Derren Brown Trick or treat
- Thread starter oglommi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- derren brown
But you didn't ask anyone who had used a lock of that type, right? Anyone who has, or who has opened a safe with that style of lock, or who remembers the description of a combination lock in the book Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! would be aware that the opening procedure is quite complex, and so Derren's simple instructions wouldn't have sufficed.
Well, you seem like a big expert on locks and you still considered that it might be some kind of psychological force a few days ago.
It's only now that you suddenly give all the "opening combination locks is comlpex and others would have a problem to open it just like that." But I guess it wasn't so obvious for you, because it's something that you only mentioned today, 4 days later. And that's probably only after you've watched that video a few times.
I find it really funny reading your posts, because each one makes you seem even more foolish than before.. But you can keep it up if you want.
It's only now that you suddenly give all the "opening combination locks is comlpex and others would have a problem to open it just like that." But I guess it wasn't so obvious for you, because it's something that you only mentioned today, 4 days later. And that's probably only after you've watched that video a few times.
I find it really funny reading your posts, because each one makes you seem even more foolish than before.. But you can keep it up if you want.
Bob Klase
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2002
- Messages
- 2,937
I haven't posted in this thread since I haven't seen the show, but I'm not sure what your claiming there. Are you saying:
a- The camera showed the dial being turned and the spectator turned it wrong way?
or
b- Since Darren wouldn't know which way to turn the dial since Darren didn't tell them?
If you're claiming 'b' then you've countered your own statement when you claim:
Since most people have used a real lock then it's likely that most people would know which way to turn the dial without being told.
Why would few members of the live audience know that? Are members of the live audience polled for a lack of knowing anything that's common knowledge among most people?
Based on your entire history through this thread I'd have to conclude (even without seeing the show) that you either know very little about magic in general or you have no experience in what audience members think when they see magic- or both.
You misquoted me, DJM. I didn't post "others would have a problem to open it just like that" or anything like it.
If you've used a real lock, you know how to unlock it, so you would instantly notice when opening instructions are faked. There's nothing surprising about that and no special expertise is needed. Hence Derren's presentation would be unsuitable for use in the U.S.A., where such locks are quite common.
Bob Klase, the camera didn't provide a close-up of the dial being turned. Darren didn't specify a direction and the spectator didn't ask him which direction to use. She seemed unaware that more detailed instructions would be needed to unlock a real lock using a valid combination, since she dialled the numbers too quickly to have used the correct method. My comment about the live audience was based on the fact that it was a UK audience. Locks of that type are uncommon in the UK, so most members of the UK audience would not recognize that the instructions Derren gave were inadequate.
If you've used a real lock, you know how to unlock it, so you would instantly notice when opening instructions are faked. There's nothing surprising about that and no special expertise is needed. Hence Derren's presentation would be unsuitable for use in the U.S.A., where such locks are quite common.
Bob Klase, the camera didn't provide a close-up of the dial being turned. Darren didn't specify a direction and the spectator didn't ask him which direction to use. She seemed unaware that more detailed instructions would be needed to unlock a real lock using a valid combination, since she dialled the numbers too quickly to have used the correct method. My comment about the live audience was based on the fact that it was a UK audience. Locks of that type are uncommon in the UK, so most members of the UK audience would not recognize that the instructions Derren gave were inadequate.
Last edited:
I didn't misquote you, Skipjack. I even gave you a direct quote from you to show exactly what I mean.
But I'll say it again in different words. You think those who are already familiar with padlocks would know without a problem that it's fake, because it's not possible for someone to just know the exact directions of the combination in the lock, at least not with Derren's instructions.
But like I said in the other post, you seem like an expert about locks, and you didn't notice anything strange with that when you first watched the show.. even in this thread it took you 4 whole days to bring up this side of the story. Not only that, in the beginning you even thought that it might be a psychological force. So to say that this effect is pretty obvious is far from the truth, because it wasn't obvious to you at all.
You can't suddenly change all the things that you've said.. that's the problem with the internet, it's all saved. That's why it's useless to try and deny everything and will only make you seem like a bigger fool (if it's possible).
But I'll say it again in different words. You think those who are already familiar with padlocks would know without a problem that it's fake, because it's not possible for someone to just know the exact directions of the combination in the lock, at least not with Derren's instructions.
But like I said in the other post, you seem like an expert about locks, and you didn't notice anything strange with that when you first watched the show.. even in this thread it took you 4 whole days to bring up this side of the story. Not only that, in the beginning you even thought that it might be a psychological force. So to say that this effect is pretty obvious is far from the truth, because it wasn't obvious to you at all.
You can't suddenly change all the things that you've said.. that's the problem with the internet, it's all saved. That's why it's useless to try and deny everything and will only make you seem like a bigger fool (if it's possible).
You did misquote me; you invented words I didn't use. I said Derren's instructions wouldn't suffice, which is true in respect of correctly implementing a valid combination. I didn't say I didn't notice anything strange with that when I first watched the show. In fact, I recognized the dialling of the combination as fake immediately when I first saw the show on television.
It's not just the direction of rotation which needs to be specified, but how many occurrences of the number dialled need to be counted, as I've already stated.
I didn't post that amount of detail earlier because I was hoping for opinions that weren't influenced by that. I never suggested the effect used a psychological force. Psychology/misdirection/showmanship is relevant when the effect is accomplished using a real lock, but not to force anything - rather to give the impression that a valid combination needs to be found.
It's not just the direction of rotation which needs to be specified, but how many occurrences of the number dialled need to be counted, as I've already stated.
I didn't post that amount of detail earlier because I was hoping for opinions that weren't influenced by that. I never suggested the effect used a psychological force. Psychology/misdirection/showmanship is relevant when the effect is accomplished using a real lock, but not to force anything - rather to give the impression that a valid combination needs to be found.
Last edited:
Oh come on, I can't even believe you just said that. Just to remind you, the people here are not 6 years old and explaining all your contradiction by saying that you didn't want us to be influenced by your true opinions is just pathetic. Please don't insult our intelligence this way.
And about the force, here's again your quote (in case you forgot, since I wrote it like 5 posts ago):
In case you forgot it in the last 5 seconds, here it is again:
(b) trickery to force the choice of a valid combination.
And here's another quote from you from a few days ago:
It's obvious from this part that you were still not sure about how this effect is done, even was still open for the possibilty that there was some kind of force involved (notice that you said very hard, instead of impossible). And it's also obvious that you were not even thinking about the directions of the padlock, because you would have already mentioned that option ages ago. And if you did think of that all long, why would you waste our time in the last few days if you already knew it was all about the lock itself and nothing else? I doubt you would do that, or at least I hope so, because that would make you seem even worse.
So please don't give us your lame excuses anymore, it's getting sad to see.
Immediately after quoting my "(a) - (f)" question, you alleged that I had stated "others would have a problem to open it just like that", which I had never written, and that was the misquote that I was referring to.
The "(a) - (f)" post was a question put to pmckean, not a statement of my own beliefs. The options deliberately varied considerably in plausibility. There was no attempt to cover explicitly every conceivable explanation, which was why options (e) and (f) were included. In particular, I intended that post to give very little away as to my own views, since that would certainly have tended to bias any replies. As it happens, pmckean chose not to reply.
Asking a question without stating my own views does not amount to contradicting myself.
However, thanks for pointing out that I also wrote "very risky" later on. I am happy to change that to "risky". When I wrote "seemed very hard", I wasn't trying to imply "but faintly possible"; I simply used the kind of wording which might well have come to the mind of some member of the audience who was trying to understand how the effect could have been accomplished.
I haven't said at all that I am sure how the effect was done, only how I suspect it was done, based on my experiences with a lock I possessed and experimented with. I've also said that once the magician somehow enables a trick lock to be opened, the spectator might simply open it without having dialled her guessed combination.
If it is assumed that the effect is a conjuring trick, attention must focus on what seemed to be the only relevant object used - the lock, i.e., the lock would be suspected of having been specially prepared. Our difference of opinion is then over the nature of what special preparation of the lock is necessary.
The "(a) - (f)" post was a question put to pmckean, not a statement of my own beliefs. The options deliberately varied considerably in plausibility. There was no attempt to cover explicitly every conceivable explanation, which was why options (e) and (f) were included. In particular, I intended that post to give very little away as to my own views, since that would certainly have tended to bias any replies. As it happens, pmckean chose not to reply.
Asking a question without stating my own views does not amount to contradicting myself.
However, thanks for pointing out that I also wrote "very risky" later on. I am happy to change that to "risky". When I wrote "seemed very hard", I wasn't trying to imply "but faintly possible"; I simply used the kind of wording which might well have come to the mind of some member of the audience who was trying to understand how the effect could have been accomplished.
I haven't said at all that I am sure how the effect was done, only how I suspect it was done, based on my experiences with a lock I possessed and experimented with. I've also said that once the magician somehow enables a trick lock to be opened, the spectator might simply open it without having dialled her guessed combination.
If it is assumed that the effect is a conjuring trick, attention must focus on what seemed to be the only relevant object used - the lock, i.e., the lock would be suspected of having been specially prepared. Our difference of opinion is then over the nature of what special preparation of the lock is necessary.
Azrael 5
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2003
- Messages
- 6,106
So you are stating that because you once had a similiar lock that opened by tugging it,that all same locks must open that way? If one Ford car(for example)has a faulty headlight does that mean all Ford car's do?
Your whole debate-of last two pages at least-revolves around some inane fact that you owned a similiar lock that opened when pulled(was this a fault or do all that brand do this?).
Some questions to answer skipjack:
1.Why would a professional performer risk the denoument of his stage show being ruined by a dogy lock that a spectator can "pull and it will open" ?
2.Seeing as Derren uses magic props/gimmicks for all his big effects,and he is in fact a magician is it not therefore highly likely that the lock is such a prop?
For those like Bob Klase who haven't seen the video here it is-note how this is the huge climax to the show and everything that has happened before relies on that case being unopened.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=My67277vaGk&mode=related&search=
I am not saying that. In normal use, a real Yale lock can't be opened that way. Some preparation, which I'm not divulging, is needed.
I've already provided a link (repeated below) for viewing the video of that show.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1402638741983898688&hl=en
I've already provided a link (repeated below) for viewing the video of that show.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1402638741983898688&hl=en
Last edited:
Derren's original instructions (slightly abbreviated) regarding the lock were as shown below.
"Your job is to bring the briefcase back in one piece at the end of the show. All right? Now... Hang on! Hang on! . . . Your job during the interval is to try and work out the combination on the lock. . . All right? . . . It's a combination lock. . . It's very simple. You get a number in your head - you turn it to that number . . . all right? . . . so you get a 14 in your head; you turn it to 14, yep, or whatever the number is, and you'll need three of those numbers to open the lock. It's not a challenge to force it open, but I would like you to try and work it out."
Note that the use of force is specifically discouraged, the emphasis being on finding the combination. However, no mention is made of direction of rotation, etc. Why pay for a relatively foolproof trick lock, but then slip up by giving instructions for unlocking it which are obviously wrong to anyone who has used a real lock of that type?
Towards the end of the show, the spectator chose the numbers 1, 24 and 15. She changed 15 to 13 after Derren noticed slight hesitation on her choice of the final number. Overall, it took about one minute to get the lock open, and Derren never offered an explanation of how the numbers of the combination might have been suggested to her earlier.
"Your job is to bring the briefcase back in one piece at the end of the show. All right? Now... Hang on! Hang on! . . . Your job during the interval is to try and work out the combination on the lock. . . All right? . . . It's a combination lock. . . It's very simple. You get a number in your head - you turn it to that number . . . all right? . . . so you get a 14 in your head; you turn it to 14, yep, or whatever the number is, and you'll need three of those numbers to open the lock. It's not a challenge to force it open, but I would like you to try and work it out."
Note that the use of force is specifically discouraged, the emphasis being on finding the combination. However, no mention is made of direction of rotation, etc. Why pay for a relatively foolproof trick lock, but then slip up by giving instructions for unlocking it which are obviously wrong to anyone who has used a real lock of that type?
Towards the end of the show, the spectator chose the numbers 1, 24 and 15. She changed 15 to 13 after Derren noticed slight hesitation on her choice of the final number. Overall, it took about one minute to get the lock open, and Derren never offered an explanation of how the numbers of the combination might have been suggested to her earlier.
Skipjack, I watched the video again to see why the heck you keep complaining about Derren's presentation. Especially when Derren takes his job very seriously and spends so much time and energy to make everything seem as flawless as possible.
So, after watching the video again I wasn't really surprised to see that.. you are WRONG again, for God only knows how many times.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=My67277vaGk&mode=related&search
At about 2:16 after he tells her to look at him, he moves his head side to side and then up and down.. the reason for that is to "force" the directions of the combination. He does it in a clever way so not to make it seem obvious he does it, which is exactly what Suggestion and psychological force is all about.
Obviously this really doesn't have to do with the trick itself, but it does give the impression that he makes her know the numbers by forcing it with his voice and eyes, and forcing the direction of the combination by moving his HEAD to the way she should open it. The audience can't really see the lock clearly, so she can move it annywhere she likes and they won't notice.
So there's no mistake in that part.. on the contrary, he shows how clever he is by misdirecting the audience in thinking that he does influence all her choises. So everything you said about Derren not giving any instructions for the directions is false, only he's too smart for you to realise that.
Congrats dude, you are now officially the joke of this board.
So, after watching the video again I wasn't really surprised to see that.. you are WRONG again, for God only knows how many times.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=My67277vaGk&mode=related&search
At about 2:16 after he tells her to look at him, he moves his head side to side and then up and down.. the reason for that is to "force" the directions of the combination. He does it in a clever way so not to make it seem obvious he does it, which is exactly what Suggestion and psychological force is all about.
Obviously this really doesn't have to do with the trick itself, but it does give the impression that he makes her know the numbers by forcing it with his voice and eyes, and forcing the direction of the combination by moving his HEAD to the way she should open it. The audience can't really see the lock clearly, so she can move it annywhere she likes and they won't notice.
So there's no mistake in that part.. on the contrary, he shows how clever he is by misdirecting the audience in thinking that he does influence all her choises. So everything you said about Derren not giving any instructions for the directions is false, only he's too smart for you to realise that.
Congrats dude, you are now officially the joke of this board.
Azrael 5
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2003
- Messages
- 6,106
Seeinga s the audience can't even see the lock and even if they could would they be so inane as to think "ooh that type of lock doesnt work that way" Could it be she would try various methods of inputting the numbers using her own inteligence? Soemeone gave you a locked briefcase with instructions taht a set of numbers would open it,and were determined,you would try left ,right,left left,right left right.Etc.
People don't need spoonfeeding simple things.Here's a lock try open it!
He says "pretend you're psychic,like a game,let the numbers just pop into your head."
You would think you would watch your own posted video before making comments.
So she's not spoonfed, but she's not given the correct procedure even when she's back up on the stage and does open the lock. There's therefore still an obvious mistake for people in the TV audience to spot.
Saying "pretend your psychic", etc., is hardly an explanation, since having to pretend acknowledges that she isn't really psychic. In contrast, Derren does, albeit rather non-seriously, offer explanations of how he'd suggested numbers that were used in the lengthy newspaper prediction that he performed. There isn't a specific mistake which proves that a particular newspaper isn't genuine, but instead a prop.
If someone chooses to watch the video closely, DJM, it's clear that the spectator doesn't follow the correct opening procedure, so whether there's any significance in Derren's nodding is irrelevant. My point is that anyone who has used a real lock of that type will know that the correct procedure is elaborate, and will be able to deduce immediately that the unlocking of the lock in the show is fake.
Saying "pretend your psychic", etc., is hardly an explanation, since having to pretend acknowledges that she isn't really psychic. In contrast, Derren does, albeit rather non-seriously, offer explanations of how he'd suggested numbers that were used in the lengthy newspaper prediction that he performed. There isn't a specific mistake which proves that a particular newspaper isn't genuine, but instead a prop.
If someone chooses to watch the video closely, DJM, it's clear that the spectator doesn't follow the correct opening procedure, so whether there's any significance in Derren's nodding is irrelevant. My point is that anyone who has used a real lock of that type will know that the correct procedure is elaborate, and will be able to deduce immediately that the unlocking of the lock in the show is fake.
Last edited:
Something Wicked was a long running stage show, it wasn't created for TV so the real audiece couldn't watch it closely. The TV broadcast was only an afterthought. And even if you watch the video a few times, you still can't tell the exact way the girl opens the lock, because the camera is far away from it. Maybe it was done on purpose so that nitpickers like you won't complain.
Besides, you can find out the secret about almost every trick if you watch the video closely a few times and analize everything, including the newspapers effect that you mentioned. But some poeple just like to relax and have fun.. maybe you should try it sometime.
