Talk:Balducci levitation

Old stuff

This should Definatley be mereged, it is very short and almost a stub and could eaisly be a section the the Balducci Leviation Article

I'd prefer Wikipedia not to be used for exposure of magic. Someone really interested in magic has other ways of finding out information like this.

What are your thoughts? -- MGM 23:52, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

Freedom of information rules...go spin MGM!

i agree with MGM. tricks as good as this should not be on wikipedia.

What about vague wording of articles (such as how this one appears to be written) that explain the basic mechanism behind the trick but don't give enough information for the reader to actually work it for themself without a fair amount of experimentation? teucer

I agree with MGM that this doesn't need to be here. A description of the trick as it appears and admission that the trick is, in fact, a trick is fine, but actually explaining the mechanism does no one any good. Appeals to some all-encompassing principle of "freedom of information" do not apply. The information IS freely available, but it doesn't have to be available here.

-- Britomart

Exposure doesn't belong here. You are causing harm to certain entertainers and their ability to make a living. Certain of the exposures here are infringing on commercial products.

As someone who worked out Balducci's trick all by myself, I don't see it as such a big deal. There is a spoiler message, so I don't know what else can be done. Wikipedia should not censor itself with regard to verifiable information, stated in a neutral way. func(talk) 1 July 2005 18:09 (UTC)

Agreed, Make sure there's a spoiler message. One must appeal to the ethical/moral standards that protect trade secrets in the magic industry. However, wikipedia is open source, and secrets will devolve to the morality of the lowest common denominator. I suppose you can try to prevent this stuff from happening, but I think that type of censorship works agains the spirit of open-source.--Muchosucko 3 July 2005 10:35 (UTC)

It carries a spoiler warning, so I don't really see what the problem is. I don't think it would discredit the magicians who perform it (or rob them of audiences) as it just being sleight of hand ... er ... foot ... does not dimish from the trick being interesting to view. Wikipedia should not be censored -- from experience, it is the first place people turn to when they urgently need information. Also, I agree with Muchosucko, censoring this article would go against what open-source is supposed to be.

The Reverse Balducci levitation stub should be merged with this, however -- it's essentially the same trick, only performed with a different foot. --Sul V 17:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment

Please take a look at Talk:Out of This World (card trick)#Request for comment. Bovlb 2005-07-04 18:20:53 (UTC)

Proposal re. magic methods

I do not see much of a problem with the description here, as it is very close to being in sync with the industry standard in how this kind of information should be published. However, I also belive that to be by accident, rather than by design. I've put together a proposal for Policy for magic methods. Take a look :-) --TStone 17:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

However, the controversy surrounding David Blaine's usage of the TV-medium has no place on a page that are dedicated to Mr. Balducci's creation. Those comments should be moved over to David Blaine's page.--TStone 00:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Page moved to Wikipedia:Proposed policy for magic methods. --cesarb 14:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Blaine

I cut the following from the description:

Magician David Blaine performs this trick. On television, his act, which features reactions of the audience, is intercut with shots of him levitating with hidden mechanical assistance. This allows him to appear to have both feet quite a few inches above the ground in certain shots, something impossible with the Balducci levitation. The controversy among magicians about Blaine's television specials focuses on this, as some consider it to violate one of the rules of the television performance of magic: that the at-home television audience sees exactly what a live audience would see.

Talk about Blaine and his ethics in TV should be moved to David Blaine and filed under the correct TV-show. I have not kept track of his shows, since he seemed a bit un-inspiring when I met him at FISM2000 in Portugal --TStone 14:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I also posted a notice at Talk:David_Blaine that there is material for inclusion to be found here. --TStone 14:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons

I've made quite a few edits. See the talk page of Wikipedia:Proposed policy for magic methods --TStone 15:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Posting

Personally think that this subject needs to be taken off of Wikipedia. The information provided about this illusion is of a one of a kind illusion. Why take money away from him. Mid as well just tell the originator to go and fuck off. That is what is being done here at Wikipedia. I think freedom of information there needs to be a fine line drawn.

Spoiler notice or not...the information is still being provided without permission from the originator...which if you all just carefully look on his web site...give him a call. I am sure he will completly disagree with what is displayed on this site.

Since Cris Angels Self Levitation was taken off i think Peters should be too.

So my vote goes with out saying another word - Delete this topic off Wikipedia. (Unsigned comment posted by 67.177.137.7 at 05:46, January 24, 2006)

While I'm sympathetic to your general sentiment, I must point out that the originator is unknown. The attribution to Ed Balducci was rather a matter of convenience (a detail that has been forgotten) since he is the one who found, explored and described the creation (he himself never claimed to be the originator). You (and I) might not like its inclusion here, but as it stands, it doesn't break any ethical issues regarding the respect for a creator's work - as it from most views safely can be considered that the creation is in Public Domain.

I would like to ask where exactly the license for the Balducci Levitation as 'Public Domain' resides. This methodology hasn't been released with the intent that it be told far and wide to all persons of the earth. If this were so, the Balducci method would have no worth either monetary, in performance, or otherwise. Think about that.

Of your comments, it seems likely that you refer to some of the works derivative from the Balducci levitation, and those listed here can not be considered as significant improvements to the original, therefore not applicable for any extra concern. While that might be considered unfortunate is a whole other question. However, if you spot a transgression within a piece which add something significant to the Balducci, let me know, and I'll help fight for that creator's rights --TStone 22:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, you can google this trick and find numerous sources that "give" the illusion away. Perhaps, The "Originator" should contact the thousands of those sites as well.

Merge proposal

I think the merge proposal is a good idea. Move the information at Elevator levitation into Balducci levitation. It can be added in a section entitled "Variations", and "Elevator levitation" can be redirected to Balducci levitation. Or should it be the other way around? Elonka 11:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It's the latter. The derivative work should (if there's not significant reason not to) be folded into the original work. There's a little problem with the latest edit here though. It's a bit easier if it is in this order:

• The title of the work and its originator. (i.e. the title given by it's creator)
• (some kind of intro, if needed. Example: "Made famous by TV-star "El Hatto" ).
• Effect (how the creation is percieved by the spectator)
• Method (A short summary of the covert choreography)
• Credits (The historic lineage. Where and when it was published. Comparisons with earlier work that might been important. Details on what makes the creation noteable enough to merit a place in history, Etc.
• Known variations (This part is not needed.Just added here, as there were so many not noteable versions already posted. If it's not relevant to the credits, then there's little reason to mention it at all, as it gives noteability rather than describing it).
• External Links.

As the piece here reads now, an added description about what (in the method) that differs from its predecessors, that should be placed in "credits", will now be placed in "origin", which is before the spoiler tag - making the purpose of that tag somewhat vague.

(A short note about the customs within the field. If a piece is described without any indication about the originators name, then it means that the author of the text claim ownership of the piece - that he is the creator. This custom has a very long tradition, and that is why it is considered more a theft to remove the originator's name than to publish the piece without permission) --TStone 04:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Butchered "Sooperman" moved here

This is a horrible example of how it shouldn't look. First of all, it's completely unsourced, then it has been given a false title, as it is a butchered version of Paul Harris "Sooperman". I've merged it before, but someone reverted it, without even providing a single reason why it should be filed under a false name, or why no references was added. This should not be a place for falsifying history. To avoid further reverts, I'm moving it here instead--TStone 10:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

In the Wild Levitation the magician takes off his dinner jacket and lays it down by his feet. As he pulls the jacket up, his two feet rise with it, both visibly off of the ground.

{{Magic-spoiler}}

Preparation: Get a jacket and a strong bulldog clip from the office store. You should be wearing dress shoes if you are wearing a dinner jacket. Clip the bulldog clip to the side of one of your shoes (inner side) One shoe should be loosely tied so that you can easily slip in and out of it.

Method: Take off your jacket and turn it back to the audience and pretend to straighten the bottom, but secretly "clip" your two shoes together and casually step out of one, placing your socked foot behind your two shoes. Raise yourself up on the socked foot and lift the two shoes together, never pulling the jacket higher than the tops of the shoes. Come "crashing" down and put your foot straight back into your shoe. Remove the clip and take a bow.

The "elevator" routine (needs sourcing)

There are a lot of unsourced material in this piece. Add relevant pieces (with sources) to the proper places in the Balducci page--TStone 10:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The elevator levitation is a variation of the Balducci levitation. The magician shows himself "clean" in all possible ways (that is: he has no instruments to assist him with his trick). Suddenly, he levitates three to four inches off the ground. Then the magician comes down and is still totally "clean". The exact origin of the technique is unverified, though magician Peter Loughran claims to be the one that originated it.

{{Magic-spoiler}}

The Elevator Levitation uses a piece of PVC pipe (alternatively: a block of wood) that the magician stands on with the heel of his foot and lifts himself into the air, identically to a variation of the Balducci levitation as published in Pallbearer's Review in the 1970s. Balancing on the pipe and setting it in position require plenty of practice.

The gimmick that the performer balances on, is initially attached to the performer's belt by a reel. When the performer is ready to perform the illusion, he triggers the gimmick to lower, and then after he "returns to earth", the gimmick is reeled back up.

Another addition suggested in The Chronicles in the late 1970s , In this addition, the gimmick is metal, has mirrors on three sides, is spring-loaded, and folds up flat so it can be carried in pockets more easily. The mirrors make it possible for spectators to look under the feet of the magician while he levitates. The rest of the effect is virtually the same.

References

• Loughran's page with video of the Balducci levitation
• Alternate explanation involving a woman's shoe's heel attached through a hinge

Criss Angel

http://www.hedonistica.com/media.php?path=/videos/levitation-trick-revealed.wmv Is a great video of Criss Angel demonstrating how he does his levitation tricks. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sub Section

I saw a great levitation on the the street in Monte Carlo performed by one magician from Romania. His name is Dan Bucfing. I thing that in his version hi was used the idees from "ICARUS", but also somethyng else because his leviattion was very high and not on the stares. Just up to the ground.

Jonathan Steve

balducci

you should not mention the way the method is done. blaine just used that method to impress people watching at home. because someone has let this secret out magicians, like me, have gotten a bad name. if you know a secret keep your mouths shut. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.191.53.148 (talk • contribs) .

Sorry, but it's no longer a secret. Removing the explanation from Wikipedia can't help that. —Keenan Pepper 15:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Latest argument for deletion

The secret to the Balducci levitation is a trade secret often retaught to others through commercial means or gatherings of magicians. Although it may already be well exposed online, Wikipedia should not need to be another avenue for exposure. This article removes worth from the weeks that many spend perfecting the illusion for performances which may often times be a source of revenue for the practiced performer. Wikipedia may be an open collection of information, and it may also be against censorship, but as mentioned before, a fine line must be drawn. Wikipedia should not be part of the problem and devalue the Balducci Levitation technique. This article should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.203.54.95 (talk • contribs) .

Why don't you worry about your local bookstore selling "Magic for Dummies"? Don't be a douchenozzle. Anyone who pays to learn this trick is a dumbass and anyone who charges to teach it is..... well... BRILLIANT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.77.67 (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but legally magic tricks cannot be considered trade secrets nor can they be copyrighted. Therefore there is no legal means to prevent the publication of this information. This article will not be removed and attempts to delete sections of it or remove it entirely will fail. Thanks, Gwernol 13:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing fake picture

I'm removing the picture included with this article for the same reasons I removed the one discussed at Talk:Sooperman.

This one is again clearly manipulated, with the background entirely removed. In this case, there is heavy use of a blur tool on the edges of the jeans - this effect would not happen when photographing them against a true white background. As such, this picture doesn't add anything meaningful to this article - it's an attempt to pass off the illusion as more convincing than it is at best. Alvis 08:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The image illustrate the illusion well enough. If you have a better picture, feel free to replace this, but don't just remove it. Not everyone have seen this trick in real life, and it's hard to understand the gist of the trick from reading the text.--Anss123 12:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Then provide a picture of the trick. This isn't one. Alvis 09:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It does not need to be a picture of the trick, it only needs to _illustrate_ it. Whenever the author has used a blur tool on the edge of the jeans is irrelevant. Whenever the effect would happen when photographing against a true white background is irrelevant. As such, the pictures does add meaningful value to this article (read: I would not have recognized this trick had I not on a whim looked on the history page to see if anyone had removed anything meaningful.)

Fake or not, the picture _does_ show the gist of the trick. How the left foot hides the right, and how then pants on the right foot hides the heel. I’ve reverted the removal again on the grounds that the fake picture is better than no picture. (Arguably, the fake picture is also better than a badly photographed true picture.)--Anss123 10:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)