Derren Brown Trick or treat

[Azrael 5]

That's completely wrong. Robbie didn't say he felt scared and Derren did not tell him that if he stopped singing the pain could be back. In fact, Robbie's original singing was done with his eyes closed and before he had seen the needles. After Robbie had seen the needles, Derren said "If you keep still and don't freak out, it won't hurt at all." When Robbie started to overdo his part a bit later, Derren asked him to start singing again. Robbie did sing again, but couldn't help giggling. He clearly understood perfectly well what was really being done. The ending is revealing. Listen carefully to Robbie's comments when asked about how he had felt. He liked it!

skipjack answer my questions from the post above yours Ive quoted.Stop nitpicking and provide proof.

 

[skipjack]

skipjack what proof do you have that:

A)Robbie Willaims was lying
b)he was palying along
c)he was paid
d) If cameras weren't there he would act differently.

A) Robbie said "two needles in me arms", which he knew was false.
b) Robbie said he wasn't in pain, but he then started pulling faces, and even said "Aah" as well while Derren withdrew a needle. However, he was smiling much of the time. He even got the giggles towards the end, as I mentioned above, and his final comments leave no doubt about it. The only thing that's uncertain is the precise point at which he started playing along.
c) Any celebrities of Robbie's standing would certainly be paid. If he didn't want payment, he'd do it for the benefit of a charity, which is still payment.
d) That's a reasonable conclusion, given the way he played along for the benefit of the TV audience.

 

[Azrael 5]

I've jsut had an email from Channel Four,inresponse to this thread.Derren has issued a press release and as such the disclaimer for his future series will read:

This show has the use of stooges, actors, assistants, edits, camera tricks, poor showmanship and lies.. nothing that you see is what you get, even if I say it during the show.

Hopefully that will clear up any ambiguity.

 

[skipjack]

Yes, it's so complex that even my 8 year old cousin didn't see anything wrong with the disclaimer.

Sarcasm? The understanding of one 8-year-old doesn't mean the disclaimer is true and accurate.

Can your young cousin explain what exactly she understood the disclaimer meant?

 

[skipjack]

That's funny; my email from Channel 4 just says "Thanks!"

 

[DJM]

She understood that those who participate in the effcts are not actors/stooges, just like Derren says in the disclaimer.

She was also watching a few Trick or Treat episodes with me, and I didn't hear her saying anything about the extras in the beginning.. I'll ask her if she finds anything wrong about that.

And her understanding is great by the way, more than I've seen from you.

 

[Azrael 5]

That's funny; my email from Channel 4 just says "Thanks!"

Maybe they meant "blanks",and it was a typo?

 

[Bob Klase]

Giving ridiculous extremes like that is a poor form of argument.

Given that this entire thread is based on you carrying things to ridiculous extremes it's strange that you suddenly decide they're a poor form of argument.

And I wasn't "giving" ridiculous extremes. I was using them (and writing them), not "giving" them. For all your complaining about Darren's wording you seem rather careless with your own.

There are plenty of literal-minded people who would not have formed the complex interpretation you are trying to support.

You're correct. The world is full of stupid people and some of them take being literal minded to ridiculous extremes. There are also many people who can't balance a checkbook, stay out of debt and some can't even stay out of jail. The world doesn't make every decision or communication based on those people.

 

[skipjack]

I didn't state you were "giving" ridiculous extremes. I stated that giving ridiculous extremes like that is a poor form of argument, which is what I meant. I meant "giving", not "using" and not "writing".

Disclaimers should indeed be worded carefully so that they can be interpreted fairly literally. Most people are at or below average intelligence, but being literal-minded doesn't imply stupidity.

 

[skipjack]

She understood that those who participate in the effects are not actors/stooges, just like Derren says in the disclaimer.

Where "participate" means what exactly? Please ask her if the men who swapped places with Derren were participating in the effect.

 

[skipjack]

Maybe they meant "blanks",and it was a typo?

Did you mean "jsut" in your earlier post or was that a typo?

 

[DJM]

Most people are at or below average intelligence, but being literal-minded doesn't imply stupidity.

If you consider yourself literal minded, then I'll have to disagree with you about that.

But seriously, I've been watching Derren's shows for a couple of years now, and never noticed any problem with the disclaimer even once. I've been reading a few forums with threads about Derren and his show and no one has had any complaints about the disclaimer and how they see the assistants of the Person Swap effect and the extras in Trick or Treat as actors/stooges.

I've been reading the replies of the Person Swap on Youtube and no one mentions there any problems, and they all seem to understand very well that the assistants should not be seen as actors/stooges the way Derren explains in the disclaimer, only that they help with the effect.

The only person I ever heard having a problem with the disclaimer and the use of assistants in the Person Swap and the extras in Trick or Treat, is you. Only you.

So I think it's time for you to understand the problem isn't with the show and Derren, and it's not with those who find the disclaimer honest. The problem is that you are the kind of person who wants to find flaws in everything, even if there's nothing there. And you will look and look until you find that flaw, and then make sure everyone knows about it.

I just hope you are not like this in real life, because it could make things very annoying to those around you.

 

[skipjack]

You're misquoting me again, DJM. I didn't say I have a problem with the use of extras in Trick Or Treat. The disclaimer wasn't used in Trick Or Treat.

Why did you ask me a question based on a completely incorrect description of what happened in the show that involved Derren Brown and Robbie Williams?

 

[DJM]

I couldn't misquote you, because I didn't give any quotes from you about this.

What I know is that you've been whining for days about how Derren is not beeing totaly clear in the disclaimer about not using actors/stooges, while you believe he did use them. If you think he only did wrong with the Person Swap, then my post still stands about that part. Those people were only there to assist, they were not actors. So all your complaining about the disclaimer is pointless and just done for nitpicking purposes. Like I've said, it has bothered no one else that he used those assistants, only you.

The same goes for Robbie Williams. I'll say it again, he's not a stooge and not even an instant stooge. Even if he suddenly realised during the effect what was going on, continuing it doesn't make him a stooge. It's very natural for a participant to play along even if he knows it's just a trick. I'm sure it happens many times during magic shows.

For example, if I go to Derren's stage show and get picked to participate, I won't do anything that makes me seem like I know the secret. If he tells me to write something on a clipboard, I won't tell him, "Hey, dude.. I think I know how this thing works, and I want to write on my own paper". Because that would ruin it for everyone, especially for him.

So I would pretend I don't know what happens.. That doesn't make me a stooge/ instant stooge, because Derren never told me what to do. It's my own dicision so not to ruin it for him. A stooge is someone who's told in advance exactly what to do and to play along. You got no proof that's what happened with Robbie, and there's really no reason for that. Bevacuse you don't need a stooge in the first place for that effect.

So for the last time, Robbie wasn't a stooge even if he realised the trick.. It was his decision to play along, not Derren's.

 

[skipjack]

You referred, incorrectly, to my having a problem with the use of extras in Trick Or Treat. That is misquoting me, since you're implying I stated something that I didn't state.

The assistants who swapped places with Derren were clearly putting on an act, as I've explained before. Why would what they did not be classified as acting?

An instant stooge doesn't have to be told what to do. You're just choosing unusual definitions so as to justify your statements. The point is that nothing mystifying is occurring if the person who at first seems to be merely the subject of a trick decides to play along and perform as the illusionist wants, even if not given explicit instructions.

 

[skipjack]

Russian Roulette . . .

No mention that it wasn't a real gun.

Suppose Derren used a real revolver (or similar real firearm capable of firing live rounds). Under the Firearms (Jersey) Law 2000, he would have needed either a firearm certificate or a temporary firearm permit, which would have had to have been applied for at least 30 days in advance. More at a later date . . .

 

[Azrael 5]

Russian Roulette . . .

Suppose Derren used a real revolver (or similar real firearm capable of firing live rounds). Under the Firearms (Jersey) Law 2000, he would have needed either a firearm certificate or a temporary firearm permit, which would have had to have been applied for at least 30 days in advance. More at a later date . . .

Don't bother.
I apeal to DJM and Bob Klase just ignore this troll,and he might,just might go away.

 

[skipjack]

Anyway, there was no need to use a real firearm, so why would he do so? Nobody verified that it had been fired. He could use any gun, then just add a bang on the audio.

 

[volatile]

The way volatile described the advertisement originally was as a casting request. Only after I had responded to that was the description of the advertisement changed to make it just a request for people to assist Derren in a show! Also, volatile didn't say he was referring just to spectators, but stated actors (which includes extras) were never used at all. No exceptions for specific cases! I didn't claim that volatile's friend was a professional actress, but I suspect Helen held back some of the truth when asked about what had happened.

Errmmm... what? The whole point of me posting in this thread was to prove to you that I knew that, whilst he did not use actors, as a point of interest he did use pre-screening. It was obvious to everyone else reading my post that "casting request" did not mean "request for professional actors", but "request for participants", especially as that was the substantive point of everything I've been talking about in conjunction with this!

Please don't misrepresent my posts. Would it have made any sense if I'd said, or even implied, "My friend was on the show. She's a professional actress, by the way, but I know she was only there as a regular member of the public" as you seem to be implying I said?!!! You're fairly obtuse, aren't you?

Oh, and who's Helen?

 

[skipjack]

Robbie wasn't a stooge even if he realised the trick. It was his decision to play along, not Derren's.

That shows you're missing the point entirely. Such tricks are trivially accomplished using someone who's agreed in advance to act in a particular way. In this case, it's so obvious how to act along that it's hardly surprising that the subject does so, especially if they're a celebrity. The disclaimer's use of the term "stooge" is quite pointless if it merely means that the subject didn't agree to play along in advance, but may have decided to play along shortly after the performance starts.