Merged Derren Brown - predicting lottery numbers

shuttlt said:
Certainly, like I say there are admirable things about his performance. It was a success, I'm not claiming otherwise. If you strip out the performance though, I don't like the trick (if we have it right). Surely some tricks are more elegant than others irrespective of the merits of the performance? Maybe I've been spoiled by Penn and Teller and the cups.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that's helped me understand where you are coming from and I can understand your view on the mechanism of the trick and to a certain extent I do share that view.

My issue would be more that it's not a "true" magic trick because you couldn't do it in front of a live audience, and I consider that the hallmark of a good magic trick compared to a special effect. (Albeit as I am typing this response I can think of exceptions to that "rule".)
 
shuttlt said:
Certainly, like I say there are admirable things about his performance. It was a success, I'm not claiming otherwise. If you strip out the performance though, I don't like the trick (if we have it right). Surely some tricks are more elegant than others irrespective of the merits of the performance? Maybe I've been spoiled by Penn and Teller and the cups.
Click to expand...
I don't see why your enjoyment is dependant on how it is done.

Do you feel the same way when watching a crowd scene in a film? Are you more impressed when they film the same people lots of times and combine the images than when they use CGI?
 
Darat said:
My issue would be more that it's not a "true" magic trick because you couldn't do it in front of a live audience, and I consider that the hallmark of a good magic trick compared to a special effect. (Albeit as I am typing this response I can think of exceptions to that "rule".)
Click to expand...
Yes.

I guess for me the ideal trick would be one where the magician tells you what he's going to do (without leaving out anything important like a trapdoor, or marked deck), does exactly what he said, and your still left standing there saying "how in heck did you do that?" Down one notch would be tricks that involve concealing some aspect of the method, but are still done right there in front of you. At the bottom of the heap are tricks that involve concealing some aspect of the method and can't be done in front of you.

The quality of the performance is separate and, at least as important if not more so (in my opinion). If he's able to pull of something as stupid as split screen and turn it into a big TV event then hats off to the man.
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
Certainly, like I say there are admirable things about his performance. It was a success, I'm not claiming otherwise. If you strip out the performance though, I don't like the trick (if we have it right). Surely some tricks are more elegant than others irrespective of the merits of the performance? Maybe I've been spoiled by Penn and Teller and the cups.
Click to expand...
If you strip out Penn & Teller's performance of cup and balls, you are left with putting some balls under a cup!

The psychology behind Derren's trick is fascinating.
Firstly it was obviously designed to offer up various potential ways.
The stand was probably designed with the upright tube big enough to conceivably transport the correct balls to their destination.
The added subtle camera shake.
The writing the numbers down on a strip of card.
The cover and misdirection of the camera at the back of the room (which is only shown to show it's there!) is genius.
The appealing to people's greed by allowing them to think they can try it with the same level of success is a winner for increasing viewing figures for Friday's show.

And there's only a very small amount of people who will apply critical thinking to the problem of 'how did he do that'.
Most people will be more impressed with the outcome than the mechanics of it. :)

There is a lot contained in that very short piece of footage that any magician would do well to study... Well done Derren.
 
Darat said:
My issue would be more that it's not a "true" magic trick because you couldn't do it in front of a live audience, and I consider that the hallmark of a good magic trick compared to a special effect. (Albeit as I am typing this response I can think of exceptions to that "rule".)
Click to expand...
I am not sure if it is "magic" but Richard Wisemans changing deck video couldn't be done live. Still very clever effect.
 
Last edited:
Couple of questions which may, or may not, have some bearing on how Derren pulled off his little illusion.

1) Why is the back of the card he write the numbers on black?

2) When he is writting the numbers (1min 56 secs) it looks like he may be doing something to the back of the card with his left hand.

3) When he goes up and stands behind the balls he is initially holding the card edgewise between the palms of each hand. At 2min 13sec he drops the card from his left hand, it appears to then the briefly touch the right hand ball before he brings his left up under the card and runs his hand underneath until it is in the centre of the card, which he then raises. He then removes his left hand from the card, so he is holding it only with his right, and turns the stand the balls are on with his left.
So, why does he do this? Is he performing some sleight of hand at this point or is more mis-direction to take us off the scent?

skb

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMIzR6GNAXw
 
Stray Cat said:
If you strip out Penn & Teller's performance of cup and balls, you are left with putting some balls under a cup!

The psychology behind Derren's trick is fascinating.
Firstly it was obviously designed to offer up various potential ways.
The stand was probably designed with the upright tube big enough to conceivably transport the correct balls to their destination.
The added subtle camera shake.
The writing the numbers down on a strip of card.
The cover and misdirection of the camera at the back of the room (which is only shown to show it's there!) is genius.
The appealing to people's greed by allowing them to think they can try it with the same level of success is a winner for increasing viewing figures for Friday's show.

And there's only a very small amount of people who will apply critical thinking to the problem of 'how did he do that'.
Most people will be more impressed with the outcome than the mechanics of it. :)

There is a lot contained in that very short piece of footage that any magician would do well to study... Well done Derren.
Click to expand...
All true and we might STILL be wrong about how it's done. He left clues pointing in different directions throughout the performance. Perhaps the odd shaking is another false trail.

If one takes the performance as a whole as the 'trick'. It's very nicely done. If you take the 'trick' to be the method by which he got the balls to have the correct numbers on them, then nobody has yet suggested a method that in and of itself I find very satisfying.

By the way, I think you should add him suggesting he might only get 5 out of 6 balls right to you list of clues.
 
shuttlt said:
I guess for me the ideal trick would be one where the magician tells you what he's going to do (without leaving out anything important like a trapdoor, or marked deck), does exactly what he said, and your still left standing there saying "how in heck did you do that?" Down one notch would be tricks that involve concealing some aspect of the method, but are still done right there in front of you. At the bottom of the heap are tricks that involve concealing some aspect of the method and can't be done in front of you.
Click to expand...

This is similar to my thinking. In general, I'd divide magic into two main categories. There's magic that involves personal skill, and magic that involves the kit. For example, taking a coin out of someone's ear is the former. It doesn't depend on there being a specially designed coin used, you can just as easily do it with a stone or piece of paper or anything of similar size you have to hand. Even though I know how it's done in theory, I can't do it and no matter how hard I watch I can't actually see it when done properly.

On the other hand, making a coin disappear and then reappear when a box is closed and opened is purely down to the kit. You can take any random person off the street who has never even heard of the trick before and when they close and open the box, the coin will disappear. I consider the former a decent, entertaining magic trick. I consider the latter a pointless waste of time.

The quality of the performance is separate and, at least as important if not more so (in my opinion).
Click to expand...

I disagree here. The performance is an integral part of the difference between the two categories. In the former, the performance tries to distract you from what the magician is really doing. In the latter, the performance tries to distract you from realising that the magician isn't actually doing anything at all.

Obviously there is a lot of overlap. Most magicians will do both kinds of trick, and many tricks require both special kit and personal skill. However, I think most people think along similar lines. You go to a performance to see someone actually do something. You don't go to a piano recital to admire the piano and listen to a recording. You don't go to a race to watch someone drive in a straight line in cruise control. The disappointment when it's all just technical trickery is not that the trick is simple, it's that the magician was a completely unnecessary part of the performance.

And I think this is even more the case when it's things like TV trickery. Even when using kit, the magician usually needs to at least do something, even if it's as little as closing and opening a box. When it comes to TV stuff though, the magician actually does nothing at all, while some other people behind the scenes make it look as if he did. That's why people tend to dislike this kind of trick. It doesn't just rely on you using kit to make yourself look good, it relies on someone else using kit to make you look good.

This is one reason why I hate magic on TV and don't generally bother watching it. Even when they're doing something that could be done as a real magic trick, there's always the nagging suspicion that they'll just use some fancy editing to make it look "better" and cover up any mistakes.
 
skbuncks said:
Couple of questions which may, or may not, have some bearing on how Derren pulled off his little illusion.
Click to expand...

I think it's much simpler than that. The numbers were stuck on the balls from behind. He couldn't use a live audience, because the successful angles were too small. The rod with the sticker had to access the balls directly from behind so the balls concealed the operation. Other than that, everything we saw actually happened. Waiting for the last number but not including it in the prediction gave enough time for the stickers to be stuck on in the right order.

Simple, low-tech, and actually easier than the famous iron rod poking out of a bookcase, that Houdini's assistant used to write with magnets on a hanging slate.

I'm still waiting with anticipation for the "explanation," whether real or convoluted, though I'm suspecting convoluted due to the "year of my life" thing. Even if that's all he gives as an explanation and/or that is the explanation, it would seem an elegant and fair trick in the classic sense, i.e. not just video manipulation.
 
Cuddles said:
I disagree here. The performance is an integral part of the difference between the two categories. In the former, the performance tries to distract you from what the magician is really doing. In the latter, the performance tries to distract you from realising that the magician isn't actually doing anything at all.
Click to expand...
Well, maybe it isn't magic, but I admire the skill in taking a turd of a trick and polishing it into something worth seeing.

Of course we're only 10 minutes into and hour and 10 minute performance. Getting an hour and 10 minutes of TV with what I presume are decent viewing figures out trick that I wouldn't piss on if it was on fire is a trick in itself.
 
Pup said:
I think it's much simpler than that. The numbers were stuck on the balls from behind. He couldn't use a live audience, because the successful angles were too small. The rod with the sticker had to access the balls directly from behind so the balls concealed the operation. Other than that, everything we saw actually happened. Waiting for the last number but not including it in the prediction gave enough time for the stickers to be stuck on in the right order.
Click to expand...
Could be. No way to judge the weight, or composition of the balls, or whether they were fixed in place. The balls and stand could have simply been capable of displaying what ever text Derren chose to put on them.
 
shuttlt said:
Could be. No way to judge the weight, or composition of the balls, or whether they were fixed in place. The balls and stand could have simply been capable of displaying what ever text Derren chose to put on them.
Click to expand...
He gently moves (one of?) the balls at the end of the piece... they look to be ping pong balls, they weren't fixed in place.
 
Stray Cat said:
He gently moves (one of?) the balls at the end of the piece... they look to be ping pong balls, they weren't fixed in place.
Click to expand...
OK, but looking like a ping pong ball and being a ping pong ball are two different things.
 
Stray Cat said:
The stand was probably designed with the upright tube big enough to conceivably transport the correct balls to their destination.
Click to expand...
They clearly forgot to explain the reasoning behind that to whoever actually made it then, as whoever made it used a transparent material.
 
edd said:
They clearly forgot to explain the reasoning behind that to whoever actually made it then, as whoever made it used a transparent material.
Click to expand...
Have you ever seen Teller's goldfish tank trick?
Or seen a crystal tube where the magician puts some coloured silks in to a clear plastic tube and when when pulls them back out they have turned into a single multicoloured flag?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom