I just saw "Breaking the Magician's Code"

tracer · 18th September 2007, 07:52 PM

Yeah, I know it came out in 1997, but I just saw Breaking the Magician's Code on TV for the first time a few days ago.

How do y'all feel about this show, what with how it gives away the secrets of some standard tricks?

Brown · 18th September 2007, 08:22 PM

My feeling about the shows (there were several) was that they were mostly filler. There was usually one pretty good trick explained (although it was often explained poorly), but most of the others were not all that popular or mysterious.

Explanations of mechanical appratus were questionable, partly because the apparatus typically wasn't in wide use, partly because some of the apparatus was innovative and not stale (and the performer's later stated objection was to expose stale tricks), but mostly because struggling performers can sometimes invest thousands of dollars in similar equipment (a big investment!) but then some jackass trashes that investment by explaining its secrets.

TheDon · 18th September 2007, 08:23 PM

Is that the one with the 'Masked Magician'? And the fella from X-files (no, not him, the other one - you know, the bald one. That's him) presenting it? As I remember it, it was a cheap ratings-grabbing show that didn't give away any really significant secrets of magic. It didn't list ANY of the 17 Sacred Words, or even tell you the best farmyard animal to sacrifice to appease the Dark Lords of Conjuring.

Garrette · 19th September 2007, 06:14 AM

It bothered me because of its poor quality, not for its exposure.

I have friends and family who saw it when it first came out and they can't remember what the methods were.

AgeGap · 19th September 2007, 12:32 PM

I have a small collection of books on magic. The majority of the methods on BtMC are in these books. Books that were purchased from non-specialist book stores. If you wanted to know how a trick was done the information was out there. The trouble with the programme is that it exposed the tricks to people who were apathatic to how the tricks were done. It did seem to be done on the cheap but I still watched them all.

Azrael 5 · 19th September 2007, 02:02 PM

I think the illusionjs were explained in such a dumbass way that most people thought "Boll***s they never did it that way its ridiculous"
Plus the illusions featured weren't used by the majority anyway.

Bob Klase · 19th September 2007, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by AgeGap

The trouble with the programme is that it exposed the tricks to people who were apathatic to how the tricks were done.

I thought the real trouble with the program was the snide, condescending monologue (both the script and the attitude of Mitch Peleggi delivering it). "Wasn't that a great piece of magic? No it wasn't stupid, look how simple it is... not so great now, is it" type of stuff.

DJM · 19th September 2007, 05:36 PM

I liked more the special that aired a few weeks later, "Breaking The Masked Magician's Arms."

Checkmite · 19th September 2007, 05:58 PM

Who did the masked magician turn out to be, again?

Bob Klase · 19th September 2007, 08:25 PM

Valentino (Leonard Montano). He was actually a good magician- I saw him perform on the Merv Griffin show back in the 1980's.

Cain · 19th September 2007, 09:52 PM

People I encounter these days only remember seeing the show, and cannot recall details of the methods. I suspect it more or less comes down to the same guesswork, "He's using... mirrors! ...magnets! ...invisible strings!"

Azrael 5 · 20th September 2007, 02:29 AM

Originally Posted by Bob Klase

Valentino (Leonard Montano). He was actually a good magician- I saw him perform on the Merv Griffin show back in the 1980's.

And never since...?!

robinson · 26th September 2007, 03:11 PM

He worked Vegas until FOX hired him for the TV shows.

roger · 26th September 2007, 03:37 PM

I remember the secret for the levitating woman where they pass rings around her to show that she wasn't being supported by anything, but not anything else.

ETA: I think I am actually thinking of another show than the one in the OP.

Unalienable · 1st October 2007, 06:05 AM

What I hate the most of these "exposure" shows is that they don't instill the true beauty behind how tricks are really done. I mean, there is the "method", and then there is HOW YOU DO IT. The attention to detail is the difference between the great magicians and the hacks.

Even at the simplest level, like the way a magician will say "put your finger on this card" to prevent the spectator from prematurely turning the card over, speaks wonders about the methods of influencing and controlling people at subtle psychological levels. This stuff is never discussed in these magic exposure shows, and this is the stuff that I find 1000 times more fascinating than the gimmicks and gizmos.

18th September 2007, 07:52 PM	#1
tracer Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Silicon Valley, Calif. Posts: 1,341	I just saw "Breaking the Magician's Code" Yeah, I know it came out in 1997, but I just saw Breaking the Magician's Code on TV for the first time a few days ago. How do y'all feel about this show, what with how it gives away the secrets of some standard tricks?
	__________________ The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.

18th September 2007, 08:22 PM	#2
Brown Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Twin Cities, Canada Posts: 9,117	My feeling about the shows (there were several) was that they were mostly filler. There was usually one pretty good trick explained (although it was often explained poorly), but most of the others were not all that popular or mysterious. Explanations of mechanical appratus were questionable, partly because the apparatus typically wasn't in wide use, partly because some of the apparatus was innovative and not stale (and the performer's later stated objection was to expose stale tricks), but mostly because struggling performers can sometimes invest thousands of dollars in similar equipment (a big investment!) but then some jackass trashes that investment by explaining its secrets.
	__________________ Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise. -- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice

19th September 2007, 06:14 AM	#4
Garrette Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 7,964	It bothered me because of its poor quality, not for its exposure. I have friends and family who saw it when it first came out and they can't remember what the methods were.
Garrette Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 7,964	__________________ My kids still love me.

19th September 2007, 12:32 PM	#5
AgeGap Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,803	I have a small collection of books on magic. The majority of the methods on BtMC are in these books. Books that were purchased from non-specialist book stores. If you wanted to know how a trick was done the information was out there. The trouble with the programme is that it exposed the tricks to people who were apathatic to how the tricks were done. It did seem to be done on the cheap but I still watched them all.
AgeGap Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,803

19th September 2007, 02:02 PM	#6
Azrael 5 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Yorkshire,Uk Posts: 4,219	I think the illusionjs were explained in such a dumbass way that most people thought "Boll***s they never did it that way its ridiculous" Plus the illusions featured weren't used by the majority anyway.
	__________________ "I achieve these results through a mixture of magic,misdirection,suggestion and showmanship"-Derren Brown Photography here

18th September 2007, 08:23 PM	#3
TheDon Student Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: The Land of Scotch Posts: 49	Is that the one with the 'Masked Magician'? And the fella from X-files (no, not him, the other one - you know, the bald one. That's him) presenting it? As I remember it, it was a cheap ratings-grabbing show that didn't give away any really significant secrets of magic. It didn't list ANY of the 17 Sacred Words, or even tell you the best farmyard animal to sacrifice to appease the Dark Lords of Conjuring.

19th September 2007, 04:52 PM	#7
Bob Klase Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Largo, FL Posts: 2,445	Originally Posted by AgeGap The trouble with the programme is that it exposed the tricks to people who were apathatic to how the tricks were done. I thought the real trouble with the program was the snide, condescending monologue (both the script and the attitude of Mitch Peleggi delivering it). "Wasn't that a great piece of magic? No it wasn't stupid, look how simple it is... not so great now, is it" type of stuff.

19th September 2007, 05:36 PM	#8
DJM Muse Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 783	I liked more the special that aired a few weeks later, "Breaking The Masked Magician's Arms."
DJM Muse Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 783

19th September 2007, 05:58 PM	#9
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 8,647	Who did the masked magician turn out to be, again?
	__________________ Nuclear energy is GREEN energy.

19th September 2007, 08:25 PM	#10
Bob Klase Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Largo, FL Posts: 2,445	Valentino (Leonard Montano). He was actually a good magician- I saw him perform on the Merv Griffin show back in the 1980's.

19th September 2007, 09:52 PM	#11
Cain Contrarian Join Date: May 2002 Location: S. California Posts: 3,958	People I encounter these days only remember seeing the show, and cannot recall details of the methods. I suspect it more or less comes down to the same guesswork, "He's using... mirrors! ...magnets! ...invisible strings!"
	__________________ Well, well, well. If it ain't the serious, elusive Leroy Green. I've been waitin' a long time for this, Leroy. I am sick of hearin' these ***** Superman stories about the "wassah" legendary Bruce Leroy catchin' bullets with his teeth. Catches bullets with his teeth?! ***** pleeze.

20th September 2007, 02:29 AM	#12
Azrael 5 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Yorkshire,Uk Posts: 4,219	Originally Posted by Bob Klase Valentino (Leonard Montano). He was actually a good magician- I saw him perform on the Merv Griffin show back in the 1980's. And never since...?!
	__________________ "I achieve these results through a mixture of magic,misdirection,suggestion and showmanship"-Derren Brown Photography here

26th September 2007, 03:11 PM	#13
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Washington D.C. Posts: 6,136	He worked Vegas until FOX hired him for the TV shows.

26th September 2007, 03:37 PM	#14
roger Philosopher Join Date: May 2002 Location: Golden CO, USA Posts: 7,871	I remember the secret for the levitating woman where they pass rings around her to show that she wasn't being supported by anything, but not anything else. ETA: I think I am actually thinking of another show than the one in the OP.
	__________________ May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves. - John Muir

1st October 2007, 06:05 AM	#15
Unalienable Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 293	What I hate the most of these "exposure" shows is that they don't instill the true beauty behind how tricks are really done. I mean, there is the "method", and then there is HOW YOU DO IT. The attention to detail is the difference between the great magicians and the hacks. Even at the simplest level, like the way a magician will say "put your finger on this card" to prevent the spectator from prematurely turning the card over, speaks wonders about the methods of influencing and controlling people at subtle psychological levels. This stuff is never discussed in these magic exposure shows, and this is the stuff that I find 1000 times more fascinating than the gimmicks and gizmos.