Derren Brown Trick or treat

[skipjack]

Looking at it from the audience perception:a hole appeared in a sandbag after the gun went bang.

Make your mind up.First its audio that was added in post production (not possible the show was live) now it was a sound effect outside the room! There was a witness in that room who clearly heard the shot.

That's very inaccurate. I never said the audio was added in post production. The bang can be added at the time (just as when a play is performed at a theatre a bang can be in the wings rather than on the stage). I couldn't see any hole appear in any sandbag when Derren "fired" the gun. There was certainly no close-up of that. Nobody was asked anything to show that the gun did fire. Witnesses are somewhat pointless if you don't bother to ask them what they've seen and heard! Incidentally, no proof was provided that the show was live. Lots of shows described as live are actually screened with delay, which can be anything from a few seconds to as much as twenty minutes!

 

[DJM]

Dude, it clearly shows that the gun did fire, so I have no idea what you keep moaning about. It was more than just some sound effect.

I really hope you are nothing but a troll because it's getting pathetic to read your posts.

 

[skipjack]

Do you think the video clearly showed Robbie Williams with two needles passing through his arms? It couldn't, because they weren't.

If the gun fired, why not show the gun is no longer loaded or ask the witness, or do anything else to verify it?

In the ending sequence, the sandbags are shown briefly after Derren has pulled the trigger on an empty chamber. When Derren supposedly fires a live round at the sandbags, they are shown again, but only very, very briefly. I paused the video at that point, but couldn't see any difference between the sandbags at that stage and the slightly earlier view of them I've just mentioned.

 

[Azrael 5]

Do you think the video clearly showed Robbie Williams with two needles passing through his arms? If the gun fired, why not show the chambers are all empty or ask the witnesses, or do anything else to verify it?

Probably because it would kill the tension of the effect is my guess-although it's not neccasary to prove anything.
When you see David Copperfield fly do you expect him to be checked over for wires? Have the whole stage examined for a rig?
Soemthings are self explanatory.He had a gun he fired a gun,the whole of the viewing audience believed he fired the gun.
It is your job(pathetic though it is)to prove he didn't.You are making the claim,prove it.

You are claiming it's a prop gun-the internet is your oyster-go bring evidence.! Or preferably,just go away.

 

[3point14]

Still don't get the point of all this. Are you trying to get all these people to change their minds, Skipjack? I don't think you'll succeed.

think I'm going to stop reading this thread now, which is a shame, but I can't go on tearing my hair out like this.

Pi

 

[skipjack]

Earlier, DJM stated "Derren takes his job very seriously and spends so much time and energy to make everything seem as flawless as possible."

The Russian Roulette was supposedly live, but the ending sequence contains many changes from one camera's view to another's view. It was impossible to tell whether or not any of those changes were actually cuts to/from a pre-recorded sequence. In particular, there were such changes of view before and after the views of the sandbags that I have just described. Hence even if a hole did appear in a sandbag, that could have been pre-recorded. The witness's view of the sandbags was obstructed by Derren, and the witness wasn't asked about what he saw at all. That is certainly not "making everything seem as flawless as possible".

The police said that no live ammunition was used. Despite that, Derren wouldn't admit later on that live ammunition wasn't used; nor did he claim that he fired a blank. He did nothing to exclude the simplest explanation of what happened - that he never fired the revolver at all. It's absurd to require absolute proof that the revolver wasn't real. It's the illusionist's responsibility to provide reasonably convincing evidence that it is real and was fired, but he failed to do that.

 

[JonWhite]

It's the illusionist's responsibility to provide reasonably convincing evidence that it is real and was fired, but he failed to do that.

Whilst I would concede that the Russian Roulette was IMHO only possibly the weakest of DB's excellent body of TV work, I was still enthused by the controversy and suitably entertained by the programme itself nonetheless.

DB lived up to his responsibility as illusionist and entertainer just fine.

 

[skipjack]

The last ten minutes of the Russian Roulette program was certainly entertaining, but it followed a very long sequence showing the screening process which Derren had used to select the witness. That was quite tedious to watch, and I felt let down that he didn't spend much less time on that and more on what happened, what the witness saw and heard in particular. Derren didn't suggest any good explanation for the lengthy screening process, other than to find someone who would be happy to sit still and watch (not a difficult task). It seemed rather strange that each time Derren pointed the revolver to his head, it was also pointing in the direction of the screen behind which the witness was sitting. That meant that the witness couldn't see the revolver properly since Derren's head was in the way. Also, if Derren intended to survive unhurt, why didn't he use ear protectors, yet provided those for the witness who was sitting about 10 feet away behind a screen? The only logical explanation is that he knew he didn't need them.

 

[JonWhite]

The last ten minutes of the Russian Roulette program was certainly entertaining, but it followed a very long sequence showing the screening process which Derren had used to select the witness. That was quite tedious to watch, and I felt let down that he didn't spend much less time on that and more on what happened, what the witness saw and heard in particular. Derren didn't suggest any good explanation for the lengthy screening process, other than to find someone who would be happy to sit still and watch (not a difficult task).

To a point agreed, although I didn't find it particularly tedious. It was all pre-roulette build-up, with (to me) the apparent "purpose" of selecting someone who DB could suitably "influence". As such justified in context of the show.

It seemed rather strange that each time Derren pointed the revolver to his head, it was also pointing in the direction of the screen behind which the witness was sitting. That meant that the witness couldn't see the revolver properly since Derren's head was in the way. Also, if Derren intended to survive unhurt, why didn't he use ear protectors, yet provided those for the witness who was sitting about 10 feet way behind a screen? The only logical explanation is that he knew he didn't need them.

Err...it was an entertainment and illusion!!! Almost nobody else seemed (or seems) so concerned about the absolute minutiae.

 

[skipjack]

Why does it make sense to pick a witness who could be influenced? Surely the witness ought to be reliable, truthful, alert and attentive and able to describe what happened.

 

[DJM]

Wow, you have been writing so much nonsense that I don't even know where to start. Please forgive if I forget some stupid things that you mentioned, it's hard to keep up with you. Let's start with the last part, because this is the stupidest thing I could ever hear anyone saying

Nonsense 1 - The whole purpose of the screening was not to find who would "sit there and watch", and thinking that way is a good example why you always misunderstand things that are so simple and obvious to anyone else. The whole point is for Derren to find someone he could trust with his life, someone who he can read very well during the effect. If Derren just chose someone randomly then that would be the worst thing ever and full of flaws, because he would be "risking' his life there by using a complete stranger. That's why he took the screening seriously, so that the audience would get the feeling that it's a serious thing. Remember that the person needs to count out loud, and from that Derren needs to know which is the right number. But of course only thing you got from that is that the participent needs to "sit and watch." Oh -My- God, you are an idiot.

Nonsense 2 - You've been whining and whining and whining that Derren didn't fire the gun and that someone added the audio of the bang to make it seem like he really pulled the trigger. But if you actually watched the video, you would haven seen that the gun did fire.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8YAIMVjHtG8

At about 4:37 you can see smoke at the left side of the screen once Derren pulls the trigger, smoke that's coming out of the gun. Make the screen larger if it's not enough clear for you. That's also exacly when you can hear the bang. So the gun is not just some toy that doesn't work, and Derren did shoot it. So you were wrong again, surprise surprise.

Nonsense 3 - You say that Derren didn't confirm using blanks.. but there's no reason for him, because the police already confirmed that for him. That's after they talked with the show to see exactly what the stunt was about. So unless you are saying the police lied that Derren used blanks, then that's what were led to believe.

Nonsense 4 - You complain that Derren didn't talk to the witness and then he didn't show the gun at the end.. The reason he didn't that is because that would be the WORST thing ever. I've heard many people saying that the last 10 minutes of the show were the most intense thing that they have seen on TV.. the ending had the greatest climax ever. Adding anything to it would just ruin it all. The witness was almost faining at the end, so it would be pointless to ask him how was was feeling, because we already SAW how he was feeling. He felt scared and relieved that it turned out ok. Some things just don't need to be explained, this show is not aimed for 6 years olds who need to confirm everything.

Seriously, maybe this is what you need.. to start watching kids shows. It's obvious that Derren is much too clever for you to handle.

 

[Azrael 5]

Go DJM!!!

 

[skipjack]

1 - The whole purpose of the screening was not to find who would "sit there and watch" . . .

You're misquoting me. I didn't state that it was. Anyway, Derren has never said that pre-screening is essential for him to be able to "read" someone accurately. The pre-screening included some separate illusions involving "reading", but they were far too accurate to be accomplished by purely psychological means.

The whole point is for Derren to find someone he could trust with his life, someone who he can read very well during the effect. If Derren just chose someone randomly then that would be the worst thing ever and full of flaws, because he would be "risking' his life there by using a complete stranger. That's why he took the screening seriously, so that the audience would get the feeling that it's a serious thing. Remember that the person needs to count out loud, and from that Derren needs to know which is the right number.

You're misquoting me again. I didn't state or suggest that the witness should be selected at random. If he wanted to give the impression he was really risking his life, but intended to succeed and be unharmed, why didn't he wear ear defenders? Being able to "read" the witness is not the same thing as being able to influence the witness, which is what JonWhite thought was the apparent purpose of the screening process. The police had already said there would be no live ammunition used and no serious risk, so the police must have known that being able to read the witness didn't really matter. What the police said also meant that the "armourer" was lying about having and using live ammunition. The witness did sit and watch (amongst other things), which was rendered somewhat pointless by having him sit where he had an obstructed view of the revolver and not asking him about what he had seen and heard.

2 - If you actually watched the video, you would have seen that the gun did fire.

I watched the whole show on television and have subsequently watched the last few minutes of the video in full-screen mode. I wasn't convinced at all that the revolver was fired by Derren.

At about 4:37 you can see smoke at the left side of the screen once Derren pulls the trigger, smoke that's coming out of the gun. Make the screen larger if it's not enough clear for you. That's also exactly when you can hear the bang. So the gun is not just some toy that doesn't work, and Derren did shoot it.

My PC does not accurately synchronize the sound with the video. Also, my PC slows down the video, but even so I couldn't see any smoke and I didn't notice any when I saw the show on television at normal speed.

3 - You say that Derren didn't confirm using blanks.. but there's no reason for him, because the police already confirmed that for him. That's after they talked with the show to see exactly what the stunt was about. So unless you are saying the police lied that Derren used blanks, then that's what were led to believe.

That's incorrect. The police did not say that Derren would fire a blank. They said no live ammunition would be used. They didn't confirm that Derren would ever fire the revolver. They confirmed that what was planned to happen would be safe.

4 I've heard many people saying that the last 10 minutes of the show were the most intense thing that they have seen on TV.. the ending had the greatest climax ever. Adding anything to it would just ruin it all. The witness was almost fainting at the end, so it would be pointless to ask him how he was feeling, because we already SAW how he was feeling. He felt scared and relieved that it turned out ok.

To me, the witness looked relieved, but pleased; he didn't look scared or unsteady, although he had looked slightly nervous at one stage during the selection process. You've misquoting me yet again in that I didn't suggest that the witness should have been asked how he felt. There's little point in having the witness watch the ending if he's not asked what he saw and heard, and, in particular, which chamber of the revolver he used; that's quite different from asking him how he felt.

 

[JonWhite]

Being able to "read" the witness is not the same thing as being able to influence the witness, which is what JonWhite thought was the apparent purpose of the screening process.

Errr... no. I was referring purely to the reason justifying the selection process within the context of the show. I doubt that the selection process and choice of participant actually mattered a damn beyond the theatric.

In bland, boring, mechanical reality there was doubtless no need whatsover to go through this. The whole show could probably be reduced to 30 seconds - under DB's instruction someone loads gun, DB puts gun to temple and pulls trigger 5 times, fires 6th shot into wall. End of. Would be a seriously pointless and ***** show though.

The whole nature of this piece was about a convincing performance that would grip the audience. DB did that.

I enjoyed it. Azrael enjoyed it. DJM enjoyed it. Joe and Josephine Public enjoyed it. Everyone (near as dammit - to avoid nitpick) who likes DB enjoyed it.

No offense, but are you so pedantic about everything?

 

[Azrael 5]

*snip*The pre-screening included some separate illusions involving "reading", but they were far too accurate to be accomplished by purely psychological means.

Thats because they were tricks.The whole show was an illusion.Only you fails to see this.

*snip again* If he wanted to give the impression he was really risking his life, but intended to succeed and be unharmed, why didn't he wear ear defenders?

Because it doesn't make good TV.In all performances of this effect in Magic history I haven't seen one performer wear ear defenders.Before you cite Penn and Teller,they weren't doing RR.

snip*The police had already said there would be no live ammunition used and no serious risk, so the police must have known that being able to read the witness didn't really matter. What the police said also meant that the "armourer" was lying about having and using live ammunition.

The Police said nothing until the show had been aired.So everything you say is just conjecture. Show me a statement where the police mentioned the armourer.I say a lot of what the police said other than the main ammunition issue was to deflect critiscism.

The witness did sit and watch (amongst other things), which was rendered somewhat pointless by having him sit where he had an obstructed view of the revolver and not asking him about what he had seen and heard.

His task was to load the revolver,he was incidental after that point.Im sure if interviewed he would say he saw Derren fire a gun.As he hasnt been in the papers since stating anything to the contrary I think we can safely say thats what happened.
Why should be interviewed?Does every spectator give an interview after every effect Derren does? .Personally he should have watched from elsewhere,he had done his bit.

I watched the whole show on television and have subsequently watched the last few minutes of the video in full-screen mode. I wasn't convinced at all that the revolver was fired by Derren.
My PC does not accurately synchronize the sound with the video. Also, my PC slows down the video, but even so I couldn't see any smoke and I didn't notice any when I saw the show on television at normal speed.

I think your brain doesn't accurately sychronize with what you write.

That's incorrect. The police did not say that Derren would fire a blank. They said no live ammunition would be used. They didn't confirm that Derren would ever fire the revolver. They confirmed that what was planned to happen would be safe.

Incorrect.They said nothing until the effect had taken place.
You are a prize pillock skipajck,who fails to grasp the term "illusionist"

The police said that no live ammunition was used. Despite that, Derren wouldn't admit later on that live ammunition wasn't used; nor did he claim that he fired a blank. He did nothing to exclude the simplest explanation of what happened - that he never fired the revolver at all. It's absurd to require absolute proof that the revolver wasn't real. It's the illusionist's responsibility to provide reasonably convincing evidence that it is real and was fired, but he failed to do that.

It wouldn't be much of an illusion would it if Derren stated "Oh yes they were blanks,it wasn't a real gun.only kidding.I was in no danger just having you all on!"
Everyone who watched it believed it was a real gun

Speculation has kept the mystery of that illusion rife for the last 4 years.No-one knows for certain.
2.9 million people enjoyed the illusion and bought into it.Except dummies like you!

 

[skipjack]

It doesn't matter whether the police spoke before or after the show was aired (just change the tense I used if it was after rather than before). The fact remains that they did NOT say Derren fired a blank, but they did say no live ammunition was involved. Derren himself made a lame defence of the Russian Roulette stunt in a later show by stating that the gun laws in Jersey are different from those in the UK and that even a blank could be lethal, but he did NOT say he fired a blank. A spokesperson for Derren also refused to say he fired a blank. In short, nobody who was directly involved has stated since the police revealed that no live ammunition was used that Derren fired a blank. None of those omissions serve any purpose or benefit Derren's reputation in any way unless it wasn't the case that Derren fired a blank.

On the other hand, if Derren did use a blank and could reliably establish which chamber of the revolver it was in by any way at all, including "reading" the spectator, prior arrangement, suggestion, camera trickery, a secret feature of the revolver, secretly moving the shield, etc., he would only benefit, once it had been disclosed that live ammunition had not been used, by conceding that point, but stating that he did use and fire a blank.

 

[JonWhite]

None of those omissions serve any purpose or benefit Derren's reputation in any way unless it wasn't the case that Derren fired a blank.

Who (except you) gives a flying squirrels?

Endlessly delving into completely absurd levels of speculative detail regarding such things is dumb and pointless. It was a piece of theatre for Dog's sake!!!

The most cursory crawl across magic and DB related forums will show his reputation since to be doing just fine indeed.

 

[skipjack]

That's because they were tricks.The whole show was an illusion.

In that case, the gun being fired was an illusion. You are agreeing.

In all performances of this effect in Magic history, I haven't seen one performer wear ear defenders.

That indicates it's safe not to use them. Why, then, insist that the spectator wears them? If the bang might hurt his ears, why pretend that the magician will not be hurt from the same bang at much closer quarters?

The Police said nothing until the show had been aired. So everything you say is just conjecture. Show me a statement where the police mentioned the armourer.

The Police said the show involved no live ammunition. No exception was made for the armourer who appeared in the show and declared that he had live ammunition and provided the supposedly live ammunition that the spectator loaded into the revolver.

His task was to load the revolver; he was incidental after that point. I'm sure if interviewed he would say he saw Derren fire a gun.

The spectator can be fooled by a sound effect just as easily as the TV audience. That routinely occurs when a gunshot is need on-stage in a theatre, but is actually produced safely in the wings.

It wouldn't be much of an illusion would it if Derren stated "Oh yes they were blanks, it wasn't a real gun."

I didn't suggest Derren should say it wasn't a real gun. If it fires a blank, it is a real gun. Once the police had stated no live ammunition was used (but hadn't specifically stated that Derren fired a blank), the media denounced the illusion as a hoax, which was fair criticism. In those circumstances, there was no point in saying it wasn't a hoax unless also saying that a blank was fired by Derren.

 

[DJM]

You're misquoting me. I didn't state that it was. Anyway, Derren has never said that pre-screening is essential for him to be able to "read" someone accurately. The pre-screening included some separate illusions involving "reading", but they were far too accurate to be accomplished by purely psychological means. .

LIAR! I didn't misquote you, you said it right here!!

"That was quite tedious to watch, and I felt let down that he didn't spend much less time on that and more on what happened, what the witness saw and heard in particular. Derren didn't suggest any good explanation for the lengthy screening process, other than to find someone who would be happy to sit still and watch (not a difficult task)."

If I misquoted you by writing "sit and watch" instead of "Sit still and watch", then you even more an idiot than I thought.

Derren didn't need to give an explanation because anyone with half a brain who is over 6 years old, knows very well what was the purpose of the screening. Except for you, because only have half half a brain and not smarter than a 3 year old. It even showed him in the beginning going through thousands of video tapes that people were sending him, so to see who he could read most. But I guess your brain can't understand that much.

If he wanted to give the impression he was really risking his life, but intended to succeed and be unharmed, why didn't he wear ear defenders? Being able to "read" the witness is not the same thing as being able to influence the witness, which is what JonWhite thought was the apparent purpose of the screening process. The police had already said there would be no live ammunition used and no serious risk, so the police must have known that being able to read the witness didn't really matter. What the police said also meant that the "armourer" was lying about having and using live ammunition. The witness did sit and watch (amongst other things), which was rendered somewhat pointless by having him sit where he had an obstructed view of the revolver and not asking him about what

1) That person was more than just a wtiness watching Derren shooting a gun, he was a big part of the effect.

2) For the last time, the police said he was using blanks

"An illusionist's attempt to trick British television audiences into thinking he had played Russian roulette with a loaded pistol backfired today when police said the weapon had contained only a blank round."

I don't know how many time I should say it for you to understand. God.

3) Derren had that person sit in the back, because he was someone from the public, a regular fan of the show. Do you really think he would sit right in front of someone who is going to shoot himself?! Use your brain one time, would you. It should be seen as a dangerous stunt, they are not going to put anyone even close to danger. It's very obvious to anyone who has a brain that there's a reason for that person sit in the back.

Oh sorry, you don't have a brain yourself. Didn't mean to offend you.

I watched the whole show on television and have subsequently watched the last few minutes of the video in full-screen mode. I wasn't convinced at all that the revolver was fired by Derren.

It was.

My PC does not accurately synchronize the sound with the video. Also, my PC slows down the video, but even so I couldn't see any smoke and I didn't notice any when I saw the show on television at normal speed.

You are either a liar or blind. Put it in full screen if you have such a problem seeing the smoke. It's there very clear, not much hard for me to see. Watch again until you see it, or ask someone else with normal eyes to watch it for you.

That's incorrect. The police did not say that Derren would fire a blank. They said no live ammunition would be used. They didn't confirm that Derren would ever fire the revolver. They confirmed that what was planned to happen would be safe.

The police said he used blanks in the gun, it doesn't matter when they said it. I'm not going to repeat their statement about it again just because you are blind/idiot.

To me, the witness looked relieved, but pleased; he didn't look scared or unsteady, although he had looked slightly nervous at one stage during the selection process. You've misquoting me yet again in that I didn't suggest that the witness should have been asked how he felt. There's little point in having the witness watch the ending if he's not asked what he saw and heard, and, in particular, which chamber of the revolver he used; that's quite different from asking him how he felt.

He looked scared to me and anyone watching the show. People didn't say it was the most intense TV program in history, if that person didn't seem to have real reactions.

Now stop complaining and realise that Derren should be the least of your worries in life.. from what I can see.

 

[Azrael 5]

In that case, the gun being fired was an illusion. You are agreeing.

No.You again miss the point.The effect was an illusion,illusions do involve real objects;be it playing cards or death saws or guns.

That indicates it's safe not to use them.

No it doesn't.Again you miss the point .You can ride a motorbike without a helmet,but it's safer with.Ear defenders are personal choice.

Why, then, insist that the spectator wears them? If the bang might hurt his ears, why pretend that the magician will not be hurt from the same bang at much closer quarters?

Lawsuit,I suspect.Rather obvious that one.
Who was pretending he wouldn't be hurt? Did he state that? Personal choice,ear defenders aren't neccasary in order to fire a gun at your head.

The Police said the show involved no live ammunition. No exception was made for the armourer who appeared in the show and declared that he had live ammunition and provided the supposedly live ammunition that the spectator loaded into the revolver.

We have already established the fact that it seems they were blanks.Big deal,get over it.

The spectator can be fooled by a sound effect just as easily as the TV audience. That routinely occurs when a gunshot is need on-stage in a theatre, but is actually produced safely in the wings.

You are stupid;in the quote below you state it may have been a real gun that fires blanks.Why would he need a sound effect at all?! WHy?!!!!

I didn't suggest Derren should say it wasn't a real gun. If it fires a blank, it is a real gun. Once the police had stated no live ammunition was used (but hadn't specifically stated that Derren fired a blank), the media denounced the illusion as a hoax, which was fair criticism

The media dont know their ar*e from their elbow.It was an illusion,anyone with a brain knew he would never shoot himself.
.