(Close Window)
Topic: Is this for real? Copperfield
Message: Posted by: Steve Hart (Oct 20, 2002 10:12PM)
My friend Lyndel brought this to my attention.

Can this be real?

"Copperfield Inpregnates A Women From The Audience! Child Is Born One Hour Later."

Is Copperfield really going to try to pull this off?

Has David Copperfield crossed the line of good taste?

Here is the story from the Las Vegas Sun.


This will be interesting....

Steve Hart
Cape Canaveral, FL USA
Message: Posted by: Justin Flom (Oct 21, 2002 12:06AM)
I have no idea why he'd want to even think about doing something like that. His shows have gotten more and more distasteful. His last, which I saw in Minnesota, was very raunchy and sick. I was pretty disappointed. Steve is very right in saying, "This will be intresting..."

Justin :wow:
Message: Posted by: magicdad (Oct 21, 2002 10:18AM)
If you don't like raunchy and sick, I hope you missed the Chris Angel TV special last night!!!

Message: Posted by: Bascomb Grecian (Oct 22, 2002 10:57AM)

I stand up and clap my hands together for your opinions! You keep up your posts.

We as magicians reading this post need to pay attention. We all can learn a lot from Justin's wisdom here! He's right.

Thanks Justin!

Message: Posted by: Ron Giesecke (Oct 22, 2002 11:43AM)
Assuming this is not a satirical comment given credence by a humorless reporter, then there will be a precipitous loss of respect. I hope this is not the case, as stated in the Las Vegas Sun, as it would be disappointing.
Message: Posted by: Geoff Weber (Oct 22, 2002 11:53AM)
I think maybe he's expecting a baby in real life, and the reporter was just making a joke about it...
Message: Posted by: Ellusionist (Oct 22, 2002 01:24PM)
I hope so!!
Message: Posted by: Ron Giesecke (Oct 22, 2002 04:30PM)

If that's the case, then Steve Brooks' admonitions about sarcasm not always crossing the bridge of understanding is a very compelling argument.
Message: Posted by: Bascomb Grecian (Oct 22, 2002 09:31PM)
Can I say one more comment here?

If it is true, (story in the Las Vegas Sun)
I will be the first to say,
"That is quite possibly the most idiotic idea in magic I have heard of yet."

If it is not true, as Gilda Radner said, "Nevermind".
Message: Posted by: Chris A. (Oct 24, 2002 05:27PM)
On 2002-10-21 01:06, justinflom wrote:
I have no idea why he'd want to even think about doing something like that. His shows have gotten more and more distastful. His last, which I saw in Minnesota, was very raunchy and sick. [/quote]Are you referring to the "panty transposition" effect?
Message: Posted by: Justin Flom (Oct 24, 2002 11:54PM)
Yes, that. Many raunchy jokes that were unneeded. He even made fun of a heavy woman's weight!!! It got so quiet in the theater you could almost hear a career drop!

I also didn't like Blinky's Revenge (a clown using a bucket as a toilet). Overall, his show didn't have the class or "magic" feeling his past shows had. It's my belief that he threw a bunch of illusions in a show just because he had to do a tour with some new illusions. He should have thought it out more.

Message: Posted by: cheaptrick (Oct 25, 2002 08:09PM)
I don't think this kind of "magic" can become any kind of a trend.

People will vote with their feet.

It beats me what some folks will do for a buck (pound, sheckle, loonie, or whatever).

You don't have to shock folks to be a magician, just be entertaining.

Message: Posted by: Bascomb Grecian (Oct 26, 2002 12:01PM)
Justin said:

" It got so quiet in the theater you could almost hear a career drop! "

We can only hope for the best. I think this is pure and simple a case of societial degradation, and DC is a product of that. So when you perform magic, do the best job you can and keep it clean!
Message: Posted by: Chris A. (Oct 26, 2002 12:59PM)
Like Justin, I too was disappointed in the tone of Copperfields "portal" show. I took my girlfriend and she liked it ok, but I really want to take her to see Lance Burton since IMHO his stage persona and show seem much less "synthetic" than DC's show. His show seems much more "family friendly" than DC's show these days. And since I like DC, I feel it's a shame...
Message: Posted by: Justin Flom (Oct 26, 2002 01:47PM)
I miss the days when DC added drama and emotions in his routines. Like snow, flying, father and son baseball routine (an oldie) and many others. There's no emotion in switiching a woman's underwear with another.

I strongly believe that this is the end of his career unless he changes his show, and his attitude. Within the next few months/years, we'll really see which type of magic the public likes, entertaining family freindly magic, or stupid sick magic. I think we all know which type of magic has succeeded in the past. :nod:

Message: Posted by: Bascomb Grecian (Oct 27, 2002 12:09AM)

You said, "I strongly believe that this is the end of his career unless he changes his show, and his attitude."

You hit the nail on the head! Attitude being the key word here. Have you ever had the pleasure of meeting the big guy?
Message: Posted by: Justin Flom (Oct 27, 2002 12:49AM)
Once, but I was ten. My mom was one of the 13 that vanished on stage, so she went backstage and sat in the greenroom until he came in and signed autographs for the 13 (subtracted by the stooges) :) and told them to keep the magic a secret.

I'm sure he's a really great guy, I think he's just blind to the fact that his magic isn't what it used to be. He didn't get to the top with stupid tricks like he's doing now.

Message: Posted by: Bascomb Grecian (Oct 27, 2002 11:00AM)

You said, "I'm sure he's a really great guy".

I want to remain positive here, I had the opportunity to meet DC once. I was 15 years old, he was not even famous then......I am not going to elaborate here, but my biggest "pet peeve" in life is this.....

"mean people that become successful"

Funny thing is, I seem not to be the only one who has had this experience.

Those of you out there in magicland (from stage hands to illusion inventors) who had the same experience, you know who you are...
Message: Posted by: Dave Egleston (Oct 27, 2002 06:23PM)
To Flip:
Re: Lance Burton
Yes his show is great - The Best - Bear in mind - You're in Vegas and there are some wonderful girls in the show - but they're in such a hurry to help Lance with his magic, they sometimes forget to put their tops on
And yes Mr. Bascomb - They have the audacity to charge full price, even though the girls aren't using their costumes

As always, let's wait to see what that press release really means before we jump - I too hope that it was an over-zealous writer or PR dept rather than a statement of fact

Take a breath
Message: Posted by: Chris A. (Oct 27, 2002 07:19PM)
There was indeed partial nudity in Lance's show before he moved to his new digs at the Monte Carlo.

I'm pretty sure this is no longer the case.

Having seen his show at the Monte Carlo about two years ago, I can assure you that it is quite "family friendly". Lance even does a whole routine in which children are intrinsically involved. Doubtful he would risk angry parents by having nudity in his current show. Unless it's somehow changed drastically in the last year or two. :)

And yes Mr. Bascomb - They have the audacity to charge full price, even though the girls aren't using their costumes

Once again, are you [b]sure[/b] his [b]current show[/b] features partial nudity? IMHO you're mistaken here.
Message: Posted by: Bascomb Grecian (Oct 28, 2002 03:29AM)
Flip: That is not My quote-That is Dave's quote.

That is funny Dave!

HA HA :stuckinbag:
Message: Posted by: Chris A. (Oct 28, 2002 09:00AM)
Cute quote, but incorrect.

Gives the impressions that Burton's current show features partial nudity sometimes. I've seen it and can say that it doesn't.

I would recommend Burton's current show for kids, but would have a few reservations about doing so for DC's currrent "portal" show...
Message: Posted by: Georgia Boy (Oct 28, 2002 09:41AM)
I hope the story is not true, but it would not surprise me. The last TV special DC did, I did not care for at all. The two women on the bed "petting" each other, the comment with the young men on the couch and their "nuts", the playing with emotions of re-uniting the father & son, it was like watching Springer.

I would never want to stop DC if this is the route he chooses. But neither would I want to give him one red Penny or the time of day either.

Humble opinion from the Land of the Free.
Message: Posted by: tkuhns (Nov 12, 2002 02:04AM)
I saw David Copperfield about 15 years ago, and even then I was shocked at how arrogant he seemed. He signed autographs after the show, which was a joke -- up on his five-foot high throne, where everyone could see him, yet he didn't bother to look down at a single person. He chatted with his assistants the whole time while they handed him pictures to sign and gave them back to the people.

Since we are already comparing...
I saw Lance Burton two months ago here in Japan, and it was completely refreshing. The overt sexuality of DC's show was gone, and the tricks he did with the kids were highlights. His stage persona was unbelievably friendly.
Message: Posted by: Enigma3613 (Nov 12, 2002 02:28AM)
If you want to see something that makes this post ironic (where our expectations don't match what occurs), David Copperfield's show is listed in the family section on ticketmaster. I saw his show a few weeks ago. I would say he seemed to tone down the overt sexuality when he came through Cupertino, CA, but the innuendo was there. Luckily, most of it went over the heads of the children present, but asking someone during his lotto prediction to tell the audience when the last time they "got happy with someone else was" is really tasteless.

Just my 2 cents.
Message: Posted by: martini (Nov 12, 2002 12:38PM)
Pay close attention to our young friend Justin here, a young man today with such good morals makes me happy to know that the future of magic will be in such good hands.
Your parents can be very proud of you young man.
Message: Posted by: the Sponge (Nov 12, 2002 04:51PM)
I saw him in Atlanta and I agree with the above, plus I thought all the "potty" humor with the clown was also in poor taste.

Message: Posted by: MOTO42 (Nov 12, 2002 07:25PM)
If DC actually goes for "The world's fastest pregnancy," then let me be the ten-millionth to say, "That's just tasteless."
It does nothing but drag magic in general through the mud. :whatever:
Message: Posted by: Paul (Nov 12, 2002 07:41PM)
but asking someone during his lotto prediction to tell the audience when the last time they "got happy with someone else was" is really tasteless.

??? Is this some kind of special code for Americans?

It reminds me of the joke about the psychologist showing someone the ink blot test. The patient describes all the pictures in crude sexual terms and eventually the doctor says, "I'm afraid you're a very sick man." The Patient replies, "I'm sick? You're the one showing the dirty pictures!!"

I thought Lance Burton used to do the family show early and the adult show late?

To be honest, the old style syrupy sentimental Copperfield never played too well in England being thought of as being over the top, which is why many of his TV specials never made it over here.

The clown gag sounded amusing, reminded me of "Shakes The Clown." But all very lightweight considering all the so called comedy movies coming out of the USA which seem to share plots surrounding obnoxious sexually inept teenagers with foul mouths.
The times are a-changing. Isn't the biggest cinema going group 18-25? Maybe he wants to attract those.

Copperfield may not have got it right yet, but he realizes he has to try to appeal to the Blaine crowd too, after the Masked Magician made many illusionists seem hokey. Let's see what develops. We don't all live in a Walt Disney style world (and even the Disney commercialism has its critics).

The original reference sounds more like it should have been reported in The Weekly World News. :) I suspect Copperfield will be around for awhile yet. Even Blaine is changing gradually from show to show. One has to adapt and move on.

I see Penn and Teller are still going strong.
Their cut and restored snake, etc., was no doubt tasteless to some. The Rocky Horror Show is tasteless to some. When Copperfield does Ding Dong that's the time to start panicking.

Paul :firedevil:
Message: Posted by: Enigma3613 (Nov 13, 2002 04:46PM)
His question of when they "got happy with someone else" was obviously sexual because he first asked, "When was the last time you got happy?" The man answered and Copperfield said, "I mean, when was the last time you had fun with someone else, not with yourself?"

If he is trying to target the younger audience (like my age), then he shouldn't be billed as a family show, he shouldn't advertise on predominantly "family" oriented media, such as the local news radios and older music stations. Also, having AFLAC (an insurance company) as a sponsor wouldn't help as much as a sponsor that sells to the 18-25 year olds.

I also feel that many Americans are seeing the growing trend of the entertainment industry to things many of us see as increasingly tasteless. There have been recent articles written here about the fact that sex seems to be taking the place of creativity and that our entertainment is now turning to "shock value" as opposed to entertainment that requires more entertainment to devise. Of course, with our MTV culture thriving, many Americans' attention span has dwindled so much that shocking material seems to be the only stuff entertainers can use as a surefire entertainment medium.

This topic gets pretty touchy. I don't profess to speak for anyone but myself, this is just my take on things.
Message: Posted by: Paul (Nov 13, 2002 07:04PM)
"The man answered and Copperfield said, "I mean, when was the last time you had fun with someone else, not with yourself"."

You mean he wanted to know the last time he went to the movies with someone? :)

If he is trying to target the younger audience (like my age), then he shouldn't be billed as a family show,

I fully agree, but maybe it is others that are describing him that way? People have grown to accept one thing, so it is difficult for him to try and change the image. People become shocked more probably because they think it out of character. Maybe a newer audience, that hasn't seen him before, goes in without the pre-conceived ideas and does not come out disappointed.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not particularly trying to defend D.C., just offer a different point of view.

Paul (The Lenny Bruce of magic) :)
Message: Posted by: Enigma3613 (Nov 14, 2002 02:29AM)
That is true. I grew up seeing David Copperfield's shows on TV and I was kind of shocked seeing him in a different light. It could just be that this is where he personally sees magic to be headed or he may be projecting an image of himself that he feels will attract more people to his shows.
Message: Posted by: Bravo (Nov 17, 2002 11:45AM)
Thank you, Paul, for being the voice of reason amidst all the Copperfield-Bashing.
Message: Posted by: RandyStewart (Nov 17, 2002 03:06PM)
I sure miss the old DC....early performances doing dancing hank, dancing cane, awesome close-up, Don Wayne floating ball ala Disco ball. Sure magic has to evolve, however I'm sure the question "into what?" is tough. I sorta lost him after Statue of Liberty.

Randy Stewart
Message: Posted by: Chris A. (Nov 18, 2002 01:30AM)
On 2002-11-17 12:45, Bravo wrote:
Thank you, Paul, for being the voice of reason amidst all the Copperfield-Bashing.
[/quote]I wouldn't call it "DC bashing".

There are many of us who have always liked DC and are simply disappointed with the current direction he's taking his show.
Message: Posted by: Ron Giesecke (Nov 18, 2002 09:22AM)
Maybe if he actually has a kid on stage, he'll understand the magic of becoming a parent.

Bet his act would change then. For pete's sake, Madonna won't even allow Lourdes to watch her own mother's videos. I'm glad none of my sins are on the eternal celluloid database. All I have is a fading memory, and no W4's proving I capitalized on them.
Message: Posted by: Big Daddy Cool (Nov 18, 2002 02:21PM)
On 2002-10-26 14:47, justinflom wrote:
I miss the days when DC added drama and emotions in his routines. Like snow, flying, father and son baseball routine (an oldie) and many others. There's no emotion in switiching a woman's underwear with another.

I strongly believe that this is the end of his career unless he changes his show, and his attitude. Within the next few months/years, we'll really see which type of magic the public likes, entertaining family freindly magic, or stupid sick magic. I think we all know which type of magic has succeeded in the past. :nod:


C'mon, give me a break. I loved the underwear switch. It was flirtatious cheeky fun. My wife thought it was great too. And his Portal Illusion was one of the strongest pieces of theater I've seen in a long time.

Copperfield is just exploring a new direction. He is obviously trying to go a little lighter in his persona to capture the MTV generation. Nothing wrong with it. It's just not what you are used to, so it bothers you. If it doesn't work, he will adjust. He's a smart man...

Message: Posted by: thehawk (Nov 29, 2002 07:40PM)
Big Daddy Cool hit the nail on the head with DC going to capture the MTV generation plus an upgrade for modern times. Lighten up and enjoy the show or turn off the tv when he comes on. :dancing:
Message: Posted by: ksvengali (Dec 1, 2002 08:19AM)
OK... I've been silently reading this back and forth but now I have to chime in. It's a magic show people. Anyone going to tell me Houdini hanging from his ankles over New York City was a good image for kids? How about the magician who eats razor blades or buries himself in a casket for a week? Children are our responsibility... not the media's. As for Copperfield.... LIGHTEN up people. Don't like it... don't watch. No one is forcing you.

That being said... His show was always full of innocent adult targeted double innuendos. When an audience helper has to reach into his pocket... for years he's been saying, "I said Coperfield... NOT Coppa-feel". There is so much worse out there than DC. Like his current style or not, he's the reason many of us are magicians now, he sells out 500 shows a year, and holds his own year in and year out as magic and the world change around him.
Message: Posted by: Logan (Dec 2, 2002 10:53AM)
Alright...my turn people...

I am a real DC fan... no doubt. Although I haven't seen his special yet, I can assume it's pretty much different than what he has previously put out.

That being said, my opinions cannot be fully supported. I agree with the fact that he's trying to target the younger audiences... truly I do... but would it hurt him to use extremely humorous but CLEAN humor? Sexual humor may offend some people (I don't mind it actually... but there are others on earth besides me!) :goof: so he should be wary of that!

Further more, about his illusions being more... sick. Well, I think he's trying something new... trial and error... I think he'll realise that something 'cool' or
'interesting' may not exactly be something
'magical'. We've all tested and trialed what works with our audience... and he's doing his since there are more big shot magicians coming into light, David Blaine being a main contender.

Sexual humor has its place and moments, one or 2 jokes would be ok, but I don't think that an illusion based around sex is a good idea... definitely not... sounds more perversed than amazing. Impregnating a woman on stage? Is it a science show? An adult film? What's he trying to prove? True, the greatest miracle is birth... but that's a miracle of God... of nature... not for people to say, "Wow! Look... in just one hour!" I mean, I wouldn't be impressed...

He should do things that are unique instead of sick. For example... instead of making a building disappear... make a portion of it vanish... leaving the top half hanging in thin air... and a helicoptor fly thru the missing middle section or something! That's more amazing than watching a baby being born in under an hour!

If I were him... I would study all the other top magicians... and see what they do... not necessarily copy them... but note... the type of jokes they do... the basis of their tricks. *sigh*... maybe he's too big for that... maybe he feels he knows what the audience wants... but with all these
'maybe's'... he's bound to make a mistake somewhere.

His previous shows were all filled with drama... emotion... he put his soul into his work and you could see it... now I'm not exactly sure what he's putting into it... but by the sound of it, I'm quite sure it's not his soul...

I can only pray for DC... he got me started in magic...

Logan :cry:
Message: Posted by: JAEIII (Dec 3, 2002 06:49PM)
From David:

Every two or three months we get a letter from people who found parts of the show “racey.” They say that they brought their kids and were surprised by certain elements, and certain things I say during the show. We want them to know that their concerns aren’t going unheeded.

I’ve devoted my life to expanding magic’s audience. Magic, in my view, should be an art form as sophisticated and appealing as the best of Hollywood and Broadway.

My “trix” ain’t just for kids. Our target audience is the widest group possible—all ages, all languages, all cultures and races. We’re not so different from the people who make movies with a “P.G.” rating. They, too, control the content of their films so that they’re appealing to the widest possible audience.

Which is why it would be interesting to know whether the people who felt the show was
“inappropriate” for kids also wrote letters when they took their kids to see E.T., Shrek, Harry Potter, Casper, etc. Because those films, all of which are “P.G.”, straddle—brilliantly—the adult-kid chasm.

You can be the most jaded adult, or the most innocent first-grader, and enjoy each of those movies. But each of those films contain dialogue that’s far more “adult” than my show ever has or ever will be. My staff has compiled examples of dialogue from those films that may surprise you.

Especially if you saw them with your kids and didn’t feel impelled to write to the film makers. (The list is appended at the end of this letter.)

My show is designed to display a sensibility that’s hip but not crude, sensual but not lewd, funny but not off-color. Robert Schuller, the preacher from Southern California, came to the show and commented that parts of it are sensual in a way that reflected, and respected, the natural sensuality that’s a part of life. That’s what we’re aiming for.

Some of the illusions, like “Panty Swap,” are just fun. The sight of levitating underwear strikes most kids as funny, not sexy. Adults find it sexual, the way some adults watching Shrek get the Michael Eisner jokes.

The “Voyeur” illusion is another example. To a kid, it’s two girls dancing, vanishing, reappearing. To an adult, it’s hotter than leather car seats in August. (At least I hope it is.) And so far as I know, the illusion hasn’t raised the sexual I.Q. of a single kid.

As far as “adult” situations, there is no nudity, no kissing, no sex, no violence, or anything else that appears so abundantly in the average thirteen-year old’s CD and movie collection.

This response is not meant to be taken as a refutation. We appreciate and welcome your comments and concerns, and take them to heart. You, the audience, are our most important collaborators. And we hope that those of you who found moments of the show
“racy” will come back; we’re constantly changing and evolving, growing and striving to analyze everything we say and do to strike a balance –and create a show— appropriate for all.


Surprising Moments From Family-Friendly Movies We Know and Love

Here’s the list my staff compiled. We think you’ll agree that nothing in our show comes close to the “adult” bits of dialogue in these films. Yet each of them is wonderful for adults and kids alike.

One of the classic family movies of all time, E.T.’s dialogue contains some surprising turns of phrase, including:
“Penis breath,” “Douche bag,” “Son of a wonderful lady,” and “****.” Despite the language, adults and kids continue to love this film and come away from it with a lesson about loyalty, acceptance, and friendship, not naughty words.

Casper, that most child-friendly of ghosts, contains the phrases “This sucks,” “Piss off,” “The wonderful lady is Back,” and
“This really bites.” Also, the movie received a “P.G.” rating for scenes of
“comedic violence,” death, and themes involving death and loss. But Casper is clearly aimed at kids, who, as far as we have heard, emerged from the experience untainted, with parents who were untroubled by anything on the screen.

Shrek, a multi-leveled howler, has “****” three times in one song, two “asses,” and a “*&%^.” So far, no complaints about language from distressed parents. Mostly, people wonder why the ogre Shrek sounds Scottish while his sidekick the mule sounds like he is from Brooklyn.

Harry Potter
Harry Potter and The Sorcerer’s Stone, the family movie of the year, has “Blow me,”
“Bloody &*^^,” “Fat ass,” and a smattering of “**** s,” “asses,” and “&%^^#.” Not only is a child the star of the movie, kids compose the majority of its target audience. We’ve heard nothing but praise from parents, some of whom have taken their kids back for second helpings of Harry.

We’re not suggesting that these movies, which contain language or situations that some might consider “adult,” are a green light to spice up “family entertainment” with situations and language that some might deem “inappropriate” for kids. But we do believe that entertainment, whether it’s in the form of a film or a live performance, can be sophisticated and “hip” enough for adults, while also being appropriate, entertaining, and “phat” enough for kids. And, with the help of your thoughtful comments, we’ll do our best to keep evolving and growing in a playful, entertaining, and respectful direction.

Just thought I would show you this post.
Message: Posted by: ksvengali (Dec 3, 2002 07:33PM)
Where did you get that from?

If it's from DC's camp.... then good. That's exactly what I would think everyone would want to hear. At least they are thinking about it. Nothing he does will please everyone... even though he's trying to do just that.
Message: Posted by: Logan (Dec 3, 2002 11:43PM)
I feel better now that I know that he actually gives a hoot. In my opinion, he should watch his own old specials and see what's different now...

Message: Posted by: Justin Flom (Dec 4, 2002 05:49PM)
I think something is really wrong if you have to write a letter to defend your own show. Don't you think?

Message: Posted by: Vilago (Dec 4, 2002 07:08PM)
No, Justin, I don't. I didn't care for some of DC's antics when he came here to Minneapolis this Spring (maybe you saw him too?), but if this letter is from him then I see it as an intelligent commentary on how much his show is NOT like most of the common kid fare parading as PG in the theaters, which most parents don't complain about....it's a good retort. Whether I agree with him 100% is a different matter.
Message: Posted by: JAEIII (Dec 4, 2002 08:23PM)
David did not write this to defend his show. He wrote it to explain why it is he does some of the things he does. David is one of the nicest guys I've ever met and he truly does care about what his audience thinks.

The show David is doing now is pratically brand new, and he is still working on things and getting ideas on how to make his show better. I think David has proven himself time and time again, and occasionally some of his material isn't that great. When he realizes this, he changes his show. And judging from things like this in his past, he will blow us all away with his new stuff pretty soon. Until then, give him a break. When I saw him recently, he got nothing but great reactions throughout the entire show, including the panty swap and blinky the clown.

He knows what he's doing. :nod:
Message: Posted by: Logan (Dec 4, 2002 11:45PM)
I sure hope you're right JAEII, because impregnating a woman on stage and getting her to give birth after one hour is a lot like school in the summer... no class.
Message: Posted by: Justin Flom (Dec 5, 2002 12:11AM)
My question is, why did this tour turn out so much different from his last. I don't think he's ever needed to write a letter before. If he needs to write one now, maybe that should tell him to shape up? Just my opinion...

Message: Posted by: JAEIII (Dec 5, 2002 01:26PM)
Every tour is different from the last one. David is always changing his shows. He's trying out new things. If he thinks something is just plain bad, then he'll take it out of the show. However, I think he has learned in the past 30 years that every audience is different, and that the opinion of thirty upset magicians isn't going to have much of an effect on him. It's all about the audience, and obviously the show is going well with them. In order to stay the best, David is constantly changing the show and his personality to stay with the times. It is a formula that obviously works, as he is the most famous magician in the world today.

And, you don't know if this is the first time he's had to explain himself. Let's think about David in the past. Everybody think of The Magic Of David Copperfield VII, where he is still the sweet gentleman in the suits and sweaters; and then the very next year in "The Magic Of David Copperfield VIII, where he changed everything about his show, including his persona, his clothes, his performance, his music, and his illusions. I'm sure everyone went nuts and was thinking, "What is this guy doing to himself?" Well obviously, this is the David we all know today. So he's changing again, and chances are in a few years the end effect will still be the same; GREAT!

Ease up on him. The biggest complaints I've heard from are from magicians. The rest of the world still seems to love him.

Also, the illusion where he will impregnate a woman on stage. I have heard that this is not true, just a passing rumor, and that the article is not real. I could be wrong on this though. However, before we dog David for how disgusting this illusion is, maybe we should see it first. It's a little early to judge. I'm sure there were just as many negative comments the first time someone heard the effect of interlude. A woman passing through a mans body. That just sounds dirty. Of course now that we've seen it, it's an amazing illusion. LET'S SEE THE ILLUSION BEFORE WE JUDGE IT. It may turn out to be one of his best tricks. We just don't know.

and that's just my opinion...
Message: Posted by: Kathryn Novak (Dec 5, 2002 04:28PM)
Interesting thread. However, when I took a look at that article I was strongly reminded of a tabloid. We don't know what the writer's sources were, and the fact that it was written for a Las Vegas paper makes me even more suspicious that it's just a rumor. I won't bash DC for rumors, only after he proves me wrong will I say what I think about it. Saying something before it becomes a fact would be wrong, pathetically tasteless and low class. :nod:
Message: Posted by: Vilago (Dec 5, 2002 07:55PM)
Hear, hear, IceRaven02. I also would rather wait and see before I judge DC.
Message: Posted by: Logan (Dec 6, 2002 12:36AM)
Hmmm, you all make an interesting point. The fact that the article could be a fake didn't really cross my mind...

But if it's true... I sure hope he does it with style and class... and emotion like he normally does his items. Like he touches the belly of the woman and a glow is seen or something, that's the impregnation (not the
'fun' way... but a way nonetheless). As the show progresses, her tummy becomes bigger and then after the show, a new born baby is brought out of back stage or something... I have no idea...

But I sure hope it's a rumor that isn't true!


Message: Posted by: JAEIII (Dec 10, 2002 10:14PM)
I've been given an update about this Pregnancy Illusion:

The illusion is in fact real, and David has begun to perform it for his audiences however, it appears that this "trick" is not one in serious nature, and is in fact quite comical, with nothing to be taken seriously. David makes jokes during the entire illusion, and is not intended to be one of his serious dramatic illusions, such as flying or snow or portal, etc...

This is all I know right now, but I will give you some more detail when I hear something! I, in actuality, would like to see this illusion, as it sounds entertaining from the way it was described to me. :)
Message: Posted by: Mystero (Dec 10, 2002 10:25PM)
Just got to this post and I'm amazed that anyone considers some off color magic as career ending or even career damaging. Check his ratings and his sell outs. Mr. Copperfield continues to deliver excellent entertainment to his audiences. OMHO. Stay amazing, but mostly stay entertaining.
Message: Posted by: Justin Flom (Dec 10, 2002 11:14PM)
Maybe sales aren't hurting now, but his blue material will affect his sales his second time around. The friends I took to his show a couple of months ago refuse to join me when he comes to MN again in April.

Message: Posted by: Gr8neSS (Dec 11, 2002 01:18AM)
On 2002-12-05 17:28, IceRaven02 wrote:
...We don't know what the writer's sources were, and the fact that it was written for a Las Vegas paper makes me even more suspicious that it's just a rumor...

As someone who live's in Las Vegas and has relative's who work for the Las Vegas sun, I would like to say that I don't think "Las Vegas paper's" are any more likely to print rumors than any other news publication in other parts of the country... I'm not saying that they probably haven't printed rumors before ...just that I don't think you should single them out, because IMO all newspapers are equally untrustworthy... lol

Message: Posted by: promethee (Dec 11, 2002 07:43AM)
On 2002-12-02 11:53, Logan wrote:
I don't think that an illusion based around sex is a good idea... definitely not... sounds more perversed than amazing.

Why not?

I don't agree with all these critics. Why should magic shows be only for children? Why can't we try "different" things? I'm happy Penn & Teller exist, it's great that David Blaine removes his own heart in a tv show!
"Classic" stage shows are so boring: Magician in the box, out.. another box... with two girls wriggling around like a constipated fish, it looks like a live advertising for a magic dealer.

Magicians, in the 21st century, are doing the same acts again and again, with the same effects, the same presentation, the same stupid "funny" lines!

Copperfield wants to make a woman pregnant, Blaine eats a snake.
Perhaps the magicians who don't like this have no problem saying to the spectator (who paid to see the show) "Make your mind blank... should be easy", or other ****.

Since my post was edited because of the last rude word, I try another version with "***", ("another ***" is not an "another identical expression"). If it's too rude again, please leave the "***".
Message: Posted by: Kathryn Novak (Dec 11, 2002 07:43AM)
Well, I guess we know now it isn't a rumor. I just wish he had picked something else to perform, even if it's comical my morality is telling me it's still wrong.
Message: Posted by: Justin Flom (Dec 11, 2002 04:46PM)
I also wish he'd do a different trick, because his show is advertised to FAMILIES! Like it or not, kids go to the shows. I don't care if Copperfield does something like this for an adult, Vegas type show, but a family show?!
Message: Posted by: Jay Are (Dec 13, 2002 08:09AM)
Alright, let's clear the air here.

JAEIII is right. I saw the trick on December the 10th. It is played purely for laughs, and is done quite well. A woman is brought on stage and "impregnated" by David. He gives the woman pickles, ice cream, etc. David makes a miriad of jokes during the trick. He sends the woman back to her seat, and 20 minutes later she joins DC again on stage. He has her take a seat, and selects another member of the audience to come on stage. A sonogram is placed up against the womans stomach, and a baby is seen to be sleeping inside. The second assistant is asked to randomly think of a card, and write it in big letters on a pad of paper that no one sees. The pad is placed square against her body. David then talks to his new child, and asks the baby to think of a card. The baby squirms and then holds up a card, the very card that the volunteer mentally selected. There is really nothing distasteful about the trick. It is filled with inuendo-but that's just what happens when someone tries to perform a trick as laughable and overtly sexual as that one. There is nothing wrong with the trick. It wasn't one of my favourites, but the more I thought about it-the more interesting the idea became to me. It was not an example of David's truer artistry-but you could tell it was one of those fun routines, that we all have in our shows and enjoy doing.

Secondly, anyone who says that David has lost his dramatic flair obviously hasn't seen "The Lottery". This illusion was dramatic, magical, and spectacular. While watching this trick-Copperfield made me proud to be a magician. Let's not resort to mud slinging guys-Copperfield has done more for our art then a lot of us could ever fathom. Let's not forget that.

Favourite DC moment of his December 10th Regina Saskatchewan show-during his illusion
"13" DC talks about how lawyers or members of the media can't participate. He says "If you're under the age of 18 please sit down, if you're a lawyer or a member of the media I would ask you to do the same, and if your the masked magician, kiss my ass!" Fabulous moment, the audience cheered-while I revelled in the glory of a magician who dreamed a line of comradery to all conjurors in the building.

Trust me guys-the next time you do a show, remember that the art is as popular as it is today because of the amount of exposure it gets in the media. Ie: Copperfield, Blaine, Angel, etc. Some of us may not like that-but it's a fraction of the truth. And further more-most magic is overtly sexual. The wand for instance-subconcious fallace? I think so... ;)

Message: Posted by: JAEIII (Dec 19, 2002 10:09PM)
Here Here...Excellent post Icy_Rabbit. I couldn't have said it better myself.
Message: Posted by: Kathryn Novak (Dec 20, 2002 09:21AM)
Even if it is overtly sexual, don't kids get enough of that nowadays through the media alone? Why do they need Copperfield adding to it?
Message: Posted by: Chris A. (Dec 20, 2002 10:09AM)
Last time I saw Lance Burton perform (at the Monte Carlo), he was able to charm the kids and adults with no need to interject a lot of sexual innuendo...
Message: Posted by: thehawk (Dec 20, 2002 01:37PM)
Different strokes for different folks. Oops, didn't mean that. :coolspot: :coolspot:
Message: Posted by: JAEIII (Dec 22, 2002 02:04PM)
Copperfield's been "overly sexual" since the late 80's. In reality, it is what made him the famous magician that he is today. A sex symbol magician superstar. That's just David. This pregnancy illusion doesn't seem very sexual at all though. It appears to be very comedic, and any sexual hints or jokes probably wouldn't be understood by most children anyway. I can't wait to see it, it seems really funny.
Message: Posted by: Faroshuffle (Jan 9, 2003 04:01AM)
Hey, guys, gals, listen.....JAEIII is right. David is using a formula that WORKS FOR HIM. Must we look for controversy in EVERY performer out there?

Just my humble "NEWBIE" opinion.

Here's to my first post! :stuckinbag:
Message: Posted by: Timothy (Jan 9, 2003 06:58AM)
Geez. Glad I'm not a female volunteer in one of his shows. Ever seen him force a kiss after assisting him? Maybe it's just me, but he appears to insist a peck on the cheek before a female volunteer leaves the stage. Most distasteful. :hrmph:
Message: Posted by: Ellen Kotzin (Jan 9, 2003 12:42PM)
I agree there is a time and place for anything-or an act and an audience. Meaning-family oriented shows should be just that. Who is in charge of defining "family entertainment?" Who knows?

If the whole pregancy thing was a joke-then I feel it wasn't as bad as the article sounded... encroaching on tastless.
I also think there is nothing wrong with some sexual innuendos and jokes for mature audiences. Most adults have sexual relationships and need that type of humor to relate to.

I can tell jokes with the best of them-But like I said, with a family-advertised show, I feel it has no place.

Maybe their performances should have a rating?

Ice raven-good point-why should he add to it?

New Orleans or BUST 2003!
Message: Posted by: Mina (Jan 26, 2003 04:01PM)
I don t know what to say to this one.. I'm gonna wait until I actually see the performance of the whole impregnating a women effect. I'm a huge David Copperfield fan. He was the man that inspired me to become a magician. Every season I look forward to a new speical, and I was so disappointed. I did think his show was a little sick. I just thought he was not being himself. I love DC and there is nothing wrong with change in a show. It did not seem like him.

Have to wait till the next special to see what he delights or frightens us with. :D


see you around the Café
Message: Posted by: Kathryn Novak (Jan 26, 2003 07:37PM)
He's forcing a kiss out of female assistants?
Who aren't stooges?

Well, I guess after "impregnating" them, kissing isn't really all that bad.

Oh, wait. It's a family show.

I'm not usually against anything in magic. But have some class, for crying out loud!
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jan 26, 2003 08:25PM)
Given the plot of this supposed routine in the making...

Is David married and does he have any children?

Maybe he is just starting to figure out the 'birds and bees' stuff. If you dedicate your life to art some other things get put on hold.
Message: Posted by: JAEIII (Jan 26, 2003 09:48PM)
No, David is not married. He was engaged to Claudia Shiffer for about six years a while back, but they eventually split. He's dated a few people since then. He has no children either.

And no, David doesn't FORCE kisses. He points to his cheek hoping that they'll give him a peck on the cheek, but he's not forcing them to do so. Anyone who has seen his past TV specials has seen what he does.

I am not sure if there is anything too overly sexual in his current tour. If there is anything, it is much less than any tour in the past. The exotic dancing is gone. A few adult jokes don't harm anyone. All of the adults laugh and none of the kids really understand. It's still an excellent show.

Of course, let's all remember. David is a sex symbol. He uses his good looks and his "sexy" image to his advantage. That's why most magicians want to be him, and most female fans want to be with him.

His show is excellent. His "new" humor during his shows is hilarious. You go to his show and you hardly stop laughing. It's a great two hours.
Message: Posted by: KJ (Jan 27, 2003 07:15PM)
I don't think David would do somthing like that...
Message: Posted by: debaser (Jan 27, 2003 07:20PM)
FIRST OFF: I agree with JAE in that Copperfield has been doing this forever which is why all those middle aged women love him.

As far as the pregnancy trick goes, it sounds more stupid than offensive. Copperfield has made plenty of bad decisions in the past.

However with the help of Gaughn and Wayne I'm sure Copperfield will strive. Some of his stuff is just so beautiful.

Message: Posted by: ChrisZampese (Jan 27, 2003 08:29PM)
Well, why not add my 2p.

I think the 'impregnating' trick may not be as bad as I first thought. Kind of done with some humour. Depends how DC pretends to impregnate the woman. I have visions of some pretty lewd gestures here which I hope he does not use!!

As for the sexual innuendo in his shows, many, many performers use this, and it is present in most of the Disney movies from the last 20 years. See Shrek for great examples. There is a host of jokes that are obviously targeted to the adults that are watching. These jokes also go right over the heads of the little ones (I know this as I have watched Shrek with my neices. I laughed and they asked me what I was laughing at. I couldn't explain simply because the joke was meant for someone with a bit more 'life experience').

I use the following during my cut and restored in my kids act "anyone who is watching the knot is not (knot) watching" - gets a lot of groans from the adults, and the kids just ignore it because they usually don't get it.
Message: Posted by: debaser (Jan 28, 2003 01:12PM)
Maybe Copperfield thinks he is God?

Message: Posted by: JAEIII (Jan 28, 2003 07:09PM)
Haha! I hope your making a joke, Matt. David does not think he's God. :)
Message: Posted by: Kathryn Novak (Jan 29, 2003 08:05PM)
I think the bottom line here is that magicians will have to see the shows to decide for themselves whether it is right or wrong. I also realize that what I say here has very little or no impact on the way David Kotkin will perform his shows, so I'm withdrawing from this argument. :wavey:
Message: Posted by: JAEIII (Jan 30, 2003 01:07AM)
I think that is good way to end this discussion, Kathryn. Thanks. ;)