This is the mindset of conspiracy theorists, which I have never understood – and I’m not saying you are one, just that the mindset is the same: The person you are invested in believing in (the magician, the UFO spotter, the “prover” of a second shooter on the grassy knoll) could not possibly be misleading you, no, it must be that legions of completely unrelated people (the lottery, the police, the government) with no clear motive for doing so, must all be dishonest enough to agree to engage in a fradulent or criminal conspiracy.
Rather that think Darren Brown is dishonest, you’re perfectly willing to believe a number of people at the lottery are. ETA: Besides, I assume Mr. Brown would object to you calling it “dishonesty” anyway. You know it’s a trick; he said so. So why is he “too good” for camera tricks?
That may well be the mindset of conspiracy theorists, but it is not mine. I’m not saying there would be ‘legions of completely unrelated people’ in on this. I’m not entirely sure of what it’d take to fix the lottery, but I’m going with his ‘explanation’ in the closing minutes of the show. That is, an insider, some sort of hypnosis, weighted balls, etc. Whether or not this is beyond the realms of possibility I do not know - maybe it is. It just seems completely alien to me (and perhaps wrongly so) that a ‘magician’ who has based his career around explainable trickery, who has consistently revealed his methods and whose ‘magic’ is, as he freely admits and we all obviously know, not magic at all, but normal manipulation and misdirection, would now resort to the cheap and easily replicated camera trickery which is being put forth. Of course, the comeback is that this in itself is misdirection, that this is what he wants me to think. Well, of course, this is also possible, I just think it would be pretty out-of-character. As for dishonesty, I think this is a fair judgement considering that he offered an ‘explanation’ program and if this consisted wholly of lies then I think that’s a lot worse, as someone has already said, than just refusing to explain at all.
And yes, I do think he’s above simple camera tricks. We only really have his past illusions to go on. I can’t think of any which have been of this sort. That’s not to say, of course, that he couldn’t make a change and resort to them now, regardless of what he’s done in the past, but I just think it’d be strange and unnecessary. If anyone can emulate it with $200, what’s the point?
Oh and by the way, this isn’t a guy who lives under a rock, I think the idea that it was some sort of double bluff, and that people wouldn’t immediately think ‘CAMERA TRICK’, is ridiculous. (“More ridiculous than him fixing the lottery?” “Yep.”)
So, Night, so be it, what do you say to the trailer I linked to above, of Brown apparently juggling four lottery balls in one hand (while talking to the camera and not even looking at the balls, no less)? That was obviously done with camera trickery, and I don’t think anybody would claim otherwise. So if he’s happy to use camera tricks to promote the illusion in question, why wouldn’t he use them to perform the illusion itself?
I see your point, but I don’t think there’s a real connection. He is making no claims about the juggling in the trailer. I don’t think it’s a weak argument to say that what applies to the promotion does not necessarily apply to the performance. The promotion, for a start, did not have an hour-long explanatory program attached to it. I think this is more important than it sounds. I’d have less of an issue with the idea that he used a camera trick (for the lottery) if it hadn’t been so drawn out, if it had instead been quick and to the point, and left for the viewer to make up their own mind. The very idea of a program purporting to explain a trick would lead me to believe that there was something interesting to be explained. To offer an explanatory program without a shred of explanation would be a cheap thing to do. This is not to say it wouldn’t happen, I just think he’s better than that. Many people obviously think otherwise.
Don’t you think that gives it away right there? Wouldn’t he be using the exact same split-screen trick to film both the promo and the event itself? I say case closed.
Yet you still continue to prefer a solution that you don’t even know is possible, over one that is not only possible but demonstrated, just because you prefer not to believe the more reasonable option.
You just don’t like the probable solution because you think it’s cheap – I can understand that. But that seems to me precious thin reason to reject a demonstrable theory in favor of . . . well, nothing, actually, no alternate theory at all really, since you have no idea how the lottery might have been fixed or even if that would be possible at all. So we have on the one hand several videos, courtesy of YouTube, showing how the trick could be done, and on the other hand we have the theory that unknown insiders at the national lottery would fix the game, despite the screaming illegality of that, the difficulty of that, and the unethicality of that. And of course there are no specifics as to how the fix could even be done, though perhaps hypnosis or weighted balls might come into it somewhere.
I’m not picking a fight, but I am pointing out that this is all faulting reasoning. You are starting from the conclusion you wish to reach (or don’t wish to reach) and reasoning back from it. You don’t want to think Darren Brown would stoop to a $200 camera trick, thus that cannot have been the solution, thus there must be some other solution like fixing the lottery. This of course requires you to disregard how easy the “camera trick” solution is, and how massively difficult the “fix the lottery” solution is. It’s this disregarding of the probabilities that I’m having trouble understanding.
The fact that your solution is simpler doesn’t make a difference. The simpler conclusion is not always the correct one. If we look only to the simplest explanations then we can do away with his entire career and say that his output of programs have all just contained actors who were in on it. If one believes, as I do, that in his fairly long list of programs he hasn’t used actors, then I think it follows logically that he wouldn’t resort to the equally cheap and equally simple use of camera tricks. If, on the other hand, one believes that this recent illusion was camera trickery, then there’s no reason to believe he’s used anything but actors in his past tricks. Proving it either way is difficult. If we’re going only on simplicity, then sure, actors and camera trickery it is.
All magicians are dishonest, or at least misleading. It’s a requirement for the job.
I want to modify my statement that a $200 video editor could do the job. Every professional video studio in the world already has one, it’s in daily use and only a slider need be moved a few inches, then back. Every video editor knows how to do it, and uses the process frequently and it costs nothing in special equipment. What could be simpler?
Postulating a fancy, expensive, special-purpose laser printer that might not even exist to draw on specially prepared, photosensitive balls without being seen? Instead of telling the booth operator to move a lever for a few seconds? Pish-posh!
Stubborn, not stupid. You want to believe. We all want to believe. That’s the magic of magic. You want to believe that what he did was at least difficult to do and required a great amount of skill. Most magic, with the exception of sleight of hand tricks, are ridiculously simple once you know the secret. The difficult/skillful part is coming up with new ways to show misdirection etc.
True, but it is more likely to be the correct one than some complicated theoretical solution that you don’t even know could be done.
Why? Why are you assuming that utilizing one resource means he must necessarily utilize the other, or that if he foregoes one – is “above” it – he must necessarily be above the other as well?
Well, I haven’t said anything about actors, not feeling, as you do, that recourse to camera tricks necessarily implies recourse to actors. But I am saying that when you are offered a plausible solution, it does not make sense to reject it solely for the reason that you do not like it and would personally prefer some other, purely hypothetical but obviously much more complicated solution because then you can feel much better about the entertainer.
I don’t think you’re being stupid, but I do think you are allowing what you would prefer to be the truth to dictate your guess as to what must be the truth. At the very least if you were going to theorize the “rig the lottery” solution, I would hope you would think of (or find) the way that could be done. Becuase rejecting something that obviously can be done for something that as far as we know cannot be done – that’s the point at which you lose me.
I think that trailer is the most damning piece of evidence presented so far. As mentioned, he’s pretty much admitting that video tricks are fair game. Wow.
I think there’s a definite link. If he used a camera trick in this case, instead of the more complicated lottery fix, then why bother, in the past, to use non-actors and hypnosis instead of the much simpler option of actors? Of course, the degree of complication is different, but the point remains the same: he could’ve done equally cheap things in the past which would’ve been as simple as the camera trick. I don’t believe he did, do you?
If you don’t, and instead have him down as a complete con-man, then at least it’s a consistent view, which may prove to be the correct one. If you do believe he wasn’t using actors in other programs, then why is this? Could it be that you are factoring in other reasons that have nothing to do with simplicity and ease?
As for a definite way of fixing the lottery, I couldn’t tell you exactly how it’s done. I do think though, that if sufficient research was carried out, it could be shown to be entirely possible. Of course, me saying this counts for absolutely nothing at present, but I’m pretty sure that even if I proved it to be possible, it would have little impact on the overall discussion. I am, by the way, quite surprised you think it’s impossible.
Is it really that damning? I’m trying to think of an analogy and struggling. This is the best I could come up with:
A nature program is advertised. The show claims to cover each continent. In the advertisement the host is in the foreground, and some palm trees are in the background. The background switches to ice. Then it switches to desert. Etc. etc. Obviously, the advertisement is filmed in a studio. Then, the program airs. After its run, someone says, ‘the whole thing was filmed in a studio.’ A debate ensues. When asked for evidence for this claim, someone says, ‘Well, in the advertisement they were in a studio, if they did it in the advert, they could do it in the main program too!’ The thing is, I sincerely doubt anyone would buy this reasoning. Adverts are adverts. It’s hardly a smoking gun.
People, magicians have been performing tricks similar to this one for centuries, live on stage with no possibility of camera tricks involved. One popular trick is to predict a newspaper headline several days in advance. The prediction is held in a sealed envelope by a VIP who brings it to the show.
Examples:
The Straight Dope’s own Ianzin did it on Richard And Judy, apparently.
There are several ways to perform this trick, but the basic method is the same. The magician makes his prediction AFTER the newspaper has been printed. Then by some cunning method he switches it with the original, without anyone noticing.
Given that it is possible to perform an identical effect without resorting to camera trickery, I think that he most likely did it without camera trickery. He may have invented a new method. I can think of at least one way the switch could have been made, with the balls in plain sight. I don’t know if it’s the method he used.
Well, duh…that’s exactly what we’re been saying and Derren did. You described it very well, if you will accept a media substitute of “lottery show has been broadcast” in place of “newspaper has been printed.” Using a cunning method (one heretofore known only to ordinary video editors), he switched numbered balls with the original, without anyone noticing. Exactly.
If you study tricks like this, and it appears you have, you should notice that not all “prediction” tricks are done in the same way in spite of the apparently similar outcome. Sometimes subtle differences in the situation dictate variations in the procedure or an entirely different principle. Not all tricks lend themselves to the same method and no one is saying they do.
This lottery ball trick is most likely done with the split screen method, IMHO. Other prediction tricks may be done by other methods, equally simple or easy for their particular circumstances. I’ve seen some live that certainly had no video involvement at all. But so far, no one (on this message board or some others I am aware of) has come up with an easier, cheaper and more reliable method that fits what we have seen as well as the video split screen one does.
:rolleyes:
I think you’ve missed the point of my post. You are claiming that the switch was done with a camera trick. I am stating that many magicians have done similar stunts WITHOUT a camera trick, indeed they were doing similar stunts in front of live audiences before cameras were invented.
This trick CAN be done without employing split screen technology. Derren Brown has the expertise to do it without using split screen technology. Therefore he most probably did not use split screen technology.
Well, if we rule out camera trickery Brown himself can’t have switched them, because he didn’t touch them until after the trick was over. The only possible route to the balls would be up the apparently transparent pole they stood on, or directly from behind.
Balls with built-in “liquid paper” or LCD displays, some kind of laser etching the balls remotely, an inkjet device built into the stand, the balls being replaced via the pole or from behind… none of the alternative theories seem at all plausible. Well, maybe it is just within the realms of possibility that there’s an assistant behind the backdrop, somehow manipulating the balls with a long thin pole that is out of sight of the camera. But the rear wall looks much too far away for that to be possible. They would have at most 40 seconds to do the switch, or affix the numbers to the balls or whatever.