Derren Brown Trick or treat

oglommi · 29th June 2007, 11:23 PM

Just finished watching a couple of episodes of his new series. Trick or treat and it was really cool.

BTw i managed to stumble upon a site where I could download the first episode.

http://www.armasonry.com/ftp2/

Anybody know where I can get the rest of the episodes? It's really hard to find somewhere I can download them.

DJM · 29th June 2007, 11:53 PM

oglommi · 30th June 2007, 12:11 AM

thanks a lot

skipjack · 2nd July 2007, 09:08 AM

Notice that the "trick/treat" card is just that - trick or treat depending on which way up it's held! There are probably many other such things to spot if one is observant.

Remember the Russian Roulette performance? Nothing was done to show that the final "firing" of the pistol wasn't just a sound effect.

DJM · 2nd July 2007, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by skipjack

Notice that the "trick/treat" card is just that - trick or treat depending on which way up it's held! There are probably many other such things to spot if one is observant.

Derren showed how it works in one of the episodes, so it wasn't meant to be a big secret.

skipjack · 4th July 2007, 09:32 AM

Thanks for letting me know; I've seen only a very few trick or treat episodes. I did see the last, which started with Derren's standard introduction, in which he states that no actors or stooges are used in the programme.

So, Derren, what first attracted you to the idea of demonstrating your "hypnosis"/"arm-piercing" stunt on the modest, unassuming, multi-millionaire, Robbie Williams, rather than a randomly chosen member of the general public?

With all his experience of being tattooed, Robbie must have known perfectly well that he wasn't really pierced by Derren's needles, so in what way was he not acting as a stooge?

DJM · 4th July 2007, 01:32 PM

Derren has been using celebs in other episodes as well, I don't see much problem with that. Just because they are famous it doesn't mean they know what's going on.

Besides, the effect you mentioned can be done without stooges.

TheDon · 4th July 2007, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by DJM

Derren has been using celebs in other episodes as well, I don't see much problem with that. Just because they are famous it doesn't mean they know what's going on.

Besides, the effect you mentioned can be done without stooges.

Yup, seem to remember him doing almost the same thing with a medical student, piercing the skin from the back of his hand with a needle. Think it was in Mind Control rather than Trick of the Mind.

rwp · 5th July 2007, 12:23 PM

It may seem strange, but the "New Yorkers" seemed to have fake US accents.

Not sure, but if they were just English stooges, why not hire US actors to do the parts? Or maybe I am completely off.

skipjack · 5th July 2007, 10:24 PM

Using celebrities is fine, but surely Robbie must have been given some idea of what would happen. Once he's been told "it's a piercing . . . illusion", agreeing to appear makes him a stooge, doesn't it?

DJM · 6th July 2007, 07:38 AM

You don't need to be Robbie Williams to know that most of what mentalists and magicians do is illusion, that's not what stooges are about.

skipjack · 6th July 2007, 10:58 AM

In the Trick Of The Mind episode (which I incorrectly referred to as Trick Or Treat), Robbie Williams was performing, rather than just participating, in that he deliberately gave "helpful" answers, rather than "open" answers, and didn't let on that there was no real mystery for him, whereas there was for (some of) the viewers. I think that's what most people would take "stooge" to mean.

In the same episode, some people were filmed in London being asked for directions by Derren; Derren then slickly swapped places with an actor who continued the enquiries as though he'd been the original questioner. This first occurred at the start of the episode immediately after Derren had stated that at no point would any actors or stooges be used!

tkingdoll · 6th July 2007, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by skipjack

In the same episode, some people were filmed in London being asked for directions by Derren; Derren then slickly swapped places with an actor who continued the enquiries as though he'd been the original questioner. This first occurred at the start of the episode immediately after Derren had stated that at no point would any actors or stooges be used!

No, what is meant by that is that the people responding to the trick are not actors. Not the people performing the trick.

Quite why anyone would interpret it any other way, I don't know

Calcas · 6th July 2007, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

No, what is meant by that is that the people responding to the trick are not actors. Not the people performing the trick.

Quite why anyone would interpret it any other way, I don't know

Exactly.

But how DOES he do some of those tricks? I particularly like the paper into money trick and the dog track betting thing. Are they stooges? Has he given them hyptnotic suggestions BEFORE they filmed?

And, I don't think it's "giving away secrets" to speculate here...

tkingdoll · 6th July 2007, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by Calcas

Exactly.

But how DOES he do some of those tricks? I particularly like the paper into money trick and the dog track betting thing. Are they stooges? Has he given them hyptnotic suggestions BEFORE they filmed?

And, I don't think it's "giving away secrets" to speculate here...

Hypnotic suggestions don't come into it. Neither does 'manipulation by psychological means', e.g. keyword hints.

Magic methods are very mundane, sadly. There's nothing less exciting than hidden cameras, microphones, simple swapping of props, etc. Furthermore, nothing in TVland is honest, so there's no point in speculating. Think of the dullest, dirtiest method imaginable. That's probably the right one.

DJM · 6th July 2007, 06:10 PM

A lot of the things that Derren does is Dual Reality, and it's not something you need stooges for. I'm pretty sure that's what he did with the paper into money effect.

It's a clever technic that can give amazing results if done the right way.

Calcas · 6th July 2007, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by DJM

A lot of the things that Derren does is Dual Reality, and it's not something you need stooges for. I'm pretty sure that's what he did with the paper into money effect.

It's a clever technic that can give amazing results if done the right way.

So what is "dual reality?"

Can you link me somewhere without giving out anything specific?

DJM · 7th July 2007, 03:35 AM

Basically it's when the mentalist tricks both the spectator and the audience at the same time, but in a different way.

About the first scene of the money effect, and this is only a speculation so don't see it as some exposure, maybe that white paper that Derren gives the person at the store is actually an envolope with the money inside. What the audience at home sees is a blank paper, but that person see the money that he deserves.

That's dual reality.

skipjack · 7th July 2007, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

No, what is meant by that is that the people responding to the trick are not actors. Not the people performing the trick.

Quite why anyone would interpret it any other way, I don't know

That's obviously what Derren should have meant, but it's not what he stated. If "obvious" exceptions are allowed, arguably stooges are also allowed, at least if they are obvious ones (such as Robbie Williams).

Azrael 5 · 7th July 2007, 03:41 PM

Derren clearly meant actors as in general public,not as in famous!

skipjack · 8th July 2007, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

Derren clearly meant actors as in general public,not as in famous!

Derren stated, "This program fuses magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship. I achieve all the results you'll see through a varied mixture of those techniques. At no point are actors or stooges used in the show." There's no hint of a need for exceptions or special interpretation in that. He's clearly saying that everything will be exclusively down to his use of the five methods listed.

tkingdoll · 8th July 2007, 05:22 AM

Originally Posted by skipjack

Derren stated, "This program fuses magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship. I achieve all the results you'll see through a varied mixture of those techniques. At no point are actors or stooges used in the show." There's no hint of a need for exceptions or special interpretation in that. He's clearly saying that everything will be exclusively down to his use of the five methods listed.

You shouldn't eliminate the possibility that he's lying.

Azrael 5 · 8th July 2007, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by skipjack

Derren stated, "This program fuses magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship. I achieve all the results you'll see through a varied mixture of those techniques. At no point are actors or stooges used in the show." There's no hint of a need for exceptions or special interpretation in that. He's clearly saying that everything will be exclusively down to his use of the five methods listed.

You cannot grasp common sense it appears.When people see Derren's work-and to some extent any magic on TV they are going to scream actors/stooges so he has to deflect form that by his disclaimer.It seems only you has a problem understanding the statement.

DJM · 8th July 2007, 10:44 AM

Skipjack, you need to see the "no actors and stooges" statement within the context of mentalism and magic. The people who were in that effect from London that you mentioned were not actors/stooges, they were only assistants. And it should be very obvious to the audience.

skipjack · 8th July 2007, 01:51 PM

By pretending to be the original questioner, the assistant(s) were, by definition, acting, not just assisting. My main point was that Robbie Williams knowingly assisted the effect (by the nature of his answers to Derren's questions), which means that he was a stooge. That spoilt the effect. What's mysterious about somebody closing their eyes and going along with having needles stuck to their arms with no spectators present, and key parts of the process not shown in view of the camera anyway?

Derren's introductory statements are clearly directed at the viewers in general, not just the small minority of viewers who are knowledgeable about the performance of illusions and the techniques available. It's therefore reasonable to interpret them at face value. If he's allowed actors or stooges in some circumstances, where does one draw the line? If I'm content to see acting, I might as well watch "Bewitched" or "Start Trek" instead.

tkingdoll · 8th July 2007, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by skipjack

By pretending to be the original questioner, the assistant(s) were, by definition, acting, not just assisting. My main point was that Robbie Williams knowingly assisted the effect (by the nature of his answers to Derren's questions), which means that he was a stooge. That spoilt the effect. What's mysterious about somebody closing their eyes and going along with having needles stuck to their arms with no spectators present, and key parts of the process not shown in view of the camera anyway?

Derren's introductory statements are clearly directed at the viewers in general, not just the small minority of viewers who are knowledgeable about the performance of illusions and the techniques available. It's therefore reasonable to interpret them at face value. If he's allowed actors or stooges in some circumstances, where does one draw the line? If I'm content to see acting, I might as well watch "Bewitched" or "Start Trek" instead.

Yes, you might as well watch some fiction instead. If you want to watch a programme which does what it claims, or is as it appears at face value, may I suggest you don't watch Derren Brown.

Calcas · 8th July 2007, 02:25 PM

For those that are interested in Derren Brown, I started a thread yesterday in the General Skeptism and Paranormal forum asking about NLP and woo.

I was referred to this 11 page thread from earlier this year which contains some excellent discussions on him and his methods.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71504

skipjack · 8th July 2007, 02:49 PM

You're distorting my meaning, tkingdoll. I was objecting to the disclaimer, not the whole programme. There's no need for Derren to use a partly fictional disclaimer. Obviously, trickery is to be expected in the main part of the programme, but if the disclaimer isn't accurate, that opens the door to dubbed audio, computer-generated or manually-edited images, deleted or resequenced frames, etc., making almost anything possible.

tkingdoll · 8th July 2007, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by skipjack

You're distorting my meaning. I was objecting to the disclaimer, not the whole programme. There's no need for Derren to use a partly fictional disclaimer. Obviously, trickery is to be expected in the main part of the programme, but if the disclaimer isn't accurate, that opens the door to dubbed audio, computer-generated or manually-edited images, deleted or resequenced frames, etc., making almost anything possible.

Seriously, if you're worried about the ethics of programming, you are going to have to stick to fiction, because ethics left TV a long time ago. Ever watch an experiment on a science show? Chances are it was faked. TV talent show? Rigged. And TV magic shows...well, they already tell you they're going to be full of deceit. Might as well take that to mean the disclaimer, too.

skipjack · 9th July 2007, 09:53 AM

I realize my objection, even if well-founded and carefully explained, is unlikely to change the programmes. I'm aware that recording science demonstrations (actual experiments are much rarer) for broadcast can be difficult, so things are sometimes faked. I rarely watch talent shows. In general, I am quite skeptical.

I do quite enjoy Derren's TV shows overall. In the past, I've also enjoyed watching Chan Canasta and other illusionists.

My post usually needn't be quoted in full (or at all) when replying to it. Doing so isn't necessary; this isn't Usenet!

tkingdoll · 9th July 2007, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by skipjack

My post usually needn't be quoted in full (or at all) when replying to it. Doing so isn't necessary; this isn't Usenet!

No, it isn't Usenet, it's the JREF forum. And like most forums, there are people reading and contributing to the discussion other than skipjack. It is not sensible to reply to a post without quoting it, as others may not realise to what the reply refers. It is also quite easy for the quoted poster to go back and edit their original post, making the reply redundant.

So, thanks for the usage tip, but I think I'll stick to what works for everyone else here.

T'ai Chi · 9th July 2007, 11:21 AM

stooges a plenty.

skipjack · 9th July 2007, 01:43 PM

I had in mind in particular a reply that follows immediately the post being replied to, which is a common situation. Referring to a previous poster by name, when appropriate, is often sufficient, since posts are rarely edited substantially.

tkingdoll · 9th July 2007, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by skipjack

I had in mind in particular a reply that follows immediately the post being replied to, which is a common situation. Referring to a previous poster by name, when appropriate, is often sufficient, since posts are rarely edited substantially.

The irony of this being that there's another post in between mine, and your reply

3point14 · 10th July 2007, 05:30 AM

I saw no actors.

I saw people who were swiched in. I saw no reason to infer that they were at any point 'acting' or pretending to be anything they were not.

volatile · 10th July 2007, 05:49 AM

I posted this in another thread recently, but it's of relevance here:

A friend of mine was on one of Derren Brown's shows (it might even have been an episode of Trick of the Mind, actually), as a participant in a trick. Whilst the way the show was broadcast implied she was a random passer-by, she had actually been to a pre-screening where the most 'suitable' participants (whatever that might mean) were selected through a variety of means.

That's not to say that he "cheats" - my friend insists that she wasn't a stooge and the trick performed on her, which involved generating fear of a simple rock, if I recall correctly, was performed as televised. It's just that the people he picks "at random" might not always be as random as the TV editing implies.

skipjack · 12th July 2007, 06:50 AM

Originally Posted by 3point14

I saw no actors.
I saw people who were switched in. I saw no reason to infer that they were at any point 'acting' or pretending to be anything they were not.

After being switched in, they acted, albeit for a short time, as though already in conversation, i.e., took over the conversational role, not just the presence, of Derren. Previously, they had the role of carrying a poster. Almost certainly, they were scripted and rehearsed. They were, by definition, acting.

skipjack · 12th July 2007, 07:24 AM

Did you ask your friend, volatile, whether she was an unwitting stooge, through, say, having been told that she was just rehearsing, auditioning, doing a screen test, or assisting in someone else's rehearsal, audition or screen test? Also, did she acquire information about what really happened that she was asked not to divulge to others afterwards? For example, whether she was really in fear or just doing as expected so as to remain part of the show.

DJM · 12th July 2007, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by skipjack

After being switched in, they acted, albeit for a short time, as though already in conversation, i.e., took over the conversational role, not just the presence, of Derren. Previously, they had the role of carrying a poster. Almost certainly, they were scripted and rehearsed. They were, by definition, acting.

Like I said before, they were not actors, they were ASSISTANTS. The same way stage show magicians use assistants (usually hot girls) to be part of the trick. If the spectators are the ones who were scripted and rehearsed then that would be considered stooges/actors.

I don't see why it's so complicated to understand.

skipjack · 12th July 2007, 12:49 PM

Being assistants does not imply that their assistance was not acting. Clearly, it was, which makes the assistants actors at least for the duration of their appearance. There was nothing in the disclaimer to limit its application to spectators. It simply states, "At no point are actors or stooges used in the show." I am not, of course, classifying those assistants as stooges. I didn't notice any mention of them in the credits at the end of the show, so it remains unknown whether they were hired specifically for their on-screen roles in that show, but I would think that at least some of them were (to help achieve successively less resemblance to Derren Brown). Have you seen the same assistants working with Derren on any other occasion?

29th June 2007, 11:23 PM	#1
oglommi Scholar Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Oslo, Norway Posts: 57	Derren Brown Trick or treat Just finished watching a couple of episodes of his new series. Trick or treat and it was really cool. BTw i managed to stumble upon a site where I could download the first episode. http://www.armasonry.com/ftp2/ Anybody know where I can get the rest of the episodes? It's really hard to find somewhere I can download them.
	__________________ ------------------------------- His ignorance is encyclopedic. -- Abba Eban

29th June 2007, 11:53 PM	#2
DJM Muse Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 783	Episode 1: Part 1 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8514410268108682682&hl=en Part 2 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2690498428217815668&hl=en Part 3 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8153333362172746674&hl=en Part 4 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3754751446693410401&hl=en Episode 2: Part 1 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7220543572224664380&hl=en Part2 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8246856758146177769&hl=en Part3 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2392496986371008841&hl=en Part4 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7802939251008960931 Episode 3: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-39098269706933674&hl=en Episode 4: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7697844717110640027&hl=en Episode 5: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8547186036675411241&hl=en Episode 6: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...79948946&hl=en
DJM Muse Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 783

30th June 2007, 12:11 AM	#3
oglommi Scholar Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Oslo, Norway Posts: 57	thanks a lot
	__________________ ------------------------------- His ignorance is encyclopedic. -- Abba Eban

2nd July 2007, 09:08 AM	#4
skipjack Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 200	Notice that the "trick/treat" card is just that - trick or treat depending on which way up it's held! There are probably many other such things to spot if one is observant. Remember the Russian Roulette performance? Nothing was done to show that the final "firing" of the pistol wasn't just a sound effect.
skipjack Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 200

2nd July 2007, 11:33 AM	#5
DJM Muse Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 783	Originally Posted by skipjack Notice that the "trick/treat" card is just that - trick or treat depending on which way up it's held! There are probably many other such things to spot if one is observant. Derren showed how it works in one of the episodes, so it wasn't meant to be a big secret.
DJM Muse Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 783

4th July 2007, 09:32 AM	#6
skipjack Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 200	Thanks for letting me know; I've seen only a very few trick or treat episodes. I did see the last, which started with Derren's standard introduction, in which he states that no actors or stooges are used in the programme. So, Derren, what first attracted you to the idea of demonstrating your "hypnosis"/"arm-piercing" stunt on the modest, unassuming, multi-millionaire, Robbie Williams, rather than a randomly chosen member of the general public? With all his experience of being tattooed, Robbie must have known perfectly well that he wasn't really pierced by Derren's needles, so in what way was he not acting as a stooge?
skipjack Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 200

4th July 2007, 01:32 PM	#7
DJM Muse Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 783	Derren has been using celebs in other episodes as well, I don't see much problem with that. Just because they are famous it doesn't mean they know what's going on. Besides, the effect you mentioned can be done without stooges.
DJM Muse Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 783

4th July 2007, 04:25 PM	#8
TheDon Student Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: The Land of Scotch Posts: 49	Originally Posted by DJM Derren has been using celebs in other episodes as well, I don't see much problem with that. Just because they are famous it doesn't mean they know what's going on. Besides, the effect you mentioned can be done without stooges. Yup, seem to remember him doing almost the same thing with a medical student, piercing the skin from the back of his hand with a needle. Think it was in Mind Control rather than Trick of the Mind.

5th July 2007, 12:23 PM	#9
rwp Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 209	It may seem strange, but the "New Yorkers" seemed to have fake US accents. Not sure, but if they were just English stooges, why not hire US actors to do the parts? Or maybe I am completely off.

5th July 2007, 10:24 PM	#10
skipjack Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 200	Using celebrities is fine, but surely Robbie must have been given some idea of what would happen. Once he's been told "it's a piercing . . . illusion", agreeing to appear makes him a stooge, doesn't it?
skipjack Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 200

6th July 2007, 07:38 AM	#11
DJM Muse Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 783	You don't need to be Robbie Williams to know that most of what mentalists and magicians do is illusion, that's not what stooges are about.
DJM Muse Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 783

6th July 2007, 10:58 AM	#12
skipjack Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 200	In the Trick Of The Mind episode (which I incorrectly referred to as Trick Or Treat), Robbie Williams was performing, rather than just participating, in that he deliberately gave "helpful" answers, rather than "open" answers, and didn't let on that there was no real mystery for him, whereas there was for (some of) the viewers. I think that's what most people would take "stooge" to mean. In the same episode, some people were filmed in London being asked for directions by Derren; Derren then slickly swapped places with an actor who continued the enquiries as though he'd been the original questioner. This first occurred at the start of the episode immediately after Derren had stated that at no point would any actors or stooges be used!
skipjack Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 200

6th July 2007, 11:10 AM	#13
tkingdoll AKA TEEK Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Up Myself Posts: 12,468	Originally Posted by skipjack In the same episode, some people were filmed in London being asked for directions by Derren; Derren then slickly swapped places with an actor who continued the enquiries as though he'd been the original questioner. This first occurred at the start of the episode immediately after Derren had stated that at no point would any actors or stooges be used! No, what is meant by that is that the people responding to the trick are not actors. Not the people performing the trick. Quite why anyone would interpret it any other way, I don't know
	__________________ www.stormmovie.net Official website of Tim Minchin's Storm Movie

6th July 2007, 05:17 PM	#14
Calcas Master of my Domain Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 1,472	Originally Posted by tkingdoll No, what is meant by that is that the people responding to the trick are not actors. Not the people performing the trick. Quite why anyone would interpret it any other way, I don't know Exactly. But how DOES he do some of those tricks? I particularly like the paper into money trick and the dog track betting thing. Are they stooges? Has he given them hyptnotic suggestions BEFORE they filmed? And, I don't think it's "giving away secrets" to speculate here...
	Last edited by Calcas; 6th July 2007 at 05:23 PM.

6th July 2007, 05:32 PM	#15
tkingdoll AKA TEEK Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Up Myself Posts: 12,468	Originally Posted by Calcas Exactly. But how DOES he do some of those tricks? I particularly like the paper into money trick and the dog track betting thing. Are they stooges? Has he given them hyptnotic suggestions BEFORE they filmed? And, I don't think it's "giving away secrets" to speculate here... Hypnotic suggestions don't come into it. Neither does 'manipulation by psychological means', e.g. keyword hints. Magic methods are very mundane, sadly. There's nothing less exciting than hidden cameras, microphones, simple swapping of props, etc. Furthermore, nothing in TVland is honest, so there's no point in speculating. Think of the dullest, dirtiest method imaginable. That's probably the right one.
	__________________ www.stormmovie.net Official website of Tim Minchin's Storm Movie

6th July 2007, 06:10 PM	#16
DJM Muse Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 783	A lot of the things that Derren does is Dual Reality, and it's not something you need stooges for. I'm pretty sure that's what he did with the paper into money effect. It's a clever technic that can give amazing results if done the right way.
DJM Muse Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 783	Last edited by DJM; 6th July 2007 at 06:14 PM.

6th July 2007, 06:48 PM	#17
Calcas Master of my Domain Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 1,472	Originally Posted by DJM A lot of the things that Derren does is Dual Reality, and it's not something you need stooges for. I'm pretty sure that's what he did with the paper into money effect. It's a clever technic that can give amazing results if done the right way. So what is "dual reality?" Can you link me somewhere without giving out anything specific?

7th July 2007, 03:35 AM	#18
DJM Muse Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 783	Basically it's when the mentalist tricks both the spectator and the audience at the same time, but in a different way. About the first scene of the money effect, and this is only a speculation so don't see it as some exposure, maybe that white paper that Derren gives the person at the store is actually an envolope with the money inside. What the audience at home sees is a blank paper, but that person see the money that he deserves. That's dual reality.
DJM Muse Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 783

7th July 2007, 08:15 AM	#19
skipjack Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 200	Originally Posted by tkingdoll No, what is meant by that is that the people responding to the trick are not actors. Not the people performing the trick. Quite why anyone would interpret it any other way, I don't know That's obviously what Derren should have meant, but it's not what he stated. If "obvious" exceptions are allowed, arguably stooges are also allowed, at least if they are obvious ones (such as Robbie Williams).
skipjack Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 200	Last edited by skipjack; 7th July 2007 at 08:23 AM.

7th July 2007, 03:41 PM	#20
Azrael 5 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Yorkshire,Uk Posts: 4,219	Derren clearly meant actors as in general public,not as in famous!
	__________________ "I achieve these results through a mixture of magic,misdirection,suggestion and showmanship"-Derren Brown Photography here

8th July 2007, 01:27 AM	#21
skipjack Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 200	Originally Posted by Azrael 5 Derren clearly meant actors as in general public,not as in famous! Derren stated, "This program fuses magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship. I achieve all the results you'll see through a varied mixture of those techniques. At no point are actors or stooges used in the show." There's no hint of a need for exceptions or special interpretation in that. He's clearly saying that everything will be exclusively down to his use of the five methods listed.
skipjack Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 200

8th July 2007, 05:22 AM	#22
tkingdoll AKA TEEK Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Up Myself Posts: 12,468	Originally Posted by skipjack Derren stated, "This program fuses magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship. I achieve all the results you'll see through a varied mixture of those techniques. At no point are actors or stooges used in the show." There's no hint of a need for exceptions or special interpretation in that. He's clearly saying that everything will be exclusively down to his use of the five methods listed. You shouldn't eliminate the possibility that he's lying.
	__________________ www.stormmovie.net Official website of Tim Minchin's Storm Movie

8th July 2007, 06:11 AM	#23
Azrael 5 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Yorkshire,Uk Posts: 4,219	Originally Posted by skipjack Derren stated, "This program fuses magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship. I achieve all the results you'll see through a varied mixture of those techniques. At no point are actors or stooges used in the show." There's no hint of a need for exceptions or special interpretation in that. He's clearly saying that everything will be exclusively down to his use of the five methods listed. You cannot grasp common sense it appears.When people see Derren's work-and to some extent any magic on TV they are going to scream actors/stooges so he has to deflect form that by his disclaimer.It seems only you has a problem understanding the statement.
	__________________ "I achieve these results through a mixture of magic,misdirection,suggestion and showmanship"-Derren Brown Photography here

8th July 2007, 10:44 AM	#24
DJM Muse Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 783	Skipjack, you need to see the "no actors and stooges" statement within the context of mentalism and magic. The people who were in that effect from London that you mentioned were not actors/stooges, they were only assistants. And it should be very obvious to the audience.
DJM Muse Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 783	Last edited by DJM; 8th July 2007 at 10:46 AM.

8th July 2007, 01:51 PM	#25
skipjack Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 200	By pretending to be the original questioner, the assistant(s) were, by definition, acting, not just assisting. My main point was that Robbie Williams knowingly assisted the effect (by the nature of his answers to Derren's questions), which means that he was a stooge. That spoilt the effect. What's mysterious about somebody closing their eyes and going along with having needles stuck to their arms with no spectators present, and key parts of the process not shown in view of the camera anyway? Derren's introductory statements are clearly directed at the viewers in general, not just the small minority of viewers who are knowledgeable about the performance of illusions and the techniques available. It's therefore reasonable to interpret them at face value. If he's allowed actors or stooges in some circumstances, where does one draw the line? If I'm content to see acting, I might as well watch "Bewitched" or "Start Trek" instead.
skipjack Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 200

8th July 2007, 01:55 PM	#26
tkingdoll AKA TEEK Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Up Myself Posts: 12,468	Originally Posted by skipjack By pretending to be the original questioner, the assistant(s) were, by definition, acting, not just assisting. My main point was that Robbie Williams knowingly assisted the effect (by the nature of his answers to Derren's questions), which means that he was a stooge. That spoilt the effect. What's mysterious about somebody closing their eyes and going along with having needles stuck to their arms with no spectators present, and key parts of the process not shown in view of the camera anyway? Derren's introductory statements are clearly directed at the viewers in general, not just the small minority of viewers who are knowledgeable about the performance of illusions and the techniques available. It's therefore reasonable to interpret them at face value. If he's allowed actors or stooges in some circumstances, where does one draw the line? If I'm content to see acting, I might as well watch "Bewitched" or "Start Trek" instead. Yes, you might as well watch some fiction instead. If you want to watch a programme which does what it claims, or is as it appears at face value, may I suggest you don't watch Derren Brown.
	__________________ www.stormmovie.net Official website of Tim Minchin's Storm Movie

8th July 2007, 02:25 PM	#27
Calcas Master of my Domain Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 1,472	For those that are interested in Derren Brown, I started a thread yesterday in the General Skeptism and Paranormal forum asking about NLP and woo. I was referred to this 11 page thread from earlier this year which contains some excellent discussions on him and his methods. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71504

8th July 2007, 02:49 PM	#28
skipjack Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 200	You're distorting my meaning, tkingdoll. I was objecting to the disclaimer, not the whole programme. There's no need for Derren to use a partly fictional disclaimer. Obviously, trickery is to be expected in the main part of the programme, but if the disclaimer isn't accurate, that opens the door to dubbed audio, computer-generated or manually-edited images, deleted or resequenced frames, etc., making almost anything possible.
skipjack Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 200

8th July 2007, 02:53 PM	#29
tkingdoll AKA TEEK Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Up Myself Posts: 12,468	Originally Posted by skipjack You're distorting my meaning. I was objecting to the disclaimer, not the whole programme. There's no need for Derren to use a partly fictional disclaimer. Obviously, trickery is to be expected in the main part of the programme, but if the disclaimer isn't accurate, that opens the door to dubbed audio, computer-generated or manually-edited images, deleted or resequenced frames, etc., making almost anything possible. Seriously, if you're worried about the ethics of programming, you are going to have to stick to fiction, because ethics left TV a long time ago. Ever watch an experiment on a science show? Chances are it was faked. TV talent show? Rigged. And TV magic shows...well, they already tell you they're going to be full of deceit. Might as well take that to mean the disclaimer, too.
	__________________ www.stormmovie.net Official website of Tim Minchin's Storm Movie

9th July 2007, 09:53 AM	#30
skipjack Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 200	I realize my objection, even if well-founded and carefully explained, is unlikely to change the programmes. I'm aware that recording science demonstrations (actual experiments are much rarer) for broadcast can be difficult, so things are sometimes faked. I rarely watch talent shows. In general, I am quite skeptical. I do quite enjoy Derren's TV shows overall. In the past, I've also enjoyed watching Chan Canasta and other illusionists. My post usually needn't be quoted in full (or at all) when replying to it. Doing so isn't necessary; this isn't Usenet!
skipjack Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 200

9th July 2007, 11:11 AM	#31
tkingdoll AKA TEEK Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Up Myself Posts: 12,468	Originally Posted by skipjack My post usually needn't be quoted in full (or at all) when replying to it. Doing so isn't necessary; this isn't Usenet! No, it isn't Usenet, it's the JREF forum. And like most forums, there are people reading and contributing to the discussion other than skipjack. It is not sensible to reply to a post without quoting it, as others may not realise to what the reply refers. It is also quite easy for the quoted poster to go back and edit their original post, making the reply redundant. So, thanks for the usage tip, but I think I'll stick to what works for everyone else here.
	__________________ www.stormmovie.net Official website of Tim Minchin's Storm Movie

9th July 2007, 11:21 AM	#32
T'ai Chi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 11,233	stooges a plenty.
	__________________ http://www.statisticool.com

9th July 2007, 01:43 PM	#33
skipjack Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 200	I had in mind in particular a reply that follows immediately the post being replied to, which is a common situation. Referring to a previous poster by name, when appropriate, is often sufficient, since posts are rarely edited substantially.
skipjack Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 200

9th July 2007, 02:25 PM	#34
tkingdoll AKA TEEK Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Up Myself Posts: 12,468	Originally Posted by skipjack I had in mind in particular a reply that follows immediately the post being replied to, which is a common situation. Referring to a previous poster by name, when appropriate, is often sufficient, since posts are rarely edited substantially. The irony of this being that there's another post in between mine, and your reply
	__________________ www.stormmovie.net Official website of Tim Minchin's Storm Movie

10th July 2007, 05:30 AM	#35
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: London ish Posts: 1,039	I saw no actors. I saw people who were swiched in. I saw no reason to infer that they were at any point 'acting' or pretending to be anything they were not.
	__________________ Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it.' -George Bernard Shaw GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment