Zach King

[Antonio Diavolo]

This is my second post today but I'm new to this and I love talking with other magicians and hearing their opinions about various topics.

I was just wondering what everyone thought of Zack King. If you don't know, he's the guy from Vine who does cool magical looking edits with Final Cut Pro. I really enjoy these videos but would you consider him a magician?

I personally do not at all. He's more of a special effects artist than a magician. I have no issue with this because he doesn't claim to be a magician or illusionist. I've always sorta accepted a magic trick as a sort of "true magic trick" if you will, if it can be done live and at least one person isn't in on it. Although I do prefer when magicians use fewer stooges but you get the idea.

I've heard people argue that magic updates with technology and what King does is just the next step in the evolution of magic. We now have access to editing technology that wasn't around in the days of Houdini. So now, this can be utilized to create new effects. Plus, many channels on YouTube post his videos with titles like "Best Magic Show in the World 2017" or "Greatest Magic Tricks Ever!". Plus it seems that a lot of his audience would consider him a magician.

So what do you think?

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

He's not a magician. He doesn't consider himself a magician, he doesn't do magic, etc. He's not. It's simple.

But this introduces an interesting subject - our (magicians) perception vs. laymen's perception.

Tangent, because I like the story - In my magic club back in Fresno, there was this kid, Brady, who was amazing at magic. His dad was a magician, and he (Brady) started at a young age. He was creative, original, and really, really skilled. I always enjoyed what he did. He even fooled me with a method I taught to him once, which I thought was awesome. He went to college. Happens to be the same college as Zach King. Apparently, Zach ended up learning some "real" magic from Brady for a presentation, because Zach didn't know any but thought he should be able to do something for an audience.

Anyway. There's two versions of many performers. What the magic world thinks of them, and what the laymen audience thinks of them. There's a lot of people who have a wildly inaccurate idea of how the public sees them, or how the public sees other performers.

Zach is sometimes called a magician by laymen. This is despite the fact that the closest he comes to claiming to be a magician is saying he uses a kind of "digital sleight of hand". He always presents himself as a video-editing guy. But the lay audience sometimes perceives him as a magician.

This is valuable information if someone thinks about it in the context of how they are perceived.

Personally, I really like Zach's videos. He's creative, he's charming, he's funny. I wish he was a magician so I could see him do a live show. Most magicians don't come anywhere near his level of charm and creativity.

Anyway - the point I want to end on is this: What are you doing to make sure your audience perceives you the way you want them to perceive you?

 

[Antonio Diavolo]

He's not a magician. He doesn't consider himself a magician, he doesn't do magic, etc. He's not. It's simple.

But this introduces an interesting subject - our (magicians) perception vs. laymen's perception.

Tangent, because I like the story - In my magic club back in Fresno, there was this kid, Brady, who was amazing at magic. His dad was a magician, and he (Brady) started at a young age. He was creative, original, and really, really skilled. I always enjoyed what he did. He even fooled me with a method I taught to him once, which I thought was awesome. He went to college. Happens to be the same college as Zach King. Apparently, Zach ended up learning some "real" magic from Brady for a presentation, because Zach didn't know any but thought he should be able to do something for an audience.

Anyway. There's two versions of many performers. What the magic world thinks of them, and what the laymen audience thinks of them. There's a lot of people who have a wildly inaccurate idea of how the public sees them, or how the public sees other performers.

Zach is sometimes called a magician by laymen. This is despite the fact that the closest he comes to claiming to be a magician is saying he uses a kind of "digital sleight of hand". He always presents himself as a video-editing guy. But the lay audience sometimes perceives him as a magician.

This is valuable information if someone thinks about it in the context of how they are perceived.

Personally, I really like Zach's videos. He's creative, he's charming, he's funny. I wish he was a magician so I could see him do a live show. Most magicians don't come anywhere near his level of charm and creativity.

Anyway - the point I want to end on is this: What are you doing to make sure your audience perceives you the way you want them to perceive you?

I really like your response. He would make an excellent magician. Like you said, he is very charismatic. It could totally work for a magic act. He is a very creative and clever person but I agree, he's not a magician.

 

[Maaz Hasan]

I have seen his stuff and have liked it, but he's not a magician.

He doesn't claim to be a magician, he isn't claiming to do magic, he isn't trying to make people think he is. In fact, at the end of most of his loops, he sorta reveals how its done (eg. Gets off the wall when everyone thought it was the ground). He is showing us that they are camera tricks, so why should we think they're not? He is a camera trick internetainer, not a magician (though some magicians can be internetainers, but that is besides the point).

Camera tricks are a field of there own. They aren't magic, they are there own form of art (if you will call it that. I know some people take offense to calling it an art, I don't know why, nor do I frankly care). I think you would find this thread from last month or so interesting, read through it for this exact topic:
https://www.theory11.com/forums/threads/fake-computer-generated-magic-vs-real-magic.47083/

P.S. Don't worry about posting to much, I think I posted about 5 in my first few days

 

[Ziad Khayat]

Zack king isn't a magician because he presents his material as what it is: awesome video editing. He could be, but would need to present it much differently.

 

[Josh Burch]

I just talked to a non magician friend about Zach King. King is not a magician but this friend was surprised to hear that I didn't call him a magician.

I think Zach is great and a lot of fun to watch. It frustrates me to think that people get confused.

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

It frustrates me to think that people get confused.

Why? What motivates that frustration?

I ask because I've recently had some discussions that have radically changed my perspective on this idea.

 

[ChrisJGJ]

What is a magician really? To me its a person who uses tricks to deceive, mystify or create illusions with. Zach is using camera tricks to create illusions. Isn't he essentially a magician, even if he doesn't claim to be one?

 

[Maaz Hasan]

What is a magician really? To me its a person who uses tricks to deceive, mystify or create illusions with. Zach is using camera tricks to create illusions. Isn't he essentially a magician, even if he doesn't claim to be one?

I'm sorry, but if that is your definition of a magician, you may want to rethink. That is the tip of the iceberg stuff, and in my book, deception is not the main goal of magic.

 

[ChrisJGJ]

I'm sorry, but if that is your definition of a magician, you may want to rethink. That is the tip of the iceberg stuff, and in my book, deception is not the main goal of magic.

I see where you are coming from, but I'm looking at the macro not the micro. You can include a magician is an artist, a vessel who uses the art of magic to form connections with people. Yada yada, I get that; however, I'm talking about the actual definition if you asked the whole world what they think a magician is. It's a person who performs magic lol. And since it's not really real, they have to use certain methods to create the illusion that it is.

Edit: This is really not something worth debating in my opinion, because whether someone is or isn't a magician is subjective. It's 100 percent based on the perception of the person you ask. And nobody is right or wrong.

 

[Maaz Hasan]

I see where you are coming from, but I'm looking at the macro not the micro. You can include a magician is an artist, a vessel who uses the art of magic to form connections with people. Yada yada, I get that; however, I'm talking about the actual definition if you asked the whole world what they think a magician is. It's a person who performs magic lol. And since it's not really real, they have to use certain methods to create the illusion that it is.

Edit: This is really not something worth debating in my opinion, because whether someone is or isn't a magician is subjective. It's 100 percent based on the perception of the person you ask. And nobody is right or wrong.

Ok, I see your point (doesn't mean I necessarily agree with it, but I'll accept it).

However, by your definition, aren't (Fictional) Movie Directors magicians? They make movies showing us something we can't expect to see in the real world. Sure, you could say that "we know that its CGI, or scripted, etc.", but even Zach points out that his tricks are just camera tricks. Heck, most layman know that our magic is just tricks.

 

[Antonio Diavolo]

Ok, I see your point (doesn't mean I necessarily agree with it, but I'll accept it).

However, by your definition, aren't (Fictional) Movie Directors magicians? They make movies showing us something we can't expect to see in the real world. Sure, you could say that "we know that its CGI, or scripted, etc.", but even Zach points out that his tricks are just camera tricks. Heck, most layman know that our magic is just tricks.

That's my logic when it comes to this stuff. It's a separate thing. Zack and people who work on movies are VFX artists, not magicians.

 

[ChrisJGJ]

However, BY YOUR DEFINITION, aren't (Fictional) Movie Directors magicians? They make movies showing us something we can't expect to see in the real world.

I don't see anywhere that being my definition. I guess I'll clarify. This is all from Merriam Webster Dictionary.

Magician: one who performs tricks of illusion and sleight of hand
Illusion: the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled
Trick: a crafty procedure or practice meant to deceive or defraud

None of that screams fictional movie director. But I do see how Zach could fit within these parameters. If he doesn't want to say he is a magician then that is up to him, but for the sake of argument I think he is one. Or at least can be considered one.

 

[Maaz Hasan]

I don't see anywhere that being my definition. I guess I'll clarify. This is all from Merriam Webster Dictionary.

Magician: one who performs tricks of illusion and sleight of hand
Illusion: the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled
Trick: a crafty procedure or practice meant to deceive or defraud

None of that screams fictional movie director. But I do see how Zach could fit within these parameters. If he doesn't want to say he is a magician then that is up to him, but for the sake of argument I think he is one. Or at least can be considered one.

Does a director not rely on misdirection and/or camera cuts to make things appear like something else?

 

[Antonio Diavolo]

I don't see anywhere that being my definition. I guess I'll clarify. This is all from Merriam Webster Dictionary.

Magician: one who performs tricks of illusion and sleight of hand
Illusion: the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled
Trick: a crafty procedure or practice meant to deceive or defraud

None of that screams fictional movie director. But I do see how Zach could fit within these parameters. If he doesn't want to say he is a magician then that is up to him, but for the sake of argument I think he is one. Or at least can be considered one.

I think I'm with Maaz on this one

 

[ChrisJGJ]

Does a director not rely on misdirection and/or camera cuts to make things appear like something else?

aren't (Fictional) Movie Directors magicians? They make movies showing us something we can't expect to see in the real world.

A movie is not a trick. It is not an illusion. It is a story or event recorded by camera. A director, as the name implies, directs the technical crew and actors of a movie to fulfill the director's vision of how the story/movie should look and feel. He controls the artistic elements.

A magician can be a director, but a director is not a magician. A square can be a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square.

 

[Keo_M]

Hello, long time since I've been on here. Love the new site!

Anyway, there are some good arguments here but let me just toss in some food for thought. When moving pictures were first created it used film whether it be 16mm, 135mm, etc. ( I don't know my historical film formats). A movie is a series of still images being played back at a high enough frequency that our brains perceive motion. It is an illusion and was at one point presented as such. Soon after silent films featured optical illusions, perspective illusions, and cuts in their films to make ghosts appear and objects vanish without a trace. Most of these tricks are still used in stage illusions today. The term Movie Magic had to come from somewhere. However, these practical effects have become virtual, is movie magic dead? No, it has simply evolved with time. Why use a piece of glass to make a ghost when you can make a ghost so real that you can pass it off as a dinosaur in 1990? It is all illusions, that are meant to do one thing, suspend the viewer's disbelief. Make people think that King Kong is actually in front of the lens, that a lion was actually walking through Wall Street, etc.

But that is off track to the original question, is Zach King a magician? No, because he says he is not, but he does make some awesome illusions.

 

[Antonio Diavolo]

Hello, long time since I've been on here. Love the new site!

Anyway, there are some good arguments here but let me just toss in some food for thought. When moving pictures were first created it used film whether it be 16mm, 135mm, etc. ( I don't know my historical film formats). A movie is a series of still images being played back at a high enough frequency that our brains perceive motion. It is an illusion and was at one point presented as such. Soon after silent films featured optical illusions, perspective illusions, and cuts in their films to make ghosts appear and objects vanish without a trace. Most of these tricks are still used in stage illusions today. The term Movie Magic had to come from somewhere. However, these practical effects have become virtual, is movie magic dead? No, it has simply evolved with time. Why use a piece of glass to make a ghost when you can make a ghost so real that you can pass it off as a dinosaur in 1990? It is all illusions, that are meant to do one thing, suspend the viewer's disbelief. Make people think that King Kong is actually in front of the lens, that a lion was actually walking through Wall Street, etc.

But that is off track to the original question, is Zach King a magician? No, because he says he is not, but he does make some awesome illusions.

As you said, many stage effects and common illusions were used in movies during it's infancy. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if early movie studios hired magicians or people familiar with magic to create special effects for their films. For awhile, even Houdini had his own production company and was involved in multiple films. However, movie special effects have evolved from being actual effects to being less practical in recent years. Up until maybe the late 1980s, if a movie wanted to make something appear on screen, it would have to appear on camera in some way or another. Now, people have the ability to add, remove, or change anything they want digitally. It's never actually on screen and isn't much of a traditional stage illusion anymore. It's kind of an illusion in the broader sense as you mentioned above. It's pixels and polygons giving the impression of a large creature. Special effects have become less like magic tricks and more like a video game and have thus become less of an illusion and more of it's own art form. If that makes any sense.

This is one of the reasons I applaud Peter Jackson for using miniatures, forced perspective, and various other illusions in his LOTR films to make cities and make various characters look smaller. These are still visual tricks that don't necessarily require the camera to work correctly. Idk if this will make much sense.

Anyway, I feel like if he did call himself a form of magician, he'd have to make it clear that what he does is editing (which he does), and not the classic "smoke and mirrors" or sleight of hand involved in live magic, just as (most) magicians make it very clear that what they do is simply trickery and is not real magic, although it may appear that way.

I don't know if that makes any sense. I often know exactly what I'm trying to say but I have trouble articulating it in writing. So let me know if you understand what I mean.

 

[Maaz Hasan]

As you said, many stage effects and common illusions were used in movies during it's infancy. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if early movie studios hired magicians or people familiar with magic to create special effects for their films. For awhile, even Houdini had his own production company and was involved in multiple films. However, movie special effects have evolved from being actual effects to being less practical in recent years. Up until maybe the late 1980s, if a movie wanted to make something appear on screen, it would have to appear on camera in some way or another. Now, people have the ability to add, remove, or change anything they want digitally. It's never actually on screen and isn't much of a traditional stage illusion anymore. It's kind of an illusion in the broader sense as you mentioned above. It's pixels and polygons giving the impression of a large creature. Special effects have become less like magic tricks and more like a video game and have thus become less of an illusion and more of it's own art form. If that makes any sense.

It definitely makes sense. And yes, magic consulting is used in movies (and even by governments and/or military). Prime example: TXI in Comedy Central

 

[Antonio Diavolo]

It definitely makes sense. And yes, magic consulting is used in movies (and even by governments and/or military). Prime example: TXI in Comedy Central

Thanks man! Also, many movies about magic have had real magicians as consultants. The Now You See Me films, The Prestige, Burt Wonderstone. Which makes a lot of sense actually haha.