Can I ask, what is it Derren Brown has done that commands such respect, that some of you think he is above camera tricks?
Many many shows over the last few years. Some on youtube. Lots not.
Nearly all of his stuff is brilliant, clever and comes with a nice twist on what you’ve seen before.
One of the best was The Heist
I have seen a lot of his tricks. And I agree they are entertaining. But what I mean is, what is it about those tricks (or something else) that make you doubt that he would do a camera trick? I have seen him give false NLP explanations to tricks before, and also he gave a wrong explanation this time. He promises that he doesn’t use stooges, and I believe him in that. But he never promises not to use camera tricks.
I haven’t seen many of his tricks at all. Why do you believe his promise that he doesn’t use stooges? Just out of curiosity. Are there any magicians that would admit to using stooges?
From what I’ve read, if you were to believe that he does use stooges, many of his tricks would be much less impressive (e.g. imagine that all the participants in “The Heist” were actors). So of course he’s going to say he doesn’t use stooges.
I think any magician that refuses to use stooges or camera tricks would be artificially limiting his career. And for what? The Magician’s Code of Honour?
From what I’ve seen, I think what makes Derren Brown a great magician is that he’s somehow managed to convince people that he wouldn’t stoop to those kinds of tactics. Which makes it much easier to pull off amazing tricks.
Mainly because I think that if he did, he risks that they could blackmail him for a lot.
If a magician needs stooges or camera tricks, there is no act. He’s just an actor in a poorly plotted short film. Once people recognise that the magic isn’t real, skilled displays of legerdemain are pretty much the only reason to have any interest in what he’s doing.
Using video trickery is by far the likeliest explanation if you watch each move of the video and take into account the setting for the trick. However, regardless of how he did the trick, it really irks me that he gave such a BS explanation involving the wisdom of crowds. I kept waiting for a more reasonable explanation, but none was offered. He should have just said I’m not going to tell you how I did it, but here are some possible explanations. If he had done that I’d had kept more respect for Mr. Brown. It was a great act. Why spoil it with the BS?
…most of which are entirely compatible with something other than splitscreen…
You would expect the balls to be close to Brown? If you were doing a physical trick it’s not going to be impressive unless you make it clear he can’t touch them. You would expect perhaps the balls to be in front of him or the TV? Does that makes sense to you in terms of set design and visual clarity? This point means nothing.
Maybe but hardly decisive
Compatible with obscuring a physical trick as much as a split screen.
You’d want as much time as possible to do a physical trick too, this means nothing.
ditto
See above, in my view the fact it stuck partway up is not compatible with the very simple physical design required if the whole thing is video trickery. The timing is compatible with the last ball having something physical done to it last, just before Brown walks across.
Maybe.
You’re ignoring my comments above. There is a much better way of ensuring accurate placement while allowing speedy removal and placement.
Yes, I would. I would make it a little snug rather than a litle loose. Think of what would have happened if the ball tray was so loose that, when the split screen was wiped, several balls were seen shifted to one side or the other. Tightness was required to avoid this outcome. Not too loose, not too tight, but just Goldilocks-right. Or, like the German virgin, Goesintight.
Hot lights, rushing the trick, a little carelessness under pressure, possibly non-uniform balls, and there was a tiny mishap, which never would have been revealed if it weren’t for video recording and the Internet.
I think it’s much more interesting to think of how this could be done without video trickery. The shaky cam could have been a way of hiding any movement from inserting the numbered balls into the half-shells. I could see how this is possible. The background could have been a 2-D image hiding a space where an accomplice could be located with a stick and a set of numbered balls.
I think there may be some significance to the fact that the balls are not in the same order as they were drawn
Night, so be it said:
If Brown were somehow able to fix the lottery, it would have to involve confederates who work for the lottery. The lottery would definitely have an incentive to catch those people and prosecute them.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! You seriously think it is far more likely that he engaged in a complicated and illegal act involving several other people (who could rat him out) than it is for him to use a simple, cheap, legal means to allow misdirection and masking of the switch? Really?
Extremely.
Magic is never about the ease or complexity of how the trick is accomplished. Magic is about the smoothness and convincingness of the presentation. There’s a TV show, Magic’s Greatest Secrets Finally Revealed, that demonstrates how magic tricks of all scales (from up-close sleight of hand, to street magic, to big stage magic, to escapes) are accomplished. Often the simplest and most underhanded techniques are used. For example, how about an escape where the magician is locked in a bag, stuck in the back seat of a car, and then a weight crushing the car? The magician is seen wiggling right up to the last moment. But it’s done with a robotic body that wiggles in a duplicate bag, and the magician slips out almost at the moment he’s placed in the car. Or think of the trick of walking across a pool. Performed by making optically clear plastic stands just under the surface and using paid accomplices in the pool to make you think he’s doing it in front of a live audience? Or how about making an elephant appear out of nowhere in the middle of a parking lot, while surrounded by audience members? Again, paid accomplices and some misdirection with really large sheets, combined with a hidden opening in the sheets.
I don’t know if Brown has done anything like that, but the point is that magic is full of the cheap stuff. Why should Brown be any different? The point is, did he accomplish his goal of pulling off an act that looks impossible, and making the audience believe there was no way he could cheat?
So your answer is, because it isn’t fun to believe that it’s just a simple trick, then he shouldn’t use a simple trick but should use some complicated and illegal method to simulate his mystical powers instead?
So what you’re saying is, because you believe Darren Brown is better than this trick, he therefore didn’t resort to a stupid lottery prediction gimmick that magicians have done for centuries? Or is it just the execution that bugs you? You’re okay if he did it by having a laser engraver inscribe the balls on the stand real time, but are pissy if he used a camera fade to mask physically swapping the balls? Why is one tech gimmick okay but another tech gimmick a cheap shot?
Nonsense. Maybe he does use actors in some cases - he apparently hired a juggler for that promo. But really, just because he might use accomplices in one trick does not mean he uses them in another, similar trick. There are plenty of conjuring tricks that are fully convincing and that do not require accomplices. There are often numerous ways to pull of a similar result. The key to a successful magician is to use lots of different techniques, so he can’t be outguessed. Doing the same thing the same way repeatedly leads to people figuring out the gimmick.
Nars Glinley said:
Even the gimmick of sleight of hand is simple, it’s the execution that requires talent and training. The real skill in magic is in making the presentation and misdirection look natural. Two people can pull off the exact same sleight of hand trick, and do it with the same skill in handling, but one not be as good at making the rest of his motions similar so that the sleight of hand looks like a natural part of his body and hand motions rather than a deliberate action. That one will be a poorer act.
Princhester said:
Isn’t that pretty much “If I ran the zoo”? “If I ran the zoo, I’d put the tigers next to the zebras because they’re both striped. I’d put the platypus next to the duck because they both have bills.” Just because you would think to do something a certain way does not mean everyone else would. In this case, apparently Darren Brown did not think to use rubber sockets for the balls.
Colophon, thanks for that gif. Definitely indicates something happened with the balls.
Peter Morris said:
I know there are numerous ways to do this kind of trick, but how many of those actually apply to the performance we witnessed? The balls were apparently in place on the stand in full view the entire time from before the numbers were announced until he rotated the stand for the reveal. If the video is live and unretouched, at no time did he have the opportunity to swap the balls himself, or to apply labels or anything. The stand is thin and clear, so there is very little likelihood the stand could have mechanisms in it. The stage appears to be a large room with the wall a distance off. I know appearances can be deceiving, but this gives every indication of being the undecorated room wall for the soundstage and it is some distance back from the tray, not much room for an accomplice to use a stick from behind, for instance. If he didn’t know the numbers before the drawing (and most of us are assuming that is the case), then someone had to swap them or mark them while they are in plain view. There is no time the balls are not on the camera. However, there is no live studio audience. That is a strong suggestion that the trick he pulled off in this instance could not be done live.
Half Man Half Wit said:
And how is that any less a cheap trick than using a camera feature? Why is a technological camera trick to insert a digital image of numbers onto balls okay but a technological camera trick to mask the swapping of physical balls for ones with the right numbers too cheap and unacceptable?
Anyway, that’s far more complicated and prone to detection. The text moves with the balls as the stand is rotated, and the text distorts properly on the curved surface. I’m thinking not likely.
Princhester said:
In point of fact, we’re not saying the whole thing is video trickery, and we are saying that something physical was done to the ball. We just are saying it was done while a camera trick was masking that physical activity, rather than it being done in full view.
DanBlather said:
I thought about that, but I don’t think so. All he did was change the order of presentation from smallest to largest, which is how they are typically presented by the lottery on TV and printed results. Typically a person enters their numbers in the same order. The balls come out in any order, and the drawn numbers are sequenced for subsequent presentations.
New thread about his latest stunt