Penn and Teller - Fool Us

[Rev]

Also, a very nice touch to show the backstage bit after Benjamin Earl's masterful sleight of hand

I'd just like to say that, given your apparently extensive knowledge of one kind of magic, I find this statement utterly charming.

[mook]

and i'd just like to say that as impressive as the show was, my only remaining proper memory of it is stephanie. i really would like to show her a trick or two fuck her.

[AsparagusTrevor]

I just watched my recording of this today, I really enjoyed it. It's hard not to be taken in with their enthusiasm and their tricks are always a joy. I've seen their 'sawing woman in half' explanation trick before but it was nice to see it again, and seemed a bit better this time.

Some of these magicians were really bloody brave trying out stuff like sleight of hand, and the guy who did the shrinking box trick, they were bound to figure that out since it was simply a twist on an old classic. I think Benjamin Earl was being a bit creative with the truth when called out on his false shuffles, but still fair play to him.

There was a time when I really liked Penn and Teller. But then I saw their 'Bullshit' episode on the JFK assasination, where they feebly attempted to ressurect the kind of utter rubbish thst most sensible people on both side of the debate have long since dismissed (ie their attempts to perpetuate the old jet effect hoax, which even the HSCA dismissed). That one program so utterly destroyed their credibilty I've not been able to take them seriously since.

In their 35 year career if that's all they've done with which you disagree I'd say that's pretty good going.

[Treguard of Dunshelm]

I'll add to the praise for this show here, if all TV was as good as this I'd buy one.

Michael Vincent was technically very good but I couldn't stand his presentation & patter. He seems to take himself very seriously.

He could learn a thing or two from Teller.

The less said about the 10 of hearts guy the better, awful stuff.

He was the only bad performer on the show, I wasn't impressed by his showmanship (though to be fair he was probably pretty nervous) or his lame excuse for a trick. We don't need another shit TV mentalist, Derren Brown in his off moments is perfectly capable of doing that.[nb]I'm a fan, but he's been a bit dodgy of late. Enigma was enjoyable though, I'd love to see him live.[/nb]

[neveragain]

I loved the mobile phone trick at the beginning too. And not having seen them for years, the ending took me by surprise as well.

Their 'sorting out stuff' series, oh, I can't remember what it was called now... oh yes, 'Bullshit!', wasn't it? Two words to sum it up: dull and hectoring. Gahhd, I wanted to bite my own head off after being forced to watch that at the end of a drunken night's revelry.

[Jon]

I was intrigued enough by this to watch it online, despite not normally being a big fan of magic shows, and quite enjoyed it. I think the central conceit, of trying to impress magicians as experienced as P&T is a good one, and it provided an important extra level on top of what would otherwise be a series of tricks with Ross going "wasn't that amazing Ladies and Gentlemen?" in-between.

However, I think it did show up some problems with the format that might stop it working as a full series:

Firstly, the quality of the performers. Several of them just seemed to be chancers who wanted to get on TV, and had made no effort to really come up with an original trick to stump P&T, which was supposedly the point of the show. Hell, even I could see through the 10 of Hearts trick and cabinet magic. Of course, getting a spot on primetime ITV is probably worth far more to a British magician than a warm-up gig in Vegas.

Secondly, what's actually likely to confound P&T isn't going to be the same as what the lay person really enjoys. Less flashy, more technically accomplished, close-up magic with cards is going to impress them, but will seem much of a muchness to a general audience, since we won't be able to spot the subtleties that make it stand out. And beyond vague talk of palming and false shuffles, P&T can't really explain it without giving away too much.

Thirdly, the success of the comedy magician points to a potentially easy way to beat the format: If you do a relatively simple trick, that doesn't let P&T observe too closely, and has multiple potential explanations, then they're likely to be stumped even if what you actually achieve isn't that impressive.

[biggytitbo]

I've watched it now and quite enjoyed it, but there's a flaw in the concept that seriously undermines it for me. Like all magician bellends, they won't tell us exactly how the tricks are done, so how are we supposed to know if Penn and Teller really worked out how it was done? The programe would work a lot better if the tricks were performed twice, once properly, and then again after Penn and Tellers explantion, but this time showing exactly how it was achieved. As it stands theres slightly the air of a smug closed shop with the audience left stood outside in the rain trying to look in. Magicians talking in riddles to each other whilst everyone else is none the wiser is just plain annoying.

[Old Thrashbarg]

The point of the show wasn't to explain how the tricks were done though. If that's what you're after, there's plenty of stuff out there for you to watch and, for the average viewer, it would be fairly boring[nb]Based on the reactions of other people when watching Derren Brown's The Devil's Picturebook, for example[/nb] to see someone show us in detail how they manipulated the deck of cards to control the position of the cards that they needed. The 'magicians talking in riddles to each other' was enough to let us know whether they actually knew how the tricks were performed.

[ozziechef]

I thought the best thing would be for Penn and Teller to repeat the trick after so they prove they know how it was done.

[biggytitbo]

The point of the show wasn't to explain how the tricks were done though. If that's what you're after, there's plenty of stuff out there for you to watch and, for the average viewer, it would be fairly boring[nb]Based on the reactions of other people when watching Derren Brown's The Devil's Picturebook, for example[/nb] to see someone show us in detail how they manipulated the deck of cards to control the position of the cards that they needed. The 'magicians talking in riddles to each other' was enough to let us know whether they actually knew how the tricks were performed.

I disagree. I mean its entertaining enough as it is, certainly better than that celeb rubbish with Lenny Henry. But the fool Penn and Teller aspect doesnt work properly, presicely because the audience is completly exluded from that whole process save for the cyrptic remarks. Its a bit like watching Simon Cowell with a pair of earphones on listening to some music we can't hear telling us how great the tecnhique and interpration of the song is.

[Danger Man]

The programe would work a lot better if the tricks were performed twice, once properly, and then again after Penn and Tellers explantion, but this time showing exactly how it was achieved.

Great idea, Biggy, though they'd have to change the title to "Committing Career Suicide with Penn and Teller"

[Old Thrashbarg]

Its a bit like watching Simon Cowell with a pair of earphones on listening to some music we can't hear telling us how great the tecnhique and interpration of the song is.

No. It'd be more like Simon Cowell and the rest of us listening to some music, followed by him then telling us how good or otherwise the performance was (albeit in slightly more technical terms than he would normally use). I believe they call it 'The X-Factor'.

I thought the best thing would be for Penn and Teller to repeat the trick after so they prove they know how it was done.

That would probably be a better solution (although I'm not sure there's a problem that needs solving), but knowing how something is done doesn't always mean you are able to do that something.

[biggytitbo]

No. It'd be more like Simon Cowell and the rest of us listening to some music, followed by him then telling us how good or otherwise the performance was (albeit in slightly more technical terms than he would normally use). I believe they call it 'The X-Factor'.

That would probably be a better solution (although I'm not sure there's a problem that needs solving), but knowing how something is done doesn't always mean you are able to do that something.

No it would actually be more like us watching someone sing but we can't hear them, and Simon Cowell has earphones on and then they both come on and discuss it with us been left completely in the dark.

[Lookalike Mark Chapman]

...But we did see them perform the tricks?

Spelling out in plain terms the biggest tricks of several working magicians would be ridiculous, and at the very least force them to drop those tricks from their acts.

Anyway, great show, yes. Far better than the Lenny Henry BBC show, which I was hoping would be an updated Paul Daniels Show, but turned out to be a magic-ish, camper Strictly Come Dancing.

[biggytitbo]

...But we did see them perform the tricks?

Spelling out in plain terms the biggest tricks of several working magicians would be ridiculous, and at the very least force them to drop those tricks from their acts.

Anyway, great show, yes. Far better than the Lenny Henry BBC show, which I was hoping would be an updated Paul Daniels Show, but turned out to be a magic-ish, camper Strictly Come Dancing.

50% of the show is straightforward magic and 50% is fool Penn and Teller. That 2nd 50% the audience is completely exluded from. Why can't they come up with a trick specially for the show in order to try and fool Penn and Teller? That wouldn't ruin their act and is it really too much to ask for a chance to launch them into the big league?

[Famous Mortimer]

Why can't they come up with a trick specially for the show in order to try and fool Penn and Teller? That wouldn't ruin their act and is it really too much to ask for a chance to launch them into the big league?

Because it would take a really, really long time? It's not like rehearsing a song for a week, a la other TV talent shows.

I'm a bit baffled as to why anyone expected Penn and Teller to reveal how all the tricks were done. It was a great show.

[biggytitbo]

Because it would take a really, really long time? It's not like rehearsing a song for a week, a la other TV talent shows.

I'm a bit baffled as to why anyone expected Penn and Teller to reveal how all the tricks were done. It was a great show.

The premise of the show isn't some magicians come on and Penn and Teller rate them by how good they were. Its whether Penn and teller could work out the mechanics of the trick. And that part the audience is completely excluding from which isnt a good move.

[Treguard of Dunshelm]

The premise of the show isn't some magicians come on and Penn and Teller rate them by how good they were. Its whether Penn and teller could work out the mechanics of the trick. And that part the audience is completely excluding from which isnt a good move.

It doesn't seem to have bothered anyone but you? I imagine most people, like myself, recognised that we'd have to take P&T's word. A show where they explained the tricks in detail might have been interesting, but would have been a completely different type of show, and one that's been done a lot before. I would also imagine that it some potential entrants might have been put off by the possibility that "their" trick would be revealed to all the world and his dog.

[Viero_Berlotti]

Penn and Teller just knew the Magic Circle would have them whacked before they could make it to the Airport if they even tried to reveal any magic secrets on national TV in the UK. That's why they didn't do it.

[biggytitbo]

It doesn't seem to have bothered anyone but you?

Wow, you've asked everyone?!

[Gulftastic]

Penn and Teller just knew the Magic Circle would have them whacked before they could make it to the Airport if they even tried to reveal any magic secrets on national TV in the UK. That's why they didn't do it.

Didn't the reveal used to be their entire shtick?

I remember them on an episode of Just For Laughs about 20 years ago, with a trick involving the little one being sliced up in various boxes, and they then repeated the trick but with clear perspex boxes so you could see how it was done.

[Benjie Trufflesnort]

Didn't the reveal used to be their entire shtick?

Only in very certain circumstances - but it probably is what they are remembered for - despite the fact it's only really a three or four effects in their repetoire that rely on it.

Trapdoor is the one you're thinking of - although they do a close up version of the same idea with see-through cups and balls.

It's all about entertainment. If it were just about exposure it would be boring. They only reveal the method when it is more interesting than the effect itself.* Sometimes they even reveal a false method to distract from the real method - see The World's Most Expensive Card Trick for what is almost certainly an example of that.

*Although the cups and balls thing was entirely aimed at pissing off the Magic Cirlce/Magic Castle who'd kicked up a stink about them "revealing" methods - despite them only revealing their own effects. Their defence of the cups and balls thing being you can buy that effect for a $1 in any kid's magic set and they don't kick up a stink when the kid tells everyone how it's done.

[Treguard of Dunshelm]

Wow, you've asked everyone?!

No, which is why I used the word seem, which means "to appear" or "to be perceived as."[nb]From the Middle English semen, "to befit".[/nb]

[MojoJojo]

Well, I found it a bit weird.

Also, if it's acknowledged as a trick, doesn't that undermine the point of keeping the trick secret?

[biggytitbo]

No, which is why I used the word seem, which means "to appear" or "to be perceived as."[nb]From the Middle English semen, "to befit".[/nb]

So you percieve that I'm the only person who has made that complaint? Which is fine. But I'm not! Not that it matters, thats my opinion and I;m only speaking for myself/

[Treguard of Dunshelm]

So you percieve that I'm the only person who has made that complaint? Which is fine. But I'm not!

No, I don't perceive you're the only person to have made that complaint; rather, you're the only person I have perceived to have done so. [nb]I sound like That Cunt, don't I? Time to quit here, methinks.[/nb]

[Marvin]

Only in very certain circumstances - but it probably is what they are remembered for - despite the fact it's only really a three or four effects in their repetoire that rely on it.

Trapdoor is the one you're thinking of - although they do a close up version of the same idea with see-through cups and balls.

It's all about entertainment. If it were just about exposure it would be boring. They only reveal the method when it is more interesting than the effect itself.* Sometimes they even reveal a false method to distract from the real method - see The World's Most Expensive Card Trick for what is almost certainly an example of that.

*Although the cups and balls thing was entirely aimed at pissing off the Magic Cirlce/Magic Castle who'd kicked up a stink about them "revealing" methods - despite them only revealing their own effects. Their defence of the cups and balls thing being you can buy that effect for a $1 in any kid's magic set and they don't kick up a stink when the kid tells everyone how it's done.

Exactly, bar the cups and balls thing they only did the reveal thing on tricks they'd deliberately invented to be revealed, as it were - they often throw bits out and it's a great way of getting the audience onside, something like the bit they used t do where Teller shows the secrets of sleight of hand, or of course Trapdoor - the point of which is that the first half of the trick is quite mundane and it's the reveal of Teller moving himself around that makes the trick exciting. Compare that to a trick like the phone/fish thing they did at the start, or their stunning bullet catch which nobody knows the method to, they're incredible tricks, and the explaination almost certainly quite dull. It's the old cliché, magicians guard an empty box, most methods are very boring and mechanical, the skill is how they make that look stunning. When Penn and Teller do exposure they subvert that by designing methods that look great when exposed, or to offer fun tricks for people to do at home, or as a gag, like the most expensive magic trick bit from their old C4 show.

(That said of course they did expose how that guy did his mentalist bit fully, but I think they were a bit annoyed at him doing a really cheap trick deck routine and thinking they'd buy it, my friend had a similar deck when we were at primary school 16 years ago. They did I suspect unintentionally also expose another trick in the show with their own.)


ANYWAY, only got to see this last night, and thought it was fantastic. I don't know which is more suprising in general - a good magic show on British tv or a good light entertainment show on ITV, but it was both. A series wouldn't work in the UK because they wouldn't be able to keep the quality of acts high enough but I hope they do more as specials or in the states. I thought all the performances bar the mentalist/trick deck act were very good, lovely to see John Archer do well, hadn't seen the other guy who 'won' before but what he did was very impressive - he also took the show at face value so tried to do something to confuse Penn and Teller rather than his best trick for an audience - what's impressive to an audience isn't the same as what will baffle an experienced magician. Interested blog post by him I was linked to here: http://contemporary-magician.co.uk/ben-earl-fools-penn-teller-on-itv1-hd

Anyway, good stuff.

[Brundle-Fly]

I thought this was excellent hour of TV but then I could watch Penn and Teller all night, irrespective of where they stand on the assassination of JFK*.   Thought Ross was very good  at keeping it all trundling on too. I didn't think it was necessary to reveal how the trick was done. For me that's half  the charm inot knowing how these things are done.  Their schtick is only revealing the secrets of hoary old illusions that magicians don't really perform anymore or the mechanics of some of their own tricks.

I saw them live recently and they hung outside the venue afterwards for autographs and photos. It was so strange to hear Teller speak, albeit as quiet as a fieldmouse.


*More opinion that might interest/infuriate you, BTB

http://revision3/pennpoint

[Benjie Trufflesnort]

It was so strange to hear Teller speak, albeit as quiet as a fieldmouse.

Have you seen the show which I think was on Discovery, or possibly Sky where they go around the world looking for people performing mythical magic tricks (Indian Rope Trick etc)?

Teller talks at full volume all the way through. It was quite shocking!

[Brundle-Fly]

Have you seen the show which I think was on Discovery, or possibly Sky where they go around the world looking for people performing mythical magic tricks (Indian Rope Trick etc)?

Teller talks at full volume all the way through. It was quite shocking!

I discovered Penn Gillette through being a huge fan of San Francisco oddball musicians, The Residents with whom he was once affiliated. If you'd have told me twenty five years ago, this odd shouty giant nerd who narrated the bizarre Mole Show would be hosting a magic show on a primetime ITV show, I'd have been gobsmacked!