After watching David Copperfield tonight, I have to ask:
Are todays magicians possessed by the Son of Evil himself?
The tricks that David Blaine and Copperfield do are beyond explanation. Levitating is just not fakeable.
Just curious as to what everyone else thought.
No. Well, not most of them, anyway.
No they’re not. You just have to look in the right places.
Possibly debateable–we’ll see if we can get some mystics in here for you.
A sure-fire hallmark of an IMHO thread.
No, they’re not possessed. Unless they sold their souls to the dark one to get famous (possible).
Well…sorry, this is a magician’s supply store worker speaking, but they aren’t beyond explanation. It’s more about their presentation; and yes, some magicians have presentations of tricks that are beyond explanation (I have no idea how Penn & Teller can be so funny and charming). As far as levitations go…heh; maybe I can interest you in a video or book I have over here. 
So you are suggesting that they actually levitate? I’ve watched David Blaine do it and could offer a couple of methods as to how he pulled off this illusion.
Well, many “magicians” prefer to be known as illusionists from what I’ve heard. This means that they are publically stating that “Hey, I’m going to fool the hell out of you into thinking that I just drove twenty swords through my skull” instead of “I used the powers of mystical beings to allow my head to be permiated by these swords of steel.”
Well, ahem I know of an amazing explanation of what Mr. Copperfield did by some really intelligent chap over in IMHO forum.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=66304
You ever seen The Matrix?
msc75, I disagree, in fact I’m confident they are faked.
SPOILER ALERT
I admit that Copperfield has a spectacular levitation act. He is utterly convincing. However, as noted, he has filed for a patent on a certain type of device for his levitation bit. There are many ways to fake it using hidden supports. This was likely wires, from top or sides. I’m thinking top but sides are possible.
As for David Blaine, his in my opinion crosses the line that most TV magicians make strong disclaimers against - he uses TV editing. He intersperses the street video shots of crowd reactions with his after the fact shots using a crane. That’s how he gets the 12 inch clearances you see. His crowd demonstration uses a technique whereby he lifts his body only a couple inchs using his toes on one foot. Notice how he always creates a very precise body alignment of himself to his audience, back to them at a slight angle. What sells it is their reactions, and then the after the fact crane lifts showing a clear 10 to 12 inches of gap. They like to put someone in a jacket matching an audience member just on the edge of the frame for those shots.
One other comment, while many stage magicians have gone to calling themselves illusionists or otherwise emphasizing they are tricks, Blaine prefers to let people assume whatever they want with regards to his abilities and presents the atmosphere that he does have mystical powers.
Uh, Irishman, just a little point about Copperfield’s patent: he patented the device (though it isn’t too tough to get blueprints for it; before he bought it off the inventor they were floating around) and the performance. A few years ago a magician (in France or Russia, I don’t have the magazine around) did the exact same performance as Copperfield’s “flying”. I’ve seen pictures and the guy was even wearing the same sweater.
So Copperfield took him to court and won. Then he also ran adds in magic magazines showing different magicians with their specialty versions of various tricks. It was warning how these were their ways to do the tricks, including the patter and such, and anyone performing it the same way (even if they had a different method) was at fault. I think Mike Caldwell was one of the magicians (“You can do the linking rings trick but if you do it with coathangers, you’re stealing from Mike Caldwell”). It had mainly to do with signature pieces, though.
Yes, this bugged me a great deal. The Balducci levitation has been around for quite a while, and here Blaine does it but cuts in shots of him over a foot off the ground.
You guys have spoiled all future magic shows for me, but that’s alright. Thanks, seriously.
I was starting to wonder if I was incredibly gullible (which is still arguable).
According to William Safire, that sentence should read:
“The tricks that Davids Blaine and Copperfield do are beyond explanation.”
[sub]d&r[/sub]
Thanks for the grammar lesson.
Sorry, msc75. My mom was the same way when I got into magic. She always kinda held it in this special place and even though she still didn’t know how it was done when I did it, she knew there was a trick. But I know how the majority of the stage illusions you see are done and I still enjoy shows. It’s the performance that I find entertaining. Maybe like some films: it may be wonderful, and I know it’s just a film, but it still captivates me.
And don’t feel gullible. The best magicians can, and have, fooled a lot of people. Strangely enough, I know of a few really simple tricks that fooled really smart people.
silent_rob, You can’t patent an act, a performance style, or the banter. I think it may be questionable that you could patent the coathangers version. However, you can copyright them.
As a magician, you understand the effort that goes into doing it well, and can appreciate the acts for their presentation. This is a large part of the “code of silence” that magicians cling to. (I’m sure you are aware.) Many people do lose appreciation for the acts when they know how they are done. The fascination for not seeing the gimmick is what takes it from illusion to magic in their hearts, and being shown the gimmick is like going to a movie and then every time the actor is on screen his real name is printed. Kinda distracting from enjoying the show for itself. Or like when I went to see “13 Days” and the film was miscentered on the screen, and I could see the boom mike moving around over the dinner table in the opening scene.
I like knowing the gimmicks because the mystery frustrates me.
black455, it depends on how you interpret that sentence. It only could be read the way you do because Copperfield’s name happens to be the same as Blaine’s. In fact, you could be saying the equivalent of “George Bush and Clinton”. See, the “David” could be referenced as only Blaine’s first name, and Copperfield identified purely by last name. Only the coincidence of the identical first names allows ambiguity.
Sorry, Irishman; my bad about the patent/copyright mismatch.
Yeah, I’ve been a member of a few organizations that have use the code. I can see that if people know what to look for it can take the illusion away; hence another popular rule “Don’t do the same trick for the same spectator, twice.” Even though I’m no longer a member of said organizations (local crap), I still have the kneejerk reaction not to give away much. People like to know, but they generally do enjoy magic more without knowing.
Sorry to Jillgat & Chronos for bringing up what probably amount to opinions in relation to this. I just wanted to reply quickly, as it somewhat relates to the OP. I’m finished, now.
Irishman and msc75
black455’s post
{Emphasis Added and subscripting removed}
Easy to miss …
Tinker
Perhaps if I knew what “d&r” meant it would be funny. But since I don’t, all I get is a grammar correction and no smiley. Thus a serious reply.
[turn brain on]
duck and roll
Okay, moving on…
Irishman:
The traditional expansion is ducks and runs, so as to avoid the notional bricks annoyed Dopers (and Fathomites) throw. Thought you’d like to know. 
William Poundstone’s ‘Secrets’ books (Big Secrets, Bigger Secrets, and Biggest Secrets, to be precise) explain a lot of the more advanced tricks and make ample use of diagrams for you visual learners out there. I bought all three at Barnes and Nobles stores, and I’m sure you can get them through Amazon.com. I don’t watch stage magic, so knowing just where all the wires are, so to speak, didn’t ruin anything for me.
Sorry bout that y’all… I despise smilies, hence the d&r. I was in a particularly wacky mood when I posted that.
Quoth silent_rob:
I believe that the term you’re looking for is “professional expertise”. It carries a bit more weight than opinion, in the relevant context.
By the way, has Copperfield changed his flying routine? I saw the TV special where he did it the first time, and I’ve seen kids on swingsets perform more convincing “flights”. Maybe he’s better at it now? Or maybe I’m just looking a bit too closely?