A Dissection of David Copperfield's Special

In My Humble Opinion
1

As much as I love watching illusionists, I also love disecting the illusions as to just how they are done. The thrill of magic be damned… an illusionists presents me with a puzzle that needs to be solved. The greatest problem is that you’re never told if you’re right or wrong unless you belong to an exclusive circle…

So, using logic, let’s dissect what went on last night (Tuesday, April 3, 2001) and see if we can figure out how Mr. Copperfield’s illusions were accomplished. If you prefer to let the mystery remain, I would suggest reading no further.

The Underwear Switcheroo
Obviously, it is physically impossible to remove somone’s underwear while they’re wearing it while they continue to wear their pants. Of course, there is some underwear that you can remove straps on, but the underwear that was floating around David was obviously not that type.

The easiest answer is that the young ladies were wearing two pairs of underwear. When each signed their name on the stickers, two copies were made and the second on placed on the opposite person’s panties while we were watching David get all affectionate with the floating undies. This, of course, would require that the two ladies be plants… and since they were not selected at random (while most of the other volunteers were), this seems like an almost certain possibility.

The Levitating Loveseat
This was essentailly David’s flying illusion, only with other people. Again, a loveseat cannot defy gravity, so it must have been held up by something, probably very thin wires that could not been seen, probably being supported from the side. Someone showed me once a patent in the patent office for such a device.

Placing the loveseat in the clear plastic box, although it looks neat, doesn’t prove that wires weren’t attached. The illusion could easily be worked with the wires attached. To see this, take two strings and tie them to the opposite ends of some small object (say a hotwheel car) and place it in a box with a lid. The lid will not close all the way since you are using string instead of ultra-thin wire, but pulling and releasing on both sides of the string will raise and lower the object inside the box.

The thing that amazed me is when it was done outside! (Of course, David flew outside too.) There was no obvious structure above the two people and it certainly didn’t look like there was anything to the side. However, logic tells me that the trick was probably done in a very similar manner as it was on stage.

Moon over Crystal
Simple: Two glasses. Where did the goldfish come from then? Right before the goldfish appear, David pulls back his sleeve as if to show that there’s “nothing up his sleeve!” In fact, he’s probably retrieving the object that holds the goldfish.

The Voyeuer
A classic disappear and reappering trick. When the twins disappeared, they must have moved somewhere… since they didn’t go up or sideways, they must have gone down. Often the objects that they are standing on can hold more than what they appear to. It was pretty amazing how fast they disappeared, though!

I’ll comment on the “Travelling Anywhere In The World” trick in my next post, mostly because I haven’t come up with a good theory on it. Also, if someone could remind me of any other tricks he did during the show (I missed the first few minutes, and may have forgotten others), I’d like to comment on those as well.

2

Travelling Anywhere In The World
I haven’t formed a truely strong hypothesis for this trick, so I would be very interested to see what others think.

First off, it is impossible (yet) to instantly transport someone from one place to another. From that what can we derive?

David said that there were no camera tricks nor computer graphic tricks. I think that’s prefectly plausible, all things considered.

Can we assume that the image on the screen was actually from Hawaii? If not, then can we assume that the location shown was not a beach near where the show took place? I think that either is a valid assumption giving us the conclusion that David and the other guy didn’t disappear, run outside, and show up on the TV.

That leaves us with two possibilites that I can think of: The usuage of twins (or similar looking people) or that the images shown on the screen were recorded earlier. Personally, I lean towards the second.

Now the difficulties involved with a previous recording: The picture that was transported, the initials on David’s arm, and the guy on the screen’s reactions to David.

When David told the guy on the screen that the audience guy’s initials were “JT”, the guy on the screen repeated it. However, this could be accomplished using a voice-over or similar technique. I didn’t see his lips move, so it’s a valid possiblity.

One thing I noticed about the initials on David’s arm is that they looked slightly different in Hawaii than when “JT” drew them on his arm. This leads me to one conclusion: JT was a plant. However, since the ball was tossed in what looked like a valid random fasion, I’m at a loss to explain this.

Finally, in order to have the picture exist on the Hawaiin shore, everybody in that picture must have been a plant and the picture was taken beforehand. The little boy, I can see him being a plant. He wasn’t chosen at random and was good comedy. The girl who drew the volleyball was chosen at random with the frisbee throw; however, David’s sparkling wit at what she drew was a little too perfect (“That’s not a volleyball, that’s the Blair Witch”). A valid response to that is that most people would have drawn a stick figure anyway.

So, even if everybody in the picture was a plant, how about the postcard drawing? How did they get it to line up so perfectly? The only answer I can come up with is that there were barely visible outlines on the giant postcard to show the people what to draw.

If the Hawaiian video was shot beforehand and everybody were plants, which I’m not quite sure of, then the rest of the trick is simple vanish and reappear. David and the guy couldn’t have gone up or sideways when they disappeared, so they must have gone down… the structure that supported them probably had the space to hold them.

When the appeared on Hawaii, they couldn’t have come up, or down, from the front, or from the sides, so they must have come in the sheet box from the back. When David disappered from Hawaii, likewise, he must have exited from the back.

Basically, my whole explanation for this trick rests on whether or not the audience members were plants. I can’t yet reconcile the random method by which some of them were chosen, though.

3

Nice explanation on the underwear. Two beautiful women picked by David Copperfield and sent back stage after their trick. I, too, thought they were plants. Thus the two pair of underwear fits. They could have easily preplanted one of the nametags.

Levitation - I have to admit Copperfield does an impressive levitation bit. I suspect it was wires, too, and your description with the wires from the side sounds valid. I noticed when the aids placed the lid on the box, they slid it in and out from one side and neatly over the box. I got the feeling they were putting it between the strings. As for the outside shot, certainly we couldn’t see any structure around them, but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t one just out of view. Though I bet it was impressive to experience.

The Voyeuer trick - those weren’t twins. One was Asian, the other Black. Rather, they were lesbian lovers, that Copperfield (and all the other men) was hoping were bisexual. As for where they went, the platforms on which they stood probably had mirrors in them so they could slide into the bases. That, and they may have used twins to appear on the bed. That’s a standard teleportation trick.

The cutting himself in half bit - it was weird and craftily done, but not quite convincing. He had prosthetic devices in the front of his shirt and top of his pants. Notice how his feet stayed very close to being under his head. He was crouching beind the legs and shirt, with the prosthetic shaping for his stomach. I thought he might have pulled a leg up to his chest. The flashy pyrotechics were also a gimmick - lasers don’t spark when they cut flesh in half. :wink:

Travel Anywhere in the World:

We know the guy and his dad were pre-selected. Thus they are in on the gimmick. The easiest explanation is that there was some studio below stage. They might have used pre-shot footage and mixed it with the parts where they showed the picture and initials - I didn’t tape it so I can’t review it again. That would be the easiest way to my mind, without requiring all the group being plants. If I had taped it I would also look closer at their disappearance to sort out how they get off. You can bet that the platform was thicker than stated and disguised to look thinner than it was - standard ploy.

Still, Copperfield does an excellent show. The Tornado of Fire was neat.

4

Iiinteresting stuff hopes this won’t ruin her enjoyment of it when she finally gets the tape of the show from the other city Mom taped it for me so I have to wait (I have peasent tv so I couldn’t watch it myself)

5

My theory on Hawaii:

This was a simple disapearing trick, with Copperfield and the guy disapearing into a studio underneath the stage, or outside. Notice that the guy (obviously a plant) did not run very far into the water. I think the background was either a backdrop or (more likely, IMO) a bluescreen. Notice that the camera in “Hawaii” never moves very much, thus my beelief that it is a set.

6

Hawaii? You do that with twins.

Floating sofa outside? A crane. They make big ones & I noticed the way the sofa went up it looked very much like a crane would do.

It was all too street magic much like that blaine guy, cheap.

7

A few points, from someone who is a bit of a magician himself (enough to know the principles), who has followed Copperfield’s career for quite a while, AND who has the advantage (that many other people also have) of having seen Copperfield’s show live just three weeks ago.

First off, to Skott:
There’s so much to respond to that I’m not even sure where to begin. First, the special was filmed in Memphis, so no beach anywhere near. You’re overestimating the ability of computer effects to place people in locations where they’re not. It CAN be done – but in special effects houses with rooms full of computer equipment and months to perfect the movements. (and by the way, the guy’s initials were “TS”, not “JT”.)

I saw the show in Little Rock, Arkansas – so no beach near there, either. The footage from Hawaii is seamless – no cuts. handy? How could the Hawaii thing be done with twins? Copperfield was there, too – don’t you think it would have been discovered and documented and well-known if a famous illusionist like Copperfield (who is now in his 40s and has been on TV for twenty years) had a twin brother?

friedo, I can’t believe that the Hawaii area is a set. First of all, it would have to be a REALLY large and REALLY complex set (tons of sand, trees, water, rock, VERY expansive backdrop. Copperfield does that EXACT illusion all over the country, in a huge variety of venue styles – you mean to tell me that the venue in EVERY city where he performs has the space to set up that huge set? (And again, I saw this live in Little Rock – the EXACT same illusion (with the exception of the person who went with him)).

In addition, the audience volunteers that appeared in the Polaroid ARE randomly selected – how could they not be? The child is selected by hand early on, yes. The same gag is used at the live show, but for what it’s worth, it was a different kid at the show I attended. The lady chosen by frisbee (certainly random) is likely to always draw a stick figure, BUT at the show I attended, she was asked to draw a picture of herself eating her favorite food. It was a smiley face with a triangle next to it representing pizza – but guess what?? The JOKE was the same (the Blair Witch thing). So David’s “sparkling wit” is not generated on the fly most of the time, but the volunteers ARE often TRULY randomly selected, and this is one of those times. (So Skott, your intuition about most people drawing a stick figure is correct.)

And back to handy – the influence of the Blaine specials could certainly be felt, but to dismiss it as as “too street magic” seems a little unfair to me. Copperfield did, what, TWO of his illusions outside?

friedo, I’ve already addressed the idea of a set, but one other thing you said bothers me. You called it a simple disappearing trick. If you have access to a tape, watch that vanish again. That’s pretty dad-gum amazing. There are no indications of the traditional magician’s tricks – for instance, the platform on which they’re standing is TRULY thin (not fake magician-y thin like many tables and other props used). There REALLY IS a mirror behind it, and the platform REALLY DOES extend out over the audience (also done at the live show). However you look at it, it is a BEAUTIFUL illusion. It’s the one part of the show that I’m completely stumped on. And I love that feeling, because it doesn’t happen often.

As far as the Panty Swap, I have my theories on how it’s done. They may be plants, because they were selected by hand. However, I will say this – I sat very near one of the two girls selected at the live show, and while they WERE escorted backstage, they returned to the audience shortly carrying 8x10s of Copperfield. After the show, I saw them waiting in a large group of people to meet David. So they COULD be plants, but if they are, I have to give credit to the Copperfield team for paying major attention to detail even OFF the stage. And I think there’s a simpler way than to have them be plants. But I freely admit I could be wrong.

I think it’s great that Copperfield’s first special of new material in six years is generating this kind of interest, but, wow, I hope this kind of attention to detail doesn’t sully your enjoyment of it. After all, it’s what Copperfield said himself just before he “vanished”: It’s about illusion. And that’s fun.

The live show is truly a magical experience. To sit there and be showered with a mist as Copperfield returns from a beach in Bali (yes, it was Bali at the live show I attended, though it did appear to be the same beach that was on the special – and it was a remarkably similar story – young girl whose father wrote in on her behalf, hadn’t seen her in a couple of years, blah, blah, blah. So I’m with you that the “vanishee” is a plant. Without a doubt.) is a neat thing. I was stunned at the vanish.

Go see him if you can. The tickets can be fairly expensive, but it’s well-worth it. And it will also give you more to talk about – and will take away some of your theories! (there’s just something about seeing it live.)

8

PRNYouth, I think some of your friedo responses were to me.

On the theory that they weren’t plants, let’s conjecture ways he could do the swapping panties bit.

Not having taped the show, I can’t go back and study it. Darn, I almost taped it. You said he does the same bit, but the person is different in each city. Interesting. Certainly using the same guy the heart-touching reunion bit would get old. :wink: Like I said, the audience members probably are not plants. The trick is in how the picture and initials get shown. I would like to review and look for breaks in the camera view for inserting parts into pre-recorded video.

I agree the disappearance is stunningly done. I concede that Copperfield is a master illusionist. I have not have the privilege to see him in person - maybe I will some day. Certainly from my vantage point (i.e. on TV) there is no way to investigate the platform. I don’t claim to know how he did it. However, I am not a magician. I’ve merely seen some explanations and know some of the tricks. Consider if they didn’t go into the platform itself, what about behind the mirror? I don’t know. But I’m confident it was a trick of some sort, just like making the Statue of Liberty disappear.

You said the beach appeared to be the same one, even though one as “Hawaii” and one was “Bali”. That supports the idea that it is either pre-recorded or a studio. It is possible it is a mix of pre-recorded and studio. I don’t think it’s a blue-screen effect - the outlines always give it away. Digital cropping won’t work on the fly like that. As far as I know.

But it was enjoyable - even though I thought the whole reunion thing a little to schmaltzy. Just my opinion.

9

Yes – for whatever reason, your post slipped right under the radar when I was composing my response – friedo made reference to the use of a backdrop, and I combined the two thoughts in my mind. Sorry for the confusion.

Let me clarify – do I think they were at the show SPECIFICALLY to be used in that illusion? No. Do I think they were probably approached before hand to check the color of their underwear and to judge their willingness to participate and “go along”? Yes.

Honestly, I don’t see why they would need to wear two pair of underwear. After all, all you see is a bit of the waistband. My suspicion rests in the assistants. And I would guess that they return to their seats only to find that their underwear was returned. It’s a cute routine, but nothing ground-breaking, IMO. Very entertaining, though, just the same. (I like the “easy-way-hard-way” joke, too, I must confess.)

Well, yes … again, to clarify: The audience member selected to go to Bali or Hawaii or wherever was different. In fact, I can add to that – I went to a 9 PM show, but I had friends who went to the 6 PM show. The people were even different between THOSE two shows – ours was a girl (Jessi, I think), and the vanishee in my friend’s show was a guy. The story, again, was the same – with the reunion on the beach and all. So the vanishee IS a plant, and probably part of the Copperfield crew even, but there are several of them.

Also, in the show I attended, he didn’t do the intials on the arm bit. He did take a keychain from someone in the audience (I honestly can’t remember how that person was selected, but I don’t think it was random.) The person took a marker and wrote on a tag attached to the keychain.

I agree. :smiley: What I didn’t say in my first post was that I truly appreciate Skott’s approach. It’s my own, in fact. I start on the assumption that what appeared to happen CERTAINLY didn’t happen. Then I work from there. Did David Copperfield vanish from the theater and reappear in som distant location? No. But it sure is fun to figure out how he made it look like he did!

10

I hate how many Nutz jokes he made during the show… wasn’t it supposed to a family program? I have no respect for DCooperfiled at all…loser

11

Not even enough respect to get his name right, apparently. :smiley:

Not really part of a General Question, but still, I must reply – those comments were what I would consider double entendre. You see, there really WERE nuts there – as in packaged peanuts. Truly young and naive ones may not pick up on the reference to a man’s nuts, and those who do probably see and hear much, much worse every day on so-called family programs.

You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. And incidentally, I never saw it advertised as a family show. In fact, even as a Copperfield fan, I would ALWAYS watch the special before showing it to my children, simply because of the scantily-clad dancers. Would I show Voyeur to my children? Probably – the version that aired. The first time I saw it live a couple of years ago, it was actually much more sensuous and erotic, I believe. :eek: There was a bit of outcry over it, and I think Copperfield responded by toning it down.

Now back to the General Question. :slight_smile:

12

:eek: Whoops … just realized this thread is in IMHO, not GQ. Sorry. Continue with your posting of opinions.

(Really, I AM sorry … I rarely hang out in IMHO, and I found the thread through a link from another forum. Very, very sorry!!)

13

The pantie thing was fake of course, you know why? cause they might have stained panties on for real.

14

Anybody you know who went to BOTH shows? If so, a three hour time difference should be noticable between the “live” feeds from “Bali”…In which case that background would certainly have been faked if the sun is in the exact same place at both shows, whether they are being superimposed on stock footage or are set up on some sort of set.

LordVor