Oi! Derren Brown! NO!
Discussion
I've given him the benefit of the doubt for too long and I now have to admit, most or all of his shows are fabricated beginning to end. Initially I thought he used a big dollop of psychology and manipulative skills, then I began to think his claims of misdirection accounted for more than a small part of his work. Now I think it's all staged. One hundred percent acted with stooges, or at best, weak-minded people who play along to be on TV.
The one that finally did it for me was the murder mystery thing last night. For those that haven't seen it, he claimed to have invited this guy along to a bogus conference at a country house (the guy having previously applied to be on the show and 'rejected'). Everyone else present were actors and we were expected to believe that through psychological techniques this guy was tricked into admitting to a murder that he believed actually happened. Absolute BS. Not because I believe it's impossible, it may or may not be, but because there was so many holes in the story that a five year old could have seen that this guy was playing along.
After about a dozen absurd instances of this guy conveniently behaving exactly as planned (on many occasions a single look in the wrong direction would have wrecked the entire, vastly expensive production, if the premise was to be believed) brought us to the ending, which was more contrived than Scooby Doo and blew the whole thing apart, should that have been necessary. The 'police' came in and Derren Brown made out that he'd expected this guy to admit to the murder there and then, but he hadn't. Minutes later the guy ran from the hotel to confess at the 'police station' in the village, where Brown revealed the ploy. Funny thing was, there was no actual police station, it was specially built for the show, and what's more, all the actors were down there behind a false wall waiting for him. Which is slightly surprising given that it would have been impossible to predict he'd go there in the first place, not to mention vanishingly unlikely.
In view of this I now doubt everything Brown has done, and must assume that all his shows were populated entirely by stooges and actors and people desperate to do anything to be on TV, and that none of it whatsoever is genuine. In other words, he's little better than the woo-woo merchants he purports to expose.
The one that finally did it for me was the murder mystery thing last night. For those that haven't seen it, he claimed to have invited this guy along to a bogus conference at a country house (the guy having previously applied to be on the show and 'rejected'). Everyone else present were actors and we were expected to believe that through psychological techniques this guy was tricked into admitting to a murder that he believed actually happened. Absolute BS. Not because I believe it's impossible, it may or may not be, but because there was so many holes in the story that a five year old could have seen that this guy was playing along.
After about a dozen absurd instances of this guy conveniently behaving exactly as planned (on many occasions a single look in the wrong direction would have wrecked the entire, vastly expensive production, if the premise was to be believed) brought us to the ending, which was more contrived than Scooby Doo and blew the whole thing apart, should that have been necessary. The 'police' came in and Derren Brown made out that he'd expected this guy to admit to the murder there and then, but he hadn't. Minutes later the guy ran from the hotel to confess at the 'police station' in the village, where Brown revealed the ploy. Funny thing was, there was no actual police station, it was specially built for the show, and what's more, all the actors were down there behind a false wall waiting for him. Which is slightly surprising given that it would have been impossible to predict he'd go there in the first place, not to mention vanishingly unlikely.
In view of this I now doubt everything Brown has done, and must assume that all his shows were populated entirely by stooges and actors and people desperate to do anything to be on TV, and that none of it whatsoever is genuine. In other words, he's little better than the woo-woo merchants he purports to expose.
Symbolica said:
With the police station part I assumed the original plan was for the guy to confess to the police, then be "arrested" and taken there for the reveal. When he didn't cough they just had to improvise and run with it.
I considered that too, but at the beginning the guy made a point of saying that all there was in the village was a police station and something else (a pub, or something, can't recall). To my mind it seems the only reason he'd say this is if the guy needed to know it, i.e. to go there himself.Sure, they will have edited a lot, but the things that really gave it away in my mind were the numerous ways in which the whole thing could have been blow apart. In the lecture all he had to do was glance to his left and see that woman changing her dress, or the bloke with the tie, and it would have been game over. In the restaurant when they were swapping his food around he must have been able to see that with his peripheral vision, he seemed to be trying his best not to show it. And so on. Now if the set-up had been cheap and quick then I'd be prepared to believe they filmed dozens of different people, then picked the one who genuinely came through it, but because of the logistics and the cost it's clear that they only filmed this single situation and therefore it must be fake.
durbster said:
carmonk said:
...In view of this I now doubt everything Brown has done, and must assume that all his shows were populated entirely by stooges and actors and people desperate to do anything to be on TV, and that none of it whatsoever is genuine. In other words, he's little better than the woo-woo merchants he purports to expose.
You might want to have a look at thisdurbster said:
freecar said:
Thank you! I didn't want to explain it again to another person, my mate falls for his "explanations" makes me listen to it and then gets mad when I say it's still bulls
t! The easy way to tell that Derren Brown is lying is that his lips are moving!
Nonsense. He uses pretty well established and documented mentalist techniques and is frank about that. There is no point lying about it and, being on TV, he couldn't lie about it even if he wanted to for legal reasons. t! The easy way to tell that Derren Brown is lying is that his lips are moving!durbster said:
What some people don't seem to realise is that there's nothing particularly remarkable about what he does, other than his ability to turn it into entertainment. The techniques he uses go right back to Mesmer. There's no point making it up and using stooges because the things he does are not as supernatural as they seem.
That's not the issue, however. The issue is that he doesn't use these methods. You only have to analyse one of his recent shows to see that the situations demonstrate that it's impossible for the people he uses to be unaware of what's going on. If last night's show didn't convince you of that (why!?) take the last show, where an actor confronted the stooge (er, the guy) in a pub, accused him of being a pervert, was very aggressive with him and told him in no uncertain terms he wanted to fight him. Of course, part of the show, but DB wanted us to believe that the guy believed it to be real. BS! There's no way in a million years a TV show would risk this guy responding (as many people would) and hitting or maybe even glassing this actor, and consequently being prosecuted, and suing in turn. The only possibility was that the bloke was in on it from the beginning.durbster said:
As I think I said on the last thread about DB, it is quite evidently possible to get a person to do absolutely anything. If you don't think that's true then just look at what people are made to do in the name of religion.
It's a very different situation, and again the point is not that control is impossible, it's that in DB's case it could not have happened that way.Melvin Udall said:
freecar said:
Thank you! I didn't want to explain it again to another person, my mate falls for his "explanations" makes me listen to it and then gets mad when I say it's still bullst! The easy way to tell that Derren Brown is lying is that his lips are moving!
It's entertainment. Don't get yourself worried about it. If you want tomget angry, be pissed off at the likes of Derek Acorah, Uri Geller, and the clairvoyants that prey on people's gullibility for cash.t! The easy way to tell that Derren Brown is lying is that his lips are moving!Symbolica said:
carmonk said:
take the last show, where an actor confronted the stooge (er, the guy) in a pub, accused him of being a pervert, was very aggressive with him and told him in no uncertain terms he wanted to fight him. Of course, part of the show, but DB wanted us to believe that the guy believed it to be real. BS! There's no way in a million years a TV show would risk this guy responding (as many people would) and hitting or maybe even glassing this actor, and consequently being prosecuted, and suing in turn. The only possibility was that the bloke was in on it from the beginning.
I did think that at the time TBH. What was the plan if the bloke decided to smash a bottle over the acrots head? Or when the "barman" blatently tried to rip him off, what if he'd said, "Oh fk off!" and walked out? Too many variables.I saw a live show of his a few years ago and it was fantastic, genuinely blew my mind in parts, but this latest stuff is a long, long way from that...
Regarding the excuse DB gives on that page linked to above, that he can't lie for legal reasons, anybody remember when he 'predicted' the Lottery draw? He ostensibly made his prediction but wouldn't reveal it before the draw 'for legal reasons'. Again, it's just another element of misdirection he uses to take attention away from the core issue, which is how he does it (and in the case of the lottery it was via a basic split-screen technique).
Just to reiterate, I'm not criticising DB because he's not psychic (being that that is all woo-woo and of course I would never think someone was psychic), but because by effectively cheating he's lowering himself to the same level as the frauds he purports to expose. Taking away the exploitative element, what's the difference between a bloke being fed informating via an earpiece and attributing it to voices from the dead, and DB pretending to hypnotise someone who is only going along with it because the producer told him to?
durbster said:
carmonk said:
durbster said:
...he couldn't lie about it even if he wanted to for legal reasons.
I know he says that, but it's just another element of his 'misdirection'. You can't be charged with lying on TV unless you defame someone, etc. There's nothing to stop DB making up anything he chooses.Of course, the idea that a person cannot lie about their methods is absurd. If it were true Paul Daniels would be prosecuted for saying 'That's magic', Uri Geller for saying he can bend metal, Derek Acorah for saying ghosts talk to him (he should be prosecuted anyway), and Graham Norton for pretending to be funny. There's nothing whatsoever that stops DB giving exactly what explanation he likes, true or otherwise.
durbster said:
carmonk said:
...You only have to analyse one of his recent shows to see that the situations demonstrate that it's impossible for the people he uses to be unaware of what's going on. If last night's show didn't convince you of that (why!?) take the last show, where an actor confronted the stooge (er, the guy) in a pub
I haven't seen the last episode yet (I've got it taped). However, it's really not difficult to find people who won't react violently when confronted.durbster said:
carmonk said:
It's a very different situation, and again the point is not that control is impossible, it's that in DB's case it could not have happened that way.
See to me your posts sound like, "I'm a smart bloke, I can't figure it out so I'm going to get angry about it." 
durbster said:
The thing is, he's been doing this stuff for years and if he used stooges he'd have been found out long ago. He's made plenty of enemies during his investigative stuff so there's plenty of motive for him to have been found out.
He has been found out. Check YouTube for videos of his split-screen fakery on the Lottery predictions if you don't believe me. If you mean people talking then I'd guess that's taken care of with very strict contracts, and those that do talk would be ignored anyway. After all, what proof do they have? The voice of some nobody desperate to be on TV won't carry much weight against DB and his publicity machine. Furthermore, you underestimate the willingness of people to believe. It's ironic that DB, sceptic of all things paranormal, employs very similar methods to get people to believe in his own psychological 'powers'. He doesn't claim these psychological powers are paranormal, of course, but the evidence is they're non-existant. A few years ago I was a staunch defender of DB and was very critical of people who said he was just a trickster and a showman. The evidence has proved me wrong, so I'm happy to correct the record.Dr Jekyll said:
carmonk said:
He has been found out. Check YouTube for videos of his split-screen fakery on the Lottery predictions if you don't believe me.
That's not 'finding him out' though is it, he didn't seriously claim it was anything other than a conjuring trick.Melvin Udall said:
There is a huge difference between a 'Paul Daniels magic show' and the people he is active against. I don't see the issue with his shows at all.
I don't have an issue with his shows, it's the inference of his methods that's troublesome. For example, up until recently if a medium claimed to be able to achieve X in a seance, I'd point to DB doing a similar thing and ask why anybody would think it was paranormal if DB could do it using his mind-games. But seeing as the evidence now points to him using camera tricks and getting people to play along, that defense is no longer available. And it's ironic, because he's now lost any leverage from which he can himself criticise those who purport to be paranormal or magical, other than from a moral standpoint (and even that's debatable).Dr Jekyll said:
carmonk said:
Yes he did, he actually spent an hour explaining how it was due to 'the wisdom of crowds'
But nobody was expected to take that seriouslyEdited by carmonk on Sunday 6th November 17:03
Melvin Udall said:
Dr Jekyll said:
carmonk said:
Yes he did, he actually spent an hour explaining how it was due to 'the wisdom of crowds'
But nobody was expected to take that seriouslyking around with st, just like any other magician plays with misdirection, sleight of hand, etc. Randi was a magician, but hos shows are in no way any detracting from the skeptic work he did. Melvin Udall said:
DB isn't trying to disprove the paranormal,in his shows. It's a 'magic show', like all other magic shows. It's to entertain, and amuse.
He's done a great many shows that do try and disprove the paranormal, he did a themed series of 6 episodes plus the one-off seance shows, etc. In all these instances he's putting across the message that there's no need to invoke the paranormal because he can do much the same thing. What I'm saying is that I'm now questioning how much of that he actually did replicate in similar environments and circumstance, based on the evidence from his recent shows, which fair enough don't purport to disprove anything. If I catch a woo-woo merchant cheating then I'm entitled to question everything that person does or says, I'm sure you'd agree. So it seems only fair to apply the same criteria to DB. It's not that I dislike him, or that I'm trying to prove a point, it's simply being fair to both perspectives. Indeed, I was probably DB's staunchest defender up until a couple of years ago, so in saying all this I'm admitting I was totally wrong.Jesus - this site and its editing!!!!
Edited by carmonk on Sunday 6th November 17:13
Melvin Udall said:
Well, I think there is a very distinct difference between someone demonstrating what can be done using rational, and documented methods, as a show, or demonstration, and someone who claims to have real telepathic, psychic, telekinetic powers, etc. there is a distinct line between entertainment, and exploitation, and fraud.
DB is firmly in one camp.
So aside from the foul practice of mediumship, why would you say one is better than the other? You could even make a case that DB's duplicity is more damaging than say, Uri Geller's. Whilst Uri Geller spreads silliness and nonsense, DB takes a legitimate science and essentially pollutes it with untruths. He's talked a great deal about aspects of psychology and the mind that sound on the surface to be viable and educational, yet I'm now thinking that some or all of them are simply not true. Surely that is wrong, regardless of the entertainment value.DB is firmly in one camp.
Melvin Udall said:
No... Because when Uri Geller bends a present spoon, or Popov hears a voice in his ear, they do so with the intention of making people believe they have supernatural ability. DB does not. He explicitly states that he does all his stuff by misdirection, sleight of hand, cold reading, etc. At no point does he say he does anything supernatural. How shows are exactly that, shows. He used a split screen for the lottery trick? So what? It's a magic show. We know it's not real, and we are being duped or fooled in some way, but that's why it is a show. I'm not aware of any stooges still.
Of course he doesn't claim to be supernatural, but why is it OK for him to claim one thing and do another when we criticise Uri Geller and his ilk for much the same thing? DB claims that he achieves his results through 'magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship'. Nowhere does he say 'camera tricks' or 'CGI' or 'strictly worded contracts'. Ask anybody what DB's selling point is and I bet they come back with something about how he's an expert in hypnotism, psychological manipulation and feats of memory. My point is that I no longer believe this is true. The reason he's as popular as he is, is because of his claims. If he'd have marketed himself as another magician, or a showman, he wouldn't even have got a show on E4. It's because of his very slick claims, and even slicker promotional material, that he's achieved his notoriety. Remove those and all you have is a second-rate showman.The point about the split screen is that anybody could do it. I could do it. It requires no skilled sleight of hand, no psychological techniques or impressive mental feats. Indeed, all he did was stand there and present the show. There's a big distinction between using the tricks of the trade and blatant misrepesentation. One is a skill and the other is essentially cheating. If Randi revealed he'd done his spoonbending trick by CGI, would you be disappointed? I would, because it would show that he didn't know how Geller did it. By using the skills of sleight of hand he demonstrated that it was physically possible without invoking the paranormal, or any sort of post-production trickery.
But he's not clear on the matter. He doesn't say he uses camera tricks, yet the evidence is irrefutable. The evidence for stooges, or at least people willing to 'go along with it', is admittedly not so clear cut but I'd bet a great deal of my own money for this being so. There's no way that the people he used on his past two shows were unaware of what was going on, to some greater or lesser degree, and IMO it's unlikely to the point of absurdity to say otherwise.
So now, when you see Derren Brown pick an audience member and perform an illusion, how do we know the audience member is genuine? Indeed, many of his 'illusions' point to them not being so. Either that or being in on some prespecified script. He once picked out a member of the audience and told them straight out what they'd been dreaming of the night before. Now there are two choices there, that they told him, or he is psychic. There's no such thing as a psychic so they told him. It's not even a case of me not knowing how it's done and grasping at straws, it's a case of there only being these two explanations. Things like that I can overlook if the bulk of his stuff is kosher, so to speak, but there's no evidence that it is any more geniune than his split-screen camera trick. I have my doubts whether he uses any psychology, body language or hypnotism techniques whatsoever. Certainly he doesn't use them in the way he makes out, and without those techniques he loses everything that makes him stand out above the thousands of other showmen and stage conjurers.
So now, when you see Derren Brown pick an audience member and perform an illusion, how do we know the audience member is genuine? Indeed, many of his 'illusions' point to them not being so. Either that or being in on some prespecified script. He once picked out a member of the audience and told them straight out what they'd been dreaming of the night before. Now there are two choices there, that they told him, or he is psychic. There's no such thing as a psychic so they told him. It's not even a case of me not knowing how it's done and grasping at straws, it's a case of there only being these two explanations. Things like that I can overlook if the bulk of his stuff is kosher, so to speak, but there's no evidence that it is any more geniune than his split-screen camera trick. I have my doubts whether he uses any psychology, body language or hypnotism techniques whatsoever. Certainly he doesn't use them in the way he makes out, and without those techniques he loses everything that makes him stand out above the thousands of other showmen and stage conjurers.
Halb said:
carmonk said:
But he's not clear on the matter. He doesn't say he uses camera tricks, yet the evidence is irrefutable. The evidence for stooges, or at least people willing to 'go along with it', is admittedly not so clear cut but I'd bet a great deal of my own money for this being so. There's no way that the people he used on his past two shows were unaware of what was going on, to some greater or lesser degree, and IMO it's unlikely to the point of absurdity to say otherwise.
The evidence for the camera trick is the lotto one? I can't recall the details show but I can see if he used a camera technique for that one. The stooges is something else, it appears to be a question of faith whether you think he uses them or not.Halb said:
Well you cannot say whether psychics are real or not.
Oh, I can, but let's not get into that one 
Halb said:
But I do not think that this argument needs to rely on that anyway, I do not think DB is one. Some on here have commented on knowing people in the shows? Maybe he influenced them, the same kind of stuff we see on Penn and Teller.
I used to think that, but now I think it's all staged. Certainly there's no evidence against everything he does but there doesn't need to be. That's the same criterion I'd apply to psychics so I think it would be disengenuous to fail to apply it to DB. For example, if proof came out that a certain psychic faked a show, I would take that as evidence that all their shows were fake, and indeed that they themselves were fake. I wouldn't say, "OK, that show was fake but I can't make judgement until I prove that their other 943 shows are fake to." A reasoned judgement should be applied and bias should not be granted to DB just because he's a nice guy. Of course, he doesn't claim to be psychic, but he does claim to use psychology, hypnosis and the like to achieve his results. AFAIK those claims are largely or totally bogus.Halb said:
P&T have made comments on influencing in their fool me show. There may be more explanations that you can think off etc.
Sure, but within reason. If someone does an amazing magic trick most people can offer up a few ideas as to what went on. They may well be wrong but they'll give it a go. In the example I stated, where DB spontaneously and precisely describes someone's dream in front of a live audience, even naming the person they dreamed about, there is only one explanation. He was told that information. Now if it wasn't live there'd be another possibility, that he guessed at 10,000 people's dreams and when he got one right, put that on his show. But in front of a live audience, what are the options? OK, there's chance as well, but come on, which do you believe?LandR said:
carmonk said:
Sure, but within reason. If someone does an amazing magic trick most people can offer up a few ideas as to what went on. They may well be wrong but they'll give it a go. In the example I stated, where DB spontaneously and precisely describes someone's dream in front of a live audience, even naming the person they dreamed about, there is only one explanation. He was told that information. Now if it wasn't live there'd be another possibility, that he guessed at 10,000 people's dreams and when he got one right, put that on his show. But in front of a live audience, what are the options? OK, there's chance as well, but come on, which do you believe?
It's a trick. This is entirely possible without a stooge, It uses the concept of dual reality. Essentially the magician is doing two tricks at once. One trick for the audience member and another trick for the audience, control both well and you can make it look like you have done the impossible.You might even make people scream "stooge"
Edited by LandR on Sunday 6th November 21:12
You're right he does use that trick, I've seen quite a few of them, but in this particular instance it couldn't have applied. He just pointed to someone and told them right out, and he did a few like that. Maybe they edited it massively (e.g. discussing a list of possible dreams) but I can't imagine it would have been impressive for the audience in that case.Halb said:
Is this on youtube?
I don't rigidly believe he doesn't use stooges, but I would be disappointed if he did...then again, that is an old and trusted magic method and DB may feel like it's valid. Hope not though.
I had a look and can't see it, although I the full show could well be on there, just can't recall the name of it. I'll have a look later and see if I can spot it.I don't rigidly believe he doesn't use stooges, but I would be disappointed if he did...then again, that is an old and trusted magic method and DB may feel like it's valid. Hope not though.
durbster said:
carmonk said:
...
So to summarise what you're saying: you don't understand how he does his act so you've decided you must be being conned. durbster said:
At the risk of presumption, I'm sure if you studied the techniques he uses in detail (psychology, hypnosis, suggestion etc.) you would be more accepting of his version of events. I've read a little about hypnosis and its roots and it's a fascinating demonstration of how easily people can be manipulated.
I would never pretend to be able to apply any psychological techniques, or be any good on stage, but I've read pretty extensively on the subject of hypnotism, influence and human behaviour. I don't read DB's accounts, however, because we know he doesn't tell the truth. His books are simply part of his PR machine.durbster said:
Also (again) he cannot legally claim he doesn't use stooges if he does.
Yes he can. There's no legal restriction to not telling the truth as long as it isn't to obtain money by deception or similar (and even then it's often OK, e.g. to tell people you can psychically diagnose their problems and get them to pay for the service, just check out the channels on Sky).durbster said:
They just can't make that sort of declaration on TV.
Sorry, you're wrong.durbster said:
LandR said:
He won't use them because they aren't reliable enough to make a stage show.
Psychology is unreliable? That's an interesting viewpoint when there's more than enough evidence to prove the opposite.The key point here is whether you believe that people are predictable or not. It's quite obvious to me that people are incredibly predictable. The basic behaviour of the vast majority of human beings is well studied and does follow patterns.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff