There are many methods of getting results with a random audience member. I saw one explanation of Chung Ling Soo’s (deadly) bullet catch, which used three random audience members: one marks the bullets with a secret symbol, and a second confirm it and loads it into the gun. The third fires. Soo pops the bullet out of his mouth and it’s confirmed by everyone that it’s the bullet used.
There was a gimmick, but that was independent of the audience members.
Remember, the magician is fooling the volunteer as much as he is fooling the audience?
Good magicians will also often have different techniques for doing “the same trick” on different occasions. That way, when people try to figure out how it was done, they’ll say “No, it couldn’t have been that, because that one time when he did it…” and “it couldn’t have been that other thing, because that other time…”, when he really did use both of those methods.
That said, I’ve never seen any reason why it should be considered “unfair” or “unprofessional” to use plants, as long as the plant(s) are a sufficiently small proportion of the audience. Do a trick for an “audience” of three, one of whom is a plant? Yeah, that’s cheap. Do a trick for ten thousand, that needs ten plants? You’ve still got 9,990 real audience members, and you still need some trick for picking your plants without looking like that’s what you’re doing.
If anything, the real problem is when you do a trick that looks like it could be done using a plants, because then, people are going to assume that that’s what you did, whether it’s true or not, and it ruins the illusion.
Since this is an old thread you should know that Ianzin is a British magician and a member of The Magic Circle. They throw out members who reveal secrets, which is pretty much the death knell of any career.
I can think of another possible way of doing this.
We just had Precinct Caucuses here, in high school classrooms. The blackboards I remember have all been replaced with electronic whiteboards, which teachers can write on with erasable markers, or can display images from their computer.
So easy enough to have one of those electronic blackboards, with an assistant backstage listening to the conversation, and transcribing it onto the board.
Applause please for The Amazing Dr. Hackenbush for making this thread reappear almost 14 years later. Truly a trick worthy of Houdin, Blackstone or Teller
Not true. If it were, no magician would ever write a book. The fact is you can find instructions manuals for conjurers at any large bookshop or public library. You don’t need to have a secret password to access them,
If you have an interest in taking up magic as a hobby, Ianzin would be happy to help. He would suggest some books to get started. HE might be able to guide you to a magic club in your area. If time permits he might explain a few basic tricks to you, by private mail and not on the open forum.
If you just ask how a trick is done, he will tell you to mind your own business.
I have a slightly different approach. I used to be an amateur magician myself, although I gave it up years ago. If someone asks me how a trick is done, I’ll point them in the direction of the appropriate magic manual. The information is publicly available, but I won’t just give it away, I’d expect them to take some effort.
By the way, folks. A bit of a spooky co-incidence here. I just suddenly thought of this thread a couple of days ago, and searched for it to read it. This before it was bumped. Imagine my surprise. Coincidence …or precognition? Dun Dun Duuuuuunnnnn.
Practising magicians are pretty clear about just how flat a trick can fall if the audience knows how it is done. Like a lot of geeks, I have investigated the well known stuff, and I stopped when I realised it was wrecking my enjoyment. (I still like to think about how tricks can be done, and it can be fun being able to pick up on some.) But really, the knowledge is not generally bandied about because it wrecks the enjoyment, and thus the show. Which is hardly a good plan.
On the back of a discussion many years ago on this board I bought one of Ianzin’s books. It makes a great read, and for fans of Derren Brown, a great juxtaposition to a lot of his more serious work.
If you look at the availability of information of tricks, not only are there lots of books, but many tricks are available for purchase from their inventors. But there is some modicum of control and honour to try to avoid someone wrecking things. Lets face it, a TV series that exposes the background to the mainstay set of tricks makes money for the presenters, and can potentially ruin the ability of many thousands of professionals to put on a good show.
I can’t help but link to this animation. (Safe for FW, but you might want to avoid chasing down some of the others from the same source.)
I’ve done that pick a number thing (1 2 3 4) in a bar many, many times. I write the numbers on a piece of paper and then write “Why 3?” on the back. I put the paper on the bar in front of them and ask them to pick. I’d say that 75%+ of the time they pick 3. Why? My guess is that the eyes automatically go to the middle and, as there is no middle, they move to the right one spot to the right since we read left to right.When it works they are amazed. When it doesn’t, not so much.
I have a clear recollection of seeing Kreskin on Johnny Carson eons ago. It was a card trick and he picked a card, seemingly at random out of a deck. He then told the camera, “Pick a suit”. “Clubs.” said I, instantly and out loud. “Now pick a number.” I said “three”, without hesitation. He turned over the card and BAM! The three of clubs! My college roommate and I could hardly believe it, nearly spilling the bong. Kreskin then said something along the lines of “Some of you at home probably got this”. I don’t know that worked but its etched upon my memory, or what’s left of it.
I was a volunteer in a magic trick in Vegas last year and I’m certain that the others he picked weren’t plants (they were members of a large high school tour group who’d have noticed if a stranger suddenly claimed to be one of them).
Not sure how you think you’re disagreeing with anything there. Like you say, a pro magician will tell you basic public domain stuff but not tell you specific tricks because revealing your colleagues’ trade secrets would be pretty crappy behaviour.
You can’t copyright magic tricks. It’s not legally permissable and even if it were copyrighting the trick would itself mean that you were telling everyone how your trick works so it’d be self-defeating. But magicians use a lot of time and skill to create their tricks, so they need some way to protect them, hence the Magic Circle’s code of secrecy.
Nit pick. I think you mean patent. Patents require disclosure. If the trick requires a specific setup or equipment you could quite reasonably patent that. Good luck enforcing the patent, but you could probably obtain it. There are however plenty of magic trick patents. If you want to sell the trick, or the equipment to perform it, to other magicians, this might be a good thing to do to protect your invention.
You can obtain copyright on artistic works. So if your trick had a very specific patter, or could be argued to be an artistic expression, you might obtain copyright protection on that. Copyright would however not extend to the actual mechanism of the trick. Just its artistic expression. Things could get very fuzzy when mentalism tricks were involved. Copyright would just enable you to stop someone else performing your trick exactly the way you do it, it would not protect the knowledge. Whether this has ever been done is another matter.
I would imagine these things would mostly come under the category of trade secrets.
I think the Magic Circle approach is vastly better.
Firstly, as magicians have to earn a living, they are entitled to secrecy.
Secondly here is a brilliant trick involving an audience choice which has no plants.
Even the geniuses Penn and Teller couldn’t work it out.
(I bought the trick and it’s very clever!)
It’s very simple how “pick a card” tricks are done: the magician simply prepares 52 separate amazing reveals.
Any stalling you might have noticed is simply the magician trying to remember whether the queen of clubs was the one he put inside an inflated balloon, or on the bottom of his shoe, or in the castle in a fishtank, say.
Sure I guess. It may wind up being a long post though. Also, remember that misleading formation can be given in the form of opinion. I don’t wanna call out individuals or quote every part of each and every post, cause it’s all up there to look at and cross reference if you want. But a few key things that either fall into the baskets of ‘misinformation’ and/or ‘misdirection’ are;
“It’s no illusion. His audience picks really are random.” - Inaccurate. SOMETIMES Copperfield’s audience picks are random. Sometimes they are not.
“Not true. There are other explanations.” - The OP didn’t describe the illusion in their post, so without that info you cannot say for sure whether there are other explanations. This seems like a knee jerk response to steer the OP away from thinking about plants altogether when at magic shows. If you removed the ‘not true’ and replaced the word ‘are’ with ‘could be’ then this would be a sincere statement, given what we know about what the op saw.
“If the audience member really was a plant, why aren’t there hundreds of ex-audience members singing like canaries as to how it was done.” - since this is phrased as a question despite the grammar, it would be unfair to call it misinformation, but I would call it (either intentional or unintentional) misdirection (depending on the poster’s motivations/intentions). In the sense that surely anyone would realise that the plant is the same thing as a magician’s assistant, and confidentiality contracts, or simply just being on the payroll are usually enough to “force” the keeping of the secret. I really think this should be obvious.
“Like I said, if audiences were plants, there’d be a lot of people who know it’s fake, and a percentage of these people would be telling everyone that they were a plant in a majic show audience and generallyl how fake it all it.” - second verse, same as the first. Why aren’t the thousands of magicians’ assistants around the world blabbing their guts out? They’d probably get sued based on the terms of their contract.
“Since this place is about combatting ignorance rather than spreading it around, let me state for the record:” - This sentence was pure evil. Flimflam on a Catholic scale. Especially when you consider the statements that followed.
“Anamnesis doesn’t know what he’s talking about” - Anamnesis is no expert nor do they claim to be, but that is different from lacking knowledge.
“He is 100% wrong. The audience members involved in the routines described are not plants.” - Ooh this is a strong assertion. Looks like a “confidence trick” to me. ‘The audience members may or may not be plants’, is more truthful while still respecting the “code of secrecy”, in fact it’s a more mysterious response than calling bullshit. Also I doubt anyone in this thread is 100% wrong. Each of us is a mishmash of fact and fiction, percentages may vary. Full disclosure, I haven’t seen the tricks Anamnesis describes, but I’ve seen similar tricks by other magicians and they can be pulled off without the use of a plant. Gimmicked props help. Like a gimmicked blackboard for example. Or something that allows him to draw in his palm and ditch into the envelope (those kind of techniques require impeccable sleight skills and are super impressive, and Dave at his best could probably pull them off). But I have seen Copperfield do tricks that use plants, and plants with wobbly acting skills at that.
“Those of us who know won’t tell. Those who tell - or seem to tell - don’t really know, and are often amateur dabblers in the art” - Some of the greatest debunkers in history were illusionists; Houdini, James Randi, Penn and Teller. Obviously they will guard the secret of a truly artful illusion, but they shit on trashy old-hat gimmicks and flimflam whenever humanly possible. Penn and Teller even reveal their own tricks if they feel like it. An ethical magician is very rare though.
Also since my post, there is this;
“Magicians do use plants from time to time. Top magicians don’t.” - this is only true if by “top” you mean “best”. If by “top” you mean “most successful”, then no, this also appears to be an unintentional lie. I will choose to interpret “top” as “best” until I have a reason to assume otherwise.
“Copperfield’s show is one of the greatest magic shows ever put together.” - I’m just throwing this in because I’m a cheeky bastard. Obviously this seems like an honest statement. However it is still only true if the word “great” is interpreted to mean “big”. Otherwise… there’s no accounting for taste I suppose
Anyway, grinding through specific examples to justify the justified is a bit tiring, especially since all the instances I had to draw attention to were already laid out in front of everyone, hidden in plain sight so to speak.
However, TriPolar, out of mutual human respect and a willingness to communicate, I decided to indulge your query rather than dismissing it. Hopefully it gives a better understanding of where I’m coming from and if you still disagree with me that’s fine, happy to respectfully debate my points about the nature of conjuring. Just as long as we can get past any insinuations of paper tigers, since I’ve given a list of assertions made (and leading questions asked) that (if, and only if I am correct in what I am saying) constitute misdirection and misinformation.
The reason I didn’t refute the other postulations regarding alternatives to using plants, is because they were mostly pretty valid. There’s no need to refute those things. Just as long as you know that the giant head, telling you to ignore the man behind the curtain, is fucking with you.
Now down to the brass tacks. Copperfield USES PLANTS (sometimes). And that is really the big piece of truth that has been obscured here. And that’s why I feel sorry for the OP. They asked an honest question on the straight dope and got lied to. Their theory was immediately shot down, without even being asked “which trick was it?” Now it may be the case that the trick in question was one of Copperfield’s better ones, and did not utilise a plant at all. But it’s too late to split those hairs now. I just wanted to support those who were being condescended to in this thread. Because some of them are actually very bright.
Oh, you mean the Hokey-Freemasons? I’m pretty sure that if people wanna come and see your magic show, there’s not much The Stuffy Pentagram can do to stop that. They’re not actually magic.
You know you could have just asked “do you have any way to substantiate this?” instead of being sarcastic. But I appreciate not taking my word for it. So rather than putting effort into substantiating my claim. I will just say; Now go watch David Copperfield’s “Portal” trick… with your brain switched on, please.
Mijin, that is indeed one possible way to do “pick a card, any card” tricks. But it’s not the way to do it, in the sense that there are dozens of other methods that can be used, and even any given magician, even a low-end amateur, will probably use multiple methods.
Other possible methods (not meant to be an exhaustive list):
The magician has a trick deck with 52 copies of the same card.
The magician has a trick deck where the tops of the cards are slightly wider than the bottom, and he has the mark put the card in upside-down, where it can be picked out by feel.
The magician has a trick deck with distinctive markings on the backs of the cards, that he can read off the value from.
The “mark” is a plant.
The mark is genuine, but he has some other plant who sees the other side of the card, and communicates that to the magician.
There is a reflective surface positioned such that the magician himself can see the other side of the card.
The magician turns the deck face-up to the mark (except for the top card, to hide that fact), and then has the mark put the card back in the deck face-down, so it’ll stand out.
The magician has the mark put the card back at the bottom of the deck, and uses a trick shuffle to keep it at the bottom.
The magician has the mark put the card back at the bottom of the deck, and has already snuck a peek at the card next to it, and then uses a trick shuffle to keep those two cards together.
The mark thinks they’ve chosen the card randomly, but the magician has actually used a force to guide the mark to one particular card.
The magician just guesses wildly, and has a joke set up for the likely event that they’re wrong, and looks amazing if they’re right.
The magician uses a combination of these techniques (e.g., using a partial force to restrict the mark to one of five different choices, and then having an out for each of those choices).
I never get tired of “I was going to tell you, but I take insult at your response, so I will refuse” type responses. How about provide cites for those that didn’t offend you?
