Although sometimes sarcasm really is pure genius.
I never said I was but now I won’t. I said, you could have been nice and gotten a nice response. But instead you get the “just watch this and leave me alone” response.
Seriously though. If you type “Copperfield portal” into youtube it should spit out the evidence you need. He’s barely even trying to cover it up in this trick. It’s the perfect storm of way-too-theatrical-and-over-the-top and too-lazy-to-care-anymore. I feel like this trick should be transparent to even the rubiest of rubes.
Is that not fair? I gave you something to look at that should show you everything you need to see. And I did it in the post you already responded to. In fact, I gave you everything you need to scrutinise and inform yourself, even though you didn’t have the courtesy to ask for it. You’re welcome, even though you were probably never going to thank me. 
(I hope by this point you can tell that I have no problem with you, and that I’m just riffing on the premise that we’re “beefing”)
Here’s another hot tip. Not every audience member in this trick needs to be a plant for the trick to work, but the last dude pulled up definitely is. However keep in mind that a Frisbee is also a lot easier to aim than a balloon or teddy bear or whatever, especially for someone who can learn sleight of hand. So the interesting question here isn’t whether plants are used. It’s, how many plants are used?
Anyway, please don’t get your britches in a twist. I’m not even slightly offended, I was just giving you a bit of guff because you gave me some cheek. No actual hard feelings.
And still no actual evidence, either. “Look it up on You Tube”?
How about linking us to the best cite you’ve got?
Yeah this trick bugs me, but in a good way. Like a challenging puzzle. I appreciate the cleverness of it, and I believe that the audience selection really was random too. But also notice that in that trick nobody was teleported to Hawaii to meet their estranged father. 
Who writes to David Copperfield to be reunited with their offspring anyway? Dumb premise.
David Berglas, former president of the Magic Circle has written several booksrevealing the secrets. He wrote them as instruction manuals for magicians, but they are available to ordinary members of the public too. Nobody needs a secret handshake to buy them.
I came into this thread to reference that very act! And yes, I bought it, too. Absolutely wonderful illusion.
:smack:
So you won’t take my word for it, but you would rather take my word for it through reference and citation than looking for yourself and using your own mind? You’re setting us both up for a lose-lose situation. And since I suck at being a Rube, you’re not gonna find me playing along in quite the way you want. You want me to either cough up what you’re demanding, or roll over and die right?
Yeah, right. How about stop being chickenshit, watch the video and then get back to me?
There is actually a video by what appears to be an amateur magician explaining the trick, but I think his theory is overcomplicated and only partially correct. You can look at it if you want, but I question whether it’s really worth it. Once again, if you youtube “Copperfield portal” then the “explained” video should also pop up. Otherwise, how many of Copperfield’s peers do you really think are out there ratting him out? Who should I be quoting to give my claim “authority” to you? If Penn and Teller haven’t ratted him out, nobody else has either. So what do you need?
The reality is, I gave you the best possible citation in the entire universe. I told you to look at Copperfield doing the trick. In this case he got cocky and lazy and it’s too obvious and he failed to fool a lot of people with this one. If you want a less bullshit response than “go to the source and look for yourself” and “in this case it really is obvious”, then you need a whole different reality to live in. Because I gave you the least bullshit, most empowering (to you) response possible.
You’d rather be browbeaten with “authoritative sources” and inundated with references to articles or some shit? Well we are talking about magicians here, their gimmicks don’t exactly turn up in scientific journals or Rolling Stone magazine.
If you think that the person saying “DON’T take my word for it” and “look at the source and think for yourself” is trying to swindle or dis-empower you, then you are not very bright.
I wish you would just say to me, “I think you’re an idiot.”
Cause then I could just say “okay, that’s fine,” and let this little back-and-forth die (even though the burden of proof could then be transferred to you and I could be a douche and demand that you show some citations that prove that I’m wrong). But really, who cares?
I just thought it was unfair that a few folks, particularly Anamnesis, were being treated like illogical beings for twigging to how dishonest and dirty “magic” really is. If that bugs you for some reason, hey that’s cool too.
Your feelings are hurt because I asked you for a cite?
I would rather you provide a specific cite for your specific claim-This way I won’t accidentally pick a cite that doesn’t exactly back your claim.
If you Google “copperfield portal”, you get close to 3000 hits, and if you Google it without the quote marks you get 401,00 hits.
Which one are you using for a “cite”?
Teller is my main man. He cannot tell a lie.
Beats pointing to thousands of videos and saying “find it yourself”. Not really impressed with You Tube viddys put up by ghod-know-who, but if that’s all you’ve got I’ll take a look at the best one you’ve got.
What does this last part mean??
I was once at a magic show where the performer selected random audience members to participate onstage by tossing out a bunch of soft Frisbee-type discs. Everyone who caught one was invited up. It was quick with a comedic patter. How many did he toss? Five? Six? Seven? He ended up with seven people onstage, including a guy who was sitting not particularly near where a disc landed. In the hubbub of people looking this way and that way at flying things and people getting out of their seats, he walked up with an identical disc and became one of the “randomly chosen” audience members. You can guess how integral his role was to making the trick work once he was up there.
Absolutely true. I give you John Lenahan and David Devant for starters. You might also read this article from the Independent:
With magic tricks in general, you are not seeing what you think you are seeing, and the magician will distract you from what he doesn’t want you to see. Also the actual deception often happens very early in the presentation, when the audience is not sure what to be looking for, and then the result a few minutes later seems miraculous, because you have had time to fully accept the false perceptions.
In the case of random audience members making a choice there are a couple of options:
1-The magician forces the choice. For example he may show a normal deck of cards, then have the audience member choose one. But the audience member chose while looking at the back of the cards, and the magician had swapped the deck for one made of all seven of hearts…or whatever. The swap can be as simple as having a few random cards at the face of the deck to fan and suggest that it is a normal deck. Alternatively the volunteer may cut the deck, but the magician manipulates his prefered card to the top of the cut…
2-The magician has a way to produce any possibility on demand. For example a pencil lead on ring can be used to quickly mark a number on an item almost as quickly as the audience member says it…or make it appear an item came out of the sealed envelope that has been sitting in view, when it actually came from behind it.
Ianzin himself speaks here.
Funny seeing this zombie in my e-mail after this many years. Interesting that it would generate more conversation now than it did then. Figured I would put this here for reference, as it has been uploaded in the years since this thread began, and is the trick to which I was referring in post 11 back in 2004:
https://youtu.be/yIwgpVelX-c?t=1023
Hate to derail, but this performance incorporates several of the techniques discussed here, including the random participant method discussed in the OP. Having revisited the performance of the actual trick, I’m willing to concede some things in the interest of fair debate …
Several folks have suggested that the objects of interest in any trick are kept somewhere on the stage where they can be manipulated or swapped. This I know. But the chalkboard (if that’s what it actually is; it’s likely a rather sophisticated prop rather than a simple writing surface) is kept in plain view the whole time, suspended by pendant cables. I like how he even flips the curtain up at the corner to show one of the words already written there: “at”, a preposition from the middle of the last sentence which had probably yet to be completed in its entirety. Yeah, shocker, David probably didn’t write the whole thing beforehand (probably not even his writing at all) and only the part at the corner is written in as a misdirect.
The board is definitely seen swaying in the air during the trick, and the stagehands take it off the cables at the end to bring it to the front of the stage. The video quality isn’t terrific (though not bad for 1987) and it’s very poorly lit back there, so it’s difficult to speculate about what’s going on during those ten seconds as the board is unmounted and moved into view.
It’s entirely possible they could have an elaborate setup back there with someone skilled at quickly writing backwards (and perhaps also suspended on a cable?) who is transcribing with a white grease pen, or something similar that resembles chalk. Perhaps it’s written on an opaque glass and the stagehands rig up a dark background behind that glass very quickly which creates the illusion of a chalkboard, which in turn would also disguise whatever was rigged up behind the board as well. Note that the stage curtain comes down after the board is moved forward into view, so we can’t see anything that was behind it beforehand.
If it was being written on from behind, they sure do a great job of not making the board move around much while it hangs there. Just the wild speculations of a non-magician here, of course. With any luck, we can get some master illusionists back in here to shoot down any speculation and then re-recite the Magician’s Code. Because that’s always helpful.
Regardless, I am always skeptical of these random toss gimmicks to select people. As Dingbang just mentioned above, I’ve often thought there’s something curious about how participants can sometimes be so integral to the success of the act. The selected individuals often seem a bit more eager than others to lunge after the tossed object as if they’re spinsters desperate to catch a bride’s wedding bouquet. That girl Rachel sure seemed grabby for that rose when you see how demure she seemed onstage; maybe I’m reaching here but if she’s that shy, why was she lunging so hard at the rose?
Copperfield has done thousands of live shows over the years but he sure isn’t doing TV specials anymore, so if participants were always faked with plants, I imagine it would be challenging to fake it over and over again every single day with the same actors. Maybe that’s why he just goes and hand picks participants for certain tricks?
I saw a great magician (or “mentalist” as he prefers) named Frederic da Silva in Vegas. One of the people called up on stage was my ten year old daughter, who I am 100% confident was not a stooge. It may be that he did have plants in the audience, but he did a very credible and amazing trick with her. There were others who I have a hard time believing were plants as well–a couple teenage brothers who were with family and excitedly talking after the show. He signed autographs after the show for anyone who asked and did a little close-up magic for each person; I’m pretty sure I know how the trick was done, but his aplomb was what made it work, and none of that involved plants.
PS, my daughter was selected by the “tossing the frisbee” technique. I actually caught it, but she begged to go onstage so I let her.
There’s a set of tricks that you can do with a large number of volunteers, which depend on one and only one of the volunteers being a plant. Make the number large enough, and everyone in the audience will know someone or another on stage, and will be able to say “Well, that one isn’t a plant”. Which is true. But the misdirection is that the audience members will then go on to think “…therefore, none of them are plants”, which is false.
When you get down to it how does audience plant differs that much from the standard curvaceous sexy lovely assistant as part of the profession, and been told she actually does all sorts of difficult magic-y stuff herself. Being upset about the purity of the art is like being upset when told that a crowd including hairy guys with shorts and microphones was actually standing around the star-crossed lovers in the most intimate heartbreaking scene in a movie.
I’m particularly grateful to this thread for the word “scrutinous.” Not sure if it ever existed before, though.