Derren Brown Trick or treat

[DJM]

Wow, you just did it again. You quoted Azrael 5, but ignored his most important question, a question he already asked you before. But just like a child who can't make real arguments, you just choose to ignore it again. Pretty lame if you ask me.

You still have not given explanation as to why Derren would need such a person? You assume he couldn't-if he wished-find a prop gun that emitted smoke? Hollywood films are full of them.

I won't be surprised if you ignore it again, as you usually do when you don't know what to say.

How can smoke have an angle?

He was obviously talking about the angle of the gun the smoke was coming from. But because you can't even see the smoke, it's pointless for you to even comment on this issue as you are clueless about it all.

I didn't state that either; I stated there could have been edits, as the performance was not live, as suggested at the time, but in delay.

A minute later you claim this:

A camera change allows editing, so you don't know how much time elapsed. When the "wide view" shot mentioned above occurs, apparently only about a second later, how come the smoke is no longer visible?

This time you sound pretty sure that there was an edit. As for your smoke question, it could be seen for 1-2 seconds after Derren pulled the trigger. So it makes sense we wouldn't see the smoke anymore when it's already on the table. Usually smoke doesn't last that long after you shoot it, at least not in an obvious way.


By the way, your edit theories are laughable. Magicians have been performing the Russian Roulette live on stage for ages. Your theory that Derre might have needed to use an edit is like saying a magician always needs to wear sleeves to make things disapear.

Please come back to us when you know something about magic, you are just making a fool of yourself.

 

[Azrael 5]

Derren had a gay old time fooling you skipjack.Like his buddies Clive and Eugene.

 

[skipjack]

. . . but ignored his most important question

about my assumptions or what?

He was obviously talking about the angle of the gun the smoke was coming from.

How is that relevant since the gun has moved a considerable distance before it comes into view again, and isn't smoking once it is in view?

Magicians have been performing the Russian Roulette live on stage for ages.

So why did Simon Drake choose such an inferior version (according to you)? Also, how did firing the gun off-screen improve Derren's presentation?

 

[Garrette]

Enough of this talking about the OP. Back to something important:

I can't find my copy of DB's "Tricks of the Mind." (Seriously). It is impossible that I simply misplaced it in the clutter I call a home or that I left it at one of the places I took to read it (the horror!)

So what I want to know is

WHICH ONE OF YOU USED CAMERA EDITS TO STEAL MY BOOK!


And I'm only about half way through it...

 

[Azrael 5]

I use NLP to make you forget where you left it so I could steal it.Mainly so I could figure out how the floating table photo was achieved.

Skipjack the question you have to answer convincingly is this;"Why would Derren need-according to you-a sound effect for a gun shot,a second gun or man with smoke machine to create gunshot smoke? When I'm sure perfectly capable film prop guns which fire and produce smoke would suffice-should his requirements need it.

Do guns that fire blanks(ref:Jersey police)not produce smoke? Starting pistols even produce smoke!
Your argument is foolish.You admit to not even seeing smoke so how can you argue against it?!

Originally Posted by Azrael 5
As I recall you stated James was a stooge

You recall incorrectly, then, as I didn't state that.

Well if James -who was clearly relieved for it to be over at the end(he clearly puts his hand to his heart)-saw a second gun/person enter the room he is clearly a stooge.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8YAIMVjHtG8

Watch again at 4:36-7 Derren in view, gun in hand ,fires gun,smoke is seen,Derren slams gun on table and never leaves the frame of view at all for the rest of the programme.
Where is the edit?! Im no film editor but there is no opportunity for an edit.
DERREN IS IN VIEW FROM THE MOMENT HE FIRES THE GUN TO THE CREDITS ROLLING! THERE IS NO EDIT!

 

[DJM]

I think he's talking about the shot from the different camera angle at 4:38.. Which can't be an edit since you can see him putting the gun at the exact same second as the previous shot. It would have been very hard to edit it that way to make it seem so smooth. And pretty much a waste of time.

So not only Skippy doesn't knows anything about magic, that also go for editing.

about my assumptions or what?

Not sure what you mean. But my own assumptions, based on this long thread, is that you almost know nothing about magic or mentalism. And you are the kind of kind person who would think of the most absurd and difficult method to acheive something, rather than the real secret.. which is usually pretty simple and easy.

The secret of the Russian Roullete is pretty much simple, it's a trick. I have to laugh every time you mention a possible edit or second gun, because Derren would need to be the worst magician in the world to do it this way.. when it can done by using a mich easier and faster method. So like I've said before, you are making a fool of yourself.

How is that relevant since the gun has moved a considerable distance before it comes into view again, and isn't smoking once it is in view?

Once again, stop commenting about this issue since you can't even see the smoke at any time. It's like discussing a sleight of hand move with you, when you can't even see the move.

So why did Simon Drake choose such an inferior version (according to you)? Also, how did firing the gun off-screen improve Derren's presentation?

I didn't say he chose an inferior version, only that his presentation sucked and it all went pretty fast.. Not much suspense like with Derren. It's all about the presentation. The method itself Simon chose is very good.

There are many magicians who choose Derren's version, without using some kind of mirror, and obviously no edits because it's on stage.

Now you see why you sound so ignorant here?

 

[skipjack]

Skipjack the question you have to answer convincingly is this: Why would Derren need-according to you-a sound effect for a gun shot,a second gun or man with smoke machine to create gunshot smoke?

I didn't state he needed to do that; I stated he "fired" off-screen for no apparent reason, and there was a change of camera used immediately afterwards. If you think he didn't need to do either, what reason can you offer for his not showing everything, as had been done shortly before in relation to pulling the trigger on chamber 5?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8YAIMVjHtG8

Watch again at 4:36-7 Derren in view, gun in hand ,fires gun, smoke is seen, Derren slams gun on table and never leaves the frame of view at all for the rest of the programme.

It's irrelevant that Derren stays in view. There are several changes of camera used, including one change immediately after Derren has apparently fired (off-screen). Derren is still at that point - apparently only briefly, but the camera change means that the viewers don't know that some time hasn't been edited out.

I think he's talking about the shot from the different camera angle at 4:38.. Which can't be an edit since you can see him putting the gun at the exact same second as the previous shot.

The change of camera angle was due to use of a different camera. It's just a question of whether some of what was filmed by the first camera was omitted. You wouldn't notice such an edit if Derren wasn't moving at the time. If he stays in the same place, but that is edited out, he seems not to pause. At the camera changes, it doesn't appear completely smooth as you suggest. What does "putting the gun at the exact same second as the previous shot" mean? It's bound to be the case that successive camera shots appear to occur without a break, but that doesn't imply that no break occurred. The phrase "putting the gun" doesn't make sense.

. . . it can done by using a much easier and faster method.

That's irrelevant; I'm not saying the method involved editing, but that the presentation, for no apparent reason, allows editing, whereas the gun remained in view when Derren clicked on chamber 5.

It's also irrelevant what James saw; since he wasn't asked, he didn't need to have agreed to anything in advance. So he didn't need to have been a stooge on that account, but he wasn't much use as a witness either, for the same reason that he wasn't asked to give details of what he did and saw.

I didn't say he chose an inferior version, only that his presentation sucked and it all went pretty fast.. Not much suspense like with Derren.

You are saying that Simon's presentation was inferior, and that means his version was inferior, since the presentation is a very important part of the version.

You've given no reason why Derren fired off-screen - how did that improve his presentation?

 

[DJM]

Oh God, the show happened in 2003, let it it go already. You just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again, and most people don't even care about this issue anymore.

Derren is a lousy mentalist who uses obvious methods, ok? Is that what you want to hear? Here, you got it. Now you can feel better about your life.

 

[Azrael 5]

skipajck I've grown tired of you.You are obsessed with edits.Here is where you claimed a second gun:

Even without those extra seconds, an assistant could quickly move any second gun out of view of the camera while Derren is being shown getting up out of his chair.

So this statement:

I didn't state he needed to do that

Is a lie.

Derren is still at that point - apparently only briefly, but the camera change means that the viewers don't know that some time hasn't been edited out.

4 mins 36 seconds to 4:37 is one continous movement of Derren camera cuts are not edits!

There were no edits.I know how the trick is done,and the wether gun is on screen or off has no bearing on the method.
You go away for a week and come back with beligerent buffoonery fitting of someone with no grasp of reality.

Hence forth I'm placing you on ignore.

You have no idea what you talk about.
Look up these words dumb;stupid;vegetable;brainless;imbecile.

 

[skipjack]

I've grown tired of you.You are obsessed with edits.Here is where you claimed a second gun: "an assistant could quickly move any second gun out of view of the camera".

As you know, "could quickly move" means that something is possible, not that Derren needed to have done things that way.

4 mins 36 seconds to 4:37 is one continuous movement of Derren; camera cuts are not edits!

Editing is not necessarily "editing out". By definition, if there is a change of camera, the movement shown is not continuous. It's impossible for the viewer to tell whether the edit is just a camera change or also an omission of some of what happened. You seem unable to answer my question: "How does firing off-screen and then switching the camera used improve Derren's presentation? Neither was necessary for what happened in respect of chamber 5, so what benefit was there in doing things differently for the final chamber?"

.I know how the trick is done,and whether the gun is on screen or off has no bearing on the method.

I haven't disputed that. I am just pointing out that firing off-screen means that the key moment the viewers are waiting for isn't shown! They're left to assume Derren fired the gun because there was a bang and possibly a little smoke visible (if the viewer didn't blink). What a let-down!

DJM is making the same mistake of thinking I am discussing Derren's method (of avoiding shooting himself). I am not; I am referring to a seemingly unnecessary choice of camera view that results in the gun being off-screen at the key moment, when we know that another camera (used shortly before) would have shown it.

 

[DJM]

So this statement:

Originally Posted by skipjack
I didn't state he needed to do that


Is a lie.

There's nothing new about that.. he's been lying and changing his stories for the last 11 pages in this thread. Maybe he's been telling so many different stories that he can't even remember most of it anymore.

Skippy, you've stated a few times that Derren used a second gun and the help of an extra person for that. In the first pages you talked about Derren using an audio effect to make it seem like he really fired the gun.

So no one is going to take you seriously anymore now that you denied stating that. Not that they ever did. And now you are saying that you never meant to talk about his methods? That's all you ever did until awhile ago, so it's another lie. You just changed your story again.

I think I'm going to ignore you from now on. I don't like when someone lies to me and no real discussion is going to happen when talking to people like you. Enjoy changing your stories and arguments every 5 seconds, I got tired of that.

 

[skipjack]

you've stated a few times that Derren used a second gun and the help of an extra person for that. In the first pages you talked about Derren using an audio effect to make it seem like he really fired the gun.

I stated the possibilities, given that Derren didn't fire the gun on-screen, not that those possibilities were definitely what happened. What "really" happened doesn't matter. You are avoiding my recent question: how does firing off-screen and then making rapid camera changes improve the presentation? After the very lengthy build-up, don't the viewers deserve to see the gun fired by Derren rather than a shot of Derren's sleeve?

 

[DJM]

I already answered you that question. That it doesn't matter, and it was most likely a mistake in filming. It has nothing to do with the method itself. Remember that they used remote cameras, as the cameramen left during that time. I already answered that weeks ago. You keep asking people to repeat themselves, which is pretty annoying. Or maybe you just don't listen to what people tell you.

And once again, it's been 4 years since the show. Try to find something else to whine about as you usually do.

 

[Baker]

How is everyone I saw couple of Derren Browns TV show on sci fi and was searching the net to get more information on him when I realized that by now he must be covered well here.
Plus where else could I find a more intense discussion on him once again you guys haven't let me down I'm going to go through some of the other threads on him before I make my comment.

 

[Baker]

Trick or Treat started on Channel 4 on 13 April 2007. The focus of the show is on one volunteer that either receives a good experience or a bad experience. The experience the volunteer receives is decided by which card they choose. If they choose the card that says 'Trick' they receive a bad experience and if they choose the card that says 'Treat' they receive a good experience.


"Trick"/"Treat" AmbigramThe cards which Brown uses on this show are deceptive as they are rotational ambigrams and can read either 'Trick' and 'Treat' depending on which way up Brown chooses to hold the cards, and thus the card chosen by the participant is irrelevant, in terms of the following events. An example can be found in the second episode, where Brown, when showing the cards to the volunteer to demonstrate the options, flips the cards around the horizontal axis, but once the volunteer picked his card, revealed the card to the audience by flipping the card around the vertical axis, so that it would read "Trick" rather than "Treat". In a later episode, a card is rotated in full view and the 'trick' becomes apparent. In another episode, he rotates both cards, so no matter what, they read 'trick'.

Episodes of Trick or Treat are not preceded by Brown's usual claim that no actors or stooges were used in the filming of the shows. Indeed, some participants (such as the ambulance crew in the last episode) are declared to be actors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derren_Brown

Well didn't mean to kill the thread since no one is replying I have nothing to lose right!

I came across this on wikipedia yes they where only actors used to help convince the subject but it shows at times they were used but there is still no proof the subjects where actors but in this series part of his staff were.

So it does make you wonder how often they are used.

 

[Bob Klase]

Episodes of Trick or Treat are not preceded by Brown's usual claim that no actors or stooges were used in the filming of the shows. Indeed, some participants (such as the ambulance crew in the last episode) are declared to be actors.

but it shows at times they were used but there is still no proof the subjects where actors but in this series part of his staff were.

So it does make you wonder how often they are used.

What makes you wonder how often? The fact that they actually told you about some participants (such as the ambulance crew)? Or the fact that there's no disclaimer in that show (which would obviously be a lie since they're telling you about the ones that are)? Or the fact that they do use a disclaimer in other shows and there's really no evidence that it's false?

 

[DJM]

I have a feeling that Baker might be Skippy's brother.

 

[Azrael 5]

I have a feeling that Baker might be Skippy's brother.

Please no! I can't imagine another 14 pages of drivel!

 

[Baker]

What makes you wonder how often? The fact that they actually told you about some participants (such as the ambulance crew)? Or the fact that there's no disclaimer in that show (which would obviously be a lie since they're telling you about the ones that are)? Or the fact that they do use a disclaimer in other shows and there's really no evidence that it's false?

I never said it was false or that Derren is a fraud but as most TV shows on the subject we often speculate or question the methods plus I didn't want be the one to kill the thread.
Since you brought up what was the disclaimer in the Trick or treat series and the Mind control series?

 

[3point14]

I cannot believe you're still at this!