Forthcoming UK TV - Derren Brown Seance

Undodog said:

Again. This example is what confuses most people. The whole bit about placing objects/pictures..etc around the ad people's taxi ride was ALL A LIE (magician's patter). Its ages since this was on but at the time I noticed that the camera never cleanly pans from the guys in the taxi to something Derren placed outside. They were edited in.
You saw a very old trick you MUST have seen before presented in an original way.
"Draw me a picture - Here is what I drew earlier, in a sealed envelope." Come on!
Why are people falling for this? I thought we had some critical thinking here.
Click to expand...

The fact that the camera work was edited in later does not imply anything about what the guys saw on their way to the office.

Do you think that the trick wouldn't have worked as it was explained? 'Cos I wouldn't be so sure of that.
 
I think it must have been something similar when he got the ladies from the audience (when I saw him live) to "read" personal information from soem belongings of his "dead friend".

I was still entertained. I don't have to look behind the curtain. I'm just pleased he's admitting that there aren't dead people talking to him, only live ones by accident.
 
Of course they were edited in; it would have been too bloody obvious otherwise..

I have the DVD of this at home, and Derren does say on this and in a number of interviews i've seen with him, that this is the hardest thing he's ever done, and it required an absurd amount of preparation. Forgive my ignorance, but it does appear to me that the trick was conducted in exactly the way he described. I don't see the point of doing it otherwise, apart from the fact it looked impressive - is this what you mean by cheating? Well even if he did a simple trick and obfuscated it, it impressed me nonetheless.. Just because you know how something is done, if it's executed well, it really doesn't matter.
 
LillyThePink said:
The way that things have been presented made an awful lot of people believe that the show was X Y or Z - this is the trickery.

Did you see the "Mind Control" programme where he got a bunch of advertising execs to draw EXACTLY what he wanted, and explained how it was done subliminally? Thats psychological suggestion, Ian, not trickery.
Click to expand...


How the f*ck do we know that??? He's cheating a lot of the time so who's to say he isn't cheating there also?? He produces something which is extremely surprising. We know he cheats on a lot of occasions, therefore what should we believe happened on this occasion??

If a medium is caught cheating then I accept that it might well be the case that s/he hasn't cheated on other occasions. But it's going to make me a damn less likely to believe her/him! Why on earth should I treat Derren Brown any differently?


Also, I'd be grateful if you could answer my other question about Copperfield. Thanks
Click to expand...

Coperfield? Who's he? I might have answered it above. I'm reading and responding to these posts in order.
 
LOL. Magicians that cheat?! Say it isn't so!!

Isn't it understood that prestigidation is the art of cheating for entertainment? I always know the magician is cheating, but I certainly don't complain. What's next, Ian? Are you going to complain that casinos stack the odds in their favor?!
 
digital goldfish said:


I see your point, but please..

As Derren pointed out, The Fox sisters started the spiritualism craze, and then on their death bed, one of them admitted it was all trickery, and they all wished they'd never started it..

Click to expand...


Oh yes?? What did the other say? Did she also admit it was trickery?? If not what reason do you think that the one who said it was trickerey is more honest than the one who claims it was genuine??


Sadly the onus is on people that propose the proposterous to provide reaosnable proof;
Click to expand...

You can think what you like. I simply say show this is so. I do not accept your axioms.


While absence of evidence may not be evidence for absence, it's still a fairly sensible starting point IMHO..
Click to expand...

Yet again skeptics demonstate their inability to understand the difference between evidence and proof.
 
Lothian said:
His website says he is an a psychological illusionist. You know what an illusionist is I presume.

Entertainment.
Click to expand...

I presumed that psychological illusionist would mean using psychological means to produce an illusion. I wouldn't presume it means flat out cheating.

And your post was a non-sequitur
 
He doesn’t claim to be a mind-reader, instead he describes his craft as a mixture of applied psychology, magic, misdirection and showmanship.
Click to expand...

http://www.derrenbrown.co.uk/home.asp

A little bit of this, alittle bit of that. Do you expect him to tell you how he does all of his tricks? Would you expect any magician to tell you how he does his tricks?
 
Although Derren Brown is quite entertaining, I agree with Clancie and Ian.

He does tend to say that his tricks are performed by psychological technique only, and insists that there are no stooges, technological trickery or creative editing - but quite often, that is clearly not the case.

It's the whole load of NLP nonsense, mixed in with a bit of David Blaine style magic and showmanship. I'd have more respect for him if he just pulled off stunts like the chess one he did a few weeks ago. Something that requires a bit of intelligence, rather than straightforward trickery presented as something it's not.
 
My question about David Copperfield was before the one you just answered. And you haven't answered it. I read the whole thread, not just the bits I'm going to pick to arsepaper.

There were 3 fox sisters. Two who produced the rapping and the third was their manager. Maggie confessed that it was a hoax, Kate was there and neither confirmed nor denied the truth. Maggie further demonstrated her very loud toecracking on stage, reproducing by normal means her paranormal communications.
 
Undodog said:
Originally posted by LillyThePink

Did you see the "Mind Control" programme where he got a bunch of advertising execs to draw EXACTLY what he wanted, and explained how it was done subliminally? Thats psychological suggestion, Ian, not trickery.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Again. This example is what confuses most people. The whole bit about placing objects/pictures..etc around the ad people's taxi ride was ALL A LIE (magician's patter). Its ages since this was on but at the time I noticed that the camera never cleanly pans from the guys in the taxi to something Derren placed outside. They were edited in.
You saw a very old trick you MUST have seen before presented in an original way.
"Draw me a picture - Here is what I drew earlier, in a sealed envelope." Come on!
Why are people falling for this? I thought we had some critical thinking here.
Click to expand...

Yes precisely. I believed it at the time but now realise I was sucked in and I feel angry about it. He's passing off trickery as psychological manipulation. I find that unethical. And we are being miseducated about what it is psychologically possible to do.
 
Interesting Ian said:


Yes precisely. I believed it at the time but now realise I was sucked in and I feel angry about it. He's passing off trickery as psychological manipulation. I find that unethical. And we are being miseducated about what it is psychologically possible to do.
Click to expand...

No-one sucks me in!! :mad:
 
Interesting Ian said:


Yes, by watching his shows people are being miseducated. I find this appalling.
Click to expand...


Being “miseducated” in what - how to watch TV?

He is an entertainer, his shows are supposed to be entertaining; if you watch his shows it is to be entertained, I don’t see anywhere were he tells his audience he is going to “educate” them in anything.
 
An Infinite Ocean said:
I'd have more respect for him if he just pulled off stunts like the chess one he did a few weeks ago. Something that requires a bit of intelligence, rather than straightforward trickery presented as something it's not.
Click to expand...

I hate to tell you this, but... Ach... never mind :D
 
LillyThePink said:
My question about David Copperfield was before the one you just answered. And you haven't answered it. I read the whole thread, not just the bits I'm going to pick to arsepaper.
Click to expand...


Huh?? Are you getting pissy with me?

There were 3 fox sisters. Two who produced the rapping and the third was their manager. Maggie confessed that it was a hoax, Kate was there and neither confirmed nor denied the truth. Maggie further demonstrated her very loud toecracking on stage, reproducing by normal means her paranormal communications.
Click to expand...

So fine, it was all a hoax. We all know that a great deal of these alleged communications are hoaxes. This doesn't prove or even give any evidence that they all are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom