Penn and Teller

[Dave Gray]

After seeing the trick this way, I can see why you say what you do.  Again, the version that I saw didn't have the box in plain sight.  It was underneath a chair in their custom-built theater.

[Pappy13]

So they have improved upon it, wouldn't you say? 

I'd be willing to bet when they first did this trick they didn't use a smart phone, just a plain phone. Then when smart phones became popular, they realized it would be even better if they turned on the camera of the phone so that you could see Penn palming the phone early on in the trick. Then they went one step further and decided to film them putting the phone in the fish and sealing up the box, even further reinforcing the idea that the phone is truly in the fish which is sealed inside the box.

Magicians often improve upon tricks as they do them. The first iteration is usually the worst and it gets better over time as they think up better and better ways to "sell" the illusion.

[fyo]

Pappy, what you're describing doesn't fit with P&T's MO. When they reveal how a trick is done, there's no misdirection about it. The reveal is totally authentic. They may (and often do) layer something on top of it, but that doesn't make their reveal "fake" in any way.

I've seen tons of P&T and never once have I seen a fake reveal from them. They don't always show all the parts, which is what happens here, but the parts they do show are completely on the level.

[Pappy13]

^^Actually the clip in the very first post in the thread shows an EXTREMELY fake reveal from Penn and Teller.  It's the one where they are sawing a woman in half. They lay the women down in a box and then put a saw blade through her and then pull her apart and then they proceed to remove a piece of the table she is laying on to reveal that her midsection is actually well below the blade and then "accidentally" the blade goes right through the midsection of the woman cutting her completely in half with blood and entrails hanging out. So I guess that part is real? No, the reveal was fake as was the rest of the trick.

[Spider-Dan]

The "reveal" was real; they showed how the trick would have been done, just with a fake body in place of the real one.

Using a fake body does not change the fact that they are showing how that trick is commonly performed.  It's just that P&T (obviously) were performing a different trick.

[Dave Gray]

I think that cellfish is new.  I have only seen it done with an iPhone.

I think that P&T picking the phone is key.  I think that they pick a black iPhone 3G every time.  That way, they have a phone to switch.  I think the switch happens when Penn puts the necklace on Elton John (he put one on Cris Angel in my version). 

From there, there are 2 things that have to happen.  The box has to "ring" (which could be done with a speaker in the box, I suppose. ...as well as to show up in the fish, that, as Pappy said, could be done by inserting the phone in the underside of the fish while or before he's cutting the head off.

[Brian Fein]

the phone has to ring because of th timing with the audience member.  What happens if the "friend" has no service or dials the wrong number by mistake or does something (anything) funky and the fish phone still rings.  What happens if the "player" from the audience has a unique ringtone on her phone like Back That Ass Up or something else that likely wouldn't be on a replacement phone.  They have to be prepared to deal with that, which means the real phone HAS TO be in the box.

And, if there is a trap door, wouldn't an observant audience member possibly notice movement under a seat in front of them?

[Pappy13]

The "reveal" was real; they showed how the trick would have been done, just with a fake body in place of the real one.

Using a fake body does not change the fact that they are showing how that trick is commonly performed.  It's just that P&T (obviously) were performing a different trick.

So you're saying that they didn't really reveal how THEY do it, they revealed how someone "might" do it.  How is that different from what I'm describing in the fish trick?

[Pappy13]

the phone has to ring because of th timing with the audience member.  What happens if the "friend" has no service or dials the wrong number by mistake or does something (anything) funky and the fish phone still rings.

What happens if the "player" from the audience has a unique ringtone on her phone like Back That Ass Up or something else that likely wouldn't be on a replacement phone.  They have to be prepared to deal with that, which means the real phone HAS TO be in the box.

After thinking about it, my solution would be to have the actual phone placed next to a microphone or something back stage that transmits the ring when the phone is called to a speaker hidden in the box or something along those lines. I think that would handle just about any situation.

[Spider-Dan]

No, they revealed how that trick is performed; that just wasn't the trick that they did.  But since they are not really doing a trick reveal with the fishphone, that's a separate point.

Essentially, you are accusing them of faking/altering video.  There is no reason to believe that if they say the video is from the point-of-view of the phone, that they are somehow altering that video.

Pappy13, do you actually have any professional experience with magic?  You seem to be representing that you do, or that magic is easily solved by a viewer using common sense.  Having read the blogs of a professional conjurer (James Randi) for several years, I do not share your opinion.

[Pappy13]

No, they revealed how that part of the trick is performed.

Essentially, you are accusing them of faking/altering video.  There is no reason to believe that if they say the video is from the point-of-view of the phone, that they are somehow altering that video.

Aren't they "faking" a girls body being stretched between those 2 boxes? 

Essentially you are saying that I'm questioning the veracity of statements made by P&T while performing a trick. Guilty as charged. LOL

[Pappy13]

Pappy13, do you actually have any professional experience with magic? 

Professional? Well I've never been paid to perform magic, however I have performed in front of a live audience of about 50 kids a couple times and I was paid in the form of a board game once I believe it was when I performed for a birthday party or something like that.

I began messing around with magic when I was about 10. I started with a magic set I got for Christmas. The next Christmas I performed a few tricks in front of my family. Every year after that I would do a magic act at Christmas for them.  Every year I would buy a couple more magic tricks from a local magic shop and I would practice them all year. I also bought a lot of magic books and read up on guys like Houdini and others.  This lasted up to the time I was about 18 or so when other things in my life took preference. I still had most of my magic tricks until I was about 35 or so and would from time to time entertain my own kids. I have always been fascinated with magicians and I'll always stop to watch a good magician do his stuff and I would often try to figure out how they would do it. It's been a hobby of mine since I was like 10.

You seem to be representing that you do, or that magic is easily solved by a viewer using common sense.

Well I don't know how easy it is, but the more you learn, you start to realize that there are basic concepts and principals behind many tricks. From there you just build on those basic building blocks. Often times I would think up a new way to do an existing trick after learning how another trick was done. I think that's essentially what a lot of magicians do. And while I said the 1st rule of magic is to never give away the secret of a trick, there's also an unwritten adendum to that which says you can teach someone to do the trick if they are going to perform the trick themself and if they agree not to reveal the secret. I used to go to magic shops and ask them to perform some of the tricks to see if I liked them. You'll find if you do that most likely someone in the store can perform the trick and is eager to show them to you. If you purchase the trick, they'll often teach you how to perform it or give you tips on doing it well.

Having read the blogs of a professional conjurer (James Randi) for several years, I do not share your opinion.

Which opinion is that? That tricks are easy to solve by using common sense? I didn't say that, you did. I have maintained all along that I know a bit about magic and it helps me figure out how it's done. I don't always know how it's done, many magicians have fooled me. Sometimes I have a pretty good idea and given enough time to think about it, can probably come up with an answer that's at least pretty close if not right. If you've been reading along, I've kinda figured out more and more of the trick as we went along. At first I didn't really know how they got the phone to appear to be in the fish, but the more I thought about it, I came up with a pretty plausible explanation. At first I didn't really know how they were able to handle the ringing of the phone, but as time went on and I thought a bit more about it, I came up with what I thought would be a workable solution. I can't tell you if that's how they do it, only how I might try to do it. I could be wrong. I've said that from the very beginning and I haven't said that anyone else here is wrong, only that I think the solution is pretty simple.

And you should know by reading James Randi that he doesn't believe that anyone has any special powers. He's spent a greal deal of time debunking people who claim to have special powers and pretty much defies someone to prove him wrong. In essence he's saying that EVERYTHING is a trick and can be explained using common sense, so really I don't think what I'm saying is anything differnt from what Randi has pretty much staked his reputation on. Please show me where James Randi says that illusions are anything more than just that, an illusion.

[Spider-Dan]

It seems there is a greater overall issue we have.

I've only seen the trick performed in the link that Brien provided. I've also seen the video on youtube that supposedly explains how the trick is performed. It shows the video that was actually taken with the phone which just shows Penn palming the phone and the phone ending up back stage and then shows someone putting a phone inside a fish. There's no way to tell whether or not the phone that's being put into the fish is in fact the phone that the trick was performed with.

The phone that is "in the fish" at the end is the original phone.
The phone taking the video (when Penn palms it, right before it "goes into the fish") is the original phone.

If you dispute either of these two statements, you are saying that the audience member is a plant, as well as the other person in the audience that calls them.  That is the laziest possible explanation of any magic act; namely, that the participants (the "marks," if you will) were "in on the trick."  (Notably, it is the same explanation you used for the entire premise of the "Fool Us" show.)

You can explain away 99% of all magic tricks (without even watching them) by saying that everyone involved is an accomplice.  That's not really explaining anything at all.

[Pappy13]

The phone that is "in the fish" at the end is the original phone.

Agreed.

The phone taking the video (when Penn palms it, right before it "goes into the fish") is the original phone.

The phone taking the video is the original phone. I'm going from the video on youtube that I saw, there are more than 1 so I'm not sure which one you saw. Penn does not palm it right before it "goes into the fish". Penn Palms it and the image on the phone pretty much goes dark, probably slips it into his pocket or something at that point. The next thing you see is someone off stage pointing the phone camera at P&T on stage proving that the camera has already been taken and is now offstage. Then it's pointing at someone with a fish. I don't believe you actually see the phone go into the fish. At that point the video ends presumably since there's not much else to see, supposedly the trick has been completed. Perhaps there are other video's that show the rest of the video from the person's camera, but I doubt very much that you'll see anything other than darkness (presumably while the camera is in the fish) and then the audience when it comes out of the fish assuming it's still recording. If I'm off base, please provide a link to a video that you are watching.

If you dispute either of these two statements, you are saying that the audience member is a plant, as well as the other person in the audience that calls them.

How's that? Show me a video that shows me something other than what I just described above and then show me how that shows that anyone must be a plant. You've lost me.

That is the laziest possible explanation of any magic act; namely, that the participants (the "marks," if you will) were "in on the trick." 

I NEVER said that. Please show me where I said that.

(Notably, it is the same explanation you used for the entire premise of the "Fool Us" show.)

You can explain away 99% of all magic tricks (without even watching them) by saying that everyone involved is an accomplice.  That's not really explaining anything at all.

I have explained 2 tricks and how I believe they were done, neither of which required plants. The only people I have claimed to have been "in" on the act are the magicians involved, P&T, the performers and the "official" magician. Yeah, usually the magicians are the ones in on the act.

[Spider-Dan]

How's that?

If the phone at the end is not the original phone, the mark is lying, and is therefore a plant.
If the phone taking the video is not the original phone, the mark is lying, and is therefore a plant.

I have explained 2 tricks and how I believe they were done, neither of which required plants. The only people I have claimed to have been "in" on the act are the magicians involved, P&T, the performers and the "official" magician.

The premise of the show "Fool Us" is that a magician is performing a trick for P&T, who have to try to figure out how it was done in one viewing.  In such a scenario, P&T are the marks.  You said that they are knowingly cooperating with the performing magician (but lying about it):

And I'm going back to my original thought that P&T are in on the tricks with this show. The whole notion of bringing in a "official" magician who knows how the trick is performed so that he can reveal whether or not P&T really were fooled, the part about using magician jargon so they can say how it's done without saying how it's done...it's all staged.

If what you say is true, that would make P&T (i.e. the marks) plants.