He's got the problem that many variety acts have these days once they make it "big" on TV, you need so much new material for every new show. You can't just keep recycling your old stuff.
I remember hearing an interview with a comedian touching on this, he was being asked why he didn't do as much TV these days and his response was along the lines of "One TV show uses up as much material as you need for 10 years of live shows."
Certainly the case with Billy Connelly, for example. Brilliant stand up in his heyday, but has been regurgitating the same old now for the last 10 years - even when live. Shame.
As far as DB stopping talking, why can't that just be so the production team kills all the on stage mics and feeds the sound from the TV pictures directly to the output so as to mask completely the sounds being made by whatever method was being used at the time to switch/mark the balls.
Surely if the rack wasn't tight it would could have resulted in the balls moving laterally after being repalced by Brown's assistant? This would have shown up after the split screen was removed.
All the guy had to do was slot them in the tight rack evenly for the balls to match perfectly (a longer rack would have been much harder). Sadly it didn't quite work out like that.
Hey, come on man. I could make a rack in less than an hour that has just the right width so as not to allow the balls to move enough to be detected from a camera sitting around 5 metres away, but not so tight that the balls don't fit in properly. These guys planned for a year!
Someone asked why the misplaced ball seems to "rise up". That's a result of a mix from the overlay back to the live feed. On-screen, the ball is only a pixel or two above where it was in the overlay, so it appears to rise slowly up.
It could just be that they should have had just a little more tolerance in the width of the rack, and that those particular balls happened to add up to be slightly too wide for the rack.
How about this for an unneccessary complicated way of doing the trick? Balls made of, or painted with, some kind of photosensitive material that can be "printed" by laser from outside of frame. Doable?
Sure. Thermo-paper like coating, and a strong enough laser could do that. But there is a high risk in that. Having a laser around that is strong enough to do that over such a distance is strong enough to hurt a person badly. Some slight glitch in the controlling or the setup, the beam bounces of some reflective surface and hits someone. Or hits someone directly.
Another possible way would be to use e-ink "paper". Small digital radio receiver in the ball and outside on the ball a spot with such an electronic paper could do the job as well.
However, these are quite complicated ways to do it, and in addition the laser is risky. Split & freeze sounds far more easy.
"Quite complicated" will suddenly become "quite brilliant" if DB shows the split screen to be false. Surely for magicians to continue to innovate the "complication" factor needs to increase.
Usually, Derren has impressive tricks. This one was not. I wonder how many people actually believed his story about not being able to show the prediction before the lottery was drawn for legal reasons.
This was definitely the piss on the fireworks for me. As soon as he uttered those "convenient" words I almost went back to observing cloud shapes.
Does anybody have a view as to why the numbers on the balls are seemingly printed "mechanically", i.e. not very aesthetic, why they're all angled upwards slightly and not very neat? These last two aspects certainly seem to indicate a hasty human insertion (sorry, just came out like that!), supporting the split screen theory.
With all the trailers for this show involving TV effects and some say CGI perhaps the whole theme of The Events is "TV manipulation"?
I cannot imagine why Derren Brown would resort to a TV effect when there are other methods.
Hehe, thanks mate, I'll reply seriously then (skip to the end and read the conclusion if the details and speculation are too much to stomach)! Here's my thinking, let me know where you think it's going astray?
I think we all know by know that Derren is a great magician and entertainer, but going by many interviews, Derren's act is very much a team effort. The main contributor to the show is Andy Nyman, who recently received:
In 2008 Andy was awarded the MIMC - this is the Member of the Inner Magic Circle, this is the highest award any Magician can receive and is bestowed upon very few performers
The advertisements for The Events were centered on different video tricks. The first event (lottery) was advertised by the juggler clip and was clearly a hint towards a split screen method, as was the second lottery ad, the snowflake, which symbolises the "freeze" picture.
Elsie @ ContactJuggling.org forums said:
I've been itching to see this since we filmed it, and here it is!
Through clever camera trickery it's actually me juggling those balls, and I was only ever juggling two balls at any one time. Those editing bods are all rather clever
These guys are great professionals in the world of magic, and have a proven track record. They are also professionals at using modern video effects. They also hinted at video tricks and more precisely, the split- / freeze screen method for the lottery Event, and did this elegantly through the juggler & the snowflake ads, as pointed out above. Nothing above human like cleverness here. I guess we can all agree so far?
Ok, next, the introduction to the main show: The Lottery Prediction.
First scenario (popular belief at this point) requires:
That they didn't want the public to catch up on how the trick was done.
That the lottery prediction was achieved through a split screen.
That they screwed up the switch (the famous jumping ball).
That they didn't understand that many amateur video editors all over the world would instantly recognize the digital shake.
Objections:
NOT WANTING THE PUBLIC TO CATCH UP WITH THE SPLIT SCREEN METHOD: Not convinced, considering the hints given to us and everything else that points to this, more below.
THE EFFECT WAS ACHIEVED THROUGH A SPLIT SCREEN METHOD: No objections. It's one of the simplest methods I can think of, after using remote-controlled balls that can be programmed to show any number they want. The jumping ball is the strongest evidence for the split screen so far. I would say that it was almost certainly used here. However, I don't doubt that magicians have other ways of achieving this kind of a "prediction".
THE SWITCH: I think it's asking quite a lot to believe that they screwed up the switch. It's not like they asked some random assistant to jump into the fire. Of course I can't know this for a fact, but it would go against all common sense and previous knowledge about how thorough magicians usually are when it comes to stuff like this. With the same caveat, it's also not like they didn't practice this through until they were 100% comfortable with it. It's not like they couldn't have chosen a different kind of rack to present the balls if they wanted to ensure nothing like this would accidentally happen. They used 19 seconds from the announcement of the 6th and final number (it happened to be number 2, which makes it easy and fast to place into the correct place) to going back 100% live (the moment when the ball number 39 seems to jump up). It's not like they couldn't have zoomed in and digitally make sure that the balls were all lined up perfectly. And it's not like they couldn't have stalled for a couple of more seconds if they needed to.
Look, all I'm doing is balancing these things in my head here. For all I know, the jump (especially as it seems to be gradual) could've also happened naturally through the combination of pressure and a slight change in temperature. It could've also been deliberate - you can still see the ball number 39 elevated in the official promo picture of Derren holding up the numbers and in the snowflake ad, I don't think this is putting too much trust in the teams cleverness. All of these options are possible when looking at the current data and Derren's history, I just can't say any of them to be significantly more probable than the other. On one hand, a screw up is the simplest solution, but on the other hand it's not. All I know is that I wouldn't bet much money on it.
Btw. Just to be more accurate, the easiest way to do the "switch" is to clear the rack completely and place the new balls one by one as they are announced.
NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT PEOPLE WILL CATCH THE DIGITAL SHAKE: Same as above, I find it difficult to believe that these guys, who are experts in video effects, would not understand, and in fact, expect this.
MY CONCLUSION:
I think they wanted people to eventually catch up on the split screen method, and in a big way. Why would they want that then? Because they are aware that some of their audience might actually believe the fake explanation that was offered and they wanted to somehow (but elegantly) minimize the ill-effect this might cause. This does point heavily to the jumping ball being a screw up, but it could as well mean that it was a natural occurence (of pressure and a change in temperature), no way of knowing. Anyways, for me, this doesn't really matter when it comes to the enjoyment of the show, because:
Most importantly, whether it was a screw up or not, what I'm saying is that people like him / her from the Channel 4 Derren page are not getting the big picture of this trick and / or Derren's whole career:
Arghhh! If it wasn't for that 39 ball being poorly placed that would have been a superb bit of split screen wizardry. The tech boys did a cracking job. It's just a shame that it was followed by a tedious one hour pantomime promoting that idiotic number theory. Are we really that gullible Derren ? It's really put me off watching the rest of the series.
From my perspective, at most, there is only reason to feel sorry for the team because / if they screwed up with the ball placement. The show is not only about us, it's about us watching Derren fool the 24 participants. And that was great entertainment to me. Like I said previously:
Kuko 4000 said:
I'm a bit surprised many people are so worried about the "main method", I guess that overshadows everything else. For me it was all about the "show" and how he dresses and mixes things up, just like it has always been with Derren. The back bone and whole point of the show was the wonderful ride those 24 people got, and I thought it was excellent TV. I mean, making people believe they can predict the lottery numbers through automatic writing, teamwork and playing in the garden is amazing, and just bonkers. The reactions of the participants is what it's all about and we got a good look inside, for me this was the main "effect" here and what Derren is all about.
With all the trailers for this show involving TV effects and some say CGI perhaps the whole theme of The Events is "TV manipulation"?
I cannot imagine why Derren Brown would resort to a TV effect when there are other methods.
Yes, with only a few pixels difference and a soft masked wipe it would look like a quick gradual rise instead of a jump... which coincidentally is exactly what it looks like.
Yes, with only a few pixels difference and a soft masked wipe it would look like a quick gradual rise instead of a jump... which coincidentally is exactly what it looks like.
Okay, after reading through the comments at The Events website, I've come to the conclusion that the point of the exercise was to demonstrate, for our entertainment, the futility of Brown trying to convince his most-hardened fans that he is just tricking them and they should never believe his tricks or explanations.
Either some of his fans are nuts or they pull a pretty good Poe. Hard to tell which.
I'm willing to share some of Kulo's concerns about the obvious "failures" and that they may be misdirection - but time's ticking and there are people out there who will put as much faith in the wisdom of the crowds as they do in "professional Lotto systems". Oddly, or perhaps not, these systems are warned against on The Events site.
Having read through most of this thread since it began, I've made the following list:
Methods more plausible than "wisdom of the crowds" include:
* Laser etching
* Gimmicked balls
* Mini-printer in stand
* Trained ants forming numbers
* A long stick with adhesive numbers poked through the rear wall
* Invisible aliens
* Rigging the UK lottery
* Asking Sylvia Browne to predict the outcome
* Numerology
* Camera trickery
* Moving faster than the camera can register
* Almost any ridiculous idea you can imagine
So, my current position is:
I'm leaning toward Deetee's suggestion that "the wisdom of the crowds" explains how this was really done - and the crowd says "Camera Trickery"...
Therefore, in the absence of any more-convincing explanation, the trick was performed via TV effects...
However, I am open to the possibility that I am being swayed by the obvious and that, just as I have no idea how most spectacular magic tricks are performed, this one might have used a method that would never cross my mind...
I feel the explanation, as it stands, deserves as much ridicule as any claim by anyone professing paranormal powers ("wisdom of the crowds" for prediction of purely random events is a paranormal claim that I imagine would qualify for MDC)...
I'm basing a lot of my opinions on reading reports, rather than viewing actual footage, and accept the possibility I'm missing something important and drawing unfair conclusions...
And finally, a lot of people are all too ready to swallow anything they're told no matter how ridiculous. Gullibility is worn like a badge of honour.
A soft edged wipe: Wipe is the bit where the video freeze side of the screen is taken from the output, leaving the live screen at full shot. It's called a wipe because it quite literally wipes away from and to any direction chosen by the Editor/Producer.
The mask is the overlayed frozen picture which masks off the assistant putting the correct balls in the tray and that mask has a soft edge (on it's right hand side) to lessen any possible effect noticable in the difference between that which is masked and that which isn't as the mask is removed.
I'm leaning toward Deetee's suggestion that "the wisdom of the crowds" explains how this was really done - and the crowd says "Camera Trickery"...
Therefore, in the absence of any more-convincing explanation, the trick was performed via TV effects...
However, I am open to the possibility that I am being swayed by the obvious and that, just as I have no idea how most spectacular magic tricks are performed, this one might have used a method that would never cross my mind...
The very fact that there are so many obvious ways for the trick to be done is what disappointed me. I mean mundane magician-like ways, not over-the-top things like mass hypnosis, rigging the lottery, etc.
My usual initial reaction to a good trick is, "I have no clue how he did that," even if, after further thought, I can suspect possibilities. In this case, there just seemed to be too many obvious logical explanations, from classic mechanical tricks to camera special effects. The initial amazement was never there.
But of all the possibilities, a camera trick seems the lamest to me. I mean, it would be like Steven Spielberg saying, "No, really, I used real trained dinosaurs in Jurassic Park *wink wink*." Yeah, whatever.
But ironically, for no logical reason whatsoever, I'd love it if Derren Brown came back and said, "So all you internet people think it was a camera trick? Hah! This shows that it wasn't." And played the video of the kids under the Christmas lights, holding up balls predicting the same numbers almost a year ago.
And faked the numbers on those balls with yet another camera trick.
Now that would be cool. I don't know why. It just would.
A soft edged wipe: Wipe is the bit where the video freeze side of the screen is taken from the output, leaving the live screen at full shot. It's called a wipe because it quite literally wipes away from and to any direction chosen by the Editor/Producer.
The mask is the overlayed frozen picture which masks off the assistant putting the correct balls in the tray and that mask has a soft edge (on it's right hand side) to lessen any possible effect noticable in the difference between that which is masked and that which isn't as the mask is removed.
I feel the explanation, as it stands, deserves as much ridicule as any claim by anyone professing paranormal powers ("wisdom of the crowds" for prediction of purely random events is a paranormal claim that I imagine would qualify for MDC)...
I'm basing a lot of my opinions on reading reports, rather than viewing actual footage, and accept the possibility I'm missing something important and drawing unfair conclusions...
Yes, of course it would be a paranormal claim, but Derren is a magician and doesn't claim it in the real world, and he even ends the show by saying, word for word: "So, if I'm ever asked how I predicted the lottery, I'm going to say, it was just a trick. Good night."
This is exactly the opposite of people like Sylvia Browne, etc.
Keep in mind, he is a very outspoken sceptic and has actively and openly criticised many of the woo beliefs in his TV shows, interviews and books. During the first event he has said at least two times that he doesn't believe in psychics. His blog even has almost a half page picture link advert for the UK Skeptics.
I just get the feeling you are not too familiar with the way he works, it can be a bit misleading at first. And they are well aware of that.
I am absolutely open to that possibility. We don't see him in Australia - until this anyway.
This particular event was promoted on one of our so-called "current affairs" shows (it usually promotes "psychics" and shows sceptics as dimwitted cynics). Then they showed excerpts from the event itself and tonight they summarised the reveal show. Given their regular audience (who I assume must buy the "psychics are real" message they usually push) I imagine a lot of viewers now think it's possible to predict Lotto if only someone will explain it properly. And I imagine there will be people out there only too willing to sell them that knowledge.
I'm aware of his reputation as a sceptic and this is why I'm open to something amazing happening and my concerns being blown out of the water. However, people outside the UK might well have been subjected to this event but will likely not get to see any belated revealing of the truth.
Something about it just leaves me feeling a bit "icky".
No, i'm not kidding. To mark the balls with a laser would require a laser "scanner" (same as used in regular laser shows, made of galvanometers and surface-reflective mirrors) and a computer to control it. The electronics could go havoc (burned out driver, for example), a mirror could come loose, the computer can crash.
You can plan as much as you like, but these things simply can happen, no matter what. As such, yes, there is a risk involved. And i guess that DB doesn't want to risk to loose his eye-sight, for example.
Sure, the risk may be low, but it is there. And powerful lasers are really no toys.
"Quite complicated" will suddenly become "quite brilliant" if DB shows the split screen to be false. Surely for magicians to continue to innovate the "complication" factor needs to increase.
Agreed. But also, the more complicated something gets, the more possible points of failure you get. And if they used any other method, why the fake shaking? In case of e-inked balls, why not DB standing behind the balls, so to rule out video tricks?
What i mean is, if they used any other method than split & freeze, they could have made a much better show. But they didn't. Sure, could be misdirection. But even then it could have been done better, i think.
I'm aware of his reputation as a sceptic and this is why I'm open to something amazing happening and my concerns being blown out of the water. However, people outside the UK might well have been subjected to this event but will likely not get to see any belated revealing of the truth.
Something about it just leaves me feeling a bit "icky".
Personally, I'm not expecting anything significant to happen anymore regarding the lottery (unless they decide to show the speculated and of course touched up missing footage from a year back on TV as well), the main show itself was amazing enough, it followed the tried and tested Derren formula and was brilliantly performed. Check it out on YouTube.
Apart from the fact that the Wisdom of Crowds is modestly sensible idea, based on sepcific precondition, Brown's "explanation" was clearly nonsense.
The concept of the Wisdom of Crowds" rests on the aggregation of information. Nobody had any information about the likely numbers. So everything ends there.
In addition, the fact that the program didn't even get the theory correct; going on and on about the mean value, when it is the median that is relevant. Fair enough, that in this context (nobody had any information and the choice was constrained between 1 and 40 precluding extreme outliers), but it was a blooper none the less.
Hold that phone. It wasn't Wisdom of Crowds, but here is a blogger who claims he was at the live recording of the "how I did it" program and says that there was evidence that he had "predicted" the numbers 12 months earlier.
The theory goes that the audience was shown a short film when he was outlining his "possibility #3" (he could have rigged it). This film was cut from the show that went to air.
The short film comprised Derren Brown in an open top bus in London at Christmas (the writer claims that it was clearly winter and the Oxford street Christmas lights were visible). Supposedly, in this film, Brown had 6 kids with him who held up 6 large numbered balls. Yes, those were the winning numbers.
The writer then goes on to claim that there is circumstantial evidence that Brown was filming for the current series in an ope top bus for this series a yar ago.
So, if he did have the number 12 months ago, a rig is the best solution. He couldn't have used multiple takes to fake that film, because there are too many combinations (e.g. to film even 10% of the possible combinations it would take 10 years to film at 24/7 using 5 minutes for each take.)
So if that blogger is telling the truth and such a (non-tampered) film was screened and you buy the claimed evidence that it was definately filmed before the craw (almost a year earlier), then Brown rigged the lottery.
ETA: Here are the reputed children, bus and Derren:
Hold that phone. It wasn't Wisdom of Crowds, but here is a blogger who claims he was at the live recording of the "how I did it" program and says that there was evidence that he had "predicted" the numbers 12 months earlier.
The theory goes that the audience was shown a short film when he was outlining his "possibility #3" (he could have rigged it). This film was cut from the show that went to air.
The short film comprised Derren Brown in an open top bus in London at Christmas (the writer claims that it was clearly winter and the Oxford street Christmas lights were visible). Supposedly, in this film, Brown had 6 kids with him who held up 6 large numbered balls. Yes, those were the winning numbers.
The writer then goes on to claim that there is circumstantial evidence that Brown was filming for the current series in an ope top bus for this series a yar ago.
So, if he did have the number 12 months ago, a rig is the best solution. He couldn't have used multiple takes to fake that film, because there are too many combinations (e.g. to film even 10% of the possible combinations it would take 10 years to film at 24/7 using 5 minutes for each take.)
So if that blogger is telling the truth and such a (non-tampered) film was screened and you buy the claimed evidence that it was definately filmed before the craw (almost a year earlier), then Brown rigged the lottery.
Usually, Derren has impressive tricks. This one was not. I wonder how many people actually believed his story about not being able to show the prediction before the lottery was drawn for legal reasons.
Actually his bit is perfectly true: Camelot own ALL media rights to the Lottery and you do not get broadcast (or re-broadcast) it without their consent. Were I Camelot's PR I would insist on an absolute condition of allowing re-broadcast that no predictions are issued before the actual event. To do otherwise would leave Camelot open to all sorts of attack (In fact were I the PR I wouldn't even have allowed what did happen without some pretty firm guarantees that nothing would happen to bring the Lottery into disrepute).
Remember: we DO NOT have the concept of Fair Use in UK law. Our concept of Fair Dealing is much narrower in scope and does not include entertainment as a fair dealing use.
The net result is the same, of course and rather convenient for the illusionist.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
