How is this trick realized?

[Olowkow]

I'm not a magician. I really liked the "banana vanish" mainly because of the technology and just the sheer effort. I have watched it several times and have tried to figure out just what it was about the video that troubled me. I finally figured it out.

The large lettering on the cup, and the Exit sign for some reason distracted me so much that I totally missed the vanishing banana the first time around. Something is just too odd about an exit sign where it should not be. Perhaps higher on the wall?

Why would a cup be labeled TEA in such large letters? Why can't I see the "E" reflection to be sure that it is in fact a mirror image, but the T and A are reflected? I got really hung up on that. Perhaps use TWA???

I am going to be very honest here. This is one of the few magic tricks I have figured out quickly. I think I know where the banana went, but not sure. But somehow, it doesn't matter compared to the really great mirror deal. Oh yes, I think you might make too much in the patter of "people being interested in reflection". You might want to just let people assume what they see is true. Calls too much attention to a simple "obvious" mirror.

Just some comments from an audience member.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Concerning the guy with the champagne glass, he says, "the shadows on the walls...I haven't edited them, or me..."

True enough. He edited the glass.

I don't like this at all. I mean, he's quite good at video editing. That's very different than "doing a magic trick".

This was not a magic trick, as far as I'm concerned.


(My dilemma, though, is that Teek's banana trick *does* seem as though it should be classified as a magic trick, although it would not work if you were there in person. I need to give this some thought....)

 

[Patricio Elicer]

(My dilemma, though, is that Teek's banana trick *does* seem as though it should be classified as a magic trick, although it would not work if you were there in person. I need to give this some thought....)

This got me thinking ....

On one hand, we all seem to agree that "erasing" objects on a video is unacceptable for it to be considered a magic trick. It's a video trick.

On the other hand, leaving parts of the action out of frame is the perfect equivalent of "erasing" IMO, and likewise unacceptable as a magic trick. Another video trick.

If we are to condemn or dismiss one, shouldn't we do the same to the other?

Likewise, if we are to applaud one, shouldn't we applaud the other as well?

Just thinking .....

 

[robinson]

Hmm... interesting point.

You don't need camera edits to achieve some pretty 'impossible' vanishes.

My favourite (I am biased because it's partly my work) is the extremely impossible banana vanish:

You don't need camera edits to make the Statue of Liberty vanish either, but it only works on camera. Could the banana vanish work if it wasn't on video?

And if something only works because of being on video, can it be considered a real trick?

 

[robinson]

This trick works without editing, and without a camera.



Would the banana vanish work to a real person?

 

[NobbyNobbs]

This trick works without editing, and without a camera.



Would the banana vanish work to a real person?

That was wonderful! I wish I understood what they were saying.

Reminds me of this classic...



ETA: Grr...why won't my youtube embed? Can someone help, please?

 

[Bob Klase]

This got me thinking ....

On one hand, we all seem to agree that "erasing" objects on a video is unacceptable for it to be considered a magic trick. It's a video trick.

On the other hand, leaving parts of the action out of frame is the perfect equivalent of "erasing" IMO, and likewise unacceptable as a magic trick. Another video trick.

If we are to condemn or dismiss one, shouldn't we do the same to the other?

Not necessarily. Generally it's impossible to 'erase' objects in a live performance. Leaving parts of the action out of frame is far from the "perfect equivalent" of erasing objects. It's entirely possible (and common) for parts of the action to be out of frame (or it's live equivalent) in a live performance.

It really depends on how you define "camera trick"- not everyone agrees. Personally I consider it a camera trick if either of the following are true:

1- the magic that's seen by the final viewer never actually happened- it was created in the editing room (or any other stage between the filming and the showing).

2- the trick can not be performed live for at least one person pretty much exactly the same as what is shown on film (tape, video, etc).

That definition is not set in stone and specific circumstances that appear to violate my conditions may be acceptable (to me) in some cases and not others. For example, Harry Anderson once did a trick on one of his specials. The trick was mostly done for a live audience, but one small part was changed in the editing room. His reasoning (given in an interview later) was that the small change only showed what the live audience had perceived as happening even though it actually didn't. I found that acceptable because the editing change really didn't change the magic that happened and was only used to enhance the effect slightly.

Leaving parts of the action out of frame is entirely possible in live performances and sometimes it works better than leaving the same action out of frame for the camera. Things can be done in full view of a live audience with misdirection preventing them from seeing it. On camera, the same misdirection will not work (usually because the viewer attention is focused on a relatively small TV screen where all the action if visible at all times.

In a stage magic show, things can happen off-stage in the wings that aren't visible to the audience. Even in close up magic, things can happen 'out-of-frame'.

If we find 'erasing' objects acceptable to create a vanish of an object that would clearly have been dropped on the floor to any live audience, then we might as well accept Brandon Routh flying in Superman Returns as a magic trick and not editing/special effects.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Not necessarily. Generally it's impossible to 'erase' objects in a live performance. Leaving parts of the action out of frame is far from the "perfect equivalent" of erasing objects. It's entirely possible (and common) for parts of the action to be out of frame (or it's live equivalent) in a live performance.

It really depends on how you define "camera trick"- not everyone agrees. Personally I consider it a camera trick if either of the following are true:

1- the magic that's seen by the final viewer never actually happened- it was created in the editing room (or any other stage between the filming and the showing).

2- the trick can not be performed live for at least one person pretty much exactly the same as what is shown on film (tape, video, etc).

That definition is not set in stone and specific circumstances that appear to violate my conditions may be acceptable (to me) in some cases and not others. For example, Harry Anderson once did a trick on one of his specials. The trick was mostly done for a live audience, but one small part was changed in the editing room. His reasoning (given in an interview later) was that the small change only showed what the live audience had perceived as happening even though it actually didn't. I found that acceptable because the editing change really didn't change the magic that happened and was only used to enhance the effect slightly.

Leaving parts of the action out of frame is entirely possible in live performances and sometimes it works better than leaving the same action out of frame for the camera. Things can be done in full view of a live audience with misdirection preventing them from seeing it. On camera, the same misdirection will not work (usually because the viewer attention is focused on a relatively small TV screen where all the action if visible at all times.

In a stage magic show, things can happen off-stage in the wings that aren't visible to the audience. Even in close up magic, things can happen 'out-of-frame'.

If we find 'erasing' objects acceptable to create a vanish of an object that would clearly have been dropped on the floor to any live audience, then we might as well accept Brandon Routh flying in Superman Returns as a magic trick and not editing/special effects.

As a matter of fact, to reverse the situation, I've seen plenty of TV specials where the camera crew captures the effect from all sorts of angles, whereas the audience gets only one viewpoint. The audience might think the lovely assistant ducked out the back, but those watching at home know this isn't true, due to our more comprehensive perspective. In this respect, these tricks are even more "magical" when seen on TV rather than live.

An interesting topic.

 

[Dan O.]

Would the banana vanish work to a real person?

Yes. And it would be better. A real person would be able to see their own reflection in the mirror which is avoided with the camera because it would be a distraction.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

Not necessarily. Generally it's impossible to 'erase' objects in a live performance. Leaving parts of the action out of frame is far from the "perfect equivalent" of erasing objects. It's entirely possible (and common) for parts of the action to be out of frame (or it's live equivalent) in a live performance.

I understand your point, I've seen many live perfomances where parts of the action are "out of frame" and yet they are perfect magic tricks. I was referring specifically to magic tricks that are presented as such in videos, which if not for the video capabilities could not appear as magically as it seems.


[edited to clarify]

 

[robinson]

ETA: Grr...why won't my youtube embed? Can someone help, please?

Take the last part of the url and just use that. (quote my post to see the coding)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQVg1ghTijw

Yes. And it would be better. A real person would be able to see their own reflection in the mirror which is avoided with the camera because it would be a distraction.

Hmm... I'm not sure if it violates the rules to say, "there is no mirror".

 

[vIQleS]

Well, I'm certainly not the hand you see

But yes, plenty of people don't know how it's done. One or two in this very thread, in fact The first part of my post is referring to the video of the OP, though, not the banana vanish.

No offence taken, it's not perfect, but I would say it's pretty impossible to get perfect without at least a week of work. It was a couple of days as it was. Just the lighting took forever, let alone the rest of it. In a world of massive budgets and no other commitments, it could be perfect, I think.

I've yet to see anyone replicate it though.

Don't get me wrong - its very well done, and i imagine that it took a lot of effort and practise. It just seemed really obvious to me the first time i saw it, but then i'm a pedant, and i'm trained to spot small imperfections.

 

[tkingdoll]

Well, we're considering doing the banana vanish live at TAM6, so you'll soon find out whether or not it can be done in front of an audience

As for whether it's really a trick or not...that's a semantics issue really. But I've spoken to several professional magicians about it and they got a real kick from it (it's the first time a vanish has been done in that way), and of course Richard himself is a member of the Magic Circle so I'm not too worried about 'purity'.

Plus, the most important thing to be considered is that it's not presented as a magic trick, it's presented as a piece of curious psychology! It's a visual illusion.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

Well, we're considering doing the banana vanish live at TAM6, so you'll soon find out whether or not it can be done in front of an audience

I'll be in the front row .

 

[robinson]

"The banana vanish". So that's what the kids call it these days.

 

[Garrette]

"The banana vanish". So that's what the kids call it these days.

Only afterward. The pick-up line is "Gotta mirror?"

 

[Here_to_learn]

That was wonderful! I wish I understood what they were saying.

There is a subtitled version available. Understanding what they are saying makes it even better, especially with the poor lady with the glasses!