have you watched derren browns "the experiment"

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

He says something to the effect that the "reveal" show was meant to have a twist at the end in which it would be clear that it had actually been a trick, but that with the scrutiny the original show received he realized they couldn't do it like that (exactly why not, I don't quite get), and it came across as if he really did want people to believe it had been done via the "wisdom of crowds", which was not his intent.

He says it's the one thing he's done that he's not happy with at all.

Interesting, thanks. I wonder if the problem was that people had sussed how the trick worked so that if he revealed anything about it then it'd be obvious exactly how he'd done it and, while he's happy for it to be known that it's a trick, he wouldn't want to be so exposed doing what was just a conjuring trick rather than the "psychological illusions" he claims to perform because he relies on his reputation. Or perhaps he wouldn't want to be outed using a camera trick, for the same reason.

 

[John Albert]

You were talking about live shows. If the entire audience of a live show were stooges, then Brown wouldn't make any money from ticket sales, which would kind of defeat the object.

I was talking about the audience in his TV shows. Of course, he probably uses plants in his live audience as well. As I said, he could seat a large group of them together in one area and throw the frisbee right to that area. If the group is large enough it would be a very easy stunt to pull off.

As I said, if you have another suggestion, I'm all ears.

I'd say it's probably worth watching the episode before condemning it.

I already know enough about Derren Brown's M.O. to already have expectations, but you're right. I won't condemn it until I've at least watched it and determined that it is indeed irresponsible.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I was talking about the audience in his TV shows.

...

What are you talking about now? There was no frisbee throwing on the show,as for his live shows(where such random actions do take place) it's too ludicrous an option to even consider a reply.

"Too ludicrous"? You're kidding, obviously. Do you really think a magician with a TV show would be ideologically opposed to using plants to fool the audience? So you seroiusly think there's some "purity of the art" issue involved?

You were talking about live shows.

I stand by my comment.

As I said, if you have another suggestion, I'm all ears.

Sorry, what specifically am I supposed to have an alternative explanation for? And as an alternative to what, specifically?

 

[John Albert]

I stand by my comment.

Why don't you go back a few pages and read the discussion from where it started?

Sorry, what specifically am I supposed to have an alternative explanation for? And as an alternative to what, specifically?

An alternative explanation for how you think he pulls some rando out of the audience and supposedly uses his woo-woo psychology to mess with their mind.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Why don't you go back a few pages and read the discussion from where it started?

Why don't you re-read the parts I've quoted where Azrael calls the idea of live audiences all being stooges "ludicrous", and then you quote that part (twice) and go off on one about it?

An alternative explanation for how you think he pulls some rando out of the audience and supposedly uses his woo-woo psychology to mess with their mind.

I don't think your definition of the word "specifically" is the same as mine.

 

[John Albert]

Why don't you re-read the parts I've quoted where Azrael calls the idea of live audiences all being stooges "ludicrous", and then you quote that part (twice) and go off on one about it?

Why don't you go back to a few pages to where the discussion really started?

I was talking about audience plants (not necessarily paid stooges) being used, and I suggested it's even possible for the entire TV audience to be plants, as has been done for many other magic tricks performed specifically for TV and/or video.

I don't think your definition of the word "specifically" is the same as mine.

I did not address you in the first place, and it's obvious you're just mincing words for the sake of argument. Therefore I shall ignore you from now on.

 

[Azrael 5]

Why don't you go back to a few pages to where the discussion really started?

I was talking about audience plants (not necessarily paid stooges) being used,

From what Ive seen of Derren's live shows no plants are neccasary and I can say with certainty arent used.You've obviously never been to a Derren live show.

and I suggested it's even possible for the entire TV audience to be plants, as has been done for many other magic tricks performed specifically for TV and/or video.

Such as?

 

[John Albert]

From what Ive seen of Derren's live shows no plants are neccasary and I can say with certainty arent used. You've obviously never been to a Derren live show.

I have not. But some of the things I've seen him do on TV pretty much require the participation of somebody willing to play along.

Such as?

Such as whenever David Copperfield makes some large thing like a Boeing 747 or the Statue of Liberty disappear, the entire bleacher full of audience members are stooges. Criss Angel and David Blaine are also known to use stooges for their videos.

 

[Stray Cat]

An alternative explanation for how you think he pulls some rando out of the audience and supposedly uses his woo-woo psychology to mess with their mind.

He doesn't use "woo woo psychology to mess with their minds". A major part of his MO is to make it look like that's what he's doing. In reality, he is using traditional magic methods to achieve the results.
Whether that's a good or bad thing is debatable, but in my experience, Derren hasn't got an ounce of woo in him away from his performances.

 

[John Albert]

What I'm talking about, for example, is when he does a trick like the one at the beginning of the video in the OP.

He selects a "random" audience member in the front row, tells her to press her hands together, and "suggests" that she will not be able to pull them apart. He tells the audience she will now be unable to separate her hands. She stands there with her hands together, obviously not even really trying to separate them until he tosses a ball to her and she goes to catch it. Then "presto!" she can move her hands just like normal.

That's the kind of thing that looks to me like the use of a stooge or a plant.

Or the one where he supposedly hypnotizes a guy on the street into giving over all his valuable belongings: his wallet, cell phone, wristwatch, etc. That was obviously a case where he told the guy to play along.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

What I'm talking about, for example, is when he does a trick like the one at the beginning of the video in the OP.

He selects a "random" audience member in the front row, tells her to press her hands together, and "suggests" that she will not be able to pull them apart. He tells the audience she will now be unable to separate her hands. She stands there with her hands together, obviously not even really trying to separate them until he tosses a ball to her and she goes to catch it. Then "presto!" she can move her hands just like normal.

You don't need any kind of stooge. Any random audience will have a fair number of "suggestible"/willing to play along people.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Why don't you go back to a few pages to where the discussion really started?

I was talking about audience plants (not necessarily paid stooges) being used, and I suggested it's even possible for the entire TV audience to be plants, as has been done for many other magic tricks performed specifically for TV and/or video.

Again, I was directly referring to the part where you quoted Azrael as calling live audiences all being stooges as being "ludicrous" and went off on one. about it. Honestly, it's better if you just admit that you didn't mean what you said, rather than pretending that you didn't say it. This is a message board, and everybody can read back over how the conversation actually went down, so you're fooling nobody.

I did not address you in the first place, and it's obvious you're just mincing words for the sake of argument. Therefore I shall ignore you from now on.

I'm not "mincing words" at all, I asked you for specifics - twice - and you gave me very vague generalities. You're free to ignore me if you like but, again, you're not fooling anybody by pretending that the weakness of your argument is my fault.

 

[Azrael 5]

I have not. But some of the things I've seen him do on TV pretty much require the participation of somebody willing to play along.


Such as whenever David Copperfield makes some large thing like a Boeing 747 or the Statue of Liberty disappear, the entire bleacher full of audience members are stooges. Criss Angel and David Blaine are also known to use stooges for their videos.

When was this ?The 70's? Mostly things have changed,not sure the audience needed to be stooges for Copperfield SOL effect either,thats just a perception of view trick(all Im saying)

Angel and Blaine have used stooges,yes,but not entire audiences as was your claim re:Brown(still ludicrous).

No doubt you will claim the following to be lies because he is a magician and lies as part of a routine but anyways,Derren's clarification:
http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2011/11/claim-claim-2/

 

[John Albert]

Any of those large-scale disappearing acts probably use stooges for the audience, because otherwise they'd see the gigantic black curtain raised in front that hides the object during the "disappearance."

I wouldn't put it past Derren Brown to stock the audience with plants. As I said before, maybe they're not paid "stooges," but carefully selected "guests" who got a special invitation because they're known to play along nicely with the act.

 

[Azrael 5]

Any of those large-scale disappearing acts probably use stooges for the audience, because otherwise they'd see the gigantic black curtain raised in front that hides the object during the "disappearance."

I wouldn't put it past Derren Brown to stock the audience with plants. As I said before, maybe they're not paid "stooges," but carefully selected "guests" who got a special invitation because they're known to play along nicely with the act.

So despite no evidence and despite what I have said and what Derren has said you still go with plants. Well I guess you'll never be convinced by anyone's explanation and you are wasting your time on a discussion forum.

 

[lane99]

I cant watch the clip, but so long as she wasnt hired then your claim is invalid.Not saying she wasnt I dont know,but just because her occupation is an actress doesnt follow she was acting.

Again was she paid(as most people are)a statutory fee or paid for her services as an actress?...

My "claim" is not only valid, it was thusly proven. It is your negation that is invalid.

Although if there comes a time when Derren Brown's pitch says "although I use actors even though I pretend not to, it doesn't really count because they weren't paid specifically for their performance with me", then what, if any, renumeration the actors received might become pertinent.

What I'm talking about, for example, is when he does a trick like the one at the beginning of the video in the OP...

That's the kind of thing that looks to me like the use of a stooge or a plant...

Since this was a tv show, a stooge or plant was not absolutely required there.

That said, you won't be seeing that same effect routinely repeated in a live show with a particpant who happened to be on the receiving end of a frisbee thrown randomly out into the audience.

 

[Azrael 5]

My "claim" is not only valid, it was thusly proven. It is your negation that is invalid.

Really? It was proven she was hired to act the part of a spectator? Not seen this do show me.

Although if there comes a time when Derren Brown's pitch says "although I use actors even though I pretend not to, it doesn't really count because they weren't paid specifically for their performance with me", then what, if any, renumeration the actors received might become pertinent.

Again until I see proof of any wrongdoing I'll stick with this: obviously he uses actors-Simon Pegg,Stephen Fry for two,he no doubt also uses butchers,bakers and maybe candlestickmakers. My point is they aren't helping the effects by "pretending/acting/performing a role". When I said the girl actor likely recieved payment I was referring to the fact that sometimes members of public are paid for being on TV no matter what reason.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

And the thing is, sincerely meaning no disrespect to Simon Pegg, but he's not that good of an actor.

 

[John Albert]

Again until I see proof of any wrongdoing

"Wrongdoing"?



He's a magician. He makes his living playing tricks on people.

He doesn't really have magical woo-psychology powers over peoples' minds. It's all an act. We're on the same page with that, aren't we? You do admit that all the things Derren Brown is doing are tricks, right?

Now that being established, it stands to reason that if he does something that demonstrates some amazing control or influence over another person's mind, logic dictates that either:

a) it's a trick he's playing on both you and that person together at the same time, or else

b) it's a trick he's playing on you alone, with the person's willing assistance (or at least their complicity).​

OK?

We agree that it's got to be one of those two things. No other possibilities there, right?

Now we've seen fairly good evidence that his effects have involved camera and/or editing tricks. No? Have we not pretty much established that?

If you're willing to admit he'd go that far in abandoning the traditional tricks of stage magic to fool his TV audience, don't you think it's reasonable to assume he'd also employ an even less technical routine, one that works easily on TV and studio audiences alike and has been used by mentalists and stage magicians for ages to achieve the desired effect?

Of course he's going to say he doesn't use them. Just like any magician might say something like, "Ladies and gentlemen, here we have just an ordinary box like any other," when in fact he's lying through his teeth knowing full well that the box is really a special, trick box unlike any other.

As I've pointed out, the exact definition of a "stooge" can be blurred to the point where one can use unpaid audience plants and honestly claim they're not "stooges," at least not by the classical definition. That's what I think he's doing for at least some (not all) of this tricks. Does this make sense to you?

 

[AdMan]

He's a magician. He makes his living playing tricks on people.

He doesn't really have magical woo-psychology powers over peoples' minds. It's all an act. We're on the same page with that, aren't we? You do admit that all the things Derren Brown is doing are tricks, right?

Now that being established, it stands to reason that if he does something that demonstrates some amazing control or influence over another person's mind, logic dictates that either:

a) it's a trick he's playing on both you and that person together at the same time, or else

b) it's a trick he's playing on you alone, with the person's willing assistance (or at least their complicity).​

OK?

We agree that it's got to be one of those two things. No other possibilities there, right?

There is a third possibility, which in Derren Brown's case is often likely--that he's playing a different trick on you and on the subject at the same time.