Azrael 5
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2003
- Messages
- 6,106
Must stop telling lies skippy.
Derren Brown Trick or treat
- Thread starter oglommi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- derren brown
Must stop telling lies skippy.
No, I didn't. The remark you found was "it also allows ample time for an assistant to enter the room with a second gun", which is not a claim that an assistant ran in with a second gun or hid afterwards.
Have you no sense of humour? That "mistake" was deliberate. Also, I've not commented on anyone's grammar here.
It was the police who said no live rounds were used, whereas the show specifically claimed a live round was used. I stated that "firing" the gun off-screen with an immediate switch of camera wasn't creating an illusion of Derren firing the gun; instead, it allowed the possibility that he didn't. Also, filming everything in delay (and with many camera changes) allowed editing. That's not a claim that editing was used.
Last edited:
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,102
Wow. Simply cannot believe that this is still going on.
Really don't have the time or the inclination to read everything written since I last came in, although arguments about typos are always really interesting, and are so much more worthwhile than actual debate.
Can someone just let me know what the situation is now? Does Skippy still think that Derrin isn't very good? (If that was ever his point in the first place, I never really got it) Has he managed to get anyone to agree with him? About anything?
From the fact that the thread is still going strong with the skipping one still posting, I take it he hasn't decided just not to watch people he doesn't like watching?
Go on, someone give me a rundown of what's been happening? Please?
Really don't have the time or the inclination to read everything written since I last came in, although arguments about typos are always really interesting, and are so much more worthwhile than actual debate.
Can someone just let me know what the situation is now? Does Skippy still think that Derrin isn't very good? (If that was ever his point in the first place, I never really got it) Has he managed to get anyone to agree with him? About anything?
From the fact that the thread is still going strong with the skipping one still posting, I take it he hasn't decided just not to watch people he doesn't like watching?
Go on, someone give me a rundown of what's been happening? Please?
Last edited:
Yes, I'm sure it was deliberate.. Just like your parents' mistake was.
Go on, someone give me a rundown of what's been happening? Please?
Skipjack is an Internet troll who wants to get some attention by annoying the people here. That's pretty much the rundown.
Last edited:
Azrael 5
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2003
- Messages
- 6,106
Go on, someone give me a rundown of what's been happening? Please?
Skippy talks crap for 14 pages and runs around in circles>Makes baseless comments and is unable to back up any statement.
In what way does an observation that Derren's hand and what he's holding in it went out of camera shot need to be backed up? You can see it for yourself by watching the video, so my comment wasn't baseless. In what way does it benefit the "illusion" for the camera not to show what's happening at that key point?
Azrael 5
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2003
- Messages
- 6,106
You are boring.Offical.
Let me turn the question around.In what way does it benefit Derren to have a gun out of shot for what is basically a half second anyway? When you hear a bang and see smoke form the barrel of the gun in his hand and see sand running from a hole in the sandbag.The same gun that has been in show through out.
Lets hear it!
It means we don't see what happened, so you tell me. It wouldn't have been accidental.
It didn't happen like that; the gun was out of shot when the bang occurred and when the gun was back in view, it wasn't smoking; any smoke was not shown close to the gun. The sandbags are then shown in the distance, and no hole or sand running out could be seen at that time.
Azrael 5
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2003
- Messages
- 6,106
It IS smoking.It has already been proved to you in this topic.You said you couldn't see it,but it is there.
At 8:17 on the video the gun also goes out of shot when Derren guesses wrong! It's no big deal!
I assume the director wanted a close up of Derren for drama. It makes NO difference to the effect.You hear the bang ,there IS smoke,it is the same gun!
There's no conspiracy;no second gunman.It's the same gun.It fired there is smoke.
Get over it.
At 8:17 on the video the gun also goes out of shot when Derren guesses wrong! It's no big deal!
I assume the director wanted a close up of Derren for drama. It makes NO difference to the effect.You hear the bang ,there IS smoke,it is the same gun!
There's no conspiracy;no second gunman.It's the same gun.It fired there is smoke.
Get over it.
Larry Becker on the grassy knoll?
Azrael 5
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2003
- Messages
- 6,106
It was claimed some smoke was shown to the bottom left in some frames, but not drifting out of the gun's barrel. When the gun comes into view, it's shown quite clearly (even though Derren is moving it), and it is not smoking at that stage.
Presence of smoke isn't proof of where the smoke came from.
The gun is in full view for all other occasions when the trigger is pulled, except for the end of the gun's barrel on the occasion you are referring to. It is not the case that the gun went out of shot on that occasion.
That's not the point. The firing is not shown. The gun is completely off-screen, so you don't see it fired, you don't see where the smoke came from, and you don't have any proof it's the same gun, that it produced the bang, or that it produced the smoke. Derren doesn't even show the used bullet casing afterwards or ask the witness which chamber he put the bullet in.
Last edited:
It is pretty much proof if you had any idea of the method that many magicians have been doing for a long time for the Russian Roulette on stage, which obviously you don't.
If Derren used an off screen assistant/ edit /smoke machine in the right angle or anything else that I think you have suggested.. then he did it the hard and unnecessary way.
So far the only unnecessary thing I'm aware of is you.
Azrael 5
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2003
- Messages
- 6,106
So where did the smoke come from? The spaghetti monster? If it wasn't the same gun skipjack how did Derren swap guns in a split second,and where is the gun he swapped?!
If someone were to fire a gun in a room unseen and you hear a bang,enter that room and see smoke,do you assume the gun was fired or that somehow a smoke machine(that wasn't in the room prior)was used? Answer!
The effect wasn't about what James saw or what chamber he loaded.It was about Derren guessing the one with the bullet in.Which he did.
Show me evidence that a gun was swapped or something other than a gun produced smoke! Do it. Your making the dumb claim,support it.
If someone were to fire a gun in a room unseen and you hear a bang,enter that room and see smoke,do you assume the gun was fired or that somehow a smoke machine(that wasn't in the room prior)was used? Answer!
The effect wasn't about what James saw or what chamber he loaded.It was about Derren guessing the one with the bullet in.Which he did.
Show me evidence that a gun was swapped or something other than a gun produced smoke! Do it. Your making the dumb claim,support it.
The effect was for viewing by people in general, not just those who already know methods which other magicians have used for similar effects. Regardless of the method, it's a poor decision to exclude the key moment from being in full view. Also, the wording "pretty much proof" implies "but not actually proof".
If it was unnecessary to "fire" the gun off-screen, it was a poor decision to do so, especially if it's intended not to ask the loader to tell what he saw. Also, editing what is shown is not hard at all; it's very easy. If I recall correctly, Penn & Teller incorporated a deliberate edit (as a joke) into the ending of each of a whole sequence of televised shows.
Last edited:
Bob Klase
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2002
- Messages
- 2,937
I'm really starting to wonder who's dumber- Skippy, or you guys for thinking that after 60 pages of the same recycled crap that you can change his mind with facts, intelligence or knowledge. Or for even thinking he's capable of composing a coherent argument that he won't contradict later and excuse with "I didn't mean the word that way even though that's what it means" type of garbage.
Apparently my long ago comparison of Skippy to a 5 year old was much more accurate than even I realized at the time.
Apparently my long ago comparison of Skippy to a 5 year old was much more accurate than even I realized at the time.
As you know very well, I'm stating possibilities, not claiming them as certainties; it's Derren's responsibility to establish the effect by allowing the camera to see that the gun is fired, is not switched, etc., not mine to prove anything or provide evidence. If he did use a second gun, it wouldn't be shown at the same time as the first, so it's ridiculous to expect proof of it. It's not ridiculous to expect the original gun to remain in view between the time when it's loaded and the time when Derren pulls the trigger, and especially when Derren appears to fire it.
It was Derren, not myself, whose disclaimer was defended here on the grounds that it needed to be interpreted in a very narrow specific way that would be adopted only by those who'd taken a keen interest in techniques used by magicians. You've given no good reason why it was a good idea to allow the gun to go completely out of view of the camera at the key moment when Derren was supposed to fire it.
It's not denied that Derren is quite happy to use "dual reality" setups when it suits him, i.e., have a televised show edited in such a way that what's shown gives a totally misleading impression of what has happened and, especially, what the circumstances were.
Last edited:
Regardless of particular posters' feelings about lots of matters, I'm still pretty interested in the big picture ethical/moral world of the professional deceiver. Derren Brown does seem to strike some people closer to the bone than others, and whether that's his issue or the beholder's becomes something to think about. Maybe a good disclaimer for a professional magician would be something like: "I am going to fool you. I am not above using misdirection, suggestion, props, gimmicks, informants, stooges, assistants, or any other technique. I will not use psychic powers, spirits, or quantum uncertainties. However, you will find my presentation of these demonstrations to be clear and compelling, such that you will have no idea how I fooled you." Maybe that would take the wind out of some of the mystery and fun of some types of magic presentations, but for something like a "straight and serious" delivery, might also really get the audience hyper-alert and ready for some big foolitude.
From looking at the Favorite Magicians thread, I was able to look a little at the Eugene Burger and Jeff McBride sites--they seem like guys that might have thought or written about this aspect of the philosophy. Max Maven, too. If anybody has any suggestions of a good book or 2 that follow this angle (the overall psychology of conjuring in the modern era), or maybe a DVD or something, I'd appreciate a suggestion. I'm not too interested in the physical methods, more the mind-set of an audience participant and what they are likely to be thinking and noticing. [Reason I ask is that I'm a teacher and I lecture and speak a lot, and have come to believe that there are a lot of the same dynamics at work in a classroom].
Sorry if this is a derail, I'm an admirer of DB and am very impressed by the reaction he is able to generate with his work when there are many, many other great performers out there--he must be doing something a little different.
From looking at the Favorite Magicians thread, I was able to look a little at the Eugene Burger and Jeff McBride sites--they seem like guys that might have thought or written about this aspect of the philosophy. Max Maven, too. If anybody has any suggestions of a good book or 2 that follow this angle (the overall psychology of conjuring in the modern era), or maybe a DVD or something, I'd appreciate a suggestion. I'm not too interested in the physical methods, more the mind-set of an audience participant and what they are likely to be thinking and noticing. [Reason I ask is that I'm a teacher and I lecture and speak a lot, and have come to believe that there are a lot of the same dynamics at work in a classroom].
Sorry if this is a derail, I'm an admirer of DB and am very impressed by the reaction he is able to generate with his work when there are many, many other great performers out there--he must be doing something a little different.