talkmagic.co.uk

by **kolm** » Aug 31st, '08, 13:37

gunnarkr wrote:
MagicBell wrote:Penn & Teller exposed their own elaborate setups, but not the real secrets of magic. Not generally anyway.

Are you joking? Cups and balls is amongst the oldest magic tricks, used to entertain the Egyptian faraos. Penn and Teller exposed that with clear plastic cups. They have also exposed sleight of hand and card moves. How much more general can you get in exposure?

I wouldn't call doing the cups and balls with clear plastic cups exposing the trick. I call it doing it very well. The only part of the trick that was exposed is pre-loading the cups with balls, which I understand is a small part of the trick as a whole

by **gunnarkr** » Sep 1st, '08, 01:50

Exposing the method, pre-loading, routine and moves, whether it was done well or badly, it's exposure - whatever you call it.

by **Robbie** » Sep 1st, '08, 10:51

I think that over the past few thousand years everyone has twigged that the magician puts the balls under the cups. It's not really exposure to say so.

I've always considered P&T's clear cups and balls routine a masterpiece, in that even while watching it being done you're still astounded and amazed. It helps that they do it very. very quickly. At the end, the audience is impressed, entertained, feels they've been let in on a secret, and yet -- because of the speed -- can't remember the details or sequence of what happened.

What say you about the routine where Teller goes through the motions of lighting a cigarette, using a string of sleights? There's no explanation of any particular trick, but I consider it closer to serious exposure than the clear cups and balls.

by **Mr.Mystery** » Sep 1st, '08, 19:20

Thanks Craig, I'll look into the King Rings.
I agree with Magic Bell that teaching is not the same as exposing.
In fact in every Magicians oath I've read they clearly state that it is exposure to reveal a trick to someone who simply wants to know the method, but, not perform the trick. It is not exposure, but rather teaching when you teach an aspiring magician how to perform a trick. The difference is that exposure is when the trick is taught to a laymen who has no interest in performing the trick, whereas in teaching the pupil intends to perform the trick.

by **MagicBell** » Sep 1st, '08, 20:48

To add to that, I'll say that when teaching a trick/technique, the teacher most usually fully expects the student to keep the secrets secret, and for him to not expose them either.

by **Mr.Mystery** » Sep 2nd, '08, 04:47

Right on the ball Magic Bell. It can be expected that in exposure the person who learns the trick from the exposer has no obligation to keep the secret.

by **fstarsinic** » Sep 2nd, '08, 05:59

Once your routines are highly entertaining it becomes much much less of an issue.

The only thing Newbies have over spectators is that they know the secret so exposure basically gives up the whole ball of wax. There's nothing left.

I doubt very much if Jeff Hobson cares whether the egg bag is exposed on Wikipedia because everyone in the audience is going to be laughing their ass off at his routine, regardless.

For the pro, it's all about entertainment.

It's still too bad about the exposure...

by **Mr.Mystery** » Sep 7th, '08, 04:05

The only thing Newbies have over spectators is that they know the secret so exposure basically gives up the whole ball of wax. There's nothing left.

I think a good portion of newcommers to magic present their tricks the exact way they are taught and therefore have their specs googling their tricks and finding the tricks. It's a shame that alot of these newcommers quit because they think they are mediocore magicians.

by **gunnarkr** » Sep 7th, '08, 16:20

MagicBell wrote:To add to that, I'll say that when teaching a trick/technique, the teacher most usually fully expects the student to keep the secrets secret, and for him to not expose them either.

Are you referring to the youngsters "teaching" and "tutoring" copyright material on YouTube? :roll:

There is a lot of contradiction here. Penn and Teller are exposing magic on international TV, but it's suppsed to be allright because they do it in a funny way? Then 14 year olds that show a trick on YouTube, and then say: Now let me teach you how it's done (taking their teaching status very seriously), do you expect the ones that view their vids to keep the secrets? Hmmmmm...

by **MagicBell** » Sep 7th, '08, 16:37

gunnarkr wrote:
MagicBell wrote:To add to that, I'll say that when teaching a trick/technique, the teacher most usually fully expects the student to keep the secrets secret, and for him to not expose them either.

Are you referring to the youngsters "teaching" and "tutoring" copyright material on YouTube?

There is a lot of contradiction here. Penn and Teller are exposing magic on international TV, but it's suppsed to be allright because they do it in a funny way? Then 14 year olds that show a trick on YouTube, and then say: Now let me teach you how it's done (taking their teaching status very seriously), do you expect the ones that view their vids to keep the secrets? Hmmmmm...

I don't think you're reading properly. I've condemned all forms of exposure. You're the one saying that 'exposure' is what has allowed us to learn magic and I'm merely stating the difference, in my opinion, between exposure and proper teaching materials, ie. books and instructional DVDs.

Magicians publicly revealing secrets - Bad. :evil:

Youtube exposure videos - Bad. :evil:

Books and proper DVDs - Good.

By 'teachers' I meant direct personal teachers and authors of books. Definitely not the makers of youtube videos. :roll:

by **danielworland** » Apr 19th, '09, 18:01

Mr.Mystery wrote:Hey Everyone,
Recently, as I'm sure you all know, Wikipedia has been exposing the secrets of magic. For the last few months I've been looking for solutions to this problem. In those few months I've had to create several accounts, most of which are now banned indefinitely. But luckily I've managed to come up with 2 good short term solutions to the exposure problem.

Solution 1: Since magic secrets are for the most part unknown to the public; not many people other than magicians can know whether the secrets on Wikipedia are in fact true. So if you find a page that exposes magic you just edit the page and put an incorrect method. For example in Wikipedia`s article on the famous trick Chinese Linking Rings I changed the method that was shown on Wikipedia to my own fake method. (If you’re curious to what the fake method was, I said that the there is a slit in every ring and the slit can be closed using a remote control held in the performers hand, obviously a spectator watching a show thinking that this was the secret would never find the real secret). Anyways my method stayed on Wikipedia for a solid 3 months! (If you’re interested in viewing my discussions on the Wikipedia validating my point, check out the discussion portion of the Chinese Linking Rings page on Wikipedia)

Solution: This is by far a better solution than my first. I am sure that almost everyone at Talk Magic has tried deleting entire pages on Wikipedia, only to have them reinstated a couple minutes later. However, there is one way to delete certain pages without the method getting reinstated. You see on Wikipedia everything MUST be well sourced or it gets deleted. So if there are no references at the bottom of the page relating to the method of the trick on that page, you can delete the method and write on the discussion tab, `I deleted the method because it was unreferenced.` Now if there is a reference you can still delete it using an excuse like `The reference is unreliable or if the reference is a book say that the book doesn’t talk about a method. Just remember to ALWAYS give a reason in the discussion tab on the page.

I have two more tips to give away. The first tip that I would like to lend anyone wishing to try my methods, is that you should appear that you like exposing magic and that you want all the methods to be accurate. I found that when I joined the Wiki project magic (which is the main group that attempts to expose magic) my odds of getting rid of changing the methods on various pages we`re greatly amplified because the exposers think you`re on their side. The second is if you wish to change a method, make up a fake reference to a book or something that anyone checking the validity of the reference would have trouble finding. I usually make up a non-existent book like `The complete guide to becoming a magician`by Dr. Theo Jones, which of course does not exist. Or if you wish to be more believable you can create your own website using a free domain such as www.sythasite.com which will allow you to make your own webpage. Then on that page post your fake explanation and use that website as your reference.

Well, that`s all that I could figure out in my attempts to stop exposure on Wikipedia. Please if you have any questions or comments post them on this page and I will do my best to answer them. Good Luck!!!

i agree recenty i typed king rising levitation on google. it came up with wikipedia and it tells you exactly how its done.

also it exposes out of this world

by **Lenoir** » Apr 19th, '09, 18:17

Well why the hell are you posting the links on a public forum?

Are you devoid of all intelligence?

(Details now removed - Mods :wink:

)

talkmagic.co.uk

Stoping Wikipedia`s Exposure- the Method

Re: Stoping Wikipedia`s Exposure- the Method

Who is online