Jump to content
IGNORED

Derren Brown : The Events Fridays 9pm


Capwn
 Share

Recommended Posts

I know nothing about NLP...

Me neither. However, a quick read up about it on wikipedia and the needle on my bullshit-o-meter is up to 11.

It seems, despite snowbind's claim that "NLP is really powerful stuff", that there's little or no empirical evidence to back up this claim, and the little empirical evidence there is for NLP, is not supportive of NLP's claims.

The other problem with NLP, as a term, seems to be that it means different things to different people, and is therefore a fairly meaningless term.

Still, this is just my opinion from about 5 minutes reading. I can give citations though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

copypasta from something I wrote earlier in this thread and firmly stand by:

Perhaps Derren Brown is doing an impression of Andriy Shevchenko? A man who was fantastic, at the top of his game which prompted a ton of money to be spent on securing his services which attracted a new audience of people wondering what all the fuss about his previous work was about.

Then he became inexplicably shit overnight

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've watched it now. Kind of wish I'd avoided the thread, and the ending, before watching it, as I was sitting there with concentric circles and Stonehenge on my mind anyway. There were lots of obvious keys to get people to draw concentric circles. Katie's eyes, the banner behind the concealed painting that was full of them, showing us texts from people at home who had drawn concentric circles or Stonehenge, the fact that concentric circles would be a fairly natural free flowing doodle anyway.

I guess the trick is in how he got her to draw them, or how he found out what her drawing was, I'll get on over to Facebook and bug her about it (though, she sucks at the internet, so probably won't check for ages). Will also see her ex-housemate next week, and I'm pretty sure he will have been on the phone to her about it by now.

Like others, I was a little baffled about her explanation of the dashes being Stonehenge thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've watched it now. Kind of wish I'd avoided the thread, and the ending, before watching it, as I was sitting there with concentric circles and Stonehenge on my mind anyway. There were lots of obvious keys to get people to draw concentric circles. Katie's eyes, the banner behind the concealed painting that was full of them, showing us texts from people at home who had drawn concentric circles or Stonehenge, the fact that concentric circles would be a fairly natural free flowing doodle anyway.

I guess the trick is in how he got her to draw them, or how he found out what her drawing was, I'll get on over to Facebook and bug her about it (though, she sucks at the internet, so probably won't check for ages). Will also see her ex-housemate next week, and I'm pretty sure he will have been on the phone to her about it by now.

Like others, I was a little baffled about her explanation of the dashes being Stonehenge thing.

Where the brush fades it creates gaps in the circle. Look at stonehenge from above and you will see the perfect circle of Stonehenge is broken by gaps.... I assume that is what she is trying to show...

stonehenge.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had to guess (and I have no idea if this is technically possible) I'd say it was the paint/canvas he gave her along with the instruction to cover it with newspaper, not exactly the most robust of coverings. I may be way off with this but wouldn't a strong enough light source outside the visible spectrum be able to covertly penetrate the newspaper to reveal a simple high contrast design (say the paint was made to absorb IR and the canvas to reflect it)? That's how I'd do it, unless I'm assuming some impossible physics.

Even if that was possible, I don't think him seeing the picture would have been how it was done. I don't think anyone could have guessed it was supposed to be Stonehenge from looking at his picture, and to have shipped her out to Stonehenge, he more than just got lucky. In fact, to have gone ahead with the whole thing, he would have had to be 100% confident about what she had drawn, and what it represented.

I'm assuming he probably gets people involved to the extent she was to sign NDAs, or something, though, so I'm not sure how much she'll be able to tell me.

As for the drawings submitted, it would have been quite easy for him to have got helpers to come in during the week, and even on the night, to stuff the ballots with Stonehenge pictures, and concentric circle pictures. I think (concentric) circle pictures would always be something fairly common for people to draw though, with or without any subliminal clues (which I'm kind of dubious about). Especially when he probably prompted the people sorting the pictures to put any ones which looked vaguely like circles together, and then just showed us the most similar ones (so a similar technique to Mr Carr, of focusing on the closest things, after knowing what he's looking for).

Anyway, why so little talk about the bat fellow. I thought that must all be complete bollocks, but it seems not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation

Of course, it had absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the show, but I'm shocked I've never seen a documentary about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course he isn't psychic, nobody is, so sorry if what I was saying made you think I was implying that was a possibility.

These are the basic possibilities:

1) He got lucky that her drawing was supposed to be Stonehenge

2) He pre-programmed her to draw Stonehenge

3) He post-programmed her to say it was Stonehenge

4) She was in on it

5) It was all clever editing. The footage of her was filmed in advance of the rest of the show, so he already knew it was Stonehenge. It was then just edited in with the rest of the footage. Her getting out the isolation booth at Stonehenge was filmed at a different time, for some "extra footage", after he already knew she'd drawn Stonehenge.

6) Something else I can't think of.

I think it's too much of a coincidence for her to say the Stonehenge stuff without him knowing it was supposed to be Stonehenge, or that she would say it was supposed to be Stonehenge. OK, even if she hadn't said Stonehenge herself, he could have still fitted in the Stonehenge stuff, and got her to agree it looked a bit like Stonehenge. However, she came out with that herself, and I don't think he'd rely on luck that she would. Some of his stuff does rely on luck, and he can re-film with different volunteers before he gets lucky, but I think this was too big to do a re-film until he got lucky. I just don't buy the whole Stonehenge stuff unless he was 100% sure it was Stonehenge, and you couldn't be 100% sure from seeing the drawing alone.

I'm not at all convinced he pre-programmed her in any way to draw Stonehenge, or post-programmed her in any way to say it was supposed to be Stonehenge (and by programmed, I mean used NLP, or suggestion, or subliminal cues, etc.). This is the kind of thing he wants you to believe is possible, and that he can do it, I don't buy it.

I really like to think she wasn't in on it. I don't think she's the sort of person who'd agree to going along with it if she was in on it. I can think of some friends who would be, but not really her.

My editing theory all just seems too far fetched. Though is just about possible.

So, my money is currently on 6, any other ideas of what it could be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I figured out the Giraffe trick, or something along these lines - anyone please feel free to ammend/add ideas. I can't say that this is how it was done for sure, as I only saw it once, but if I wanted to achieve the same effect, I'd do something along these lines:

1). The girl's choices were actually limited to a finite number of possible soft toys (perhaps three or four). The crew will have approached her and asked to picked at random from the soft toy department - just to make things easier for Derren (it would be hard to build a giant Nintendo DS for example). Most people would be willing to go along with this and will try to be helpful (and if not, the next person will), and thus Derren gets to tick his 'Psychology' box.

2). Derren then leads her around all floors of Hamleys whilst they are being filmed.

• Floor 1/Section 1: Giraffe pictures on escalators/t-shirts etc. Derren drops the odd 'Giraffe' word in.

• Floor 2/Section 2: Ape pictures on escalators/t-shirts etc. Derren drops the odd "Your friend will go ape when she sees your gift", and scratches under his arms.

• Floor 3/Section 3: Hippo pictures on escalators/t-shirts etc. Derren drops the odd "It would be hippo-critical of me to try to guide you to a gift" etc. etc.

• Floor 4/Section 3: Dog pictures on escalators/t-shirts etc. Derren drops the odd "I may be barking up the wrong tree here but...." etc. etc.

3). Girl then goes off to pick her toy.

4). When she comes back, Derren just has a 1 in 5 chance of guessing which soft toy she picked. Arguably this could be done by her cracking the nervous smile people do when you start to guess what they are trying to hide, but failing that, he'll hit jackpot with another person doing the same trick.

Now, this part is interesting, because a poster earlier questioned WHY Derren needed to establish what toy she picked if he'd already 'implanted' her with a Giraffe.

I'd guess that this is because he actually has no idea which soft toy she has picked, and he needs to find out so that the crew (via radio mics) can let the chaps downstairs know which giant animal to take out of the back of the lorry....

5). Name tag is sneakily handed to Derren based on what the girl said, and a giant one is printed out in the back of the lorry. This part is difficult to establish the exact nature of the slight of hand as its brutally cut - but I'll go with the "Derren we need to re-shoot, there's a problem with the film" magician manoeuvre.

6). The film is then edited to reflect the choice of soft toy, so the dog/ape/hippo stuff is never seen. The girl is none the wiser because it was all too subtle anyway.

Something like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spot on.... there's another angle to this as well....

Did you ever see the explanation of how David Blaine did his levitation? Because I think the same thought processes are being used here.

In the levitation, the viewers at home saw a studio setup with wires digitally removed. The people on the street saw a performance of the Balducci Levitation (I think) where the performer basically is standing on tip-toes.

The illusion is convincing because we are impressed just the same as the audience in the programme are. But in reality, they are seeing a different trick. We are marvelling at someone levitating about 6 feet, where the people in the show are impressed by him rising by about 2 inches. We are convinced because we make the assumption that the person in the show is seeing the trick from the same perspective as we are.

So we use Venice Cull's theory above, and Derren Brown asks the girl to choose from a list of five toys. She then walks around the store and chooses one.

Derren then asks her what name she would give the toy - she says Frank. A stagehand then prepares the "Frank" name tag, and sticks it in the bag.

Derren then does the reveal, but says "there a a milion toys in this shop but you picked the girraffe".. This line is for the programme, to further cement in our minds that she had a free choice of everything. It's only when she sees the show on TV that she sees the presentation implied that she could from millions of items - the trick she attended on the day was a choice of five items.

Meanwhile, another stagehand sees she has picked giraffe, and they get the big giraffe from collection of 5 massive toys hidden round the corner, stick a nametag on it calling it Frank, and stand it outside the front door.

As they walk out, Derren says "And what would you call the Girraffe", and the woman says Frank - apparently for the first ever time, but the viewers at home do not know that she has said this before. She is just following up from the earlier chat that we never saw.

Then Derren takes her outside and she sees the Giraffe. The name tag is on there too.

It has to be done this way, because there is no way Derren could know what name she would pick if she was asked for the first time, as we saw on the show. When she says the name, she already has the bag with the name tag in it.

So in conclusion, I think the "trick" element here is in convincing the viewers at home that what they are seeing is the entirety of the trick as it was performed on the day, and the reality is there are a whole load of other elements and events of the day, that make the little section we saw possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spot on.... there's another angle to this as well....

Did you ever see the explanation of how David Blaine did his levitation? Because I think the same thought processes are being used here.

In the levitation, the viewers at home saw a studio setup with wires digitally removed. The people on the street saw a performance of the Balducci Levitation (I think) where the performer basically is standing on tip-toes.

The illusion is convincing because we are impressed just the same as the audience in the programme are. But in reality, they are seeing a different trick. We are marvelling at someone levitating about 6 feet, where the people in the show are impressed by him rising by about 2 inches. We are convinced because we make the assumption that the person in the show is seeing the trick from the same perspective as we are.

So we use Venice Cull's theory above, and Derren Brown asks the girl to choose from a list of five toys. She then walks around the store and chooses one.

Derren then asks her what name she would give the toy - she says Frank. A stagehand then prepares the "Frank" name tag, and sticks it in the bag.

Derren then does the reveal, but says "there a a milion toys in this shop but you picked the girraffe".. This line is for the programme, to further cement in our minds that she had a free choice of everything. It's only when she sees the show on TV that she sees the presentation implied that she could from millions of items - the trick she attended on the day was a choice of five items.

Meanwhile, another stagehand sees she has picked giraffe, and they get the big giraffe from collection of 5 massive toys hidden round the corner, stick a nametag on it calling it Frank, and stand it outside the front door.

As they walk out, Derren says "And what would you call the Girraffe", and the woman says Frank - apparently for the first ever time, but the viewers at home do not know that she has said this before. She is just following up from the earlier chat that we never saw.

Then Derren takes her outside and she sees the Giraffe. The name tag is on there too.

It has to be done this way, because there is no way Derren could know what name she would pick if she was asked for the first time, as we saw on the show. When she says the name, she already has the bag with the name tag in it.

So in conclusion, I think the "trick" element here is in convincing the viewers at home that what they are seeing is the entirety of the trick as it was performed on the day, and the reality is there are a whole load of other elements and events of the day, that make the little section we saw possible.

I think there could be an element of that, but I'm not so sure with regard to the 'Frank' name tag - I'm pretty sure it must have been planted during the cuts made AFTER she'd picked the giraffe. But I could see it working the way you've said - its just a bit riskier and suspicious to do it that way.

I think the method you describe is how he did the subliminal job on the advertising boys. After they'd revealed what their advert was going to be, the stage hands dotted their taxi route home with the clues in the shop windows etc.

i.e. The footage we saw of the ad men in the taxi was actually their journey back home AFTER the trick - not the journey there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just in addition to this, there is the question - Why would she be so impressed to see the name she mentioned in the bag, if she first mentioned it 20 minutes earlier than we think?

Well, I think it is because we are predisposed to being impressed by magicians. I was at a convention last year and there was a mind reader on the stage, who, at the beginning of the show, gave someone in the audience a sealed envelope. Then during the show, he got people in the audience to stand up and think of a number, a place, an animal, etc. He asked the people in the audience to think of the words but not say them out loud. Then he wrote on a whiteboard (facing away from us so we could not see) what the people in the audience were thinking... He did a bit more banter, and finally, asked the guy in the audience with the envelope to stand up.

He opened the envolope, read out the predictions, and the magician then turned around the whiteboard to reveal that what he had written matched what was in the envelope exactly. He got a huge round of applause that lasted about 20 seconds as he took a bow and left the stage. It was only then we all started to realise, "Hang on a Minute!!!!!" All he did was match what he wrote on the whiteboard with what HE WROTE in the envelope.... he never went back to the audience particiapnts to confirm if anything he wrote was what they were thinking of!!!!

But of course, on TV, he would have had that round of applause, the audience reaction of astonishment, before the volunteer has a second to think about what actually happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is it, and when you take his (or any other magician's) TV tricks exactly as what you saw, at face value, then you have to be impressed and in Brown's case the explanations come in NLP, suggestions, and other nonsense, especially because he makes a big thing saying that's how he did it.

Of course, take a step back and consider what it was you exactly saw (and how much you didn't see), and you realise that you were tricked. Because that's all he's doing, tricking you into thinking you saw something you didn't. Nothing new there, that's what magician's do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derren Brown admits he is not psychic and does not believe - he says it's all showmanship and magic - so an expose would only work for the people who have missed the point anyway.

I never said he did, he does, however, make all sorts of nonsense claims about "psychology" and "deep maths" and so on, and yes, he always starts the show with his standard disclaimer, but even that includes claims to use psychology (which I admit he kind of does in a way, just seldom, if ever, in the ways he claims).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched until the first "DRAW NOW!" part, when they mega zoomed in on her eyes. I said to the GF "it'll be circles, like her eyes". We turned it back on for the reveal, and lo and behold I was fucking right. This series has just been one let down after another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He opened the envolope, read out the predictions, and the magician then turned around the whiteboard to reveal that what he had written matched what was in the envelope exactly. He got a huge round of applause that lasted about 20 seconds as he took a bow and left the stage. It was only then we all started to realise, "Hang on a Minute!!!!!" All he did was match what he wrote on the whiteboard with what HE WROTE in the envelope.... he never went back to the audience particiapnts to confirm if anything he wrote was what they were thinking of!!!!

But of course, on TV, he would have had that round of applause, the audience reaction of astonishment, before the volunteer has a second to think about what actually happened.

:lol: That's brilliant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:) That's brilliant.

There's a fairly simple card trick like that, they all work the same way I think. You basically stick a card somewhere in the room earlier on, then when people get a bit drunk you guide them to your choice of card. I say when they're a bit drunk, as they notice the guidance less (especially if you are a bit fuzzy on the performance of the trick).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me neither. However, a quick read up about it on wikipedia and the needle on my bullshit-o-meter is up to 11.

It seems, despite snowbind's claim that "NLP is really powerful stuff", that there's little or no empirical evidence to back up this claim, and the little empirical evidence there is for NLP, is not supportive of NLP's claims.

The other problem with NLP, as a term, seems to be that it means different things to different people, and is therefore a fairly meaningless term.

Still, this is just my opinion from about 5 minutes reading. I can give citations though.

As a term it means one thing. Neuro-linguistic programming

This wiki section pretty much lists the techniques he uses on the show.

I can't find the citation for the percentage or remember where I read it. But I know Derren Brown himself mentions it in the show he did ages ago where he got someone to rob the security guards. He gets rid of 70% of the people off the bat because they aren't receptive enough to his suggestions. I can't for the life of me remember the specific term that denotes someone who is receptive. It's not just to NLP it's to people being susceptible to suggestion. It's part of people's psychological profile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a term it means one thing. Neuro-linguistic programming

This wiki section pretty much lists the techniques he uses on the show.

I can't find the citation for the percentage or remember where I read it. But I know Derren Brown himself mentions it in the show he did ages ago where he got someone to rob the security guards. He gets rid of 70% of the people off the bat because they aren't receptive enough to his suggestions. I can't for the life of me remember the specific term that denotes someone who is receptive. It's not just to NLP it's to people being susceptible to suggestion. It's part of people's psychological profile.

Have you considered that he might be lying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I figured out the Giraffe trick, or something along these lines - anyone please feel free to ammend/add ideas. I can't say that this is how it was done for sure, as I only saw it once, but if I wanted to achieve the same effect, I'd do something along these lines:

1). The girl's choices were actually limited to a finite number of possible soft toys (perhaps three or four). The crew will have approached her and asked to picked at random from the soft toy department - just to make things easier for Derren (it would be hard to build a giant Nintendo DS for example). Most people would be willing to go along with this and will try to be helpful (and if not, the next person will), and thus Derren gets to tick his 'Psychology' box.

2). Derren then leads her around all floors of Hamleys whilst they are being filmed.

• Floor 1/Section 1: Giraffe pictures on escalators/t-shirts etc. Derren drops the odd 'Giraffe' word in.

• Floor 2/Section 2: Ape pictures on escalators/t-shirts etc. Derren drops the odd "Your friend will go ape when she sees your gift", and scratches under his arms.

• Floor 3/Section 3: Hippo pictures on escalators/t-shirts etc. Derren drops the odd "It would be hippo-critical of me to try to guide you to a gift" etc. etc.

• Floor 4/Section 3: Dog pictures on escalators/t-shirts etc. Derren drops the odd "I may be barking up the wrong tree here but...." etc. etc.

3). Girl then goes off to pick her toy.

4). When she comes back, Derren just has a 1 in 5 chance of guessing which soft toy she picked. Arguably this could be done by her cracking the nervous smile people do when you start to guess what they are trying to hide, but failing that, he'll hit jackpot with another person doing the same trick.

Now, this part is interesting, because a poster earlier questioned WHY Derren needed to establish what toy she picked if he'd already 'implanted' her with a Giraffe.

I'd guess that this is because he actually has no idea which soft toy she has picked, and he needs to find out so that the crew (via radio mics) can let the chaps downstairs know which giant animal to take out of the back of the lorry....

5). Name tag is sneakily handed to Derren based on what the girl said, and a giant one is printed out in the back of the lorry. This part is difficult to establish the exact nature of the slight of hand as its brutally cut - but I'll go with the "Derren we need to re-shoot, there's a problem with the film" magician manoeuvre.

6). The film is then edited to reflect the choice of soft toy, so the dog/ape/hippo stuff is never seen. The girl is none the wiser because it was all too subtle anyway.

Something like?

I don't think this can be true. That giant giraffe is the largest toy Hamleys sells, has been a fixture in the ground floor soft toy dept for years, and to some extent is a famous feature in its own right - they sell one now and then to Michael Jackson or whoever, but they also shift a fair few of those smaller replicas. So I think it had to be the giraffe.

Also it makes life helluva lot easier for the film crew - they can simply wheel the Hamleys giraffe round the block and stick a collar on it! I think it'd be a bitch to source an equally impressive dog, hippo etc..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.