(Close Window)
Topic: Assistance with illusion design
Message: Posted by: magic_ross (May 3, 2007 11:41PM)
Hi, all. This is my first post, as suggested by my magic supplier. I have recently started building my own stage illusions. However, I am stuck on one particular design. I am very keen on David Copperfield's Slo-Mo Duck routine (watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLzDu1C6n_Q ) and have built the box and deceptive table. However, I am stuck on the design for the bucket. I will be using rabbits, not a duck. I can't find any books with a design. Does anyone have any helpful suggestions? I have some ideas about a hidden compartment in the wall of one side of the bucket, but if anyone else has any better suggestions, I would love to hear them. Thanks.
Message: Posted by: Dan Paulus (May 4, 2007 12:00AM)
The bucket is sold in better magic shops. Here's a link I found just by doing a Google search: http://www.daytonamagic.com/Stage%20Magic/STG14.htm

If you're trying to make your own, it's a well known principle. Think: S.S. Adams' dragon box.
Message: Posted by: Spellbinder (May 4, 2007 07:35AM)
Why a bucket? Who keeps ducks in buckets? It seems to me that ducks are more likely kept in cages when not allowed to run around free, same with rabbits. However, if you wanted to put a rabbit into a top hat, that would probably be more acceptable to an audience than putting a rabbit into a bucket.
Message: Posted by: Dave Dorsett (May 4, 2007 08:45AM)
And, in a nod to the Marx Brothers, why a duck?


Carry on.
Message: Posted by: videokideo (May 4, 2007 08:57AM)
The bucket is used because it is an innocent prop. It can be looked inside closely and is one of those props, unlike cages, that really have no chance for hidden compartments in the layman's eyes. And most importantly, it can be carried out into the audience. It's one of the most genius animal props ever made.

In my eyes, in magic, you try to do what is unexpected. A rabbit in a hat is totally unoriginal, but a rabbit in a bucket is not. And I don't think it's a matter of what you KEEP the animal in when it's not running around, it's a unexpected place to produce an animal. You don't keep humans in boxes or cages, yet we produce them in those props all the time.
Message: Posted by: markparker (May 4, 2007 07:18PM)
You say you are very keen on DC's Slo-Mo routine.
Have you gotten permission to perform it?
I believe, and someone correct me if I am wrong, it was Bill Smith's routine, and David Copperfield bought the rights.
All the props you need are available, but if you are thinking of lifting the routine, that's just very wrong and lazy.
Message: Posted by: bry1513 (May 7, 2007 09:52PM)
I don't believe there is any mention of anyone wishing to copy Copperfield's exact routine. Magicians were using take-apart boxes years before DC did. Why are people so eager to jump all over someone on here and speculate when all most posters are just looking for honest help? Magic Ross, I do not know how talented you are in the workshop, but the bucket itself is one of the harder things to build. Go to Doug Tilford's site, where he has several pictures of buckets that he sells for companies. I think Proline's bucket, that is used with it's Darcy O'Duck vanish, is the nicest looking one I have seen. I, myself, own a Harlin, which I am very happy with.

Take care,

Message: Posted by: markparker (May 7, 2007 10:01PM)
Read the initial post, he is "very keen on Copperfield's Slo-Mo routine". It's not about being keen to jump on people, it's about awareness. Just because this has been performed on TV does not give anyone the right to copy it. I have no problem with anyone doing a duck vanish and reappearance with a tear-apart box, etc., as you kindly pointed out they have been around for years...but it concerns me when I read comments like the initial posting, as there is such much plagiarism around.
Message: Posted by: Laszlo Csizmadi (May 8, 2007 12:30AM)
You are correct, Mark. Everyone should do the right things, but there is a big "BUT" because I heard David Copperfield, on one of his TV shows, used someone’s prop without permission. Then, not so long ago, someone mentioned in another topic he used some picture(s) without the Welles' family permission. So how come he can do things, but when someone is using his, then there is a problem right away? Once again, I’m against that person who is taking something without permission.


Message: Posted by: ChristopherM (May 8, 2007 03:32PM)
What DC did or didn't do is irrelevant to this question. Mark correctly points out that another performer's work shouldn't be copied. The obligation, sadly, is [i]only[/i] a moral one; this is the reason that DC is one of the most-imitated magicians ever. Even if DC did make mistakes such as you've heard, Las, it doesn't make it acceptable to do likewise. You're rightly against the taking without permission, too. The matter ends there, surely.
Message: Posted by: joshlondon17 (May 8, 2007 04:24PM)
Just because someone likes a certain performance of a rather obtainable and do-able routine doesn't mean that that person is going to steal it and do it verbatim.

I enjoy DC's work and often times think, "That's how I want my show to look." But after tinkering with the idea, it just isn't what I wanted.

Also, DC's Slo-Mo Duck routine uses another person. If you do a one man show, it would be impossible to duplicate this routine.

Don't get me wrong, I am totally against people stealing other people's routines, lines, etc. I don't think it's right or fair to the true creative person.

Josh London
Message: Posted by: shazammagic (May 8, 2007 10:42PM)
Welcome to The Magic Café. :)
Message: Posted by: Blair Marshall (May 11, 2007 07:54PM)
I find much of the problem comes from "newbies", the instant gratification group. Why study the art of magic, or its history, when it is easier to lift a prop design, routine, or name? Of course the Internet offers the ability to quickly copy, but it also does offer the opportunity to study and learn. I find much of the discussions on the Grand Illusion site have recently tended to look at who's copying who. We seem to have moved away from discussing illusions as such.

But copying has always been around. One-upmanship even existed with the "big" names in the past. Think of the major illusionists in the early 20th century who used to hire away each other's technicians, just to obtain the secret of a new or major illusion. Some of the (true) stories must have given a good basis to the movie "The Prestige".

Anyway, many new folks do not realise, or appreciate, the fact that copying/lifting/stealing is actually wrong. And in performance, copying is not the sincerest form of flattery!

Blair Marshall