Derren Brown Trick or treat

[Azrael 5]

Unfortunately I get to read Skipjacks drivel by proxy though DJM's quotes,so I must take issue with this point:

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.

The illusion wasn't broken per se,as they compounded the audience by fooling them a second time,creating an illusion upon an illusion.

 

[DJM]

Yeah, through "my quotes.."

 

[Azrael 5]

Yeah, through "my quotes.."

Are you in the wrong forum? www.empireonline.com

 

[skipjack]

But some people do think that some of the effects are real, and most likely they would get disappointed when they find that there's just simple trick behind it.

You specifically referred to people watching a mentalism or magic show (my emphasis). How can viewers think parts of a magic act are real, when the description of the show explicitly states that it's magic? Even if they did think that initially about a particular effect, why would they be disappointed in discovering a simple trick when they know from the same description of the show that the show will feature magic tricks? They came to see tricks, didn't they? Anything "real" would be merely an unexpected bonus. The only obvious source of disappointment is when the magician acts as though he's doing something really great, but is actually just repeating what he's already done (if you can take one silk from an "empty" box, you can take half a dozen, but it rapidly gets boring).

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.

There's a clear difference between describing your own reactions and stating your opinion as to how most viewers would react. You wrote "tricks always seem simple and disappointing when you find how it's done" and "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 ordinary powers involved". You were clearly generalizing about other people's reactions, not just giving your own. In Derren's case, he certainly does some mentalism, but he's best known as a "psychological illusionist", where "illusion" clearly implies "not real". It's very clear that he's an entertainer, not a demonstrator of amazing newly-discovered psychological principles. There may be people who don't understand what "mentalist" means, but Derren isn't billed as a mentalist.

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

What, specifically, isn't true? If the subject repeatedly fails to pick a winning hand from the same set of cards, why is that "cool", rather than just an indication that the task is impossible? Even if that didn't occur to you, why wouldn't it occur to others?

You are still ignoring the specific question I asked: what is your assessment of Penn and Teller's presentation of the cups and balls effect using transparent cups, so that you could see every time they left a ball (or large ball, or potato) under any cup? (Note: they also showed the audience what they put in their pockets in the setting up of the effect.)

 

[DJM]

You specifically referred to people watching a mentalism or magic show (my emphasis). How can viewers think parts of a magic act are real, when the description of the show explicitly states that it's magic? Even if they did think that initially about a particular effect, why would they be disappointed in discovering a simple trick when they know from the same description of the show that the show will feature magic tricks? They came to see tricks, didn't they? Anything "real" would be merely an unexpected bonus. The only obvious source of disappointment is when the magician acts as though he's doing something really great, but is actually just repeating what he's already done (if you can take one silk from an "empty" box, you can take half a dozen, but it rapidly gets boring).

You seriously have no idea what you are talking about. I've read hundreds of reviews and feedback from people who have seen Derren's TV and stage shows and were sure that many of the things were done by pure psychological methods, even when they know exactly what Derren is all about. In fact there were times that I tried to kindly hint to them that what they saw was just a trick, but they still believe it's real.

That's why mentalists like Derren fool so many people.. they make reasons for their effects that seem pretty realstic, like body language, muscle and lips reading, suggestion and so on. Many many people fall for it, especially when those mentalists misdirect them with false explanations that don't involve the supernatural.

So to say that everyone knows for sure that it's all 100% tricks is very ignorant from you. Maybe do some research before making a fool of yourself.

"illusion" clearly implies "not real". It's very clear that he's an entertainer, not a demonstrator of amazing newly-discovered psychological principles. There may be people who don't understand what "mentalist" means, but Derren isn't billed as a mentalist.

Like I've said, peope sometimes get fooled by thinking he uses pure psychological techniques, I've even read of some magicians getting fooled by that. And like I've said, you are showing your ignorance by claiming otherwise.

You are still ignoring the specific question I asked: what is your assessment of Penn and Teller's presentation of the cups and balls effect using transparent cups, so that you could see every time they left a ball (or large ball, or potato) under any cup? (Note: they also showed the audience what they put in their pockets in the setting up of the effect.)

I didn't ignore it, I tried to explaine to you AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN, that your example of the cups and balls has nothing to do with the point that I was making. But it seems like you are not able to understand the most simple things, no matter how many times I would repeat it for you.

I'd have more luck having a discussion with a 3 year old.

 

[skipjack]

I've read hundreds of reviews and feedback from people who have seen Derren's TV and stage shows and were sure that many of the things were done by pure psychological methods, even when they know exactly what Derren is all about.

So to say that everyone knows for sure that it's all 100% tricks is very ignorant from you.

You know perfectly well that I didn't say that everyone knows for sure that it's all 100% tricks. Also, I was referring to magic shows described as such, not specifically Derrren's shows. Even in the case of Derren's shows, however, if audience members know "exactly what Derren is all about", they certainly know that he's an illusionist who uses deception, and so they must expect to be fooled by some of what he does.

I tried to explain to you AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN, that your example of the cups and balls has nothing to do with the point that I was making.

That's untrue. I didn't even suggest there was any such connection. I was simply asking about an effect where the presentation allowed the viewers to see how the actual situation differed from what the performer's patter suggested was being done, so they could see how the illusion worked. Shortly before, they had been shown the effect performed with opaque cups. Why weren't they disappointed when it was done again with transparent cups?

 

[DJM]

You know perfectly well that I didn't say that everyone knows for sure that it's all 100% tricks. Also, I was referring to magic shows described as such, not specifically Derrren's shows. Even in the case of Derren's shows, however, if audience members know "exactly what Derren is all about", they certainly know that he's an illusionist who uses deception, and so they must expect to be fooled by some of what he does.

Many of those mentalists, including Derren, say that they combine psychology, misdirection and magic in their routines and it's for the audience to decide what is what. That's why the audience would sometimes get fooled, because the option is there. The mentalists never say that's all illusion during the show. There have been many arguments on different forums, including major magic ones, whether or not Derren sometimes uses NLP or any other psychological effects in his routines. So he does fool people, even some magicians. You are only thinking things that you want to think, while I give facts from hearing other people's opinions about this issue. And most of this thread has been about Derren and mentalism and my points are about that.

That's untrue. I didn't even suggest there was any such connection. I was simply asking about an effect where the presentation allowed the viewers to see how the actual situation differed from what the performer's patter suggested was being done, so they could see how the illusion worked. Shortly before, they had been shown the effect performed with opaque cups. Why weren't they disappointed when it was done again with transparent cups?

First of all, I've heard from a few people who have seen Penn and Teller exposing this trick, and they said it would have been better if they didn't know how it works.

Second of all, this trick is all about sleight of hand. Everyone knows that, because the balls don't disappear to a different world. It's sleight of hand, they do it very fast, which is impressive even if they do it using clear cups. And the main point is that they could do a different cups and balls routine right after, and still impress the audience with different misdirections.

It still has nothing to do with my point I was making all along, so I have no idea why you keep bringing it up.

 

[BPScooter]

Geez, guys. Sounds like a good trick. Can you describe the effect? As I said I'm not a pro, but when all bets are off I can think of a bunch of ways to produce a selected card, or to arrange that a shuffled deck comes up all spades, that kind of thing.

The method chosen has to match the effect received. Otherwise everyone is a loser. Cup and Ball is one of the most amazing things that Teller did. The magician wannabes actually got to see what it takes to do some basic sleights, and once again even with clear cups, it's just down to Misdirection.

 

[skipjack]

There have been many arguments on different forums, including major magic ones, whether or not Derren sometimes uses NLP or any other psychological effects in his routines. So he does fool people, even some magicians.

Why state the obvious? I never claimed that Derren doesn't fool people. I'm stating that many (probably most) people expected to be fooled, because they're aware that they've watched an illusionist. If some effects don't fool them, that doesn't necessarily imply they'll be greatly disappointed.

. . . this trick is all about sleight of hand. Everyone knows that, because the balls don't disappear to a different world. It's sleight of hand, they do it very fast, which is impressive even if they do it using clear cups.

Haven't you seen it? It's been reported that Penn and Teller did it very fast, but that's not true. It just seems fast because Penn talks fast, but the handling of the cups and balls isn't particularly fast; it's done at about the same speed as was used for the preceding demonstration with opaque cups.

It still has nothing to do with my point I was making all along, so I have no idea why you keep bringing it up.

You keep ignoring what I asked, which was what your opinion of the presentation is, and whether it disappoints you. You referred to what others might think, but avoided giving your own assessment.

 

[skipjack]

Geez, guys. Sounds like a good trick. Can you describe the effect?

Which effect? The poker hand effect is just letting the subject try to obtain a winning poker hand from a (usually disclosed) set of ten cards. Unless they deliberately choose a losing hand, the magician's hand is a full house, which wins anyway.

As I said I'm not a pro, but when all bets are off I can think of a bunch of ways to produce a selected card, or to arrange that a shuffled deck comes up all spades, that kind of thing.

Have you seen how Penn and Teller reveal a chosen card? Also, can you think of any way of arranging for anything remarkable to come from a deck of playing cards that's inspected, handled and shuffled only by the spectator?

The method chosen has to match the effect received. Otherwise everyone is a loser. Cup and Ball is one of the most amazing things that Teller did. The magician wannabes actually got to see what it takes to do some basic sleights, and once again even with clear cups, it's just down to Misdirection.

Haven't many people been given some version of this effect during their childhood? The main reason for finishing with a potato or other large object under a cup is that the cheaper versions on sale often don't incorporate that ending. As for Penn and Teller's other effects, many of them, including the bullet catch, were explained in a widely available book that they produced, so they're clearly not too worried about people becoming disappointed if they get to know how an effect is done. Other magicians have published books, of course, but the one I referred to was inexpensive and particularly easy to find.

 

[Bob Klase]

Also, can you think of any way of arranging for anything remarkable to come from a deck of playing cards that's inspected, handled and shuffled only by the spectator?

I can think of several ways of arranging remarkable things from a deck of playing cards that's inspected, handled and shuffled only by the spectator. I'm sure if I spent some time going through my books I could easily find a couple dozen more. Off the top of my head I can think of 3 excellent tricks that are done over the telephone where the both the spectator and his deck of cards are miles away. What's your point? (That's a rhetorical question since you really haven't had a point in the last 53 pages).

Haven't many people been given some version of this effect during their childhood?

Even more haven't.

The main reason for finishing with a potato or other large object under a cup is that the cheaper versions on sale often don't incorporate that ending.

No, that's not the main reason. It's not even a significant reason.

As for Penn and Teller's other effects, many of them, including the bullet catch, were explained in a widely available book that they produced

Now you've moved on to just plain lying.

 

[DJM]

I was browsing through the Digital Spy forum the other day, and found this interesting thread about Derren. What I found even more interesting is this last post there by our good old friend Skippy.. Talking about his amazing lock theory:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=505380&page=9

And here is part of the post that shows exactly how deuluded, misinformed, obsurd person Skippy is. I couldn't have made this up even if I tried:

Obviously, many people thought that the lock must be just a magician's prop which could be secretly set to open by some secret move requiring only brief handling of the lock by the magician, and that the trick was therefore very simple and dull. I doubt it. I believe this was one of Derren's truly psychological stunts. How come? Well, all that Derren had to do was be so entertaining on stage that the woman who had the lock never really made any significant attempt to open it! If she had made a decent attempt, she would have succeeded (because the lock wasn't really locked), in which case Derren would simply have edited her role out of the televised show. Given that the lock obviously has thousands of potentially correct combinations, it isn't too hard to select an audience member who will easily give up their seemingly almost impossible task of opening the lock.

So according to our deluded friend, Derren would just "simply" have edited out the girl (Dani!) from the televised show if she seriously tried to open the lock.. which wasn't really locked in the first place.

So if she'd managed to open it, this is what simply would have happened:

The show on TV was 73 minutes long without the commercials.

The opening effect that he brings Dani on stage where he talks to her about the suitcase - about 5 minutes

The last effect with the newspapers, which is the best effect and that the whole show leads to - 22 minutes

That effect would not make much sense with the parts of Dani edited out, as she's a big part of that. If her role is edited out from that routine, then obviously the whole thing should be edited out.

So basicially accourding to Skippy, Derren would have edited 27 minutes from the whole show so that the girl would not be seen in case she managed to open the lock. Which brings us to a 46 minute performance, and without the most important effect included.. and without a proper ending.

What a great Christmas special that could have been to the veiwers at home, huh? It's so obvious Derren would have taken such a chance without a problem.. after all it's just a simple editing.

I advice the people here to ignore Skippy from now on. He's obviously a person who has no touch with reality and only makes ridiculous claims one after another. The sad thing is that it's even worse than I thought.

 

[Azrael 5]

As Bob Klase so succintly put it,Skippy,you've moved on to outright lying with regard Penn and Teller's Bullet catch.Penn stated in an interview(which I will find and link at some point)"Only a handful of people know the secret to the bullet catch."

So pretty poor book sales or your lying? WHich is it to be.
Of course you could always support your point with evidence!

The main reason for finishing with a potato or other large object under a cup is that the cheaper versions on sale often don't incorporate that ending.

Cheaper versions? Lance Burton does it with what we Brits call mugs,he says worth about 40 cents I think! The reason is for variation! Makes the trick interesting.
The origins of the trick go back back to Egyptian Gali Gali men who produced chicks as final loads!!
Each person serious about magic should learn a trick and adapt/improve on it.Do people who learn the piano stop at "Three blind mice"?

Its called learning.Something you should try and do in this thread.Learn when to tell the truth and when you're beat.

 

[BPScooter]

In the "Cruel Tricks for Dear Friends" book by Penn and Teller, there are multiple tricks. One is that the pages are cut at different sizes, so a riffle through the book looks different from back versus front. The front riffle pages have a hypno-design with teeny writing. Red letters on grey. Hard to read.

The text appears to be a direct transcript of a P&T show. Probably the Broadway version that made them famous on TV and Vegas. There is a description of an effect involving random choices, Bible verses, and just about anything. I'm a fan.

 

[Garrette]

I've been beaten to it, but thought I'd add my comments, particularly about a deck inspected, shuffled, and handled only by the spectator. I could do something pretty impressive right now under those conditions, and I'm hardly a master magician.

Ditto cups and balls. I have a rather expensive set with brass cups (it's also chop), but I've only used that set a couple of times. I've done it with coffee cups, though, using an orange as a final load. And I'm really not very good at cups and balls, but it worked.

 

[skipjack]

I can think of several ways of arranging remarkable things from a deck of playing cards that's inspected, handled and shuffled only by the spectator. Off the top of my head I can think of 3 excellent tricks that are done over the telephone where both the spectator and his deck of cards are miles away.

I was asking BPScooter, not you. I suspect the tricks you call "excellent" wouldn't seem so if you described them here. What features can make such an over-the-telephone effect "excellent"?

I'll withdraw my specific reference to "bullet catch", but certainly many other effects are described in "Penn and Teller's How to Play with Your Food", which I think was the book I had in mind (because it was easily found, etc.).

 

[skipjack]

I could do something pretty impressive right now under those conditions, and I'm hardly a master magician.

In what way "impressive"?

Ditto cups and balls.

Effects sold cheaply have to fit into a small box, so the cups can't be large enough to contain an orange.

 

[skipjack]

Thanks for reminding me, DJM, that Derren's newspaper effect lasted 22 minutes. It was far, far too lengthy, apparently just to make it difficult to remember everything that happened. The box contents were involved, but not in a major way. It wasn't stated in advance that the two effects would be linked.

 

[Bob Klase]

I was asking BPScooter, not you.

Then I suggest you learn to use the private message function.

I suspect the tricks you call "excellent" wouldn't seem so if you described them here.

I didn't say they'd seem so if they were described here. I clearly used the term in relation to the tricks and not a written description of them.

What features can make such an over-the-telephone effect "excellent"?

The same features that make any not-over-the-phone effect "excellent".

I'll withdraw my specific reference to "bullet catch", but certainly many other effects are described in "Penn and Teller's How to Play with Your Food"

So what?

 

[DJM]

I'll withdraw my specific reference to "bullet catch", but certainly many other effects are described in "Penn and Teller's How to Play with Your Food", which I think was the book I had in mind (because it was easily found, etc.).

So you "withdraw" your reference to the Bullet Catch now that you were caught lying? I don't even remember Penn and Teller mentioning the effect in that book, let alone exposing the secret.

This is just another example where you make things up for no reason. I think you should also withdraw all the other lies you have posted so far in this thread. What a joke.

Thanks for reminding me, DJM, that Derren's newspaper effect lasted 22 minutes. It was far, far too lengthy, apparently just to make it difficult to remember everything that happened. The box contents were involved, but not in a major way. It wasn't stated in advance that the two effects would be linked.

Thanks for reminding me how pathetic your posts can be.. so pathetic I doubt that you even believe the nonsense that you just wrote.

You sound like a clueless troll. Please do us a favor and simply edit yourself out of here.