Derren Brown Trick or treat

[skipjack]

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

You DID misquote me by implying that I said the whole purpose of the pre-screening was to find someone to sit and watch. I mentioned sitting and watching, but I didn't say it was the whole purpose of the screening. Derren is an illusionist, so most viewers would know perfectly well that all the attempts to find someone he can "read" accurately are just misdirection. Either he chooses someone who agrees to load chamber 6, say, of the revolver, or he has some reliable way of telling which chamber is loaded. . . or, of course, he never fires the gun, which is the only really safe method.

For the last time, the police said he was using blanks.

No. Derren was asked whether he fired a blank precisely because the police had NOT already supplied the answer to that question; they had simply said that no live ammunition was used and that there wasn't danger.

Your quote: "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." was just sloppy journalism; the police didn't actually say it contained a blank round, as more accurate reporting shows.

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?

Derren referred to the back, but the spectator was actually to Derren's left, so that Derren was aiming in his direction when he put the revolver to his head using his right hand! A screen was used, but the arrangement still made little sense. The spectator was in the line of potential fire and had an obstructed view.

Put it in full screen if you have such a problem seeing the smoke.

I've already stated I did watch it in full screen mode. Smoke wasn't visible on my PC. Anyway, that segment was shown from a different camera and could have been pre-recorded.

He looked scared to me and anyone watching the show.

He put his hands up to his face, so you couldn't see his expression properly. When he moved his hands away, he smiled. He didn't look scared at all, just relieved and glad it went okay.

 

[Pup]

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?

Am I missing something? The answer seems obvious. It was to heighten the emotional effect and apparent reality of the illusion.

If one believes the illusion is real, there are only two possible important outcomes for the magician: The gun doesn't fire, or the gun fires and kills him. Neither would require hearing protection.

At that point, the audience isn't (or shouldn't be) thinking ahead to the fact that the magician might do something as mundane as test-fire the gun afterwards and need hearing protection. All the focus should be on the binary issue: either the gun will fire--gore, tragedy, wow!--or it won't--silence, success, amazement, relief.

If the magician wears hearing protection, it draws attention away from the main issue. If he has the witness wear hearing protection, however, it heightens the suspense, because it emphasizes there's a possibility the gun might actually fire and kill the magician. It also strengthens the character development, portraying the magician as a bold risk-taker who is at the same time caring and concerned about the witness's safety.

Pure theatrics.

 

[DJM]

Skipjack, Derren is a crappy mentalist.. some of his shows have flaws, including the Russian Roullete, the padlock on Something Wicked, the use of instage stooge with Robbie and the actors in the Person Swap effect, and the witness who was only acting, not to mention all the editing and lies. People don't believe a word he says and he gives mentalism a bad name.

Are you happy? Does that make you feel better?

Now go away and let us enjoy the magic.

 

[DJM]

Pup, the problem is that what obvious to 99% of the viewers is not obvious for Skipjack. We already learned that a few pages ago.

It's a waste of time trying to explain it to him.

 

[skipjack]

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.

This illusion was described as completely safe by the police. That wouldn't be true if the spectator handled a revolver loaded with a blank.

You can ride a motorbike without a helmet, but it's safer with. Ear defenders are personal choice.

Again, the police said there wasn't danger, which includes danger from noise. The idea that the spectator, who knew what to expect, could successfully sue is absurd. Why would the spectator need ear defenders when at a distance of about 10 feet, when earlier, when he was much closer, he was asked simply to put his hands over his ears?

If the magician is trying to create the illusion of a live round being fired, it obviously makes sense to use ear defenders. Choosing not to use ear defenders implies that you don't expect the sound to be really loud or just aren't concerned about your own hearing . . . or know that the bang will be just a sound effect.

We have already established the fact that it seems they were blanks.

If it was that certain that a blank was used, Derren would have just admitted it when he referred to blanks in a subsequent show, but he didn't, and never has.

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 state that at all. I stated that a gun that can fire a blank is a real gun (i.e., real because it can fire a blank). I am saying the spectator loaded dummy ammunition, not a blank, since even a blank wouldn't be safe.

 

[DJM]

You DID misquote me by implying that I said the whole purpose of the pre-screening was to find someone to sit and watch. I mentioned sitting and watching, but I didn't say it was the whole purpose of the screening. Derren is an illusionist, so most viewers would know perfectly well that all the attempts to find someone he can "read" accurately are just misdirection. Either he chooses someone who agrees to load chamber 6, say, of the revolver, or he has some reliable way of telling which chamber is loaded. . . or, of course, he never fires the gun, which is the only really safe method.

I don't need to misquote you to make you seem like a fool, you do it very well on your own. Anyway, here's the entire part from you:

"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's obvious from reading this post that you had no idea what the screening was all about, you misunderstood the whole purpose of choosing the right person from thousands of people, a person that Derren could trust his life with. That's why he took the screening very seriously, as it was very important to the entire storyline and making the people believe that it's a real stunt and not just an illusion. Magicians have been doing the Russian Roulette effect for many years, it's nothing original. But Derren improved that effect and made it seem more realistic with that long screening process! That was a very clever move from him. Again your quotes, so you won't cry I changed it:

"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,"

It wasn't tedious, it was very important and the main part of the show. It would be like watching a movie only so you could finally get to the ending. The beginning and the middle are no less important, probably even more.


"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)."

Like I said, a 6 year old kid can understand what was the reason for the lengthy screening and why he did that. But for you to understand the simple reasons behind it, you need Derren's explanation. Well at least you got my explanation and hopefully you now realise that there was much more there other than:

"to find someone who would be happy to sit still and watch (not a difficult task)."

You see? You make yourself seem stupid on your own, there's really no reason for me to misquote you.

Your quote: "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." was just sloppy journalism; the police didn't actually say it contained a blank round, as more accurate reporting shows.

So that's your lame excuse now, sloppy journalism?! How do you know this is not info they got from the police?! Beceuase it wasn't shown in other articles?! You have no proof their info was wrong, and to call it sloppy journalism makes you seem like a baby who tries to find excuses about everything.

Here's another article, this is a direct quote from the police:


"There was no live ammunition involved and at no time was anyone at risk," said Lenny Harper, Detective Chief Officer for the States of Jersey police. "A prop company brought a number of props to the island and they included a quantity of blank ammunition."

Was this another sloppy journalism, that he said Derren got some blank ammunition for the effect?! Did they misquote him?!

The reason they say no one was in danger is because they wanted to make the people know that Derren didn't really read that person's voice to make it work, and that there was a magic trick behind it. An illusion.

Like I said, Russian Roulette is a well known effect and the use of guns with blank rounds is normal.. you don't see the police make them stop, because they would be told that it's NOT dangerous. It's just an illusion, just like Derren's was. But it can be done using a gun + blanks.. the police never denied it, above you can even see that he said:

"they included a quantity of blank ammunition."

the police didn't actually say it contained a blank round, as more accurate reporting shows.

Lenny Harper, Detective Chief Officer for the States of Jersey police: "they included a quantity of blank ammunition."

the police didn't actually say it contained a blank round, as more accurate reporting shows.

Lenny Harper, Detective Chief Officer for the States of Jersey police: "they included a quantity of blank ammunition."

the police didn't actually say it contained a blank round, as more accurate reporting shows.

Lenny Harper, Detective Chief Officer for the States of Jersey police: "they included a quantity of blank ammunition."

And about Derren not firing the gun.. if you bought yourself some new glasses, you could see that he did.

 

[Azrael 5]

"they included a quantity of blank ammunition."


Originally Posted by skipjack
the police didn't actually say it contained a blank round, as more accurate reporting shows.

Lenny Harper, Detective Chief Officer for the States of Jersey police: "they included a quantity of blank ammunition."


Originally Posted by skipjack
the police didn't actually say it contained a blank round, as more accurate reporting shows.

Lenny Harper, Detective Chief Officer for the States of Jersey police: "they included a quantity of blank ammunition."


Originally Posted by skipjack
the police didn't actually say it contained a blank round, as more accurate reporting shows.

Lenny Harper, Detective Chief Officer for the States of Jersey police: "they included a quantity of blank ammunition."

And about Derren not firing the gun.. if you bought yourself some new glasses, you could see that he did.

Genius!!!!!

 

[Azrael 5]

This illusion was described as completely safe by the police. That wouldn't be true if the spectator handled a revolver loaded with a blank.

See DJM's police quote.

Again, the police said there wasn't danger, which includes danger from noise.

Ridiculous,dumb idiot that you are.

The idea that the spectator, who knew what to expect, could successfully sue is absurd. Why would the spectator need ear defenders when at a distance of about 10 feet, when earlier, when he was much closer, he was asked simply to put his hands over his ears?

As Pup said and we all have said really-theatre!

If the magician is trying to create the illusion of a live round being fired, it obviously makes sense to use ear defenders. Choosing not to use ear defenders implies that you don't expect the sound to be really loud or just aren't concerned about your own hearing . . . or know that the bang will be just a sound effect.

Theatre.See Pup's post.

If it was that certain that a blank was used, Derren would have just admitted it when he referred to blanks in a subsequent show, but he didn't, and never has.

From a Derren interiew with Jamy Ian Swiss:

JAMY: So you never commented on it one way or the other?
DERREN: No, I never commented on it. The only thing I ever said was that I'm legally not allowed to tell you that they were live bullets. I think that was the only comment I ever made.
JAMY: Really? You never said anything either way. Isn't that interesting.
DERREN: No. Nothing.
JAMY: And so the controversy ended open-ended as to whether it was real or not.
DERREN: Yes. Which I thought was great.
JAMY: Oh, that's spectacular.

And..

JAMY: Well, had you had the chance to say something, what would you have said?
DERREN: Well, I don't know. It was kind of more interesting not saying anything.

Intervierw is here about halfway down
http://www.jamyianswiss.com/fm/works/derren-brown.html

 

[skipjack]

Re ear defenders . . .

The answer seems obvious. It was to heighten the emotional effect and apparent reality of the illusion.

I don't see how ear defenders would reduce the emotional effect. They would certainly add to the reality of the illusion, since it's obvious the revolver will (at least apparently) be fired, as I explain below.

If one believes the illusion is real, there are only two possible important outcomes for the magician: The gun doesn't fire, or the gun fires and kills him. Neither would require hearing protection.

Obviously, the successful conclusion of the illusion is also an important outcome for the magician. It would make a lame ending to just have "Click" on five chambers and then put the gun down without pulling the tigger on the last chamber. The audience can see from the layout that when the magician points the revolver at himself, he's also pointing it in the direction of the screen and the witness sitting behind it. The massive pile of sandbags is positioned at the opposite end of the room, so obviously that is for a reason, namely to allow the magician to safely fire the revolver in that direction, directly away from both himself and the selected spectator. Thus, the result that the audience is expecting is "Click, pause, click, pause, click, pause, click, pause, click, point gun in direction of sandbags, Bang!" Derren shortens that by aiming the revolver at the sandbags and pulling the trigger for the third chamber (which proves empty) and then doing the same for the next chamber (when there is a bang, concluding the effect). Apparently, the intention of this is to give the impression that he knew which chamber contained the "live" round, but only after he'd eliminated some other chambers.

At that point, the audience isn't (or shouldn't be) thinking ahead to the fact that the magician might do something as mundane as test-fire the gun afterwards and need hearing protection.

As I've explained, the audience knows where the huge pile of sandbags is and that, together with the weird placment of the spectator in the line of potential fire, does clue them up as to roughly what will happen. The audience is probably expecting that the suspense will be drawn out for a litle longer, but Derren opted for a rather sudden ending.

Another possible ending would have been for Derren to have "accidentally" fired the gun while it was pointing at the screen, causing the screen to fracture! Shades of Penn and Teller!

 

[skipjack]

It's obvious that you had no idea what the screening was all about, you misunderstood the whole purpose of choosing the right person from thousands of people, a person that Derren could trust his life with. That's why he took the screening very seriously, as it was very important to the entire storyline and making the people believe that it's a real stunt and not just an illusion.

I'm fully aware of all the references to "reading" in the screening, but I'm also aware that Derren isn't really risking his life, just performing an elaborate illusion. Throughout the screening process, the Russian Roulette that they they were being screened for was referred to as a game.

Magicians have been doing the Russian Roulette effect for many years, it's nothing original.

You're implying Derren did his version of a standard effect, and that the standard effect involves the magician firing a blank from a real revolver. Unfortunately, that couldn't be "standard" for a performance in the UK unless the people who handle the revolver have legal permission, such as a firearm certificate (which, in general, isn't available any longer). That means that using that method at all requires performing somewhere with less restrictive firearms legislation.

Derren improved that effect and made it seem more realistic with that long screening process!

Obviously, other magicians must have considered doing that, but rejected it for various reasons, such as its length. The way Derren did it didn't include any proof that the person eventually selected didn't agree in advance what chamber he would load. He did, however, include some separate illusions in it in order to make it less tedious.

"The beginning and the middle are no less important, probably even more.

Yet Derren is the first magician to include such a lengthy pre-screening in the illusion. Until now, all other magicians thought differently.

Nobody with any sense really believes for a moment that Derren can (or thinks he can) "read" someone (even someone carefully selected) so accurately that he's willing to risk his life on that basis. What counts at this stage is convincing the audience that the person selected is not just a paid assistant (i.e., a stooge).

"There was no live ammunition involved and at no time was anyone at risk," said Lenny Harper, Detective Chief Officer for the States of Jersey police. "A prop company brought a number of props to the island and they included a quantity of blank ammunition."

As you can see, this says nothing as to whether Derren fired a blank. If Derren used a revolver which was loaded with (and could fire) a blank, there would necessarily be some risk, and he'd need a firearm permit, not just an "okay" from the police.

Russian Roulette is a well-known effect and the use of guns with blank rounds is normal.

It may be normal in other countries, but here you need a permit to fire a revolver that's capable of firing live ammunition (even if only a blank is actually used).

 

[tkingdoll]

I think someone needs to post a definition of 'magic trick' for skipjack.

 

[skipjack]

From a Derren interiew with Jamy Ian Swiss:

JAMY: So you never commented on it one way or the other?

DERREN: No, I never commented on it. The only thing I ever said was that I'm legally not allowed to tell you that they were live bullets. I think that was the only comment I ever made.

JAMY: Really? You never said anything either way. Isn't that interesting.

It's not just "interesting"! What law says Derren musn't say the round is live, but an armourer standing next to Derren can say the same round is live? There is no such law! Even if Derren's contract contained a clause to that effect, it would be so absurd that it wouldn't be legally valid.

 

[skipjack]

Is this a reasonable definition?

An "instant stooge" is a spectator who receives some information (or instruction) during the performance that spectators are unaware of, and then decides to "play along" to assist the magician.

For example, only the subject of a "needle through arm" illusion feels enough of what is done to him to realize the needle used is merely attached to his arm, not actually passing through it.

If the subject doesn't play along, but instead reveals his knowledge, how can the magician salvage the illusion?

 

[tkingdoll]

Oh for goodness sake.

Right. I know how the russian roulette trick was done. I am not going to reveal the method here because the forum rules don't allow it and also because I'm not a spoilsport. But I will say that you are getting absolutely nowhere with this line of debate.

 

[Azrael 5]

I'm fully aware of all the references to "reading" in the screening, but I'm also aware that Derren isn't really risking his life, just performing an elaborate illusion. Throughout the screening process, the Russian Roulette that they they were being screened for was referred to as a game.


You're implying Derren did his version of a standard effect, and that the standard effect involves the magician firing a blank from a real revolver. Unfortunately, that couldn't be "standard" for a performance in the UK unless the people who handle the revolver have legal permission, such as a firearm certificate (which, in general, isn't available any longer). That means that using that method at all requires performing somewhere with less restrictive firearms legislation.

Does it matter where you can perform it legally.It's still a traditional effect wether it's performed in Hong Kong or London.The last person to do it on TV was Simon Drake(also ironically on Channel 4)no disclaimer,no Police statement no fuss.No less dramatic.In the UK! No idea if it was blanks or live ammo,I don't think he ever said.He just did it and that was that.

Obviously, other magicians must have considered doing that, but rejected it for various reasons, such as its length.

Why must they have? You assume Derren's effect wasn't original(the ecreening process)

The way Derren did it didn't include any proof that the person eventually selected didn't agree in advance what chamber he would load. *snip*.

Why should he? More so why would James(the loader)agree to load the gun in a pre-selected chamber,when it's a Goddamn trick and Derren had methods of knowing what chamber it was in without the need for stooges.Are you dumb?

Nobody with any sense really believes for a moment that Derren can (or thinks he can) "read" someone (even someone carefully selected) so accurately that he's willing to risk his life on that basis. What counts at this stage is convincing the audience that the person selected is not just a paid assistant (i.e., a stooge).

The only person that I have encountered who thought stooge is you.The screening process was there to eliminate the suspicion of stooge,don't you understand anything?! It was a clear process to find a "suitable person who could be influenced"

As you can see, this says nothing as to whether Derren fired a blank. If Derren used a revolver which was loaded with (and could fire) a blank, there would necessarily be some risk, and he'd need a firearm permit, not just an "okay" from the police.

The police have never said so.Why not if what you say is true?I don't think risk needs a license.

skipjack you are on your own here.No-one backs up anything you say,you look foolish and a complete idiot.Go away.

 

[DJM]

[nonsense]Throughout the screening process, the Russian Roulette that they they were being screened for was referred to as a game. [/nonsense]

Because Russian Roulette IS a game, it's a stupid and dangerous game that some people have been playing for God knows how long, but it's a game. There's a reasson it's called Roulette. Didn't I ask you to use your brain?


[nonsense] Obviously, other magicians must have considered doing that, but rejected it for various reasons, such as its length. The way Derren did it didn't include any proof that the person eventually selected didn't agree in advance what chamber he would load. He did, however, include some separate illusions in it in order to make it less tedious. [/nonsense]

Maybe they have done that, I don't have the information of every single magician who has done this effect and the exact routine. But if Derren is the first one to do that it's because he's the first mentalist who had this kind of show, or that others were not smart enough to think of this idea. The screening proccess helped so much that I've read a few magicians not beeing sure if it was only illusion or if Derren really read that person's voice. If a magician gets fooled, then you know Derren did a good job in making it seem real.


[nonsense]Yet Derren is the first magician to include such a lengthy pre-screening in the illusion. Until now, all other magicians thought differently. [/nonsense]

There's a reason Derren is considered the best mentalist of the last 10 years and many started copying him.. he has great ideas that others don't think of. And again, I'm not sure if the screening process was original by him, but won't surprised if it was. He's a smart man with some cool original ideas.


[nonsense] Nobody with any sense really believes for a moment that Derren can (or thinks he can) "read" someone (even someone carefully selected) so accurately that he's willing to risk his life on that basis. What counts at this stage is convincing the audience that the person selected is not just a paid assistant (i.e., a stooge). [/nonsense]

Many people believed it, as it's obvious from a few forums, youtube, reviews, and even from some magicians themselves. And even if some people didn't believe it, it doesn't mean it was useless. Just like watching a movie isn't useless because it's not "real".


[nonsense]As you can see, this says nothing as to whether Derren fired a blank. If Derren used a revolver which was loaded with (and could fire) a blank, there would necessarily be some risk, and he'd need a firearm permit, not just an "okay" from the police. [/nonsense]

It doesn't matter if he fired it or not, the police said he had blanks with him. This would make the people at home think he used blanks.. If derren didn't shoot it, then the police would have mentioned it so that there won't be any confusion.

[nonsense] It may be normal in other countries, but here you need a permit to fire a revolver that's capable of firing live ammunition (even if only a blank is actually used).[/nonsense]

Too bad that in your country people dont need a permit to use the Internet.. less nonsense from people like you.

 

[skipjack]

Right. I know how the russian roulette trick was done. I am not going to reveal the method here because the forum rules don't allow it and also because I'm not a spoilsport. But I will say that you are getting absolutely nowhere with this line of debate.

Why are you misquoting me? I didn't ask how it's done, and it doesn't matter. Did you work on that show? It's equivalent to a "prediction". Spectator makes choice in secret. Magician dramatically reveals he somehow knows the choice (or at least makes it appear that he knows). Any such effect requires some reason to suppose the spectator isn't in cahoots with the magician, which is very difficult to prove on television. That covers not just Russian Roulette, but many other "mind-reading" effects that Derren does. That's why Derren uses a disclaimer in some shows. However, he's chosen a disclaimer which is too simply worded, and he doesn't include it in every show anyway, which leaves him free to uses actors and stooges in those shows. He doesn't need to worry about his reputation, because he welcomes controversy. Even when some newspaper, say, claims one of his stunts is a hoax, he just ignores the point made and carries on. In some other stunts, the "secret" of the stunt is irrelevant; it's all in the drama. A good example is the needle through arm illusion. You can see that Robbie wasn't really stabbed (as does Robbie himself, of course), but you can wish that he was! The desire for controversy is apparent when you realize that the framework that Robbie was asked to stand in front of (with his arms held out) looked rather like a crucifix in a rectangular frame and the effect was apparently first televised on an Easter Sunday!

 

[Azrael 5]

How is tking doll misquoting you? Does it say your name in that quote?
Getitng paranoid?
And don't start with the disclaimer crap again.You're through skipjack go away.
Actually you were through on page one of this thread but never mind.

 

[tkingdoll]

Why are you misquoting me? I didn't ask how it's done, and it doesn't matter. Did you work on that show? It's equivalent to a "prediction". Spectator makes choice in secret. Magician dramatically reveals he somehow knows the choice (or at least makes it appear that he knows). Any such effect requires some reason to suppose the spectator isn't in cahoots with the magician, which is very difficult to prove on television. That covers not just Russian Roulette, but many other "mind-reading" effects that Derren does. That's why Derren uses a disclaimer in some shows. However, he's chosen a disclaimer which is too simply worded, and he doesn't include it in every show anyway, which leaves him free to uses actors and stooges in those shows. He doesn't need to worry about his reputation, because he welcomes controversy. Even when some newspaper, say, claims one of his stunts is a hoax, he just ignores the point made and carries on. In some other stunts, the "secret" of the stunt is irrelevant; it's all in the drama. A good example is the needle through arm illusion. You can see that Robbie wasn't really stabbed (as does Robbie himself, of course), but you can wish that he was! The desire for controversy is apparent when you realize that the framework that Robbie was asked to stand in front of (with his arms held out) looked rather like a crucifix in a rectangular frame and the effect was apparently first televised on an Easter Sunday!

What planet are you on? How can I misquote you if I didn't even quote you?

And the last few pages of this thread have been arguing about the ins and out of the damn trick, by people who don't know how it was done. I DO how it was done, and I am trying to tell you that the debate is pointless because without knowing the method, you can't possibly say how accurate the disclaimer is.



I think you are probably no older than 18. Am I right?

 

[Bob Klase]

Is this a reasonable definition?

An "instant stooge" is a spectator who receives some information (or instruction) during the performance that spectators are unaware of, and then decides to "play along" to assist the magician.

For most people I'd say that's a reasonable definition. Not for you. If I was going to give the definition for you I'd have to write about 20 pages detailing everything that people of normal intelligence and communication skills wouldn't require, then have at least 2 literally-minded lawyers check it over for stupid loopholes that could be misinterpreted and misunderstood by people who spend their live finding things to misunderstand.

If the subject doesn't play along, but instead reveals his knowledge, how can the magician salvage the illusion?

Go study some magic books for about 20 years. Even more important, go out and perform. When enough things go wrong you'll eventually learn what to do.