Dynamo, Magician Impossible, To Air in the US

[IrishMagicNews]

and (Daniels, mostly) made magic something for a tiny minority, his arrogant and irritating personality turning most viewers OFF magic.

Hardly.

[Potty the Pirate]

Potty, I think Derren Brown has loads of personality.

Good for you. Obviously, some folks agree with you, or he wouldn't be where he is. Likewise Daniels. I think magicians and mentalists often have a poor idea of what a good stage persona is.
Most of the folks I speak to (when the subject comes up) find both these characters thoroughly irritating and obnoxious. So do I. A few months in pantomime would probably have done wonders for their abilities.
Hey, it's "horses for courses", and both have done very well for themselves. I would never deny their ability to manipulate the media....just as David Nixon did.
As to their actual entertainment value, I'd rate both very low. There are so many far, far more competent and entertaining folks out there working in the trenches. I guess the difference is that the good guys don't have the arrogance or the connections, that's all.
Oh, and I'm afraid after the ridiculous presentation of Derren Brown's Lottery prediction (SO many simple mathematical errors, it beggars belief), I don't have much time for his effects either.
He also uses every electronic gaff, stooges, and whatever else is available to present his nonsense.

[mrgoat]

and (Daniels, mostly) made magic something for a tiny minority, his arrogant and irritating personality turning most viewers OFF magic.

Hardly.

I ignored that part of potty's post because it was such obvious trolling. Daniels and his magic sets got more people into magic than the combination of angel, blaine and that mumbling kid from bradford that uses stooges.

[mrgoat]

He also uses stooges

Could you please name one of his effects that uses stooges?

Also, what point are you making here? That you don't like any famous magicians and you think it's OK to use camera tricks and stooges? Is that it?

[Richard Kaufman]

I think Potty is just being contrary. Have you watched the video on his website?

[mrgoat]

I think Potty is just being contrary. Have you watched the video on his website?

Yes, I tried to help him with his website, but he got annoyed that he didn't know it was done in Flash when it shouldn't be, and then called me names.

This is before he called up lots of people on a forum and told their wives not to let their husbands associate with me by posting on a forum I frequented because I work for Playboy.

I suspect Mark Lewis has put him up to these obvious trolling posts.

I'll just stop replying and I imagine he'll go back to chatting with Lewis and Bishop about how awful I am at the Buskers forum, thinking I don't have an account there and don't read their collective oddness.

[IrishMagicNews]

As to their actual entertainment value, I'd rate both very low.

For real?

Potty -
[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxnh03d7pUw[/video]

Paul
[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSMppfXpDmg&feature=related[/video]

Derren
[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIfFmawGrYk[/video]

Just offering some perspective.

[mrgoat]

Well played, Sir.

[Richard Kaufman]

Potty, in an attempt to prevent you from further pummeling your already perilous reputation, I'd suggest you prevent yourself from posting further.

[BillMorrison]

More pirate videos please.

[Potty the Pirate]

Potty, in an attempt to prevent you from further pummeling your already perilous reputation, I'd suggest you prevent yourself from posting further.

Richard, I have no regard for my reputation with trolls! As for comparing my act with Daniels and Brown, well I just gotta laugh! My video above is aimed at 4-6 year-olds. Go ask some kids of that age which of the 3 vids they prefer?
More interestingly, show some adults videos of Daniels, Brown, and Scott Alexander. Scott appeals to a very broad section of the adult population, not just a small minority. Likewise, my act is designed to appeal to pretty much all kids of a certain age, not just a few.
But all this is skirting the issue, and deliberately missing the point.
TV magic has and will continue to morph, as more and more things become possible with effects and editing techniques. Like it or not, it's the way things are.
My opinion is that if you don't move with the times, you'll quickly find yourself out-of-touch.
Doug

[mrgoat]

Richard, I have no regard for my reputation with trolls!

I believe RK meant your trolling here was obvious, and he would prefer you not to post in a similar vein. Otherwise you might be forced to take a leave of absence from here.

However, as you showed up being a troll just after RK banned your little pal Mark Lewis (again), it's obvious to all and sundry you are here as his puppet to try and cause mischief. Shame you've been sussed so early in your trolling career.

My video above is aimed at 4-6 year-olds.

Ah I see your problem. It is parents that make bookings, not 4 year olds.

Maybe take the raw footage to a professional editor, and pay for it to be cut properly. Get rid of the stupid font. The track with the kids screaming and laughing is so OBVIOUSLY dubbed on, it might fool a 4 year old, but no parent.

Now, run along back to buskers' cafe and slag me off with your pals Bishop and Lewis.

[Tom Frame]

I've checked The Learning Channel's website and my Directv guide and there is no mention of Dynamo's program appearing on February 16 at 10 PM. Is this the correct date/time/channel?

[John Signa]

I had noticed that it wasn't listed on my DVR's guide. Then checked TLC and saw it wasn't listed there either. Did a search on TLC's site for Dynamo. Search came back with 3 pages, but the links were invalid.
It looks as if TLC announced the show and then shortly afterwards pulled it, replacing it with David Blaine reruns.

[Potty the Pirate]

Don't worry, Dynamo will make his way across the Pond. When he does, I hope you enjoy the fireworks. His show gets to folks, seems like here is a new generation of magic.
Just psychologically project yourself into his shoes - or allow the reverse to happen.
Then, all will be clear.

[Brad Henderson]

This coming from a grown man in a pirate suit

[Potty the Pirate]

This coming from a grown man in a pirate suit

Indeed, and with over 45 years of experience performing magic, and looking forwards, that's what I choose to do for a living. I thoroughly enjoy my occupation, for me it's a life choice.
When you reach my age, you probably will have had many opportunities, as I have.
Some of those opportunities will slip through your fingers, some you will embrace, and they will become inextricably intwerwoven with you, and some, if you're as lucky as I am, will become a lifestyle to which you might just find yourself irresistably drawn.
Potty the Pirate

[Brad Henderson]

I remain unconvinced that your opinions on what qualifies as good for the art are well founded.

[Potty the Pirate]

If you read my posts, you'll see that I don't claim that modern trends in TV magic are neccessarily "good for the Art". Merely that there's no getting away from the facts. I think modern "Fine Art" is laughable, and what passes for "Art" these days is beyond comprehension. But the Art Establishment wishes to accept plastic bags stuck on ceilings, dirty beds, and blank canvases as works of greatness.
I think personally, that's very bad for Art...and makes a mockery of real Artists.
But, that's the way things are.
Doug

[mrgoat]

I agree potty. Plastic bags on ceilings are about as much art as Dynamo using editing camera tricks and stooges are magic. He makes a mockery of real magicians.

[Brad Henderson]

The difference is at least those who put the bags on the ceiling have considered what they are doing, what it means in context of art. Those that perform such acts are CAPABLE of creating more traditional works, but because of their intended message, choose not too.

That's a far cry from using camera tricks because one simply cannot deliver any other way

Now, if the use of camera tricks were a commentary on illusion and the manipulation of media, then yes they would be fair game.

But it's not.

It's magic lip syncing.

[Brad Henderson]

Perhaps the compromise is to classify magic which can only be performed as is on tv as tv magic, and educate our audiences that camera tricks and stooges are part of the tools of that media. Then magicians interested in tv magic can be free to explore those tools and perhaps create something greater than merely simulated live magic tricks. The audience can appreciate their manipulation of the tool set (wow, it didn't look like he did any camera tricks) and everyone is happy.

We differentiate between different kinds of art, even different kinds of painting or sculpture - if tv tools are 'the future' then perhaps we should identify different kinds of magic.

If you want to experience magic on tv, then go to a tv magician. If you want to experience magic live, go to someone who specializes in that

[Richard Kaufman]

"Perhaps the compromise is to classify magic which can only be performed as is on tv as tv magic, and educate our audiences that camera tricks and stooges are part of the tools of that media." {emphasis mine]

Brad, there's no difference between that and "educating" the audience about how illusions work because you happen to be a close-up magician. That's really just ridiculous.

[Brad Henderson]

Except people are aware that close up magicians rely on techniques such as sleight of hand and misdirection. These are the tools that a magician uses. Audiences are aware that the illusionist uses specially designed equipment to produce his or her magic effects, yet stage magic seems not be be harmed by that knowledge. Look at the history of manipulation acts by John fisher in the Cardini books. Not only was the audience aware of concepts such as palming (many critics would openly reference a magi's skill at palming), some magicians (thurston included I believe) had art work showing some of the dextrous techniques in the lobby. That was ok, yes?

The only problem with the audience being aware of camera tricks is when the only thing you have to offer is camera tricks! That's hardly magic then, is it. Definitely not art.

So, What's wrong with creating a genre of magic which openly uses camera tricks - knowing somethig is a 'camera trick' is no different than being aware of sleight of hand
- is it?

[Richard Kaufman]

If you assume that laymen automatically think you're using sleight of hand every time you pick up a deck of cards or a coin then I don't know what to say, because if you don't do flourishes and expose your ability, IT ISN'T TRUE. They are far far more likely to think you are using "tricky" cards or something like that.

[mrgoat]

The difference is at least those who put the bags on the ceiling have considered what they are doing, what it means in context of art. Those that perform such acts are CAPABLE of creating more traditional works, but because of their intended message, choose not too.

I'm sure Dynamo, or at least someone in his management team *considered* if he should cheat like a bitch and use stooges and editing and what that meant in context of his art.

I've seen he is CAPABLE of doing store bought tricks and even the odd double lift. So he is CAPABLE of creating more traditional magic, but is just choosing to cheat like a bitch.

It's clearly working for him, do we have to like it? No. Just as I detest with passion and loathing the work of Tacita Dean, I am sure she considered what it would mean to do her kind of (and it pains me to even say it) "art".

[Brad Henderson]

From sources close to the dynamo production, it is my understanding that dynamo's skills are extraordinarily limited. Just returned from nyc and the word is that is was easier to have tbose around him do the work than try to get him up to speed. But thats the rumour mill.

And I'm not convinced they had the philosophical discussion you speculate- if they had, then they are artists of very little vision. I believe it's a case of 'the other guys do it, and I can't do it any other way, and I have a producer that needs me to get this filmed by Friday and we spent all our money going to clubs ...' but that is speculation too, of course.

Seems to me if we differentiate what they do from what others do, then not liking it becomes easier and a matter of taste.

Richard, many magicians advertise what they do as sleight of hand, or call thenselves sleight of hand artists. That doesnt seem to constitute exposure - Instead it allows a greater appreciation for what it is that they are doing.

And apparently knowledge of tricky cards does not prevent audiences from experiencing magic when presented ably by someone with talent - regardless of whether or not they are using said tricky cards.

So, where is the problem with having a genre of magic which embraces camera tricks as part of it's known tool set? It would actually free 'tv magicians' to freely explore and exploit the tools at their disposal. The audience can appreciate both the art and the craft, as they do with, say, a Ricky jay performance where sleight of hand is without question assumed over tricky cards.

If it is true that camera tricks are not going away - then doesn't it make sense to provide an outlet for those who choose to work in that media, while differentiating those who choose not to?

We have painters, we have photographers, we have photo realistic painters. If they offer something of substance, knowledge of their method does not detract, in fact, it only contributes to appreciation. The problem with magic in any form is we rarely convey substance beyond 'the trick', in which case all we have is the method.

But let's take things a step further back, the experience one has watching magic live is different than experiencing it on tv (many have said this, but most recently tamariz spoke of it). They are different genres of magic. They use different techiques for a different type of audience. Isnt it time we recognized that and defined them so?

Plays are plays and movies are movies. Live magic and the modern incarnation of tv magic are two different creatures. Where is the harm in acknowledging that?

[Jonathan Townsend]

Entertainment product - commercial time and sponsors.

Does Dynamo do live shows (booked work in theaters, clubs, hospitalities) for a living?

[Simone M]

I was surprised to have a chat with lay people who have seen the show and discover that their favourite bits were actually the "smaller" stuff (the odd card trick, coin trick etc) instead of the bigger illusions. So, in a sense, I think Dynamo could work live, given the correct setting.
People are aware of camera tricks and video editing (not because of magic but because 90% of TV is about tampering with images), so their perception of a big illusion on screen is already corrupted, the effect is diluited.

As for personality and the comparison with Derren Brown; I think Derren Brown has an immense stage presence, but his personality is not as direct. He looks empathically impenetrable, if it makes any sense.
On the other hand, Dynamo has ZERO stage presence (he blends with the background honestly) but his personality is pretty clear (canonical or uncanonical it is): you can tell what social class he belongs to, his roots, his weaknesses etc. People can empathize with that.

In that respect, I really don't care if he uses stooges or what. After years of seeing talentless magicians on TV acting like cocky b*st*rds, I'm glad people get to see someone that at least looks nice and shy. And it's true that he reflects the superficiality of modern days society, but in a very naive and non malicious way. I guess this shows some humanity, and that is obviously what lay people notice first.

So should we endorse a lad with limited skills who uses stooges and editing? I'm not sure, but I'm happy to support a positive personality, because to lay people that's what makes (any type of) magic attractive.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Simone, we had that already in the form of a TV show called The Magician starring a guy who was endearing and a decent actor - just not a magician. That actor went on to an even more special effects based show where the audience was supposed to believe he turned into Lou Ferigno (and green as well) while wearing the same pants. Go figure.

[Richard Kaufman]

Dynamo has been doing magic for many years--I know him for at least a decade. His skills can't be that limited, and repeating rumors really doesn't add to the value of this conversation.

[Brad Henderson]

If we continue to support those who use camera tricks, we will continue to get people who use camera tricks - shy and bold in temperament alike.

Only when we cease to support camera trickery passing as magic will we have the opportunity to see an example of a pleasant personality presenting magic on tv without such crutches.

[Brad Henderson]

If he had these skills. Richard, then why are those around him the one's 'doing the work'?

E!, access Hollywood, tmz - the world of mainstream entertainment thrives on often little more than rumours, seems to me the real world believes they add a lot to the conversation.

As I wrote in my letter re dobson et al, in magic we tend to make our value judgements based on who we know and who we like.

[mrgoat]

His skills can't be that limited

He skills are great at paying a consultant to tell him which almost skill-less props he should buy.

[BillMorrison]

Anyone know what's going on with this?
Checked TV Guide and TLC is running David Blaine.
Checked the TLC website and all the Dynamo links don't work (they show in search but go dead when you click).

Did it get put off? Cancelled?

[Richard Kaufman]

No clue at the moment.

[Ray Chelt]

Funny thing is when I first saw Dynamo I was less than impressed with this little kid from the streets doing store bought magic.

But you know what, people love him -- all my lay friends think he's great and never stop talking about him.

The David Blaine comparisons are in my opinion, lazy and wrong. He doesn't do the pseudo spiritual guff that Blaine does or speak in hushed and mysterious tones. He's the street urchin doing amazing things and thats what sets him apart

And tough to those of us who think we can do better. The reality is that, if you wanted TV fame and fortune, you should have had people and a plan around you to make that a reality.

Its no use moaning because somebody you consider inferior got there first. The reality is, from a career building perspective, Dynamo had the nouse to get on and most moaners didn't or were not prepared to take the necessary risks.

[mrgoat]

No one is moaning because someone got there first. People are moaning because he is using stooges and camera tricks.

But you are right, lay people love him.

But they also love Macdonalds and X Factor.

[Ray Chelt]

Hmm not sure about X Factor but there's definitely a place in the world for McDonalds.

And as for the stooges bit, well I'm of the opinion that folk know subconsciously at least that TV isn't quite real.

When you do a decent piece of magic live its much more visceral than having seen it happen on TV.

E.g. I was sat around a table at work and folk were talking about some magic show on TV. Always being prepared there was a pen on the table with a little IT attached and I spun a bit of guff about telekinesis then had it move 4 inches.

It blew everybody away and all talk of the TV show disappeared.

I really think its only we magicians that get all het up about the unfairness of using stooges-- for me it had no impact at all.

[Minder]

I am not going to comment on anyones views of Dynamo - they are entitled to their opinion - but Dynamo DOES NOT use stooges for the effects on his TV show.