Derren Brown is no different than Uri Gellar.

[Darat]

Before I continue...I have to first be sure. In that clip, do you recognize my point?

Your clip doesn't work for me so I can't comment directly - that's why I asked "Why shouldn't he explicitly lie about a trick and how he did it?"

Of course it's entertaining which is fine,

We agree on this.

and of course he used a magician's effect.

And we agree on this.

The problem is that he went out of his way to mislead the person and give them a false picture of reality after the fact.

...snip...

"After the fact" but in the same TV series, and in the show he states right at the start he was going to trick you. (As if we needed a reminder!) In other word within the context of his performance, his stage persona.

Especially using something that is on the fringes of science and can easily be mistaken for the real explanation.

...snip...

That's part of his performance, it is all about trying to mislead you from spotting his tricks like all magicians do. It's nothing more or less than a magician that tells you he did it with mirrors or that the effect will happen when he waves his wand. Paul Daniels (another well known UK magician) used to do something quite similar in part of his Saturday prime-time TV show in something called something like "Carnival corner" - he would show you how a carnival trickster used to trick people, but in fact his explanations were not always 100% accurate....

Before I continue, do you understand this above point that I am trying to make by posting and quoting that video?

As I said I can't see it so it may be I am missing your point.

 

[JFrankA]

If I wanted to, I could condescend to you about this in a very biting fashion. Very biting. But I try to avoid sinking to ad hominem attacks.

Look, sorry if my statement offended you, but that's what it looks like to me. You are looking for "trick - how it was done - trick" and Derren expects you to expect that. That's why he says what he says between tricks. It's to set you up for the next effect. It's called misdirection and it comes in many forms.

 

[EGarrett]

It didn't prove your point. The video is from a performance. The ENTIRE video. Period. It's not intended to be educational. It's intended to be entertaining. Do you know that just "doing the magic" is only a small part of the performance? When the lights are on and the camera is running, you have to stay in "performance mode" throughout or you are a bad performer.

Have you gone to his website? Have you read his blogs? Have you read his books?

I ask because you are basing your opinions on performances. If you want to say his performances are like Uri's. Well, okay. I would disagree, but it's your opinion, but to say he's just like Uri based on his performances is like saying that Anthony Hopkins is just like Hannibal Lector based on his performance.

If it was only one time I wouldn't care that much. He makes a habit of this, going out of his way to imply that fringe woo about which people are easily confused (watch his video where he "hypnotizes" the guy playing the zombie video game), and thus misleading the public. David Copperfield doesn't do this, Randi and Houdini didn't do it, Penn and Teller don't do it.

If you understand the point I'm trying to make, I don't mind if you feel it's okay. There are plenty of people in the thread who do see a difference.

 

[Stray Cat]

Actually, in November 2007, Gellar told a magazine..."I'll no longer say that I have supernatural powers. I am an entertainer. I want to do a good show. My entire character has changed."

So now it could be argued that Brown is even worse than Gellar.

Which Magazine was that? and in which country was it published?
A lot of countries are clamping down on the claims of Psychics and FORCING them to make a statement saying they are for "entertainment purposes only".

Geller's website doesn't portray ANY signs of a change in character if that magazine article was published 2 years ago!

 

[Darat]

Which Magazine was that? and in which country was it published?
A lot of countries are clamping down on the claims of Psychics and FORCING them to make a statement saying they are for "entertainment purposes only".

Geller's website doesn't portray ANY signs of a change in character if that magazine article was published 2 years ago!

I think Geller has become more cautious in recent years in the UK with his healing claims - because the laws have changed and also public perception (in some respects).

 

[Darat]

Geller again: http://www.play.com/Books/Books/4-/1093562/Uri-Geller-Crystal-Pendulum-Dowsing-Kit/Product.html

Uri Geller's Crystal Pendulum Dowsing Kit: Find Wealth, Health and Well-Being by Dowsing and Divining.

...snip... The box includes: a crystal pendulum - the essential tool for successful dowsing; a pair of divining rods - used by dowsers for thousands of years to locate water, oil, or precious objects underground; and "Learn How to Dowse Guide" - a fun, practical book which explains dowsing techniques in detail. This kit teaches you basic skills you need to dowse using a crystal pendulum or divining rods. It then explains how to use these skills to find lost objects, water, fossils, oil, treasures and archaeological remains. Uri Geller reveals how dowsing can help you on the path to success, health and happiness. With this amazing kit - go on, trust yourself!

Again how does this compare to Brown's magic act at all?

 

[Meed]

When I first saw Derren Brown I didn't think "that's a cool trick", I thought "this is bull****/fake". It didn't occur to me that I was supposed to know it was fake. Also a lot of people I've talked to seem to think he's a genius who uses the amazing power of psychology. I have to agree with EGarrett.

 

[Darat]

When I first saw Derren Brown I didn't think "that's a cool trick", I thought "this is bull****/fake". It didn't occur to me that I was supposed to know it was fake. Also a lot of people I've talked to seem to think he's a genius who uses the amazing power of psychology. I have to agree with EGarrett.

Seriously you didn't know he was a magician?

 

[Moochie]

I think his mother would beg to differ.


M.

 

[Delscottio]

Why is more weighting placed on the woo explanation than the "its a trick" explanation? Remember the explanation is coming from a magician, something that he is pretty open about.

I seriously get the impression some people expected Derren to actually reveal in detail how he did the lottery trick, he might down the line but Friday gone?- no chance.

 

[JFrankA]

Why is more weighting placed on the woo explanation than the "its a trick" explanation? Remember the explanation is coming from a magician, something that he is pretty open about.

I seriously get the impression some people expected Derren to actually reveal in detail how he did the lottery trick, he might down the line but Friday gone?- no chance.

Maybe he does have something planned, who knows?

But I agree with you. I get that impression from the people who think that Uri and Derren are the same. It seems to me that either they want the secret of the trick or they want a more "scientific explanation" when he does his patter.

 

[Azrael 5]

Which Magazine was that? and in which country was it published?
A lot of countries are clamping down on the claims of Psychics and FORCING them to make a statement saying they are for "entertainment purposes only".

Geller's website doesn't portray ANY signs of a change in character if that magazine article was published 2 years ago!

Not sure if it's magazine poster means, but Genii magazine ran a similiar interview with Geller. I have it but cannot recall exact quote. Sounds familair though.

 

[Dr.Sid]

He might not be Geller .. still he lies. He may be blinking an eye and we all know .. but still he lies.
Randi would say 'I wont tell you how did I do it' .. Geller would say 'I'm a psychic, that's how'. Derren is somewhere between.

 

[StanBearclaw]

I agree with that.

I guess I see it this way: Magician, scam artist, doctor, sci-fi TV writer, activist... whatever you do, you can be categorized as 1) advancing science, 2) neutral to it, or 3) undermining science.

Four or five years ago (solely from "Messiah"), I definitely thought DB was advancing science. Now I think he's undermining it. Obviously there are degrees. It's probably safe to say that Derren Brown is not as bad as Sylvia Browne (honestly, I don't see Geller as being relevant enough to be part of the discussion), but nonetheless, I see Derren Brown overall as a bad influence to the public consciousness.

 

[JFrankA]

I agree with that.

I guess I see it this way: Magician, scam artist, doctor, sci-fi TV writer, activist... whatever you do, you can be categorized as 1) advancing science, 2) neutral to it, or 3) undermining science.

Sheesh. What about "none of the above"? How would you categorize an actor who is in a paranormal movie? Does he fall under category three even though he might be an atheist?

I think there's a difference between someone while they are doing a performance and that same person when they are not.

 

[StanBearclaw]

Neutral is a VERY wide category. Maybe I should have said Neutral/Non-Applicable.

And whether that actor falls into one category or the other can only be determined on a case-by-case basis. Generally, I'd say that fiction is well established as such. You can argue that's the case with Brown, you can say that everyone should know what's real and what's illusion, but that's not reality.

I'm not aware of any studies or polls about how the public perceives him specifically, but just from reading message boards and such, its clear that peoples' levels of belief in him runs the gamut. At the end of the day, he makes people believe in nonsense. You might argue that The Matrix or The Exorcist can do the same, and that's true. I guess it comes down the (admittedly) arbitrary threshold where you find it intolerable.

Whether or not Derren has crossed that threshold in your eyes, do you agree with the basic premise?

 

[terry_leopard]

I agree with that.

I guess I see it this way: Magician, scam artist, doctor, sci-fi TV writer, activist... whatever you do, you can be categorized as 1) advancing science, 2) neutral to it, or 3) undermining science.

So is Russell T Davies undermining science by claiming that a man can travel through time in a small blue police box?
Is Star Trek undermining the theory of evolution by representing alien species from another galaxy as being bipedal humanoids that look almost identical to us?

Or are Star Trek, Dr Who and Derren Brown all just forms of popular entertainment that are supposed to be taken as such?

 

[StanBearclaw]

So is Russell T Davies undermining science by claiming that a man can travel through time in a small blue police box?
Is Star Trek undermining the theory of evolution by representing alien species from another galaxy as being bipedal humanoids that look almost identical to us?

Or are Star Trek, Dr Who and Derren Brown all just forms of popular entertainment that are supposed to be taken as such?

My previous post answers all of these questions.

 

[Kiosk]

It's the silly statement in the thread title which is ruining this discussion. Of course Derren Brown is different to Uri Geller. He's completely different. Many people here have stated precisely why.

A more interesting (if inelegantly long-winded) question is this: "When Derren Brown gives false explanations for his tricks which could, if taken seriously, reinforce an uninformed audience's passive acceptance of certain forms of modern-day woo, does he have any kind of responsibility (particularly as a sceptic) to signal more strongly to that audience that these explanations are, in fact, just part of the act?"

I'm a big admirer of his, but I do wonder sometimes. No one could ever accuse Derren of promoting belief in woo, but it's less outrageous to claim that he may sometimes be facilitating it. His very public scepticism on the subject of psychics, religion and so on, as well as shows like "Messiah", operate as a secondary form of misdirection - "well, we know he's not a fake mystic like that Uri Geller bloke, so this stuff he's saying now must be true." I'm well aware that he begins each show with that speech about magic, misdirection, psychology, showmanship etc, and that he ended the Lottery programme with a smirking "it's just a trick." But could he amplify that a little bit, without losing the effect? Should he?

 

[Dr.Sid]

I sense a misunderstanding ..

On thing is that Derren says he guessed the numbers based on collective knowledge .. we all KNOW it is nonsence.

Other thing is that Derren has programs about doing things other would expect from psychic, but he does not call himself psychic, and he gives other explanation. Supposedly scientific explanations. But he does not use scientific method to do so, and it can be all an act, or different trick, and actually this may be exactly the same as the first case.

I don't think I know someone who would believe the first, but I know many who believe the second.

Do you believe everything Derren shows and claims ? Or only something ? Why ?