Derren Brown Trick or treat

[DJM]

They are called assistants, because the trick is done on the crowd not on them. You even called that person in the crowd an assistant. A stooge is someone who pretends that the trick is done only on him.

Either way, that kind of effect has been done by most of the mentalists in this world, so you should also blame them for using this kind of assistance.

Unless you are only obsessive with Derren.. in that case you should maybe go see a shrink.

 

[skipjack]

A stooge is someone who pretends that the trick is done only on him.

You've simply made up that definition to suit your point of view. Various effects require a small group of volunteers from the audience to come onto the stage together. If two of those people are assistants, all manner of illusions become trivial to accomplish. If they're pretending not to be "in on the trick", they're clearly stooges.

 

[Azrael 5]

skipjack This message is hidden because skipjack is on your ignore list.


Ah deep joy.....

 

[DJM]

Skippy, if that's the way you see it then STOP WATCHING MAGIC SHOWS.

Plants like this are being used as part of the audience sometimes, to help acheive this kind of effects. Doesn't matter if it's Derren Brown, David Copperfield or anyone else. This is the way to achieve certain methods, just like the Q & A routine which has been performed by mentalists for decades.

YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T WATCH.

And while you are at it, stop posting on this forum. Because this place is for those who love the art of magic. All you ever do is tear it apart.

Noodnik.

 

[Garrette]

Here is Copperfield using one for this trick:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rDNdgVNSCM

If Copperfield used this style more I would enjoy him more. I don't usually care for his serious style with the big illusions, but this was a well performed, personable, and highly entertaining bit.

 

[Bob Klase]

I thought this was interesting (perhaps evidence of unhealthy obsession):

Skipjack: Join Date: 1st July 2007
Total Posts: 156 (2.14) posts per day

Posts on this thread: 154

 

[DJM]

Seriously, and I don't think I've heard anything positive from him the whole time. He just keeps looking for new things to attack Derren about, even when it's just some silly details.

I would not be surprised if Derren has a restraining order against him.

 

[skipjack]

Derren is said to pay close attention to detail. Not being in full view for the key moment of an effect is not just "some silly detail".

 

[BPScooter]

Well, yeah skipjack. I don't think DB would be achieving his level of success in the profession if he neglected even the silliest of details.

I'm totally mystified, blown away, and jolly well flipped to the roof in the fan by what he does. However, the fact that he is a normal mortal stage and screen performer, well, that predisposes me to the idea of trickery. Tricks are known to those in that trade (I am not in that trade) and some of them are utterly, disappointingly simple when discovered. Randi mentions the "one ahead" in one of his books. Talk about a let-down. So easy.

So I want DB to keep at it and that's all I want.

 

[DJM]

BPScooter, tricks awlays seem simple and disappointing when you find how it's done. The one ahead method is as close to real mind reading as you could get and it does fool the audience, so it's very clever for those who don't know what's going on. Which I believe is most of the people watcing.

Derren is said to pay close attention to detail. Not being in full view for the key moment of an effect is not just "some silly detail".

Maybe so, but I've never heard him saiyng to be totally obsessive about it. You've dedicated almost all your posts on this forum to attack Derren. To me that's very silly and shows that you have no respect to others.

Derren has performed many effects that seem perfect and amazing to watch. Why you ever talk about that? You only talk in a negative way, that's why you sound so annoying and arrogant to the people here.

 

[skipjack]

BPScooter, tricks always seem simple and disappointing when you find how it's done.

That's not true. For example, I was impressed rather than disappointed when I replayed a video of an effect in slow motion and saw that the magician (who wasn't Derren) took a large prop from his pocket in full view of the camera, which I had completed missed originally because my attention was on what the magician was doing with his other hand.

On the other hand, magicians are routinely advised not to perform the same trick twice in a row. So Derren invites adverse criticism by often making a point of such repetition, even, in one instance, when the trick was largely self-working. See Simon Singh's article about Derren Brown in the Daily Telegraph, although he exposes that effect (a poker-related card trick) for the different reason of showing that Derren wasn't mind-reading. The trick itself wasn't even original; it's quite well-known and had been performed on television before by a different magician.

Derren has performed many effects that seem perfect and amazing to watch.

Correct, but that doesn't imply that defects shouldn't be mentioned, or that the disclaimer he sometimes uses shouldn't be examined.

 

[DJM]

That's not true. For example, I was impressed rather than disappointed when I replayed a video of an effect in slow motion and saw that the magician (who wasn't Derren) took a large prop from his pocket in full view of the camera, which I had completed missed originally because my attention was on what the magician was doing with his other hand.

You can't say it's not true because it was my own my point of view and the way that I see it. When I know the secret of something I get a bit disappointed because it breaks the whole illusion. Which reminded me of the thing that BPScooter was saying in the post. Stop being so damn annoying.

See Simon Singh's article about Derren Brown in the Daily Telegraph, although he exposes that effect (a poker-related card trick) for the different reason of showing that Derren wasn't mind-reading. The trick itself wasn't even original; it's quite well-known and had been performed on television before by a different magician.

So what if it wasn't original? I don't know any magicians who only perform original effects, they would usually take things from somewhere else. Many of the card tricks are just versions of old tricks. It's pretty hard to make totally original card tricks anymore, because almost everything has been done. Again, I don't see what it has to do with Derren. Magicians do that all the time. It's amazing to see the things you complain about.

Correct, but that doesn't imply that defects shouldn't be mentioned, or that the disclaimer he sometimes uses shouldn't be examined.

True. But when all you ever do is whine about the defects, then it makes people think that the actual defects are in your head.

 

[Bob Klase]

On the other hand, magicians are routinely advised not to perform the same trick twice in a row.

New, inexperienced and dumb magicians are routinely advised that because they don't know why (they don't know much of anything about magic theory). In reality many magicians routinely do perform the same trick twice (and 3 or 4) times in a row- often using different methods each time. For an in depth discussion I'd suggest you read Designing Miracles by Darwin Ortiz (not that there's much chance of you actually reading anything that might give you some actual facts).

The trick itself wasn't even original; it's quite well-known and had been performed on television before by a different magician.

Try to name 5 magicians who never do anything but original tricks (although you probably need to define "original" first).

Correct, but that doesn't imply that defects shouldn't be mentioned, or that the disclaimer he sometimes uses shouldn't be examined.

Or that anal-retentive people should obsess over them.

 

[skipjack]

You can't say it's not true because it was my own my point of view and the way that I see it.

You had stated "BPScooter, tricks always seem simple and disappointing when you find how it's done." It doesn't make sense to interpret that as meaning "I am disappointed when you find how it's done," or "I am disappointed when I find how it's done." The word "you" has to refer to the same person that is disappointed (or people generally), but not just yourself. The use of "always" implies what you state is true generally, which is incorrect. Were you disappointed when you saw Penn and Teller do the traditional cups and balls routine with transparent cups?

So what if it wasn't original? I don't know any magicians who only perform original effects.

It had been televised not all that long before (by Ricky Jay, I think, who hinted that it was self-working), but it's a poor choice of trick anyway, because nothing is hidden and so it's quite easy to work out why the subject can't choose a winning hand. Repeating the effect with the same cards just makes it more likely the viewer will suspect that choosing a winning hand is impossible, whereas Derren wants the viewer to think that some form of mind control was part of the explanation.

 

[DJM]

You had stated "BPScooter, tricks always seem simple and disappointing when you find how it's done." It doesn't make sense to interpret that as meaning "I am disappointed when you find how it's done," or "I am disappointed when I find how it's done." The word "you" has to refer to the same person that is disappointed (or people generally), but not just yourself. The use of "always" implies what you state is true generally, which is incorrect. Were you disappointed when you saw Penn and Teller do the traditional cups and balls routine with transparent cups?

You are now officially the most annoying person I've ever met.

When people see a mentalism or magic act and think some of the things there might be real, they would mostly like get disappointed if they found that it's just some simple trick, and there are no psycological or out of the oridinary powers involved. You are talking about being impressed about a sleight of hand methord, which was NOT even the point I was making. It was about when the illusion is broken and people finding it wasn't what it appears to be. Which is part of what BPScooter was saying in the post. I've heard many magicians saying that people get disappointed when they find how things are done and not impressed by that effect anymore as the first time.

And obviously I wasn't talking about all the people in the world because there are always exceptionals. I can't go to every person in the world and ask how they see things. Writing "always" should never be taken literally in this context. But everything you read and hear you take literally and nitpicking it apart, that's why no one here can stand you.

It had been televised not all that long before (by Ricky Jay, I think, who hinted that it was self-working), but it's a poor choice of trick anyway, because nothing is hidden and so it's quite easy to work out why the subject can't choose a winning hand.

So Derren needs to go see every TV show in the world so that he won't perform the same effect by mistake? Do you even listen to yourself? David Blaine was performing many great card tricks on his specials awhile before Derren's shows and there are still reruns of his shows sometimes. Does it mean no one can do those tricks anymore?

And tricks like this are not poor for the laymen who don't know how it works. I've seen people get amazed by some simple and "obvious" tricks, even the kind that a 5 year old can perform. Magic shouldn't always be complicated, it's done for fun. Sometimes those kind of tricks are the most impressive.

BTW, I've never seen anyone who sounds as bitter as you. I kinda feel sorry for the people who know you in real life.

 

[BPScooter]

Hi folks, I'm flattered that my comments sparked more comments, and that my point was understood and seconded. If it helps, I was saying exactly what DJM restated. I (for one) really like getting fooled and confused by guys like Mr. Brown. I only pay money for it when it's a pro, though, I don't walk around looking for people at the bar that want to show me a trick. That's probably a different ethical discussion altogether.

Way back a year or more ago, when people in the US had never even heard of Derren, some of the threads here got really into whether or not he was really awful by implying hypnosis or NLP as explanations for his effects. The serious hypno people and NLP people got quite eloquent that his work was *not* the real deal as they saw it and that his implication was quite objectionable.

I thought about it a bit, and realized that that just might be the cleverest thing he's ever done! Rather than invoking Hindu magic or spiritual forces or ESP, he's achieved an altogether different way to get people off balance. Which, to assume he uses normal mortal methods, is a way of doing a meta-mind trip on most people who think they know enough about magic to see through most things, and who don't put any credence in oriental mysteries or mind reading.

I must credit skipjack on the overall attitude, though, never cease to try to pierce the veil of unknowing when it really bothers you. I'm afraid I can't be of much help, because in this sort of venue I really enjoy the befuddlement and appreciate the skill with which it was achieved.

 

[Azrael 5]

skipjack This message is hidden because skipjack is on your ignore list.


Yep.Still there.

 

[Bob Klase]

I must credit skipjack on the overall attitude, though, never cease to try to pierce the veil of unknowing when it really bothers you.

I doubt that anyone here has a real problem with people who really want to know how things are done- and for those people it's really not that difficult to find out if you really want to know.

But I can't give skipjack any credit in that regard as his overall attitude is not trying to pierce a veil but more that of a whiny kid that just can't shut up.

 

[skipjack]

When people see a mentalism or magic act and think some of the things there might be real, they would mostly like get disappointed if they found that it's just some simple trick, and there are no psychological or out of the oridinary powers involved.

There is an implicit understanding that the point of a magic show is that the magician uses various means of deception, not supernatural powers, and the audience is entertained by being baffled by the magician. You wouldn't say "when the audience see a woman 'cut in half', they are mostly disappointed when it's shown that she's still alive." They know perfectly well she's alive before being shown proof of that, and they know throughout that some simple trick is involved.

You are talking about being impressed about a sleight of hand method, which was NOT even the point I was making. It was about when the illusion is broken and people finding it wasn't what it appears to be.

No, I wasn't talking about sleight of hand. I was referring to simple misdirection. I asked a specific question about Penn and Teller's use of transparent cups for their version of the classic cups & balls effect, but you ignored it. Clearly, the illusion was broken, but the audience liked it anyway.

And obviously I wasn't talking about all the people in the world because there are always exceptions.

Obviously, but that doesn't mean you can't generalize, which is what you seemed to intend. If you'd originally written "my own view, which may be an exception to what is generally the case for viewers of magic," and then put your point, it would have come across quite differently and would have had little impact.

The card effect I mentioned wasn't adapted or given any special twist by Derren; he just did essentially the standard routine, including repetition with the same cards and the same principle employed. He wasn't playing it for laughs, in-jokes, or anything like that either.[/QUOTE]

 

[DJM]

There is an implicit understanding that the point of a magic show is that the magician uses various means of deception, not supernatural powers, and the audience is entertained by being baffled by the magician. You wouldn't say "when the audience see a woman 'cut in half', they are mostly disappointed when it's shown that she's still alive." They know perfectly well she's alive before being shown proof of that, and they know throughout that some simple trick is involved.

But some people do think that some of the effects are real, and most likeley they would get disappointed when they find that there's just simple trick behind it. I've explained my point a few times and you still don't seem to understand what my point is. Your reading comprehension is of a 5 year old.

No, I wasn't talking about sleight of hand. I was referring to simple misdirection. I asked a specific question about Penn and Teller's use of transparent cups for their version of the classic cups & balls effect, but you ignored it. Clearly, the illusion was broken, but the audience liked it anyway.

Once again. My point was not about misdirection. It was about people thinking some things might be real, and then realising it's not. My point was directed to BPScooter's post not of magic in general, but you keep failing to realise that. Here it is again:

When people see a mentalism or magic act and think some of the things there might be real, they would mostly like get disappointed if they found that it's just some simple trick, and there are no psycological or out of the oridinary powers involved. You are talking about being impressed about a sleight of hand methord, which was NOT even the point I was making. It was about when the illusion is broken and people finding it wasn't what it appears to be. Which is part of what BPScooter was saying in the post.

I don't know how I can be more clear than that.. do you maybe want me to draw it for you?

Obviously, but that doesn't mean you can't generalize, which is what you seemed to intend. If you'd originally written "my own view, which may be an exception to what is generally the case for viewers of magic," and then put your point, it would have come across quite differently and would have had little impact.

Obviously every post written on these forums are opinions of the writer. It would be stupid to keep saying "my own view," because it's an obvious thing. For example: "You are the most annoying, arrogant, bitter person that ever existed." I don't need to say that it's just an opinion of mine, because it's totally obvious. This is how forums like this work.

I still believe that people who think a mentalist does some of the effects by using body language or other psychological things, would get a bit disappointed if they found that there's just a simple trick behind it. This is my opinion and the way I see. I never claimed that it's written in stone. Stop nitpicking about every single thing people say, it's so much annoying.

The card effect I mentioned wasn't adapted or given any special twist by Derren; he just did essentially the standard routine, including repetition with the same cards and the same principle employed. He wasn't playing it for laughs, in-jokes, or anything like that either.

That's not true. That card trick is very cool and I really enjoyed it.. so you are wrong for complaining about this effect.

See, I can also do that.

Grow up already.