Okay, Blaine's out of the box: what do you think of the stunt?

[Steve V]

As a sign of friendship I would like to invite a Brit to hang in a box over the Mississippi.
Steve V

[Guest]

Originally posted by Dale Shrimpton:
the word is, he wants nothing to do with Geller anymore,because of the amount of publicity Geller garnered for himself through the stunt. Even at one point claiming that he was " sending positive energy to david, so he will complete the stunt". thus, Taking all the credit.
;)

Now THAT'S the way to get publicity! Let someone else go through all the hassle of becoming Snap-Change Ghandi, then hijack the media while snacking on tasty hummus.

Ted

[Guest]

;) [/qb][/QUOTE]Now THAT'S the way to get publicity! Let someone else go through all the hassle of becoming Snap-Change Ghandi, then hijack the media while snacking on tasty hummus.

Ted [/QB][/QUOTE]

Or "Gandhi", if you will. (DAMN I hate it when I ruin a perfectly good joke by misspelling the reference.)

T

[Guest]

What I've enjoyed the most are all the British magicians telling us how bored and disinterested they are with the whole thing. So bored and disinterested that they are apparently compelled to read, and post messages to, a message board. Strange behavior. Pardon me; Strange behaviour.

[Bill Duncan]

I really haven't been paying any attention to this rather tasteless stunt... until yesterday when Comedy Central's The Daily Show did a report.

It really summed up the "truth" of it all.

Tonight in a recap one of the fake reporters said:
"His exploit tells us that in these troubled times there is no escape so we might as well sit back and do nothing. I may not do much on this planet, John, but David Blaine showed me that I could do less."

[Jon Racherbaumer]

Minimalism Ain't What It Used To Be.
Less as Less is better than Less Is More.

A tee-shirt in the Big Easy:

Do Less.
Care Less.
Be Less.
Be Blaine-Less.

Taking baby steps backwards,

JR

[Pete Biro]

He's putting the pounds (Sterling) on! :cool:

[Michael E. Abston]

I like what a British comedian said the other night on a David Frost special. He said that American magician David Blaine just finished 44 days in a box hanging over the Thames. That establishes him as the World's Worst Escapeologist (sp)! Laughed myself silly (but I'm easy). Just thought to share.

[Steve Bryant]

Considering David's enviable dating pool, 44 days of abstinence is a MAJOR commitment. I'm impressed.

[Guest]

44 days in a box is nothing, once I was married for 6 years!

[Guest]

Last night at Magic in the 'Burbs, I performed a stunt that was quite similar to Blaine's.

I took the stage with a slice of Oreo cake and announced that, using Blaine as a model, I was going to perform a similar deprivation stunt. I promised that would abstain from wheat products for a full 90 minutes. At the end of the evening, someone had eaten most of that cake, but my conscience was clear. :D

[Michael Jay]

Originally posted by Kevin Connolly:
"No one understands TV better than David Blaine and his associates."

Maybe, maybe not. I watched three one hour news programs yesterday. They all covered the story. From 14 seconds, 22 seconds and 26 seconds in length. They aired from the 26 minute mark to the 35th. All were dismissive about the stunt. From being a "nutter" to possibly not being on the up and up.

My feeling is that it was really tired stunt that ran into trouble from the begining. From the physical and verbal attacks in the beginning, the Roy attack in the middle(which knocked Blaine out for 10 straight days, at least), till PM Blair with chest pains on the last day. Not to mention much hotter stories that occured during the last two weeks across the US.

If they understand TV so well, maybe the next time they'll do a better job on getting on it and staying there.

The biggest problem with this argument is that over the course of 44 days, there will be a great deal of news world wide. This cannot be avoided. It just so happened that in the 44 day span, the news worthy items pointed out above are the ones that occurred. At no point could anyone choose to start a 44 day stunt without having huge amounts of news take place over that time. Did you think the world would stand still while Blaine sat in his box??

It should be obvious to anyone that in 44 days there are going to be things that will grab the spotlight from a guy in a box. It would be ignorant to think otherwise. As it turned out, Prime Minister Blaire made the news, Roy got attacked and so many other things. However, if all of those things did not occur, then all kinds of other things would have. Out of the billions of people world wide, news happens, big news, small news and everything in between.

Now, here is where you argument about all of this stealing the press from Blaine falls short. Through all of this news, Blaine remained on the air. Yes, he went into the background for a bit, but, even though Tony Blaire had heart problems, even though Roy was attacked, even though Kobe made the news, Blaine was still there, the cameras continued to roll and people continued to show up to look at a guy in a box.

Just because bigger news stories took the spotlight and people's attention away from Blaine momentarily, they never the less came back to Blaine. And that is the point. In fact, nothing short of world war 3 would have stolen Blaine's spotlight permanently.

If you want to reduce this to its essence, then consider this. Over the course of those 44 days of news worthy events, Blaine sitting in a box was the thread that tied them together. All of these events occurred while Blaine sat in his box. Blaine is the tie that binds every news item over those 44 days together. From a child dying of pneumonia in Zimbabwe (which you don't hear about in the news) to soldiers giving their lives in Iraq (which is daily news), they all have one thing in common - Blaine was sitting in his box throughout. Kind of essoteric, if you think about it.

So, to claim that just because bigger news stories came along in 44 days, things bigger than a guy sitting in a box, means that this whole stunt was a failure, really shows no conceptual thinking. I'm sorry, but that line of reasoning is just dead wrong.

Mike.

[Kevin Connolly]

If you think 14 to 26 second dismissve reports on Blaine leaving his box after 44 days is a success, than I'm wrong. Maybe you just set you bar for success a lot lower than me.

I never get it a moments thought about news stories stopping while he was in the box. Obviously he didn't. To say his story had fallen into the background a bit, is surely an understatement. Little or no coverage for 10 days seems to prove he fell of the radar screen, rather than being overshadowed by bigger news/sports stories.

So, if you think what he did was great, he had wall-to-wall coverage etc., good for you. I'll go with what Teller said about him when asked "What do you think of David Blaine"? He said ( as I remember) "He sure does stand around alot". :D

Originally posted by Michael Jay:

Originally posted by Kevin Connolly:
[b] "No one understands TV better than David Blaine and his associates."

Maybe, maybe not. I watched three one hour news programs yesterday. They all covered the story. From 14 seconds, 22 seconds and 26 seconds in length. They aired from the 26 minute mark to the 35th. All were dismissive about the stunt. From being a "nutter" to possibly not being on the up and up.

My feeling is that it was really tired stunt that ran into trouble from the begining. From the physical and verbal attacks in the beginning, the Roy attack in the middle(which knocked Blaine out for 10 straight days, at least), till PM Blair with chest pains on the last day. Not to mention much hotter stories that occured during the last two weeks across the US.

If they understand TV so well, maybe the next time they'll do a better job on getting on it and staying there.

The biggest problem with this argument is that over the course of 44 days, there will be a great deal of news world wide. This cannot be avoided. It just so happened that in the 44 day span, the news worthy items pointed out above are the ones that occurred. At no point could anyone choose to start a 44 day stunt without having huge amounts of news take place over that time. Did you think the world would stand still while Blaine sat in his box??

It should be obvious to anyone that in 44 days there are going to be things that will grab the spotlight from a guy in a box. It would be ignorant to think otherwise. As it turned out, Prime Minister Blaire made the news, Roy got attacked and so many other things. However, if all of those things did not occur, then all kinds of other things would have. Out of the billions of people world wide, news happens, big news, small news and everything in between.

Now, here is where you argument about all of this stealing the press from Blaine falls short. Through all of this news, Blaine remained on the air. Yes, he went into the background for a bit, but, even though Tony Blaire had heart problems, even though Roy was attacked, even though Kobe made the news, Blaine was still there, the cameras continued to roll and people continued to show up to look at a guy in a box.

Just because bigger news stories took the spotlight and people's attention away from Blaine momentarily, they never the less came back to Blaine. And that is the point. In fact, nothing short of world war 3 would have stolen Blaine's spotlight permanently.

If you want to reduce this to its essence, then consider this. Over the course of those 44 days of news worthy events, Blaine sitting in a box was the thread that tied them together. All of these events occurred while Blaine sat in his box. Blaine is the tie that binds every news item over those 44 days together. From a child dying of pneumonia in Zimbabwe (which you don't hear about in the news) to soldiers giving their lives in Iraq (which is daily news), they all have one thing in common - Blaine was sitting in his box throughout. Kind of essoteric, if you think about it.

So, to claim that just because bigger news stories came along in 44 days, things bigger than a guy sitting in a box, means that this whole stunt was a failure, really shows no conceptual thinking. I'm sorry, but that line of reasoning is just dead wrong.

Mike. [/b]

[Michael Jay]

Originally posted by Kevin Connolly:
So, if you think what he did was great, he had wall-to-wall coverage etc., good for you. I'll go with what Teller said about him when asked "What do you think of David Blaine"? He said ( as I remember) "He sure does stand around alot". :D

Just off hand, did Teller say that to you personally? Or is this a fact of Teller knowing who Blaine is and knowing about his stunt and you are quoting something that you've read, because Teller has no idea who you are? Hmm...

I don't particularly think what Blaine did was great. I don't even think it was semi-okay. However, that doesn't change the fact that Blaine has received HUGE amounts of buzz on these forums as a result of what he's done. So, he dropped from the radar screen for 10 days. A little basic math proves that less than 25% of his stunt was unsuccessful from a marketing point of view. That means that his stunt was over 75% successful. Not to mention that he walked away with a few million in his pocket, above and beyond the publicity.

I'll go so far as to say that if he got absolute zero publicity out of it, the fact that he made an income of, roughly, $100,000.00 a day to do this, well, let's see, that's $4,100.00+ per hour, makes his stunt overwhelmingly successful. Whether you think what he did was stupid or not, it was highly lucrative.

So, you can quit pointing out that there was world news that upstaged a man in a box. Well, duh, of course there were hundreds of things more important in the world for 44 days while a guy sat in a box. Still, if you think it wasn't successful you just ain't thinking.

Mike.

[Steve V]

He walked away with a few million? So that was the motivation. Exactly who was paying him and why? Were they flashing ads onto the side of the box? I'm really trying to figure out why he did this if not to promote something, other than himself weeping. At least when Houdini hung himself out in public he was trying to fill a theater.
Steve V

[Pete Biro]

What Blaine is (has) done is "fill his theaters" -- he is now the "hot" act for the rich folks in NY, etc. just like Malini in his day.

He has generated more ink than you can imagine.

This morning on CBS "Face the Nation" Bob Schiefer made a funny closing talking about "what is news"... he said everyone is hearing about "some guy" hanging in a box in London, "another guy" living through a jump off Niagra Falls and a $50 Million lawsuit by Liza's husband. Who would think a marriage with Michael Jackson as best man and Liz Taylor as maid of honer would fail." :p

His point being, "This is all WHO CARES stuff, but it is big news." :D

[Bill Duncan]

Originally posted by Steve V:
I'm really trying to figure out why he did this if not to promote something, other than himself weeping. At least when Houdini hung himself out in public he was trying to fill a theater.

Steve,
I suspect what he was trying to do is create publicity for, and fill time in, another hour long special. It's a lot cheaper to spend fifteen or twenty minutes of a hour TV special showing the same "dramatic" clips of him in a box (or in ice or standing on a pole) than it is to stage a new illusion or licence exclusive TV rights to someone's original effect...

What's really sad is that there are people who a so intellectually shallow that this passes for entertainment, or artistic expression.

If he'd used the stunt to SAY something I'd at least consider it a worthwhile attempt. If he was trying to say something then, I think he failed.

Publicity is easy if you're already famous, just rip up a picture of the Pope on Saturday Night Live.

[Robert Allen]

Pete, thank you. With your explanation of Blaine's target audience and the mention of Malini I finally understand what he's doing. I would not say that Blaine's skill is comparable to Malini's (and I do not imply that you said that), but the comparison of the two as being private entertainers of the rich & shameless seems quite apt. Unlike Malini, Blaine needs to be grounded with the piercing & tattoo set on the street to be able to sell himself to his rich patrons.

Soo Blaine is right up there with other performance artists, various bits of unredeeming art, and things like the Warhol film of people sleeping. Iconified. So be it. With that I rip off the favorite phrase of One Who Posts Here:

Onward..

[Kevin Connolly]

Originally posted by Michael Jay:

[/qb]

Just off hand, did Teller say that to you personally? Or is this a fact of Teller knowing who Blaine is and knowing about his stunt and you are quoting something that you've read, because Teller has no idea who you are? Hmm...

Mike,

Sorry, but I had the wrong half of Penn& Teller. It was Penn. This might help you. ;)

http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/4488


Feel free to fall on your sword.

Kevin

[Pete Biro]

As Robert Orben once said, "I may not always be right... but I am NEVER wrong." :p :p :p

[Michael Jay]

I didn't fall on any sword. I made a statement based on misinformation that you posted. It doesn't change any of the facts that I've posted just because you don't know what you're talking about. If anything, it reinforces what I've said.

Based on what I read on your link above, I can ask the same thing someone else has asked - "Are you jealous?" That, in my opinion, is what everyone who is a Blaine detractor is...Jealous. Sorry that you don't have the publicity or fame that Blaine does. You know what? Get over it.

So, if you were asked to sit in a box for $4,100.00 per hour, how long would you go for?

Mike.

[Pete Biro]

Along the same lines... IMHO "Contemporary - or "modern" art" is mostly b.s. and if it wasn't for rich and shameless, like Peggy Guggenheim "patroning" many nobody would ever have thought much of it.

After visiting the Pompideaux (sp?) Museum (where there is such modern art you have no idea what you are looking at) I commented....

"The theft at the Pompideaux was solved. It turned out the cleaning crew tossed out what they thought was someone's dirty laundry piled in the corner of one of the exhibit rooms." :whack: :D :whack:

[Steve V]

Thank you Pete, yours was the best (and only) answer I've seen as to the 'why' of it all. Now I have another question. Keep in mind the only millionaires I know are high tech ones and they are a tad bit different than the NYC type I would think, and most the ones I know are presently no longer millionaires. My question is does Blaine consider himself a hired performer in the NYC society ranks or does he consider himself a 'member' of the high society ranks? If a member, then he would be a guest at the party and not being paid to perform. Of course for all I know on the East Coast they pay 'names' to attend functions.
Steve V

[Kevin Connolly]

Just do a search on Google with Blaine Penn in the search for more proof. I don't think that will help you, as no amount prrof will convince you.

I think I put more weight in what Penn knows and says about Blaine than you. You just seemed to have hooked your wagon to the wrong star.

[Pete Biro]

No longer classified as "rich and famous" I really can't tell you about Blaine and his paid, or "sing for your supper" gigs...

[Michael Jay]

Mr. Connoly Sez:

I think I put more weight in what Penn knows and says about Blaine than you. You just seemed to have hooked your wagon to the wrong star.

Man, right over your head. Did you read what I said, at all? I'll tell you what, you have no argument on that quote from me, at all. In fact, I put more weight in what Penn says than in what I say. Again, DUH.

My point is not WHAT Penn has said, but the fact that Penn is talking about Blaine at all. Does Penn discuss YOUR carreer? No? But he does, in fact, discuss Blaine's carreer. Could that be because Blaine is news worthy and you are not?

You know, I really didn't want to see an affable debate turn into a boorish argument, but, since you want to open a can of worms, then here you go...

When is the last time YOU were on British TV for 44 days? Oh, never? When were YOU discussed on national news programs, for even 2 seconds? Oh, never, yet again, eh? When have YOU and your carreer been discussed on the pages of this forum? Oops - still never, huh?

My point, sir, is not WHAT anyone says about Blaine, but the fact that EVERYONE (even you) is talking about Blaine. I can't recall who said it, but the saying goes, "Bad publicity is still better than NO publicity."

Did you get the point THIS time???? Or, do you need me to explain this to you in all one syllable words?

Mike.

[Richard Kaufman]

Gentlemen, mellow out please, or I will close the thread.
There are plenty of people who think Blaine is interesting and newsworthy, and just as many who think he's a talentless whore.
We each take our pick. Blaine is very good at producing a polorized opinion.

[John McDonald]

Originally posted by Pete Biro:
"Contemporary - or "modern" art" is mostly b.s.

Hear Hear ;)

Watching people discuss Blaine in awe rminds me of the story of the Emporer and his new clothes... :D

[Michael Jay]

My full apologies, Mr. Kaufman. I'm just getting frustrated. Mr. Connolly is twisting my words and refusing to see my point and, well, I'm at a loss. I really didn't want to see this turn into an argument.

Personally, I find David Blaine to be neither interesting nor talentless. I stand firmly in the middle. The fact of the matter is, the guy generates huge amounts of discussion amongst magicians. Funny, if you think about it - most magicians say he isn't a magician, but those who pay the most attention to him are magicians. I guess I'm trying to understand why magicians find him such a hot topic when they claim he is not one of them.

The point that I've been trying to make is not who says what about Mr. Blaine, but simply the fact that they are talking about him at all. I see so many negative comments about the guy that I feel the need to jump in and take his side. Still, facts are facts. To say that his latest stunt of sitting in a box was not successful is to completely overlook the fact that hundreds of thousands of people showed up to witness his stunt and that it is being discussed on the air waves by the laymen in the regular news. Whether they give him 20 minutes of press, or 10 seconds means little - he IS getting press.

When I read the deragatory remarks made against him, it can only mean that he is getting attention and it also speaks volumes (albeit poorly) about the magic community. I've discussed the difference between professional magicians and amateur magicians and I've noted that most pros like to say that "professional" means an attitude that is reflected in manner and speach. So, by casting disparaging remarks on a brother magician, those who do so only serve to prove that they are neither professional nor refined.

In closing, if you don't like somebody, hey, keep it to yourself. It is an old adage, and I've heard most everyone say it: "My mother always said, 'If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.'"

Mike.

[Steve V]

I must say that was the most unusual p*ssing contest I've seen on line.....
Steve V

[Kevin Connolly]

Richard,

Thanks for jumping in. I will not post further on this thread. I didn't know a Blaine sock puppet was out there lurking. ;)

Have A Nice Day :)