Oi! Derren Brown! NO!

[cazzer]

I don't want to. I like it here.

I'm odd and fit in

[TheGroover]

Nigel H said:

It's opposite the birds and rabbits, half way between the swings and the bowling green

No go and stroke it, and if you're lucky you'll find a way out of Tod like I did a long time ago

I walked past it this morning. I didn't pat it, which must be why I'm still here...

[cazzer]

Kinell...how many of us are there in Tod?

[DanDC5]

PH is soon to be renamed at this rate.....

[torqueofthedevil]

Bedazzled said:

There were 3 throws, the odds were 50/50

No because only the third counted

[torqueofthedevil]

Bedazzled said:

Not brilliant TV, but I thought it was impressive how quickly interest in the dog spread through the village, and how everyone started noticing good things happening?

I think that was largely fabricated too. I.e they were making a programme following those who were supposedly lucky from the dog. Then showed clips of a few others interested. I live nearby and never saw or heard a thing about it. Doubt anyone cared. There was a piece about Jason Manford but that's it.

Re: the clearly orchestrated "I own a pub" bot I also noticed with the "have you got time for a survey" she gave the butcher more time to say no thanks - as most ppl would.

The bottom line with that show was - what was the point? What was he trying to show?!? Wasn't even dressed up as mind control really! Just a grand on the roll of a dice! Which couldn't have failed as he'd have looked an idiot - so a simple trick was required - I'm sure Paul Daniels could have pulled that one off'

[torqueofthedevil]

Bedazzled said:

So were the first two 'practice' throws there to show that other numbers could come up, to add to the tension? Sorry that was lost on me. It makes the trick a bit more impressive, as his wife appears to retrieve the die from the bowl between each throw. I expect DB somehow swapped the die just before the final throw. It's an odd format, what are we supposed to be watching? The trick or the other stuff that supposedly got Wayne on the stage?

Exactly! Terrible! I think the magnet idea above is a good suggestion

[carmonk]

Frederick said:

carmonk said:

Regarding the rest of the show, 'meh' isn't the word. I'm struggling to think of anything impressive enough to warrant examination. Of course, the bit where the two publicans were asked for help with the car was fixed, little could be more obvious. Aside from the bizarre reasoning that someone who isn't lucky wouldn't help someone change a tyre, the woman appeared to forget what she was supposed to say and had almost walked off when she said something like, "Oh yeah, I have a pub." Oh, glad you mentioned that, because the whole point of this charade is that I come and do a gig there. Phew. Pull the other one.

Hello.

I stumbled onto this thread looking for something else but thought it worthwhile commenting.

I was part of the film crew that shot the above Jason Manford sequence and no, none of it was fixed. Indeed I spent several rather stressful hours cramped inside an SUV in order to achieve it.

I think the problem with shows like Derren's is that they invite 'de-bunking'. However, that does result in people starting to take issue with every element of their production, no matter how inconsequential. And fun though that can be, at the end of the day the results are just pure speculation masquerading as fact.

Good of you to comment. How do you know it wasn't fixed, however? In that the people involved were not given any guidance as to what to expect / do? If the production team had primed one or both people, would you be aware of that? If you say you waited there then I must accept there was no rendezvous or pre-arranged meeting, but that doesn't mean some elements weren't fixed. The behaviour of the female landlord looked very fishy to me, like she was hanging around trying to bring up the subject of her pub so that Jason Mansford could offer to do a gig for her.

And if you could answer another question, what would have happened if the female landlord had failed to offer help, or the guy had offered help? Because that would have meant that Jason Mansford's presence would either not have been needed or he'd have had to play two 'free' gigs for no purpose (ostensibly destroying the premise of the theme in the process, although they wouldn't have been shown I presume). Furthermore, it would have required two other test subjects to be found. Did you film a large number of subjects then edit it down? Because if not, I maintain there had to be something going on in order for DB to predict these two people would behave.

[Mr GrimNasty]

All 'magicians' have multiple alternative outcomes planned for. Altering what they do/say according to what happens. The audience just assumes what they see is the only way it could work and is how it was meant to work. Pretty easy to arrange to bump into her and strike up a conversation - whatever happened with the car - isn't it?

I don't know if you remember the 'trick' where the bloke had to dive through a choice of 2 doors on the throw of a coin or something?
First DB says there is one fake (balsa wood) door and one real one. The guy dives through the chosen door that disintegrates and he lands on a mattress or whatever safe. DB now 'admits' the other door is also fake and pushes a trolley through that other door smashing it, rolling over a hinged steel plate platform into a massive drop. So the bloke was lucky? Nope. If he'd picked the other door it would not have gone through as it was reinforced with the steel plate in its raised position, so the proposition that it was a real door was maintained. Now the other door is smashed through to reveal a bed of nails (or something nasty) instead of the mattress. So either way, the 'trick' appears successful to the audience and they believe what they saw was the only possible safe outcome, the alternative always being certain death - all on the flip of a coin.

[carmonk]

Mr GrimNasty said:

All 'magicians' have multiple alternative outcomes planned for. Altering what they do/say according to what happens. The audience just assumes what they see is the only way it could work and is how it was meant to work. Pretty easy to arrange to bump into her and strike up a conversation - whatever happened with the car - isn't it?

It is, but it's the size of the investment in the trick that's key - time and money. In other words, if a trick requires a certain personality to turn up and also requires significant set-up in terms of the people involved and the cost of filming, or booking a location, then the chance of alternatives being filmed in preference to, well, fixing, reduces.

[Mr GrimNasty]

carmonk said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

All 'magicians' have multiple alternative outcomes planned for. Altering what they do/say according to what happens. The audience just assumes what they see is the only way it could work and is how it was meant to work. Pretty easy to arrange to bump into her and strike up a conversation - whatever happened with the car - isn't it?

It is, but it's the size of the investment in the trick that's key - time and money. In other words, if a trick requires a certain personality to turn up and also requires significant set-up in terms of the people involved and the cost of filming, or booking a location, then the chance of alternatives being filmed in preference to, well, fixing, reduces.

It's not a question of filming alternatives, you missed the point, it's a question of adapting to circumstances. In the example of the trick I mentioned, there is only ever one shot, just 'little helpers' behind the scenes altering the perceived outcome.

[carmonk]

Mr GrimNasty said:

carmonk said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

All 'magicians' have multiple alternative outcomes planned for. Altering what they do/say according to what happens. The audience just assumes what they see is the only way it could work and is how it was meant to work. Pretty easy to arrange to bump into her and strike up a conversation - whatever happened with the car - isn't it?

It is, but it's the size of the investment in the trick that's key - time and money. In other words, if a trick requires a certain personality to turn up and also requires significant set-up in terms of the people involved and the cost of filming, or booking a location, then the chance of alternatives being filmed in preference to, well, fixing, reduces.

It's not a question of filming alternatives, you missed the point, it's a question of adapting to circumstances. In the example of the trick I mentioned, there is only ever one shot, just 'little helpers' behind the scenes altering the perceived outcome.

And it's the little helpers that I sincerely believe in.

[Frederick]

Bedazzled said:

Frederick - welcome to the forum, and thanks for posting. Can you give us any more interesting stories from behind the scenes, about how the show is filmed?

I'm honestly afraid not. Professional confidentiality and all that. I only mentioned that particular section is passing because it's relatively harmless, and contains no trickery.

[carmonk]

Frederick said:

carmonk said:

Good of you to comment. How do you know it wasn't fixed, however? In that the people involved were not given any guidance as to what to expect / do? If the production team had primed one or both people, would you be aware of that? If you say you waited there then I must accept there was no rendezvous or pre-arranged meeting, but that doesn't mean some elements weren't fixed. The behaviour of the female landlord looked very fishy to me, like she was hanging around trying to bring up the subject of her pub so that Jason Mansford could offer to do a gig for her.

And if you could answer another question, what would have happened if the female landlord had failed to offer help, or the guy had offered help? Because that would have meant that Jason Mansford's presence would either not have been needed or he'd have had to play two 'free' gigs for no purpose (ostensibly destroying the premise of the theme in the process, although they wouldn't have been shown I presume). Furthermore, it would have required two other test subjects to be found. Did you film a large number of subjects then edit it down? Because if not, I maintain there had to be something going on in order for DB to predict these two people would behave.

I don't want to get too specific about editorial - that is not my place and it's a little too close to discussing how the show is made which I'm just not going to do.

However, in terms of the section we are discussing I can assure you that the punters were NOT primed. I'd know anyway (you could try and hide this, but it would be needlessly difficult and incredibly time-wasting) but anyway it was clear from how we shot this stuff that it was a real experiment with all the inherent risks of it going wrong. Apologies if that's vague, but I have a business to protect. Suffice to say that this bit of the show is definitely real!

Well, I have no doubt you believe it's real (as in the two people were completely unprimed) but I'm far from convinced. Unless there were existing alternatives then leaving all that up to chance would not be viable IMO. As I said, Jason Mansford could have ended up promising to play two shows that would not have been televised. Or not having the opportunity at all. Indeed, unless there was an alternative he could easily have ended up going home. I'm all for exploring psychology but the idea that a bloke won't help someone change a wheel on account of thinking himself unlucky is not a premise anybody would invest in unless some preparation had been carried out, and certainly not when it formed a large part of the show.

Frederick said:

In terms of the publicans 'fishy behavior' I think you are reading too much of your own bias into it. Jason was the one left to press the idea of a free gig, though the lady in question is of a type not backwards in coming forwards so to speak (which was kind of the point).

It was the way it happened that made me immediately suspicious. I don't understand why anybody would volunteer the information that they owned a pub on being asked to help change a wheel. Unless, of course, someone had mentioned earlier in the day that it might be beneficial to publicise that fact at some time in the future, if it seemed appropriate. Just maybe.

Frederick said:

At the time I was more concerned that the punters wouldn't buy the set up, but as a veteran of several hidden camera shows I can testify that in general people actually WANT to believe in the most ridiculous of scenarios. It's left to the camera crew and then the viewer to curl up in embarrassment.

After seeing a housewife singing along with aliens beside a plastic meteor on Beadle's About I have no doubt this is true, but it wasn't the situation here that I found unbelievable, it was the actions of those involved.

[carmonk]

Bedazzled said:

carmonk said:

If the production team had primed one or both people, would you be aware of that?

Talk about clutching at straws, if the various characters had been primed why would the poor TV crew have to camp out for hours trying to catch them on film?

Christ on a bike, do you never read my posts?

[carmonk]

Frederick said:

carmonk said:

Well, I have no doubt you believe it's real (as in the two people were completely unprimed) but I'm far from convinced. Unless there were existing alternatives then leaving all that up to chance would not be viable IMO. As I said, Jason Mansford could have ended up promising to play two shows that would not have been televised. Or not having the opportunity at all. Indeed, unless there was an alternative he could easily have ended up going home. I'm all for exploring psychology but the idea that a bloke won't help someone change a wheel on account of thinking himself unlucky is not a premise anybody would invest in unless some preparation had been carried out, and certainly not when it formed a large part of the show.

I vaguely resent that. You seem to be equating your own personal opinion of the shows construction as being on a par with the folks who made it happen. I don't 'believe' that section is real - I know. I was there. I'm sorry I'm not able to go into incredible detail on the filming, but Objective wouldn't be remotely amused.

My point was how do you know it was completely genuine? I never suggested they were reading from a script but the idea that you can assert that nobody said or suggested anything to either of them before that point is far from convincing. Whilst I appreciate that you were involved in the show I'm unable to believe that every member of the camera crew is fully briefed on the workings on the show. I'm sorry you 'vaguely resent' my not believing it happened the way you say but you did post in my thread, so it can't be entirely unexpected

[Slyjoe]

JM said:

just when a dice was dropped down a chute and guessed it would be 4 that it would show when it landed at the bottom. Don't know how or why, just came into my mind, I said out loud, that'll be a 4!

I did too - how'd that work?

[Frederick]

carmonk said:

My point was how do you know it was completely genuine? I never suggested they were reading from a script but the idea that you can assert that nobody said or suggested anything to either of them before that point is far from convincing. Whilst I appreciate that you were involved in the show I'm unable to believe that every member of the camera crew is fully briefed on the workings on the show. I'm sorry you 'vaguely resent' my not believing it happened the way you say but you did post in my thread, so it can't be entirely unexpected

I rather suspect though that the entire production team could turn up at your door with the full three months worth of uncut rushes and you'd still sneer and scratch your nose so I'll just have to give up.

Can a mod please delete my quoted posts from the thread? Thanks.

Edited by Frederick on Monday 14th November 02:49

Edited by Frederick on Monday 14th November 02:50

Edited by Frederick on Monday 14th November 02:51

[carmonk]

Frederick said:

carmonk said:

My point was how do you know it was completely genuine? I never suggested they were reading from a script but the idea that you can assert that nobody said or suggested anything to either of them before that point is far from convincing. Whilst I appreciate that you were involved in the show I'm unable to believe that every member of the camera crew is fully briefed on the workings on the show. I'm sorry you 'vaguely resent' my not believing it happened the way you say but you did post in my thread, so it can't be entirely unexpected

I rather suspect though that the entire production team could turn up at your door with the full three months worth of uncut rushes and you'd still sneer and scratch your nose so I'll just have to give up.

You call it sneering, I call it making an informed decision based on observational and circumstantial evidence. But whilst we're at it, I find it suspicious that you just happened to browsing a forum you've never posted on before, whilst looking for 'something else', less than 24 hours after the programme you were involved with was aired, and just happen to see this thread. That seems more in keeping with PR back office work, like many companies that trawl the net to gauge feedback of their products or services. When asked to give extra information about how you know what you claim is true, you accuse me of sneering and claim to be offended that people don't roll over and accept your word as gospel. I'm not sure why you posted in the first place nor why you can't give some more details that would help clarify the matter. Did the NDA or confidentiality agreement you signed state you can talk about some bits of the show but not others? Provide some explanation and I might well accept that this trick was perfectly above board with no priming or set-up of any kind. How do you know no earlier suggestion was made to these two people that they might / might not want to help a stranger if the circumstance arose? Why was it assumed that an 'unlucky' person, or even an unsociable one, would not help someone change a wheel? What would have happened in the event neither or both landlords behaved not as expected? Was it pre-arranged that the car would be able to park in a 1-hour restricted zone for several hours (and two other cars on the private land across the way)? How did the crew know these two people would pass that point on the same day, and both would be alone?

I have no issue with accepting I'm wrong in the face of evidence or reasoned explanation, but maybe the next time you're involved with a DB show you could ask DB if he would accept the word of an anonymous poster on the internet over his own reasoned judgement.

Edited by carmonk on Monday 14th November 15:11

[carmonk]

Wouldn't get her offering to change someone's wheel - http://www.todmordennews.co.uk/news/local/is_marga...