![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Tra-la-la-la-la
A quick test. Read the question below. Then (and only then) click on the cut and read the poll question within.
What do you think of Mr Brown today?
[Poll #1455652]
I'm just curious.
What do you think of Mr Brown today?
[Poll #1455652]
I'm just curious.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Although actually, having just mentally replayed the possibility then if you did say "What do you think of Brown today?" it would have triggered the recollection of far too many UPS adverts from the US ("What can Brown do for you?").
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Your world sounds great!
The actual catalyst today was last night's Derren Brown special (which I didn't see) in which he "predicted" the lottery number before they were drawn.
Why he's buggering about with TV specials instead of buying a winning ticket every week is beyond me :)
no subject
There are various theories kicking around, such as the camera being locked off halfway through the piece, so the props could be changed without the audience seeing it. However, I've never heard of DB using electronic tricks before, so, personally, I find this very unlikely. Right now, I'd believe that the audience saw what was actually happening, but could have had their attention misdirected (allowing him to switch the numbers by sleight of hand).
What I did notice, and would suggest was an important part was the claim at the start of the clip that "the BBC and/or Camelot have the right to show the lottery numbers first, so we can't show you Derren's guess in advance" (I paraphrase, and the wording's probably vital). But that's not relevant if it's only a guess: it would be like saying you're not allowed to look at my lottery ticket. So it's actually that: Channel 4 can't show you the lottery numbers in advance, *and* Derren's prediction hasn't been set up yet.
It's not a prediction: it's some kind of trick to get the numbers set up between the BBC broadcast and the reveal. How it's done, I don't know.
no subject
I saw him live. He spent 5 minutes doing the start of a card trick, then walked off "to clean his hands". Then came back, shook hands with the person he'd just done half the trick to, and asked him "Have we met before today?" Then he did the end of the trick.
Needless to say, on the version that was broadcast on the telly, you only saw the second half of the trick. All the build-up and setting ideas in the other person's mind was ignored. So the TV version was impossibly amazing, whilst the actual one was quite easy.
no subject
Yes, I took it as read that that's what it was. In fact, having subsequently seen this trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXz4RKqVMhI) he describes it as "misdirection", thus suggesting that he was never claiming it was really a prediction.
I believe there's some sort of how-it-was-done on tonight; I'm curious as to whether that'll be even remotely honest. If it's an honest explication of the trick, I'd hope it was something more inventive and interesting than a bit of camera trickery like that.
no subject
So Friday night, not tonight. But double check a schedule near you :)
(Also:
Which is a week Friday).
no subject
Interesting to note he's revealing how he could have done it rather than how he did.
no subject
However, I think it's also how you can do it, if you so wish. Which, I presume, means "in your living room, in front of your aunt", and therefore precludes camera tricks. Because I don't think it's possible to fix your aunt's left eye, so she sees an unchanging image from it, while you swap the props around.
Well, unless you want to get your aunt a set of rigged spectacles, with an image already fixed to the lenses. In which case, you might as well go the whole hog, and just blindfold her. She'll never notice.
no subject
If he reveals a trick, surely it would only be as a "sacrifice move". I think the standard formula is "I'm going to do a trick". <does trick where woman appears out of box>. "Now I'm going to do it again, this time showing you how it worked". <moves camera behind box, does another trick which looks the same from the front, but from behind woman is seen to be concealed in hidden compartment of box all along. Disassembles box, woman has vanished>.
But I understood "I'm going to show you how to do it" to mean, "I'm going to present a one-hour show in which I do various effects relating to numbers, with the theme that I'm supposedly preparing to predict the lottery, and that with the same preparation you could do it too". Rather than "I'm going to present a one hour show in which I show you how to do that one effect".
no subject
It won't be. I watched last night's thing this morning (TiVo), and he was talking about it being "a year of his life", and "having lottery numbers all over his walls" at home. So I assume it's going to be about that, and not about ways to get 6 numbers written on some ping pong balls at short notice.
I'm curious to watch it, though, on grounds that he's usually interesting. An hour of him pretending to analyse number frequencies and attune himself to the universe of chance would not be interesting, so I'm pretty confident he won't do what I expect...
no subject
Misdirections which work in close-up magic don't really work in larger scale with a camera pointed at you, since the audience can watch again as many times as they like. If you're doing a card trick one on one you can (almost literally) shout "look over there" and switch the deck. I don't think that really cuts it on TV :-)
The interesting thing about the "BBC has the right to show first" thing is that although doubtless true as far as it goes, it was lame enough to draw attention. Derren Brown could just as well have not bothered saying it - he doesn't need an excuse for using the perfectly ordinary magical convention of a concealed prediction, that he's used many times before. So what's he going to say on Friday that means he *wants* us to be thinking about the fact that he did it that way? Normally he wants people thinking about how suggestible/predictable people are, not about where the mirrors might have been.
I was also a bit surprised that the BBC article (or some article I read, anyway) described him as "an illusionist". He is of course, but that's not his PR, again because it doesn't fit the mentalist patter.
no subject
I would love it if he actually did tell us how he did it. (My money's on locked off camera with fake wobble and partial overlay.) But I'll be astonished if he does, and even if he did I probably wouldn't believe him cos I don't believe a word he says!
But hey, he's Derren, so I'll keep watching. He may be the antichrist, but he's the only fresh thing on the menu.
no subject
Why make it so hard, though? Modern tech easily allows for setting the numbers on the balls wirelessly.
no subject
I wish I had more time and spare attention to be better informed about various bits of the world. Without taking the focus off something else though, it aint going to happen.
no subject
no subject
I did like the book he (Derren) wrote, very interesting. His TV shows I find a bit dull in as much as he does something inexplicable but not particularly showy. For instance being able to guess what tune someone was thinking of just by making them imagine it in their head. No I can't explain how he did it, but when you come down to it, I've just watched two men staring at each other for a few minutes before one of them names a piece of music, and the other sputters in shock. It's not very interesting to watch. If he explained how he did it afterwards then I'd be an avid fan, but otherwise it's just dull - if inexplicable - TV.
no subject
I thought you might be asking about that, or testing whether people had heard the news yet.
no subject