Derren Brown Trick or treat

[Azrael 5]

I know how the trick was done and there was no need for the gun to be deliberately "put off screen" at the time of firing.It was irrelevant.

And you're a buffoon.

 

[DJM]

Of course it would. Two of the more spectacular failures in television- Evil Knievil's failure to make the jump over Snake River in the 70's and David Blaine's failure to break the breath-holding record last year got lots of viewers, which means more advertising dollars, and the networks involved were very satisfied with the money they made. But it's nice to see that your ignorance extends to areas other than just magic methods and disclaimers.

If the Russian Roulette had gone wrong, they could have renamed the show Spill of the Mind.

 

[Garrette]

Posting for two reasons:

1. Bob Klase replied to skipjack's last post more succinctly than I could have, and I agree with him completely.

2. It's not really germane, but just to clarify in case I am asked in future: I misspoke when I said I know two methods for performing Russian Roulette. I do not. I know one method for Russian Roulette and one for Bullet Catch. The method I know for Bullet Catch works only with pellet guns.

 

[skipjack]

Brown met that responsibility.

No, he didn't; there's no illusion if you don't show that the firearm was loaded, and firing it off-screen doesn't do that. Whether firing it off-screen was accidental is irrelevant.

You state that as a known fact. It's not and you don't know what, if any, risk there was.

As I've pointed out before, it's the magician's responsibility to produce an illusion, not just theatre, not mine to prove anything. On the other hand, the police checked on any possible breach of Jersey law, and were convinced that (a) there would be no breach, and (b) there would be no danger either. It's reasonable to suppose that both are correct.

It's also reasonable to assume that he had done it before.

In secret? How can you secretly advertise for a loader, secretly appear on television, etc?

Two of the more spectacular failures in television- Evil Knievel's failure to make the jump over Snake River in the 70's and David Blaine's failure to break the breath-holding record last year got lots of viewers, which means more advertising dollars, and the networks involved were very satisfied with the money they made.

That's irrelevant. Those were very different circumstances, which are not comparable at all to what was just an elaborate magician's illusion.

 

[DJM]

Many people watching the show thought it was real.

The illusion worked.

(/End thread]

 

[skipjack]

The method I know for Bullet Catch works only with pellet guns.

Penn and Teller's version of Bullet Catch seems to work for them, although the televised version had certain key moments edited out!

Many people watching the show thought it was real.

So? Many would have thought it was real even if the gun hadn't been fired at the end!

The illusion worked.

A key part of the illusion - the final firing the gun - failed, as it was off-screen and not verified by the loader.

 

[Bob Klase]

No, he didn't

Yes, he did. He produced the illusion for millions of people- it's not his responsibility *to Skipjack's satisfaction*.

there's no illusion if you don't show that the firearm was loaded

Perhaps for you. For some people there's no illusion unless they are there live and load the gun themselves. Those people (and you) should find something better than watching television to occupy their time.

For millions of other people there was illusion- for most (perhaps all except you) he created the illusion of the firearm being loaded (or perhaps it wasn't an illusion- makes no difference if virtually everyone but you believed it was. Much like the illusion that the magician has sawed the lady in half- the illusion is successful even if he doesn't show the inside of the stomach and the intestines.

As I've pointed out before, it's the magician's responsibility to produce an illusion, not just theatre, not mine to prove anything.

No- as we've seen for 37 pages it's not even your responsibility to back up claims that you make without knowing whether they're true or not.

In secret?

Who said he had to do it in secret? Are you familiar with everything he's done in the past? If he's done illusions that you don't know about, does that mean it was done in secret?

How can you secretly advertise for a loader, secretly appear on television, etc?

Who said he'd done it "on television" before? Is it not possible to do things unless you've done them on television? Or do you just continue to look for any minor difference in anything said just so you can continue to believe that you have the slightest idea of what you're talking about?

That's irrelevant.

You are very fond of using that argument when you're wrong.

Those were very different circumstances,

They were failures on television. The TV networks were still happy because they go high ratings and made a lot of money. The only relevance in the different circumstance are (once again) in your mind.

 

[Bob Klase]

Penn and Teller's version of Bullet Catch seems to work for them, although the televised version had certain key moments edited out!

Which means nothing. I've seen them do it live and there was nothing important edited out.

Of course when you don't have the first idea of what you're talking about then you can always claim that "key moments" were edited out. But you don't even know what the key moments would be.

 

[DJM]

You are wrong, Skippy. People saw the gun being fired, as there was a smoke coming out. Smoke = gun fired. It might have been just a filming mistake, as they had nothing to hide about this. But people did get the impression the gun was fired, so please stop with yout usual nitpicking.

And verifying the gun at the end would have only ruined the illusion, and would have made the viewers start thinking that it might be just a trick. It ended the best way possible.

The way real Russian Roulettes games end in real life.. well usually.

 

[Garrette]

Penn and Teller's version of Bullet Catch seems to work for them, although the televised version had certain key moments edited out!

What possible relevance is this?

I've no idea how Penn and Teller do their bullet catch, but as they do it live more often than they do it on television, I'm fairly certain they do not rely on edits to make it happen.

So? Many would have thought it was real even if the gun hadn't been fired at the end!

True. It's possible they would be correct.

The Russian Roulette method I know can be performed with a real gun actually firing a real bullet actually at the time of the actual performance when the actual magician actually pulls the actual trigger.

Even if not right, it would mean the illusion was successful, no?

A key part of the illusion - the final firing the gun - failed, as it was off-screen and not verified by the loader.

For you. Not for most.

There are some things I've seen magicians do which do not impress me but which wow others to no end. There are performers I find boring and unenertaining but who have made quite comfortable livings do what they do (Max Maven is the one I'm thinking of now; I have some of his publications and appreciate knowing the methods, but his performances leave me cold and unimpressed.)


So what we're boiling down to are these things:

1. Skipjack thinks either or both the gun and bullet were fake. Instead of positing this as simply a possibility he asserts it as fact.

2. Skipjack thinks the presentation was faulty and presented no real illusion. Instead of stating this as his opinion he insists it must be true for all who saw the show.

 

[JonWhite]

There are some things I've seen magicians do which do not impress me but which wow others to no end. There are performers I find boring and unenertaining but who have made quite comfortable livings do what they do (Max Maven is the one I'm thinking of now; I have some of his publications and appreciate knowing the methods, but his performances leave me cold and unimpressed.

Derail:

I'm glad to read that, I thought it was just me! I admire Max Maven's written thoughts and devious methods enormously but he just does nothing for me in performance.

End of derail.

Back to Skippy endlessly nitpicking....

 

[DJM]

When I watch Max Maven, I just can't stop looking at his hair. Maybe that's why it's hard for me to concentrate on what he's actually doing.

Or maybe he's just boring.

 

[skipjack]

What possible relevance is this? I've no idea how Penn and Teller do their bullet catch, but as they do it live more often than they do it on television, I'm fairly certain they do not rely on edits to make it happen.

Penn goes into where the audience are seated to get the bullet initialled. For live shows, nobody gets a really good view of everything. For television, the camera follows Penn . . . except for a few moments. Those matter, since the TV audience is misled into thinking Penn doesn't have any opportunity to spirit away the bullet.

The Russian Roulette method I know . . . Even if not right, it would mean the illusion was successful, no?

No. The theatrical stuff was successful, but demonstrating the danger was real failed, since the gun wasn't fired on-screen or verified to have been fired. That's just what happened, and nothing to do with who is watching the video.

1. Skipjack thinks either or both the gun and bullet were fake. Instead of positing this as simply a possibility he asserts it as fact.

That's based on what the police said, as I made quite clear.

2. Skipjack thinks the presentation was faulty and presented no real illusion.

There is nothing on-screen to verify that the gun shown was what caused the bang at the end. It's irrelevant that some viewers didn't notice that the gun went off-screen.

 

[Bob Klase]

[More of the same uninformed and incorrect crap he's been droning on about for the last 38 pages]

So what's your point really? That you don't think it was a good trick? That you didn't like it? That was established 37 pages ago.

Nobody agrees with you and they never will while you're as ignorant about magic, theater, illusion, firearms, blanks, and virtually everything else that's been discussed as you've shown yourself to be.

 

[DJM]

There is nothing on-screen to verify that the gun shown was what caused the bang at the end. It's irrelevant that some viewers didn't notice that the gun went off-screen.

For the 3497438th time, the viewers saw the gun being fired as there was smoke coming out of it!!! So they know that the gun is what caused the bang!!

Are you trying to be annoying on purpose?!

 

[Azrael 5]

Skipjack is the only person who didn't see the smoke!!
Maybe he is a CT'er.
maybe the Bush organisation switched guns so Derren would lead himself open to ridicule and take attention away form the invasion of Iraq!

Skipjack I really want to hit you.Hard.
With a kipper.

(just incase I get modded for,I dunno,threatning or somehting.Surely even the mods can't disagree though!)

 

[DJM]

Maybe it was the smoke from Lost that some people can't see!

 

[skipjack]

the viewers saw the gun being fired as there was smoke coming out of it! So they know that the gun is what caused the bang!

No, the viewers saw the gun go off-screen, then heard a bang. They didn't see the gun being fired. Seeing smoke and hearing a bang suggests a gun was fired. It doesn't show that it was the gun that Derren held, which was in the vicinity of any smoke only momentarily, and wasn't smoking once it came clearly into view again.

 

[DJM]

WTF are you talking about?!!?!? The viewers see smoke once Derren fires the gun and hear the bang at the exact same time, the same way the viewers saw smoke and heard the bang when the armorer shot it a few minutes before that. That makes it obvious to anyone with half a brain that Derren fires the gun and this is what creates the bang!!

Do you even listen to yourself?! Don't you see your posts just don't make any sense?!

Loon.

 

[Garrette]

In the interests of absolute fairness, I must admit that skipjack is technically correct.

It is within the realm of non-paranormal possibility that Derren did not actually fire the gun he was holding in his hand went off screen.

That being said, I'm pretty sure he did.