copperfield's death saw
Robert Marks
how he do that
i am a big fan and do many small street tricks around covent garden but that
just sent me off
please help
Rob
Aaron Balcom Entertainment
(Magicraft.)
"Robert Marks" <rob...@verbalk.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ar8hvg$3dm$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Art Begun
that the thing can be so well made to be taken apart and put back
together night after night.
The last time I saw it I was sitting next to someone who obviously
never saw it before. She almost died.
"Aaron Balcom Entertainment" <aaron...@gatecom.com> wrote in message
news:utftjkf...@corp.supernews.com...
The Recovering Alcoholic Jug Band
to the table, then scream "STRAIGHTEN OUT YOUR LEGS AND PUT THEM ON THE
TABLE!!!". He can't.
Reason: The second guy who is inside the box with him is laying flat on
his back with his thighs up on his chest-- its this guys legs we see,
not Copperfields. DC is in a deep kneel with only his butt sticking
out. The second man completes the lllusion, we only ever see his legs.
The table is much deeper than it looks, the hollow base is large enough
to hide the second man.
TRAJB
Art Begun
stacked on top of each other. That was finally revealed in his last
special when he performed Laser. That is why he always where's long
jackets.
"The Recovering Alcoholic Jug Band" <TR...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:20058-3DD...@storefull-2133.public.lawson.webtv.net...
R.J.
involved, you have already blown that part of the effect. However, you are
completley wrong about how he is concealed in the table. He is in a much
more comfortable position than you might imagine, and it is possible he
could straighten out his legs and put them on the table without being a
contortionist. Please don't expose these secrets, especially if you don't
know how they are done.
~R.J.
"The Recovering Alcoholic Jug Band" <TR...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:20058-3DD...@storefull-2133.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Mitch Leary
No, you're wrong RJ, the alcoholic is 100% correct. If you had seen
the bluprints for the trick you'd know he was right. How do I know
this? Because yu can't see the forrest for the trees. Why don't you
thrill us with your explanation so we can all have a good laugh.
-Leary-
R.J.
that were going sideways under the table, and they could comfortably stick
up their legs.
~R.J.
"Mitch Leary" <mitchel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6d258eab.02112...@posting.google.com...
Paul Hughes
both in the desktop stack plus the extra inches made up between the desktop
and where the box on top hinges - thanks to Mendoza's Magicraft the table
*looks* deceptively thin. I've seen it live twice now from the front row
and its a beauty of a prop - even when you can visualise the load space!
- Paulie.
"R.J." <rjlac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3de2b...@news.foxinternet.com...
Mitch Leary
is very hard to understand without seeing it on paper. I've seen that
Z illusion principle used quite a bit in recent illusions. Of all the
illusion books I've collected I think I learned the most from the book
Jarrett, when it comes to packing humans into confined spaces. And
these weren't pipe dreams like so many illusion books are. Jarrett is
a fairly expensive book but worth every penny. Nobody had the balls
to write something like that, even today.
-Leary-
ps If you like me to send you a sketch of how the death saw works let
me know. I don't have a scanner or I'd gladly e-mail it to you.
fLaMePrOoF
explanation, that's why David's toes *almost NEVER get closer than about
6-12 inches to the table during the illusion part and IMHO look slightly
unnatural in position right through the trick. (Watch the play-backs and
WEEP).
*Only at one point does this happen, for a couple of seconds as the saw goes
through - while David plays dead, but the stooge can only hold this position
for a very short period as the strain on muscles and tendons quickly becomes
agonising, hence 'David's' kicked up heels for the rest of the act.
The only good thing about this illusion is the showmanship / drama, apart
from that it's a pretty standard saw-in-half with a second person's legs
showing - recently it got No. 1 on the "50 Best Magic Tricks", an accolade
which it most definitely did NOT deserve, unless their main criteria for
scoring was acting skills rather than the magic it's self and the skill /
difficulty of it's delivery.
fLaMePr0oF
P.S. If you call this post "revealing secrets" then I pity your audiences -
do you pull bunches of flowers out of your sleeve per chance? This is a
worn-out trick just cleaned up and dressed up to look nice, nothing more,
now if David's flying was the one in question, that'd be VERY different.
"R.J." <rjlac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ddda...@news.foxinternet.com...
John L
"fLaMePrOoF" <nos...@please.com> wrote in message
news:WD1H9.10975$dz2.1536023@stones...
> recently it got No. 1 on the "50 Best Magic Tricks", an accolade
> which it most definitely did NOT deserve, unless their main criteria
for
> scoring was acting skills rather than the magic it's self and the
skill /
> difficulty of it's delivery.
Please help me understand how you separate the "acting" part from the
"magic" part of great illusions presented in a magic show.
John
fLaMePrOoF
to point out that this is an integral part of all good magic.
Of course, these two cannot be separated in an overall magical performance,
but when judging between vastly differing effects, shouldn't they be
separated for marking / weighting purposes? ie. how much weight do you give
to the skill required to perform the trick, and should this add more to the
overall score than the 'showmanship' aspect. Assuming that the effect is
performed competently, I think it should - I also think that the impact of
the effect it's self, as it stands alone, is more important than the impact
of the magician's outfit / showmanship, music / pyrotechnics, or the
shapeliness off assistants etc.
I guess in essence I'm arguing from a very purist perspective.
fLaMePr0oF
John L
> No one can deny that Copperfield has a great stage presence and
you're right
> to point out that this is an integral part of all good magic.
>
> Of course, these two cannot be separated in an overall magical
performance,
> but when judging between vastly differing effects, shouldn't they be
> separated for marking / weighting purposes? ie. how much weight do
you give
> to the skill required to perform the trick, and should this add more
to the
> overall score than the 'showmanship' aspect. Assuming that the
effect is
> performed competently, I think it should - I also think that the
impact of
> the effect it's self, as it stands alone, is more important than the
impact
> of the magician's outfit / showmanship, music / pyrotechnics, or the
> shapeliness off assistants etc.
>
> I guess in essence I'm arguing from a very purist perspective.
Well, here's what comes to mind: Zig Zag Lady and Sub Trunk
I cannot find any way to judge those illusions on their own and rank
them in a "Top 50" list without taking into consideration a
performance of that illusion.
But please consider this: the illusion in question is called
"Copperfield's Death Saw". To me, that indicates that it's not the
Death Saw illusion itself, but the performance of that illusion by
David Copperfield that's being judged.
Also, when you start comparing the performance of illusions, the
desired impact also needs to be taken into consideration. You simply
cannot generally compare Copperfield's performance of the Death Saw to
Richiardi's; it's an unfair comparison since the desired impact of
Copperfield's performance is far, far different than that of
Richiardi's.
Let's take another type of illusion: Zig Zag Cigarette by Tenyo. I'll
rank that as one of the best close-up tricks ever designed, period.
But I've seen performances of it that were really rotten, and other
performances of it that had people talking about it weeks after seeing
it.
So, is Zig Zag Cigarette a great illusion or not? Well, based on what
criteria?
John