which has an element of a reveal to it where I feel a sense of tension for them.
Even singers who start off slowly to then reveal a change where it suddenly goes upbeat, or they suddenly grow a pair of giant wings, judges have buzzed them prematurely because they simply couldn't be arsed waiting and demanded instant gratification.
So with magic you'd have a mountain to climb even before you get onto the stage.
You'd probably need to be already at a level of showmanship where you're already successful and established so wouldn't even need to go onto BGT.
To be a good enough magician to win BGT you'd probably need to already be at the professional level of Derren Brown. Who of course doesn't need to go onto BGT anyway.
Originally Posted by Alrightmate:
“I agree with your points. I think that BGT is an instant gratification low attention span type of show.
There's an atmosphere of impatience on this show where the audience don't want to hang about waiting for something to happen. Which of course is what magic is all about.
Even with some non-magic acts who have appeared on this show, I've thought that they were very good, but you can almost sense the atmosphere of impatience as you're watching with Simon's hand looming over his buzzer and it even creates a sense of tension within myself when in normal circumstances I would be able to sit down, relax, and enjoy the act.
It's the same as any act, not just magic, which has an element of a reveal to it where I feel a sense of tension for them.
Even singers who start off slowly to then reveal a change where it suddenly goes upbeat, or they suddenly grow a pair of giant wings, judges have buzzed them prematurely because they simply couldn't be arsed waiting and demanded instant gratification.
So with magic you'd have a mountain to climb even before you get onto the stage.
You'd probably need to be already at a level of showmanship where you're already successful and established so wouldn't even need to go onto BGT.
To be a good enough magician to win BGT you'd probably need to already be at the professional level of Derren Brown. Who of course doesn't need to go onto BGT anyway.”
“I agree with your points. I think that BGT is an instant gratification low attention span type of show.
There's an atmosphere of impatience on this show where the audience don't want to hang about waiting for something to happen. Which of course is what magic is all about.
Even with some non-magic acts who have appeared on this show, I've thought that they were very good, but you can almost sense the atmosphere of impatience as you're watching with Simon's hand looming over his buzzer and it even creates a sense of tension within myself when in normal circumstances I would be able to sit down, relax, and enjoy the act.
It's the same as any act, not just magic, which has an element of a reveal to it where I feel a sense of tension for them.
Even singers who start off slowly to then reveal a change where it suddenly goes upbeat, or they suddenly grow a pair of giant wings, judges have buzzed them prematurely because they simply couldn't be arsed waiting and demanded instant gratification.
So with magic you'd have a mountain to climb even before you get onto the stage.
You'd probably need to be already at a level of showmanship where you're already successful and established so wouldn't even need to go onto BGT.
To be a good enough magician to win BGT you'd probably need to already be at the professional level of Derren Brown. Who of course doesn't need to go onto BGT anyway.”
Thats an interesting point and a good observation. In fact thinking about it Stavros Flatley (who went on to do quite well if I remember) almost got buzzed early on in their audition due to the long recorded voice intro and the length of time it took them to actually enter the stage.
Like you say, magicians are particularly prone to this disadvantage as by the nature of their act a long set up is required. However, there are some short, quick and snappy tricks out there, but a lot of them do require skilful sleight of hand and manipulation along with years of practice.
i thought those swedish guys were better last year. their card trick in the first audition was really good
Originally Posted by flowers786:
“i thought those swedish guys were better last year. their card trick in the first audition was really good”
“i thought those swedish guys were better last year. their card trick in the first audition was really good”
It was a decent trick and they were quite entertaining, but like Alrightmate says above, it took a while to set up and despite them rushing through it a bit they still received a buzz from the judges IIRC.
Their second performance suffered in the same way I think and had the additional problem that the illusion was not as good.
2 minutes just isn't enough for a magic act to really show off its stuff. But unfortunately any longer would bore a BGT audience so its a catch-22 situation really.
Originally Posted by LankyLizard:
“It was a decent trick and they were quite entertaining, but like Alrightmate says above, it took a while to set up and despite them rushing through it a bit they still received a buzz from the judges IIRC.
Their second performance suffered in the same way I think and had the additional problem that the illusion was not as good.
2 minutes just isn't enough for a magic act to really show off its stuff. But unfortunately any longer would bore a BGT audience so its a catch-22 situation really.”
“It was a decent trick and they were quite entertaining, but like Alrightmate says above, it took a while to set up and despite them rushing through it a bit they still received a buzz from the judges IIRC.
Their second performance suffered in the same way I think and had the additional problem that the illusion was not as good.
2 minutes just isn't enough for a magic act to really show off its stuff. But unfortunately any longer would bore a BGT audience so its a catch-22 situation really.”
they were on that penn and teller show presented by johanathan ross. they got to perform in vegas as P and T couldn't figure out how they did it which was weird coz i figured it out - the one with tape shoved the card in his mouth while the other man slapped his head down
Originally Posted by flowers786:
“they were on that penn and teller show presented by johanathan ross. they got to perform in vegas as P and T couldn't figure out how they did it which was weird coz i figured it out - the one with tape shoved the card in his mouth while the other man slapped his head down”
“they were on that penn and teller show presented by johanathan ross. they got to perform in vegas as P and T couldn't figure out how they did it which was weird coz i figured it out - the one with tape shoved the card in his mouth while the other man slapped his head down”
I saw that episode too. I think they were very clever insomuch that that the guy holding the cards deliberately made a clumsy move to make Penn and Teller think that was how they did it, but in reality they used a different method - so fooled them, but not in the traditional sense. They were much better on that show though as they were given more time and were performing to an audience more receptive of magicians.
Originally Posted by LankyLizard:
“Thats an interesting point and a good observation. In fact thinking about it Stavros Flatley (who went on to do quite well if I remember) almost got buzzed early on in their audition due to the long recorded voice intro and the length of time it took them to actually enter the stage.
Like you say, magicians are particularly prone to this disadvantage as by the nature of their act a long set up is required. However, there are some short, quick and snappy tricks out there, but a lot of them do require skilful sleight of hand and manipulation along with years of practice.”
“Thats an interesting point and a good observation. In fact thinking about it Stavros Flatley (who went on to do quite well if I remember) almost got buzzed early on in their audition due to the long recorded voice intro and the length of time it took them to actually enter the stage.
Like you say, magicians are particularly prone to this disadvantage as by the nature of their act a long set up is required. However, there are some short, quick and snappy tricks out there, but a lot of them do require skilful sleight of hand and manipulation along with years of practice.”
Thanks, but credit to you for making me think about it. Even I wasn't aware of it until you made me think about what I already knew deep down. It was obviously in there at the back of my mind somewhere, but I probably wouldn't have consciously thought about it and brought it to my own attention if i wasn't inspired to think about it.
Originally Posted by LankyLizard:
“I saw that episode too. I think they were very clever insomuch that that the guy holding the cards deliberately made a clumsy move to make Penn and Teller think that was how they did it, but in reality they used a different method - so fooled them, but not in the traditional sense. They were much better on that show though as they were given more time and were performing to an audience more receptive of magicians.”
“I saw that episode too. I think they were very clever insomuch that that the guy holding the cards deliberately made a clumsy move to make Penn and Teller think that was how they did it, but in reality they used a different method - so fooled them, but not in the traditional sense. They were much better on that show though as they were given more time and were performing to an audience more receptive of magicians.”
Oh yes, I remember that. That was a very clever deception.
For somebody to even think of deceiving them like that is as deserving of merit as the main trick itself.
That's also a very good example of how the psychology behind two different shows works.
BGT almost preps viewers to be impatient and to demand instant gratification.
A half-decent child magician would get through to the final over a good adult magician like James More from last night, I reckon. This show always magnifies childrens talent to more than they actually are.
Yes the catch 22:
If you are good and modern then you are act and about doing it. (Not always on TV but doing live shows)
If you are not doing that to any great level, then you will get nowhere on BGT.
So basically this is not the route for any magician to break into show business.
In fact the whole show is set up for singers and dancers. Anyone else need not apply.
Simon doesn't want you.
If you are good and modern then you are act and about doing it. (Not always on TV but doing live shows)
If you are not doing that to any great level, then you will get nowhere on BGT.
So basically this is not the route for any magician to break into show business.
In fact the whole show is set up for singers and dancers. Anyone else need not apply.
Simon doesn't want you.
