|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
drjohn Loyal user 210 Posts |
I have just read the chap's post. Hmm, not sure though he does have some points. I was approached after a London Mentalist convention last year by a woman who was on Mindcontrol 3 (and she was, I watched the progs she was one of 'em!!!). She complained that several of the fellow students were being lied to and that he was using (heaven forbid!!!) hypnotism and possible preobtained information from the dodgy looking 'clipboards' handed out by the programme researchers. (Don't you just love having a decent TV budget!!!) She knew so much it was SCARY and showed that the lay public are not as stupid as mentalists might think.
May your darkness come quickly
|
|||||||||
Top Hat Inner circle We peed on you! 1077 Posts |
Quote:
On 2004-05-24 19:12, ScottJ wrote: If by "stooge" we mean someone who is there to do the right thing at the right time, to help the performer pull off an "effect", then surely someone who has been primed (by hypnosis prior to filming) to respond in a certain way, or say a certain thing, during the filming MUST be described (in some sense) as a "stooge"... albeit an unwitting one. The fact that they are (sometimes) made to appear as if they are randomly-selected people (at the time of filming) does not make them any less of a stooge. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with using stooges, but DB states that he does not... so if he does, then his up-front statement is a blatant lie. However, I suspect that DB makes the distinction between stooges who have made a simple prior agreement with the performer, and "stooges" that he has programmed by "mind control"/hypnosis techniques. He doesn't call them stooges because he knows that without exercising prior "mind control" on them, they would not agree to co-operate as a stooge. I think he justifies it that way.
TH
|
|||||||||
francisco Loyal user Coolest guy in the café 267 Posts |
Quote:
On 2004-05-24 08:50, francisco wrote: thanks for informing me that it was in the first post of this thread! I was just too stupid to be able to see the writing that contained the link was yellow...maybe I'm colour blind.. Yeah post 19 does seem a little mysterious - but does have about...urm...ONE believeable idea lol lock this guy up in a prison cell
'When you steal one trick, they call it plagiarism. When you steal many - they call it research.'
[Corinda, 13 steps to mentalism] |
|||||||||
salsa_dancer Inner circle 1935 Posts |
Maybe what he means is that he doesn't use one of the 'Three Stooges' which he quite clearly doesn't...
Come on guys, even if he does, and to be honest who really cares, being in the same situation wouldn't you? I would imagine his definition of stooge, and mine too, is your mate from down the pub who is in on the effect... |
|||||||||
Top Hat Inner circle We peed on you! 1077 Posts |
Salsa,
Actually, I think that Derren Brown himself cares. He wants to assure people that he does not use a pre-arranged stooge. What would we think if one of his subjects turned out to be Anthony Owen?!! It would make a mockery of the stunt. So no, he doesn't use that kind of stooge. The question comes down to expecting people to believe that the man "plucked from the street" has really never met Derren before. Most people would put two and two together and say "that simply can't be done unless they have met before" (sometimes true). In their minds that makes the person a stooge (according to their own definition).
TH
|
|||||||||
salsa_dancer Inner circle 1935 Posts |
Ahhh Top Hat, you are falling into the trap of saying 'most people' this is a popular one that many businesses fall into that cause them to start failing.
By 'most' people I think you will find that will include mainly people who have some idea how things are done, i.e. US as performers or hobbyists... There will be a small minority of the unsuspecting public that may have some ideas too... I watch the show with my girlfriend, who will turn to me and ask how things are done with total disbelief on her face, I always tell her I don't know and she is totally amazed by it. Now this is someone who gets subjected to me practising on her all the time, and she is not stupid... Be careful about mixing a minority that you have daily contact with for the VAST majority of people that are out there being amazed and full of wonder. ;) |
|||||||||
Top Hat Inner circle We peed on you! 1077 Posts |
Some further thoughts:
In planning the shows, Derren and his team would have considered this aspect. I think they'd have reasoned this way: When magicians do illusions, what the audience sees is the tip of the iceberg. Behind the scenes is much preparation, equipment, practice, and secrets that are kept hidden from view. It is no different in this case. Derren presents on TV what he wants you to see. His preparation might consist of hypnotising someone before filming. He knows that he has used that technique to bring about what he wants. The fact that you don't see it on TV is largely irrelevant to him. If he had, on the other hand, said to the chef - "I want you to agree with every revelation I make whether it is right or wrong, and here's £1000 for your trouble", then that would be (professionally speaking) a very unsatisfying experience for Derren, and he wouldn't do it.
TH
|
|||||||||
MIC Regular user 169 Posts |
I always had this question... Why don't the producers the creators and derren himself make it seem totally obvious that they are using random participants... I am not sure how they could do this but I am sure it could happen in some way or another. Even if they are using stooges.
Lets not forget that Derren tv shows... are merely creating the illusion that something illusive is happening. There could be a thousand 'wrongful' explanations of its effect... the two most popular... (for the tricks I don't get are) ... "he used a stooge" and "he tried it a hundred times and they showed only once" ... why don't they eliminate these..? m I c |
|||||||||
Top Hat Inner circle We peed on you! 1077 Posts |
Salsa,
I think you hugely underestimate the intelligence of most viewers (and probably your own girlfriend!) Of COURSE she looks on in amazement - because DB's effects are amazing! HOWEVER - if you sat her down and said to her "go on, tell me one or two ways that you think it COULD be done", she (and yes, MOST people) would say "he COULD have used a stooge". I think you are wrong that the vast majority of people don't for one second consider this. Don't underestimate your audience, Salsa!
TH
|
|||||||||
salsa_dancer Inner circle 1935 Posts |
I NEVER underestimate my audience... I am there to create that sense of wonder in them.. THAT is what magic is all about, or did I miss something over the years???
Why would I sit her down and ask her those questions? OF COURSE if you got people to analyse anything eventually they will come to a conclusion... I stand by the comment that the 'majority' of people will not question it, UNTIL someone comes along and makes them...... I am not talking intelligence here, it is about showmanship and presentation... the series is presented in a way that creates a good show. That to me is what it is all about, when I do ANY effect I am trying to fool and control my audience but I do it respectfully. |
|||||||||
Top Hat Inner circle We peed on you! 1077 Posts |
Quote:
On 2004-05-25 05:35, salsa_dancer wrote: Salsa - that's the whole point. That's why Derren states up-front that he doesn't use "actors or stooges". Why does he feel it necessary to do this? Because he knows his viewers will suspect that that is how he achieves his effects! Derren does not dismiss his viewer's curiosity/intelligence about the possibility of stooges. To him, it's an important point to make. And I do not believe he is lying, according to his own definition of "stooge".
TH
|
|||||||||
Xiqual Inner circle Upper left quadrant 4935 Posts |
There is a great old book by Orville Meyer called
"Telepathy in action" that uses no hypnosis at all, but people will appear to "not see" you and many other stunts. Kreskin used to do this act too. He did it on Regis Philbin not too long ago. I can imagine DB revamping this brilliant book and using it in different ways. Just my two cents James Linn ps Has anyone thought that the poster in the Hypnosis forum might be one of Derren's team? Throwing out a silly theory like "Derren is really a modern day Svengali that can hypnotise anyone and embed commands that will alst for days."
Still with the Chinese circus
|
|||||||||
justforeffect Regular user Bristol, UK 153 Posts |
Quote:
On 2004-05-25 05:52, Xiqual wrote: If this was true, wouldn't they do it a bit more publicly? They are just arguing with a few people in one forum... |
|||||||||
brownbomber Regular user Edinburgh 156 Posts |
It always amazes me that people even here still take at face value some of DB's spiels. No actors.... ;-) then we see Martin Kemp. No stooges... then he does the Georgia Magnet effect in the boxing ring etc. etc. I don't doubt at all what the poster at hypnosis.com is suggesting - it makes perfect sense. Only insofar as that even hypnosis isn't necessary when you have the might authoritative power of celebrity and TV cameras present.
It's all VERBAL MISDIRECTION and it works perfectly because some of it's true and some isn't, and as spectators nobody's really sure what's being used for information purposes and what's being used to obfuscate the techniques employed. It also plays powerfully on people's belief systems - you can see that at that site. Some of them have such blind faith in the efficacy of anchors and other NLPisms, that heaven forbid they weren't actually being used to create these effects. DB, as many of the kick-ass NLP gurus for that matter, make virtually no distinction between what's 'real' and what isn't - their concern is for what works and what can achieve their goals, albeit usually 'ecologically' sound ones. Richard Bandler is no more a doctor than most of his 'metaphors' are true - but that would miss the point that in the context he uses them, they have a useful purpose. BB |
|||||||||
altoni New user 74 Posts |
I saw some clips of DB doing his stuff, and I thought it was amazing and presented beautifully. But I came to the conclusion that it was all done by hypnosis. Just as poster 19 said. It just seemed really obvious to me. So on the one hand it was fun to hear him confirm it, on the other, sad that it was tipped.
Al |
|||||||||
Hypno Regular user England 118 Posts |
Hi Guys
Just to add my own thoughts, it would appear to me that some of the people who appear on Derrens new show must have been pre-hypnotised such as in the phone box effect as the ethics of hypnotising someone randomly without their consent would be highly questionable. Dave |
|||||||||
magneticmark New user 4 Posts |
Its incredible that people think this would "expose" derren as a con. read his books. he admits that traditional mind reading is boring, it's all in the presentation - which is where he's an expert.
houdini was simply tricking people too... and lying to entertain is part of that. all magicians do it. if derren wants to take the presentation in the direction of "mentalism" then that's great! more people need to have this kind of original thought when presenting their magic. mm |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Controversial Derren testimony? (1 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.03 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |