have you watched derren browns "the experiment"

[Kuko 4000]

But there's no "magic" here. Nothing is being made to disappear, reappear, change places, or turn into something else. Nobody is being sawn in half and re-constructed. The guy picks up a gun on command and shoots at somebody. Where's the "magic trick" inside this show? What's there to "play along with"?

The ride. As in many stage hypnotism shows, you can let go and enjoy the ride, the more you let go, the more you enjoy and the more enjoyable it becomes to the audience. Similarly this sometimes happens in magic shows on stage where the magician whispers "play along" (or whatever) to the ear of a person randomly selected on stage.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Has anyone mentioned the concept of dual reality yet?

I was going to, but wanted to wait for a while...Azrael has hinted at it.

 

[Azrael 5]

I was going to, but wanted to wait for a while...Azrael has hinted at it.

 

[Azrael 5]

*edit* The psychobabble didn't "misdirect" you from any sleight of hand magic trick that Brown used to "make the man change his answer". Brown simply told him before the cameras began to roll, "when I'm done talking and ask you what you wanted, just say a bike." Similarly, you didn't need to be "misdirected" from any fake thumbs or invisible threads during the assassination episode. He simply told the guy "on my cue, pick up this gun and shoot at Stephen Fry and then pretend to fall into a 'trance'." The entire rest of the episode was nothing but supportive fluff for Brown's consistent endorsement of pseudoscientific "psychology" techniques.

In your opinion unsupported by facts. Which for the BMX trick you described is wrong.

 

[John Albert]

So no proof being offered about Russian Roulette,Lottery Effect(that will do for now)being stooges/plAnts tv edits?
On magic cafe forum there are magicians who can do a version off Derren's Russian scam(punter gives magician his coat) also the paying for things with blank money Derren does.

Yeah, handing over your coat is one thing (especially while indoors). People give strangers their coats all the time. But handing over your wallet, cell phone, car keys, taking off your watch and giving it to some random guy on the street who just asked you for directions?

I'm sorry. I don't buy it.

Derren Brown is not doing that through "Neurolinguistic Programming."

The most likely explanation is that he enlists people to play along. In other words, he uses people who are, to some extent, stooges.

Why are you so reluctant to believe he would do that? It's very common practice among mentalists. Doesn't mean he's not still a talented and captivating performer who knows how to put together a show and work an audience.

All I'm saying is, he's not controlling people through psychology. He's picking people willing to play along, putting them in a setting in front of cameras and/or an audience, and then letting them play along as they're wont to.

It is boring and predictable reading "its all a stooge" whenever Derren does something different. Think about the "misdirection " part of the show's disclaimer; what you see isnt neccarasily happening the way we percieve it to be.

I agree. It doesn't mean he's not working in collaboration with his alleged "subjects" acting of their own free will.

I can think of a way to achieve the wallet effect without a stooge.

Me too. He walks up to a stranger, addresses him in a low voice and tells him:

"Do you recognize me? I'm Derren Brown, the TV magician. Now don't look over in that direction over to the right, but there's a camera and we're being filmed for a TV program. If you want to be on the show, indicate by pointing off to your left as if you're giving me directions."

"OK now, I'm going to hand you this water bottle, and you respond by giving me your wallet..."

etc.

Then they overdub different vocals into the scene in post-production.

 

[Checkmite]

The ride. As in many stage hypnotism shows, you can let go and enjoy the ride, the more you let go, the more you enjoy and the more enjoyable it becomes to the audience. Similarly this sometimes happens in magic shows on stage where the magician whispers "play along" (or whatever) to the ear of a person randomly selected on stage.

That works great in front of a live audience where "it's enjoyable" because of the instant feedback you get from the crowd as they watch in amazement (or amusement).

Within the context of a television show - where there's starts and stops, retakes, out-of-order shooting, post-production editing, and the need for the "volunteer" to do more than simply stand there and occasionally hold an object, the complexity demands the "subject" be given at least a verbal "script" to perform by - which makes him an actor, and no longer just an "audience volunteer playing along". I contend the difference is more than a semantic one.

 

[AdMan]

I was going to, but wanted to wait for a while...Azrael has hinted at it.

Ah, yes--I see.

 

[Checkmite]

In your opinion unsupported by facts. Which for the BMX trick you described is wrong.

Brown's explanations are the only things "unsupported by facts". But if you would like to offer an explanation as to what sort of "magic" or "misdirection" was employed to accomplish the BMX trick - or, for that matter, what even makes it a "trick" at all - I am all ears. Or eyes, as it were.

 

[John Albert]

Within the context of a television show - where there's starts and stops, retakes, out-of-order shooting, post-production editing, and the need for the "volunteer" to do more than simply stand there and occasionally hold an object, the complexity demands the "subject" be given at least a verbal "script" to perform by - which makes him an actor, and no longer just an "audience volunteer playing along". I contend the difference is more than a semantic one.

That's exactly the point I've been trying to make. It all comes down to the specifics of how you define a "stooge."

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I'm no magician, but I would suspect a simple sleight of hand type of trick in the Simon Pegg thing, combined with taking advantage of Pegg's confusion so that he plays along with it (or really believes for a second) that he wrote down BMX.

 

[Kuko 4000]

No, he doesn't claim to use NLP as such; however, in one of his shows, he demonstrated a technique that happens to be an important part of NLP and claimed that it actually works when it doesn't.

Yep, he does stuff like that all the time. Personally I don't think it's too much, but clearly we're all different in that sense. Most importantly he calls spade a spade when out of the entertainment business.

I'd like to know how he comments the Robert Kennedy case since this episode didn't have any BS explanations as a misdirection at all.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Yep, he does stuff like that all the time. Personally I don't think it's too much, but clearly we're all different in that sense. Most importantly he calls spade a spade when out of the entertainment business.

I'd like to know how he comments the Robert Kennedy case since this episode didn't have any BS explanations as a misdirection at all.

I would say the main thing he was trying to get the audience to buy into was that he had reconsidered hypnosis and now believes there is much more mysterious to it than the playing along type of thing he favoured before. The whole show was pushing in that direction when really, most of it could be explained by the playing along explanation. The Kennedy thing was just another hook to hang that story on.

 

[Checkmite]

I'd like to know how he comments the Robert Kennedy case since this episode didn't have any BS explanations as a misdirection at all.

Maybe, maybe not. In the thread, it's stated that he claims to have hypnotized the "subject" repeatedly as part of his alleged conditioning; I would count that as misleading psychobabble.

 

[Kuko 4000]

That works great in front of a live audience where "it's enjoyable" because of the instant feedback you get from the crowd as they watch in amazement (or amusement).

Within the context of a television show - where there's starts and stops, retakes, out-of-order shooting, post-production editing, and the need for the "volunteer" to do more than simply stand there and occasionally hold an object, the complexity demands the "subject" be given at least a verbal "script" to perform by - which makes him an actor, and no longer just an "audience volunteer playing along". I contend the difference is more than a semantic one.

No, the complexity of these scenes definitely does not need a "script" for the guy, please look again. There's also no need to shoot things out of order when it comes to the "victim". I've been around TV productions, indie movie sets and one-man-bands enough to understand this. I'm also starting in the business myself at the moment, so I know how it works. These guys are hardcore professionals in TV and magic world and can very easily pull stuff like this LIVE on one take. They just need to get the guy in the restaurant, set up the mood, etc. and they're ready to go.

 

[Azrael 5]

Brown's explanations are the only things "unsupported by facts". But if you would like to offer an explanation as to what sort of "magic" or "misdirection" was employed to accomplish the BMX trick - or, for that matter, what even makes it a "trick" at all - I am all ears. Or eyes, as it were.

Still no proof on the Russian Roulette and lottery effects then? I'm not revealing secrets to the BMX thing. It was a trick,that's all you need to know.

 

[AdMan]

Somewhat OT, but for those into magic--have you seen The Devil's Picturebook? Absolutely brilliant. DB is amazing. Some of the stuff he does is very, very difficult, but it's still a treat to watch him perform and teach the effects and learn the psychology behind them.

 

[Checkmite]

I would say the main thing he was trying to get the audience to buy into was that he had reconsidered hypnosis and now believes there is much more mysterious to it than the playing along type of thing he favoured before. The whole show was pushing in that direction when really, most of it could be explained by the playing along explanation. The Kennedy thing was just another hook to hang that story on.

That's the most frustrating thing. Brown's fans claim he doesn't really believe the psychological explanations that he repeatedly endorses in his show actually work; they cite vague statements and admissions in his books that the TV programs (programmes?) are sometimes edited "misleadingly". But there's the thing - are those in the television audience who don't buy his books supposed to somehow intuitively deduce for themselves that his played-straight TV "explanations" are complete rubbish despite his repeated insistence otherwise, and if they can't that's just their own fault for not being "in on it"?

 

[John Albert]

Still no proof on the Russian Roulette and lottery effects then? I'm not revealing secrets to the BMX thing. It was a trick,that's all you need to know.

The Russian Roulette thing was a standard magic trick. No live ammo was used, and the audience participant played what was essentially a small role as a mere plot device.

I don't know what you mean by the "BMX" thing. I don't know if I've seen that one.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

That's the most frustrating thing. Brown's fans claim he doesn't really believe the psychological explanations that he repeatedly endorses in his show actually work; they cite vague statements and admissions in his books that the TV programs (programmes?) are sometimes edited "misleadingly". But there's the thing - are those in the television audience who don't buy his books supposed to somehow intuitively deduce for themselves that his played-straight TV "explanations" are complete rubbish despite his repeated insistence otherwise, and if they can't that's just their own fault for not being "in on it"?

I suspect most of his audience accept it for what it is, good entertainment.

 

[Checkmite]

Still no proof on the Russian Roulette and lottery effects then? I'm not revealing secrets to the BMX thing. It was a trick,that's all you need to know.

Of course. Sorry, for a second I thought you were at least trying to honestly contribute to the discussion.