talkmagic.co.uk

Grimshaw wrote:

MisterRawlings wrote:@Grimshaw. But it is telling you things about psychology and sociology. You may already know it, it may be common knowledge, it might be that all you're learning is the fancy words for it, but it's still 'teaching' something about it.

As I said, I don't believe that to be the case. Stats and common sense (which is all I believe social psychology to be), maybe. Furthermore, if you're looking at The Experiments as educators of psychology / sociology, you're really only - bar the second episode - looking at case studies since he's using one person. You can't hope to generalise and say "Yes, that's what we'd all do in that situation". Derren even says particiapants are selected on the grounds that they'll basically help to make his experiment work (they're more suggestible). That's not science, its entertainment. Climate changes scientists might alter the data to fit, but real scientsts can't do that. (Bit of controversy at the end there for ya)

You would be surprised how many people lack common sense.

MisterRawlings wrote:Oh don't get me wrong, I completely agree that these aren't proper psychology experiments, of course, they're entertainment. But I would say some of the things he talks about and touches on are based in psychology (more so with these shows than when he pretends he's using psychology in his early work) and you can learn some basic terms and references to actual psychology experiments. But yeah that's about it.

Indeed, pretty much this Mr. !
@grimshaw
These couldn't be (and I'm not saying they are supposed to be, it's clear they really aren't) real psych experiments, they would be ripped to shreads for 1000s of reasons.
So you're saying they are just for entertainment and not supposed to teach us anything because the outcome and bits inbetween are obvious and common knowledge?
Sounds like you are describing a version of watching paint dry haha

PS. exactly, conflicting opinions doesn't mean an argument!

Ok, can someone who enjoyed this please explain why, in simple simple terms please?

I thought people were enjoying it from a psychology perspective (but they aren't)
people think it is all obvious so the outcome is obvious too

I don't understand how it can be enjoyable if it's that transparent and not educational, funny or thought provoking (again, because its obvious and common knowlage to everyone according to Grim, so nothing to think about!).

wittyusername wrote:You would be surprised how many people lack common sense.

Maybe so, but dressing common sense up in psychological terms doesn't make it any more than just common sense. That's more what I was getting at.

wittyusername wrote:@grimshaw
These couldn't be (and I'm not saying they are supposed to be, it's clear they really aren't) real psych experiments, they would be ripped to shreads for 1000s of reasons.
So you're saying they are just for entertainment and not supposed to teach us anything because the outcome and bits inbetween are obvious and common knowledge?
Sounds like you are describing a version of watching paint dry haha

I'm saying there's a huge difference between simple entertainment and am entertaining documentary. Unfortunately for both magicians and psychologists, many people watch Derren's programmes believing them to be the latter. Or, if that's too much of an exaggeration, then they at least believe them to be scientific in nature. I don't believe this means they can be classed as boring just because they don't teach you anything, I just think its important to know where the line is.

Those that don't just see it as entertainment end up being....as my psychology lecturer calls it.....Dave In-The-Pub. That is, they're of the ilk that see this stuff as factual and sprout if off as such after a few beers to anyone who might be listening or within ear-shot in a vain hope of appearing slightly intelligent. Much the same people who triumphantly claim we only use 10% of our brain or that 80% of communication is non-verbal.

''Those that don't just see it as entertainment end up being....as my psychology lecturer calls it.....Dave In-The-Pub. That is, they're of the ilk that see this stuff as factual and sprout if off as such after a few beers to anyone who might be listening or within ear-shot in a vain hope of appearing slightly intelligent. Much the same people who triumphantly claim we only use 10% of our brain or that 80% of communication is non-verbal.''


I Don't do any of that and i don't watch television to be educated, i watch it to be entertained and that didn't happenen with this I'm afraid
Some fella/people doing some stuff, predictable outcome and then the end?
It doesn't have to be all cutting edge new or exciting either, just good on some level yeah?
At least horror films that follow a predictable plot and ending have some good entertaining bits inbetween, for *me* (and that is all I'm speaking for) didn't do anything.

edit- I'm only saying it should of taught something because for me it was so boring it couldn't of been entertainment.

wittyusername wrote:edit- I'm only saying it should of taught something because for me it was so boring it couldn't of been entertainment.

Okay, I see what you're getting at now. This probably isn't the place to bang on about the state of broadcasting right now, but compared to a lot of other things on television, I think Derren's shows are usually entertaining and certainly worthy of discussion. Hence this thread. I don't think an episode of Hollyoaks could be subjected to the same scrutiny.

Grimshaw wrote:

wittyusername wrote:edit- I'm only saying it should of taught something because for me it was so boring it couldn't of been entertainment.

Okay, I see what you're getting at now. This probably isn't the place to bang on about the state of broadcasting right now, but compared to a lot of other things on television, I think Derren's shows are usually entertaining and certainly worthy of discussion. Hence this thread. I don't think an episode of Hollyoaks could be subjected to the same scrutiny.

I think that is basically how we have ended up on this topic, Hollyoaks is always sh*t
Derren does usually produce some fantastic television and this wasn't anywhere near the usual standard (again, for me)
not because it was of a different ilk, (everyone evolves) but with this step out of the televisual primordial soup he stumbled.
I'v done a similar thing to drunken friends- who hasn't tried to convince a hungover pal have they done something stupid and then have them believe you? That's all this is really, but it's far far funnier when it's someone you know telling people they had done 'X' last night and thinking it really happened.

Grimshaw wrote:See everybody? MisterRawlings and I participated in a brief exchange of ideas and opinions regarding the latest Derren Brown shows. There was no malice, no sniping, no bad feelings. In order to keep this fourth thread the right side of open, perhaps we could all follow suit. Its not that difficult.

Noted and applauded !!

wittyusername wrote:Ok, can someone who enjoyed this please explain why, in simple simple terms please?

I thought people were enjoying it from a psychology perspective (but they aren't)
people think it is all obvious so the outcome is obvious too

I don't understand how it can be enjoyable if it's that transparent and not educational, funny or thought provoking (again, because its obvious and common knowlage to everyone according to Grim, so nothing to think about!).

I am personally heavily interested and currently studying theatrical presentation in particular in mentalism. So the whole staging, set-up and execution was incredibly clever, in contrast to previous shows. He also appears to have taken feedback from previous 'duller' shows and changed his format. This is what I found fascinating.
Also although the initial premise was a closed question, the journey to the closed question left much to preparation and chance, leaving the possibility it could go wrong along the way and all the rest.

In terms of a complete show for me its up there with seance and roulette for innovation and uniqueness. If you find this ramble remotely interesting, feel free to pm me lol x

E x

Seance was great. I love creepy magic etc. The only thing I found awful about it was the method they used to select one of the people/ghosts so that everyone at home would have the same person in mind (admittedly there isn't many other ways to do it): Go up, now down, now sideways to any man, now go diagonally to the nearest person wearing glasses (one person), then go left to nearest asian man (only one asian). Now forget all of that and just pick Jane. Really?

Also, I know it's to make money etc, but I thought it was a bit wrong for him to say "If you experience any ghostly happenings, then please dial this number" and in brackets at the bottom 'calls cost £5 a second'. Okay I'm exadgerating of course, but apart from those two aspects I loved it because I find all the victorian medium-ship and ghost side of things fascinating. I've always wanted to stage my own Paranormal Activity for a group of people. Maybe I'm just a little bu**er

There seems to be a strange similarity in these shows, the fourth will probably blast this idea out of the water but consider this:

Show 1 – a volunteer who had applied to go on the show was selected, subjected to certain processes whereby his actions were manipulated towards an apparently shocking conclusion involving somebody’s death.

Show 2 –a volunteer who had applied to go on the show was apparently turned down but secretly selected, subjected to certain process by some paid professionals, some friends, family, work colleagues plus a studio full of total strangers and manipulated towards an apparently shocking conclusion involving somebody’s death.

Show 3 – a volunteer who had applied to go on the show was apparently turned down but secretly selected, subjected to certain processes by many paid professionals and manipulated towards an apparently shocking conclusion involving somebody’s death.

Show 1 willing volunteer plus theatre audience
Show 2 unknowing volunteer plus paid actors and studio full of total strangers
Show 3 unknowing volunteer plus paid actors.

However, having watched show 2 again last night, I’m wondering if any of the studio members were aware of what was to happen and helped matters along? The idea of trashing the TV wasn’t quite so random and if it was, how come a suitable replacement was there ready and waiting within minutes when all the stores selling TVs would probably have been closed? What spurred one member of the audience to ask, ‘What’s going on?’ in a loud voice when only moments before they’d been part of an anonymous mob baying for harsher and harsher actions. The allegory between the audience and groups such a Ku Klux Klan, Nazi soldiers etc didn’t really hold up as the audience anonymity masks would only have been relevant in the outside world, not the studio.

All three shows featured typically nice, decent guys being subjected to very harsh and worrying experiences – I’m wondering if show 4 will be vastly different?

And, once again, we’re still talking about these shows with quite a bit of passion and emotion so that might be a result!

Derren has tweeted several times saying along the lines 'stick with me, don't worry the last one will be a nice one!', in reference to people saying how harsh or disturbing some have been. Next one is all about 'luck', so presumably some positive outcomes happen.

It's quite a common thing that Derren lets someone think they haven't been selected, or leaves it so long after an application they kind of forget. It's to try and have the person not smell a rat as much as possible, otherwise they would just be like 'oh I know what's happening, this is Derren Brown doing a prank on me' and then the 'experiment' is completely ruined. I guess it must be hard to do it any other way, especially when you become quite famous. We could quite easily select someone off the street and ask if they will take part in an experiment which then turns a bit twisted or something through the use of actors etc, but if Derren asked someone off the street, they would instantly be prepared and expecting it all.

MisterRawlings wrote:Also, I know it's to make money etc, but I thought it was a bit wrong for him to say "If you experience any ghostly happenings, then please dial this number"

I thought that was just to show how suggestible people can be, and how belief can make things feel real when they aren't.

I've mostly enjoyed these shows so far, even if the outcomes have been predictable. The only one I wasn't sure how it would end was the first one. I felt with the 2nd one that surely you would realise that you were being set up for something (the guy not the audience). I was kind of disappointed with the third show, I guess I didn't realise it would be "Can you convince someone they are a murderer with 3 days of prep work and a bunch of money". I would have liked it to be more "Can you convince someone they are a murderer through interrogation?" I've heard stories of people confessing to murder when they were out of the country at the time with plenty of evidence to back it up, I would rather see that sort of thing.

I would have liked interviews with the audience in 2 of their reaction to what had happened and what they felt while part of the group. Also, that one person who walked out, what was that about? I guess if I had to choose between the two, I'd rather science/psychology than suspense/entertainment.

Crimsai wrote:

MisterRawlings wrote:Also, I know it's to make money etc, but I thought it was a bit wrong for him to say "If you experience any ghostly happenings, then please dial this number"

I thought that was just to show how suggestible people can be, and how belief can make things feel real when they aren't.

Yes it was to see if people were experiencing things just because of a show, exactly, but they plugged the number so many times yet only played like 5 people. Just checked and it was 25p per call from a landline. The show also wasn't live.

MisterRawlings wrote:

Crimsai wrote:

MisterRawlings wrote:Also, I know it's to make money etc, but I thought it was a bit wrong for him to say "If you experience any ghostly happenings, then please dial this number"

I thought that was just to show how suggestible people can be, and how belief can make things feel real when they aren't.

Yes it was to see if people were experiencing things just because of a show, exactly, but they plugged the number so many times yet only played like 5 people. Just checked and it was 25p per call from a landline. The show also wasn't live.

None of the recordings were genuine.

Instead, at the end of the line was a trained psychologist to calm the people down

Possibly.