Now You See Me ... Not Making Sense

[hgc]

I saw the movie "Now You See Me" last night. It's a movie about magician heist capers, or something like that.

There's plenty to complain about, especially the lack of character development and the implausible plot, but I wanted to ask here about something in particular...

I don't think it's a SPOILER to describe the motivations of the Morgan Freeman character, since it's revealed early on, but if you're worried, then stop reading here.

Freeman's character has made a career "debunking" magicians and making high selling DVDs revealing magicians' tricks to that end, like it's some kind of moral crusade. But what the hell is he talking about debunking for? What's to debunk? Does this plot point make any sense at all?

 

[LandR]

I think mostly, no.

However, I would say it depends on the motives of the magician. A magicians job is to deceive his audience but if he does it in such a way that he leaves the audience believing in pseudo-science or actually genuinely claims paranormal powers then I have no problem with those guys being debunked. Especially once they are at a level where they have massive audiences and fans world wide.

It's their job to trick their audience not to mislead them to the point where they are effecting what they believe.

I think audiences at magic shows should leave knowing they've seen magic tricks. Likewise I think audiences should know when they buy the tickets what they are going to see are magic tricks.

Although I expect any magicians, if there are any, on this forum to disagree with me.

 

[hgc]

I think mostly, no.

However, I would say it depends on the motives of the magician. A magicians job is to deceive his audience but if he does it in such a way that he leaves the audience believing in pseudo-science or actually genuinely claims paranormal powers then I have no problem with those guys being debunked. Especially once they are at a level where they have massive audiences and fans world wide.

It's their job to trick their audience not to mislead them to the point where they are effecting what they believe.

I think audiences at magic shows should leave knowing they've seen magic tricks. Likewise I think audiences should know when they buy the tickets what they are going to see are magic tricks.

Although I expect any magicians, if there are any, on this forum to disagree with me.

OK, in this movie, there's nothing at all to suggest that the magicians in the story, past and present, are claiming anything woo. It's all just the regular showmanship -- in the big, flashy Las Vegas style.

 

[marplots]

It makes no sense to me, but I haven't seen the movie yet.

There are very few secrets between magicians anyhow. It's like you are saying someone could debunk another juggler who tosses seven balls and an egg. What's going on is there for all to see. Remember, the performance is for lay people and entertainment. It isn't meant to fool magicians (although there is a sub-category of "magician foolers").

I'm just a middling magician, but when I see new tricks offered up, they fall into one of three categories with a close to even split:
1) I know how they did it from past experience
2) I don't know for sure how they did it, but can come up with a workable idea
3) Beats the heck out of me.

In #3, about half of those are for sale, so I could purchase them if I wanted to. So that leaves maybe 15% that could possibly be in the category you mention. But the other 85% isn't "real" magic, so how would I ever assume that little bit I can't figure out is?

The first time I spotted Uri Geller doing a switch, the game is done. I can't believe a miracle worker would taint what they do with sleight of hand.

All that is just my way of saying the plot point doesn't make any sense to me at all. It might make sense if the character was selling exposure to the layperson, like the masked magician is noted for. No high prices though. But without a claim of something supernatural, there's no woo to be had is there?

 

[aargh57]

I saw this last night and it really ticked me off. Not only was the film bad as you described it (the grumpy FBI agent who,surprise surprise, doesn't get along with the Interpol agent was a walking cliche) but I got the distinct impression that Morgan Freeman's character was supposed to be Randi. Only this version of Randi is portrayed as a greedy wanna be magician who's jealous of those who made it.

 

[alfaniner]

My guess is, Randi would have killed for a budget like those guys had.