Talk:David Copperfield's flying illusion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A few questions to those who have posted the Method - why? Who are you trying to 'inform' by doing this? What does this achieve? If it achieves a legitimate purpose, is this purpose outweighed by a countervailing desire to preserve the integrity of the illusion or commercial viability of magic as part of show-business? Do the editors/contributors enjoy exposing magic to curious people? Are these contributors magicians themselves? Would these editors, if they are working magicians themselves, object to having the inner workings of their own repertoire posted to Wikipedia in the name of 'informing' their potential audience?
As you can probably deduce, I am opposed to the 'Method' section as I find it unnecessary. If you want to tell uninformed people of what 'Flying' is, just state the facts: it's an illusion that was in the Copperfield show. That's it. Maybe link to a video clip of the performance. No need to tell people how it's done; they didn't ask for the method. Thoughts anyone? (I anticipate that my post is made in vain, yet there is some small hope...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.104 (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 |
David Copperfield's flying illusion is within the scope of WikiProject Magic, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to magic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page (Talk), where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
Just a note to those considering editing: Please leave the description intact as it provides a clear and useful synopsis of how the trick is accomplished. Additionally, it is clearly marked with the correct spoiler tag so as to maintain Wikipedia standards.
Sincerely, Samuraid 23:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, first off, YES the rings are passed over David, if the rings were not, then people immedately would know he's being held up by wires. I know this because I have witnessed this trick performed live. Also anyone that has watched the actuall broadcast of The Magic of David Copperfield XIV: Flying and NOT David Copperfield: 15 Years Of Magic, you will see that before David performs the trick, he invites the gallery to inspect the box and the rings that will be used. They are solid, so the theory that the rings were not solid or the box is not solid are false. Now the clincher comes with the following special The Magic of David Copperfield XV: Fires of Passion where David performs a varation of "Flying" as his entrance. The rings are set on FIRE this time. If this device is the one that makes the trick possible, the wires would have been melted by the sheer heat of the fire from the rings. And YES the rings are passed OVER David again. I will say there is some device holding David up to perform "Flying", but this device CAN NOT be the one or david would have fallen to the floor several times during the trick. Dickclarkfan1 17:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Flying methodology removed - too many inaccuracies! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.128.24 (talk • contribs) .
Almost word for word rip: [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.81.15.57 (talk • contribs) .
- That site seems to be gone, and so is the cache entry. With it gone, there is now really no way to tell if that other site got the article from Wikipedia, or the other way around. --iMeowbot~Meow 01:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] It is a 4.5 minute video
Please watch the video. Focus on the 2:50 time mark. It is clear that he never passes though the hoops. The hoops are drawn close to him, but his assistants are clearly rotating the hoops around and beneith him so that he never completely passes from one side of a hoop to the other side of that same hoop. In both hoop stunts. It is a clever gesture with the two hoops passing simultaneously, but if you watch with a critical eye, you will recognize that he never passes through the solid hoops. More specifically: the arc of a hoop never passes OVER him. -- 75.26.4.46 03:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- You need to specify that kind of detail in a reference in the article. Simply removing the tag without doing that is not okay. Can you make up a proper citation, please? (To be clear: the original program that the clip came from needs to be identified, and it needs to be noted that your observations apply to that performance. That covers accuracy concerns in case the technique changes later. --iMeowbot~Meow 23:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm sorry to have to be so blunt, guys, but flying is impossible. Copperfield is an ILLUSIONIST, not a witch. His skill is in performing illusions, making something LOOK LIKE it is what it isn't. In reality, he is not flying, he is hanging on wires mounted to a special belt he wears. He is not passing through solid hoops, it's just an illusion that he is. That is his skill.
-
-
-
-
- Yes, we all know that it's an illusion. Copperfield isn't a witch and he's not some genius inventor that's invented an anti-gravity device either. We're just finding a satisfactory explanation of his trick, like solving a puzzle.
-
-
Fang Teng 20:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reason for Revision
First sorry for not posting more when I made that change. I pressed my return button too soon. I wanted to keep the magic spoiler, and the US Patent number which is evidence, and remove things like 'Thankfully' that is not NPOV and refferences to the wiki proccess, which are unencyclopedic. --Just nigel 08:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removals
What's up with the recent repeated removals of content? --Tony Sidaway 04:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Certain individuals do not like the method of magic illusions being published. One justification they attempt to use is that "the trick is patented," and therefore no one is allowed to reveal the method. It is a fallacy; only the apparatus used to make the trick work is patented. Disappearing method sections to magic tricks are almost always about this issue but with varying justifications. -- Wguynes (Talk | contribs) 20:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Why reveal it?
I don't see the recipe for Coca Cola on the Coca Cola article or anything like that on other articles... besides, I don't see the relevance of this detail in the explantion of a trick. This isn't HowStuffWorks.com NotSigned,Don'tCare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.23.91.242 (talk) 11:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- And you want Wikipedia to break THE rule of magic just because? The solution is out on the web, but there's no need for an encyclopedia to be presenting it. Erik Blomqvist (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I am not a magician and have not agreed to this "rule of magic" you are referring to. Wikipedia is an excellent reference (for some uses) and I see no reason to omit information because some people have, in the past, found it profitable to keep information secret. To be clear, I have no problem with people making a living. However, if making one's living is so entirely dependent on keeping secrets then maybe the viability of that profession needs to be reevaluated. -- Wguynes (Talk | contribs) 17:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Speculation is not part of Wikipedia. Every business or profession has trade secrets. Your argument is specious. FreedominThought (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Trade secrets are not the same as copyright or patents. The only thing preventing a trade secret from getting out would be a prior non-disclosure agreement with the entity that revealed it. After the secret is out, then anyone is free to continue describing it, assuming they use their own words to do so. Of course every profession has secrets, but if a profession is so dependent on them that it cannot survive without them then I question it's viability.
-
-
-
[edit] Removal of noncited method
The method cited on the article is noncited. In line with Wkikprojectmagic: Rapid Action, i removed it. Editors should replace it when they can cite it conclusively.--Iclavdivs (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
