Merged Derren Brown - predicting lottery numbers

OK, but looking like a ping pong ball and being a ping pong ball are two different things.
Yes, but there is no reason to suspect that they were anything other than ping pong balls with numbers stuck on them. Again his handling of them was dilliberately minimal to leave their ambiguity intact. :)
 
Perhaps not. It may have had a mirrored core allowing balls to pass up the tube to line up behind the half ball cut outs that were in place at the start.

No, look at the time he picks up and turns the stand around. It's transparent.
 
The simplest method I have come up with is some kind of electric balls. Derren reads the numbers, assistant sends a signal to the balls, done.

Why I wouldn't put much money into this or the split screen method is that Andy and Derren are capable of coming up with more elegant methods than these. And afaik, they actively want their "art" to be elegant rather than a "mess".
 
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.


Before going further, am I correct that you consider magic tricks that require virtually no skill from the performer to be a pointless waste of time?
 
If you can fill an hour and ten minutes of television by making a coin disappear and then reappear when a box is closed and opened, and you do the trick in the first ten minutes and people are still watching an hour later, then the performance as a whole has as much right to be a magic trick as anything.
 
I would not like to be the T-shirted lackey who put that last ball on the stand so wonkily. Something tells me his employment with Derren Brown Productions may just have been terminated without notice...
 
I would not like to be the T-shirted lackey who put that last ball on the stand so wonkily. Something tells me his employment with Derren Brown Productions may just have been terminated without notice...
Unless it was intentional. There isn't a frame where we can see the ball pop up is there? It doesn't seem to happen in the footage I've seen.
 
Derren Brown's 'little trick'

I have to agree that I quite like good magic, it can be very entertaining. Which is the whole point. Derren Brown is doing this for the audience. Anyone clued in to what his dayjob is? I think you will find it is making TV series, starring him and magic tricks. In the past he has admitted to Neurolinguistic programming, psychological misdirection, and his tricks have been criticized as mutton dressed up as lamb. Derren Brown is a skeptic and atheist, he isn't 'sharing his magical knowledge', far from it. He is trying to build a new reputation for himself that doesn't include pyschology. Hence, lottery numbers.
So there's the why.

As to how...

The old fraudsters gimmick, 'The Wire' has been suggested several times, but I doubt this- He is a magician. To risk his legal hind and his reputation on a stunt as such would be,frankly, a pretty dumb idea.
 
No - as I explained in my previous posts - one says he is an entertainer the other claims he is real and makes claims outside his performance e.g. he can heal people with his powers - it really is like comparing apples and pears. One is a magician, the other claims he has magic powers, the two things are not the same so I don't even know why people keep trying to compare the claims made by Geller and Brown.
So you're not prepared to consider the quality of a stunt on its merits, electing to judge it on whether the illusionist is a sincere chap instead. Interesting position.
 
In the past he has admitted to Neurolinguistic programming,

Small point - he hasn't actually claimed to use NLP, although many people assume he has (or have accused him of using it).

He stated this in his book Tricks of the Mind, along with the fact he doesn't actually think much of NLP.
 
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?
Honestly, I think your imagination has a little too much free reign.

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.
Rod with stickers? Sounds very clumsy to me and a sure-fire recipe for disaster.

I would not like to be the T-shirted lackey who put that last ball on the stand so wonkily. Something tells me his employment with Derren Brown Productions may just have been terminated without notice...
The "pop-up" ball issue has troubled me since first spotted. Makes me think - the only way a ball can be raised like that is if they're a very tight fit in the rack. Why would they make the rack such a snug fit? To prevent the balls from moving/rotating easily maybe? This possibly ties in with some form of print process (but not stickers and rod). The actual presentation of the numbers on the balls seems a little odd to me. Not nice bright numbers proportional to the size of the balls, but fairly bland, black, relatively small and all angled upwards slightly. And I think the number "2" printed as "02" seems somehow suspicious. Very "mechanical" presentation it all seems to me. Seems plausible that the ball rack could be a printer (that took a year to develop and perfect!) that prints the numbers on the balls from beneath and then rotates them through 90 degrees. That would account for a snug fit (so the balls only rotate axially) and also why the last ball "rode up" slightly. Yes - I think that's more or less the answer. :D
 
Actually, watching the video again after my last post it seems that the last ball as actually sitting proud because it's being pushed up slightly by something (the printing wheel?). Derren touches and moves each ball slightly, including the last, as if to show that they're all normal balls, but the last ball doesn't settle back down into place, as you might expect.
 
THAT'S IT! I'm convinced now. If you look very closely (replay it repeatedly) you can see the last ball actually rise up slightly immediately after Derren announces ball number 23, at 2:04.
 
I've noticed some things I haven't read yet.

1. He seems to side-step something when he's walking over to the balls (around 2:11). What could that be?

2. Why does it say "02" on the "2" ball?
 
So you're not prepared to consider the quality of a stunt on its merits, electing to judge it on whether the illusionist is a sincere chap instead. Interesting position.

It seems to me you're mixing two essentially different things here. Might be wrong, but I'll give it a shot. Do correct me if I'm way off.

One is the fact that most people can and will enjoy a great show regardless of the whys/hows and who was behind it. Another thing completely is evaluating the performer on a more personal level. So I might like some of Geller's stuff 'on stage', but knowing he doesn't admit to them being just tricks and acting as he is, it certainly lessens my respect towards him as a person and artist. The stunt can be of great quality, but if the performer doesn't admit it to be exactly that, a stunt, well...it becomes more like distasteful fraud.

So while Derren Brown and Uri Geller can, in my book, be (clumsily) placed on the same field of entertainment regarding the stuff they perform (well, Derren is mostly light years ahead, but anyway), they most definitely can not be seen as even worth comparing because of the different ways they bring forth aspects of their personality through those performances. You get my drift?
 
I've noticed some things I haven't read yet.

2. Why does it say "02" on the "2" ball?
The lotto balls used in the actual draw have 01, 02 etc for the numbers below 10.
 
THAT'S IT! I'm convinced now. If you look very closely (replay it repeatedly) you can see the last ball actually rise up slightly immediately after Derren announces ball number 23, at 2:04.

I can think of several ways to do this - none of which match with whats seen though.

Notice that in the spiel before hand he says that after the meeting with Camelot that the BBC have the rights to announce the results.

i.e. DB goes to Camelot and explans what he wants to do and Camelot say - well as you are predicting nothing and simply cleverly announcing what the result is after the fact, you can't do that cos of "legal reasons"

If the clever printer angle was used then why no studio audience? Such a device would have been able to be watched from all angles, so he'd likely have bussed in an audience to make things look more convincing.

At the start he claims there is only him and 2 cameramen, 1 of those cameramen gets used twice only(!) and what about soundmen or the person whispering into his earpiece when he can turn the TV on?

The trick must involve some method of either marking the balls in the 25secs or so he has after they come out of the machine to when he reveals his balls (ooer missus) - or switching the balls with correctly marked ones after the draw. He also never shows us that whats in the rack at the start of the show are infact balls, they are never touched or examined by anyone prior to the reveal. Tho close analysis of them shows the one at the end jumps, very shortly after some (intentional?) camera wobble, a little.

Other oddities. The back of the card he writes the result on is black, and doesn't look like a real piece of white card. He goes quiet with hand over mouth when the BBC announcer is doing the first announcing bit, after manically talking over the TV pictures up to then. The numbers are pointed upwards, and not at the camera directly and the balls are never moved into a more camera friendly position after the draw by Derren. The brick wall behind shot has a solid black line above the balls, and no other solid black lines anywhere on it of comparable size.


Could be highly trained fleas, I don't think ants would be quick enough to move into position in time - whereas fleas can just jump onto the balls from further away. :)

Guess 1: involves an accomplice hanging above the ball rack attaching numbers to each ball using some low tech means whos hidden behind a mirror/freeze thats lowered into place after the initial "camera2" establishing wideshot, then winched out of the way afterwards. which would mean that a studio audience would rumble it in no time - hence they are not there.

Guess 2: Variation of the split screen freeze camera trick (note that in a trailer you can view on DBs site that presumably aired on C4 tonight he is holding a snowflake, indicating freeze? as in frozen camera, or a "freeze" being lowered down to obscure an accomplice?, or just yet more misdirection) when he is quiet with hand on mouth the whole screen image is frozen he himself runs around to the other side to switch/mark the balls, hence the need for the black line and a dude talking into his ear that positioning is good for him to run back to his place and some slight camera wobble to disguise the fade back into live coverage, also meaning no live audience is possible.

meh, probably fleas :)

Or I could be completely wrong.
 
THAT'S IT! I'm convinced now. If you look very closely (replay it repeatedly) you can see the last ball actually rise up slightly immediately after Derren announces ball number 23, at 2:04.

Yes absoutely. Whatever the trick is it happens at that second.

I just watched it further. The screen 'locks' between the second or two he says '23' and when he says '39'. For those few seconds it does not move, even though the camera has been up till that point moving a little. For those seconds it absolutely locks.

Perhaps somone places a rack on the stand during those few seconds.

If that is how he did it, it is very quick, and it is bloody bold for a live stunt on three channels.

ETA: Rewatching it, it really is a very short period of time, but the camera does 'lock'.
 
Last edited:
Yes absoutely. Whatever the trick is it happens at that second.

I just watched it further. The screen 'locks' between the second or two he says '23' and when he says '39'. For those few seconds it does not move, even though the camera has been up till that point moving a little. For those seconds it absolutely locks.

Perhaps somone places a rack on the stand during those few seconds.

If that is how he did it, it is very quick, and it is bloody bold for a live stunt on three channels.

ETA: Rewatching it, it really is a very short period of time, but the camera does 'lock'.

What do you mean by quick? The only thing a person needed to do was put the balls in an empty rack and move out of the picture when he was done. He could start doing that once the first number was called. There was plenty of time for that. The side of the stage with the rack was filmed in advance. The only thing left to do was switch from split screen to full screen - not terribly difficult so long as you have the shot lined up.
 

Back
Top Bottom