talkmagic.co.uk

Perhaps that's why you are not enjoying the shows Freddie?

I try to watch everything Derren (and anybody else) does with an open mind because I know as soon as I compare it to something else I will be disappointed.

It would have been much better with adverts and I agree the options could have been more extreme, however it is Saturday night prime time.

The only major problem I am starting to have with the shows so far is that they seem to be offering people with deplorable behaviour an "excuse" for their actions.

First Sirhan Sirhan being a CIA hypnotised killer and now the rioters in London and other parts of the country being "victims of crowd mentality".

I do watch them with an open mind but I think Derren is stating the obvious (ie: people act stupid when they are on camera) and also making the mistake of assuming his audience are all idiots with a newfound "I'm clever, you're not" persona which grates somewhat.
If my first experience of Derren was these two shows then I wouldn't have a high opinion of him but I'm watching in the hope that spark he once had is reignited.

I found this very boring and predictable, it didnt need Derren Brown, a good TV presenter could of done this.

Im going to stop watching his stuff now, it will take away from all the good stuff he has achieved if I carry on watching. Last nights show, the lottery results all get in the way of things like russian roulette which was one of the most gripping things ive ever seen on TV.

I have to question the 'reality' of the show - what if he had wanted to leave the bar after the first confrontation? Not an unreasonable outcome. The show would have been over - but for the sake of this post, we'll pretend everything was as Derren said.

It was hardly a fair experiment. The guy was painted in a negative light. He was a 'bit of a lad' (translation: bit of a t*at) who had no problem cheating on his girlfriend then sleeping with her minutes later, potentially passing on a STI. Is anyone surprised people had no qualms about seeing him get some comeuppance? I would have voted for the negative results whether I was in an anonymous crowd or not! It would have been more interesting if the target had been a nice old lady, a disabled child or even just an everyday person who didn't have the morals of a sewer rat. Ah, but that wouldn't have delivered the desired result ...

Even then, the vote majority was sometimes only around 60% ... hardly overwhelming.

And like someone already said, the 'punishments' were really no more than pranks. Add to that the format of the gameshow. We've been programmed over a lifetime of television to know that nothing bad will ever happen to someone in shows like this, and they'll probably even come out of it with some sort of reward. It wasn't like the people were voting for him to REALLY be arrested, and possibly given a truncheon-bashing by the Met in the back of the van. They knew the police were fake and it would all end in chuckles. And the fact that it was Derren would surely have had the audience waiting for a twist of some sort. Why not use someone else to front the show?

As for the ending, I didn't like how the audience got the 'blame' for him getting knocked over. If anyone would have been to blame IRL, it would have been the producers of the show for not preparing for every outcome. I certainly wouldn't have felt any responsibility had I been in the audience. No one voted for him to get knocked over.

I'm sure there's something in the negative behaviour of crowds, but this show didn't prove it. It proved that people enjoy seeing someone of dubious morals getting a bit of payback, and I couldn't even enjoy it on that level because I don't believe for a second the guy was 'real'.

Actual show was mildly entertaining but there was absolutely no reason for Derren to host it...any old presenter could have. Nothing particularly psychological or sinister about this one...just...well, it was like a less funny, interactive version of Trigger Happy TV.

All im hoping is that he knew this show was the weakest of the 4 and the next 2 will make up for it !

jon_kent wrote:Im a massive fan of Derren but that was the worst thing he has done ! (Worse than 30.000 feet)

I dont think the choices were any worse than usual prank programmes ! If it was a real experiment into normal people making horribly nasty choices in a gang you'd imagine the phone call being maybe a family problem and then kidnapping him and having 'A' let him go 'B' hit him with a hammer lol

I think telling people to be disappointed in them self because they wanted someone to give them a prank phone call about being fired is a bit mela dramatic. Good twist at the end though

If he had said the first choice was A. He gets a free drink, or B. Someone comes and stabs him in the face, I think the audience might cotton on to the fact this couldn't be a real gameshow. It had to start off slow, like any prank show, then after a while they would forget the plausibility of the show and be wrapped up in the moment and more suggestible to enact nastier things.

The very first option they chose was actually quite bad: What if he got confrontational back to the guy wrongly accusing him? What if he accepted his request to go outside? The actor wouldn't know what to do, what if Chris then headbutted or glassed the guy? These are all things that happen in real life. There could have been a terrible outcome to the very first question, it's worrying people can't see that.

Choosing a gang of thugs to kidnap him is the worst thing, couldn't they see how that would be too terrifying to be a 'bit of a laugh'? I'm glad it had the twist. It reminded me of when Rio Ferdinand was doing his 'Merced' show and David Beckham fled a taxi which wasn't going where he wanted and darted across a busy road - if something had of happened to him because of the prank it wouldn't have been funny anymore, people tend to not be able to think about possible outcomes and the consequences of their actions. My friends say to me sometimes I over-think things, well this is an example of people not thinking enough.

jon_kent wrote:All im hoping is that he knew this show was the weakest of the 4 and the next 2 will make up for it !

Unfortunately I can see the 4th episode (The Secret of Luck) being the worst, especially if it's anything like 'The System' where he pretends there's a way to win at horse racing, some woman believes him and inevitably loses a lot of money. I can't even remember the point of this episode? Derren didn't do anything..weird.

It sounds like it will mainly be fronted by a woman; Dawn. I saw news footage of Derren stroking a 'lucky dog' statue and various posts on twitter etc about the dog, even from his other crew, I guess this was the set-up...the show is about Derren setting up a rumour to see if people can bring themselves good luck by 'expecting' it and therefore changing their outlook and approach to life.

I think the next episode might be quite interesting though; 'The Guilt Trip' - trying to convince someone of a murder they didn't commit.

nameless wrote:I have to question the 'reality' of the show - what if he had wanted to leave the bar after the first confrontation? Not an unreasonable outcome. The show would have been over - but for the sake of this post, we'll pretend everything was as Derren said.

It was hardly a fair experiment. The guy was painted in a negative light. He was a 'bit of a lad' (translation: bit of a t*at) who had no problem cheating on his girlfriend then sleeping with her minutes later, potentially passing on a STI. Is anyone surprised people had no qualms about seeing him get some comeuppance? I would have voted for the negative results whether I was in an anonymous crowd or not! It would have been more interesting if the target had been a nice old lady, a disabled child or even just an everyday person who didn't have the morals of a sewer rat. Ah, but that wouldn't have delivered the desired result ...

Even then, the vote majority was sometimes only around 60% ... hardly overwhelming.

And like someone already said, the 'punishments' were really no more than pranks. Add to that the format of the gameshow. We've been programmed over a lifetime of television to know that nothing bad will ever happen to someone in shows like this, and they'll probably even come out of it with some sort of reward. It wasn't like the people were voting for him to REALLY be arrested, and possibly given a truncheon-bashing by the Met in the back of the van. They knew the police were fake and it would all end in chuckles. And the fact that it was Derren would surely have had the audience waiting for a twist of some sort. Why not use someone else to front the show?

As for the ending, I didn't like how the audience got the 'blame' for him getting knocked over. If anyone would have been to blame IRL, it would have been the producers of the show for not preparing for every outcome. I certainly wouldn't have felt any responsibility had I been in the audience. No one voted for him to get knocked over.

I'm sure there's something in the negative behaviour of crowds, but this show didn't prove it. It proved that people enjoy seeing someone of dubious morals getting a bit of payback, and I couldn't even enjoy it on that level because I don't believe for a second the guy was 'real'.

Well obviously he was painted in a negative way, to start the audience feeling like they could start with a little prank. However the story he told was 10 years ago, so when he was 18. I'm sure teenagers these days do even worse, he's now settled down with his gf so probably a fairly nice guy.

Yeah I agree about the fact it could have gone a different route, what if Chris really wanted to go clubbing or something, rather than to the shop, however I guess that's why they had 2 bestfriends, so they could fairly easily steer him on the right course and I guess if it went completely awry the show would have been cancelled, the audience told and another person would have to be followed.

I'm a little surprised you said you would have chosen all the negative things, I don't think by any stretch of the imagination did he deserve to have someone accusing him of being a sex pest, someone aggressively asking him for a fight, having his privacy ruined, being accused of being a lowly thief, being arrested, losing his job, NOT being given £10,000 for his troubles and instead set upon by a gang and taken to a warehouse. Yes the audience know the people are in on it, but they also know Chris has no idea, so every emotion he would be feeling would be genuine. If he was actually taken by the gang and later told 'surprise you're on candid camera' after being tied up expecting torture and death, do you think it would be 'all chuckles' to him? I'd find it hard to see the funny side of thinking the worst possible thing ever was about to happen to me, but the audience were perfectly fine to see that happen to someone and apparently you would be? A few pranks is one thing, something as serious as that is another.

Also, wouldn't you or the audience see the possible dangers in voting for such things? What if Chris tried to fight them off, was particularly scared and frantic that adrenaline took over that he seriously injured or killed one of the 'thugs' - what if he took his key in between his fist and punched one of them in the eye? I know if a gang set on me and I'd be running (which surely people can see is a dangerous thing) or fighting back however I could. People need to think about the possible outcomes of things. The getting him arrested obviously is just a prank because it's very unlikely he's going to try to assault a policemen, but the other things could have easily ended up with violence.

They were both called Chris

Good name...

It was a very good point badly made.

The initial effect had me hoping for something good (and it was a good effect) but the following 50 minutes had me bored senseless. Derren had already told us what was going to happen and as a result, the choices the audience made held no entertainment factor. I just sat there feeling very angry at Derren for violating somebody's home like that. I sincerely hope he was healthily rewarded for his non-concensual participation, I'd be f'ing livid

The end came as a surprise and I think Derren delivered brilliantly.

Vanderbelt wrote:It was a very good point badly made.

The initial effect had me hoping for something good (and it was a good effect) but the following 50 minutes had me bored senseless. Derren had already told us what was going to happen and as a result, the choices the audience made held no entertainment factor. I just sat there feeling very angry at Derren for violating somebody's home like that. I sincerely hope he was healthily rewarded for his non-concensual participation, I'd be f'ing livid

The end came as a surprise and I think Derren delivered brilliantly.

If you filled out the application and spoke to them, you'd realise you have to accept that they can pretty much do whatever they want. They can go into your house, plant things, take things, do whatever they want. You have to be 100% willing for this and Chris obviously was.

Beardy wrote:They were both called Chris

Good name...

Who were both called Chris?? lol

MisterRawlings wrote: Well obviously he was painted in a negative way, to start the audience feeling like they could start with a little prank. However the story he told was 10 years ago, so when he was 18. I'm sure teenagers these days do even worse, he's now settled down with his gf so probably a fairly nice guy.

But if it was a true 'experiment', rather than Derren leading the audience in the direction he wanted them to go, the victim shouldn't have been painted in any sort of way, negative or positive. The show was supposed to be about how crowds can do bad things, and I contend that they wouldn't have voted for a sweet old woman to get kidnapped. If Derren truly wanted to make a point about this, he should have used a person who we knew nothing about, or a control group of different types of people. Why even mention the sexual infidelity? As you say, it happened 10 years ago. I'm sure in those 10 years he must have done some good things ... why not mention them?

MisterRawlings wrote: I'm a little surprised you said you would have chosen all the negative things, I don't think by any stretch of the imagination did he deserve to have someone accusing him of being a sex pest, someone aggressively asking him for a fight, having his privacy ruined, being accused of being a lowly thief, being arrested, losing his job, NOT being given £10,000 for his troubles and instead set upon by a gang and taken to a warehouse. Yes the audience know the people are in on it, but they also know Chris has no idea, so every emotion he would be feeling would be genuine. If he was actually taken by the gang and later told 'surprise you're on candid camera' after being tied up expecting torture and death, do you think it would be 'all chuckles' to him? I'd find it hard to see the funny side of thinking the worst possible thing ever was about to happen to me, but the audience were perfectly fine to see that happen to someone and apparently you would be? A few pranks is one thing, something as serious as that is another.

I assume you're too young to remember Beadle's About?

MisterRawlings wrote: Also, wouldn't you or the audience see the possible dangers in voting for such things? What if Chris tried to fight them off, was particularly scared and frantic that adrenaline took over that he seriously injured or killed one of the 'thugs' - what if he took his key in between his fist and punched one of them in the eye? I know if a gang set on me and I'd be running (which surely people can see is a dangerous thing) or fighting back however I could. People need to think about the possible outcomes of things. The getting him arrested obviously is just a prank because it's very unlikely he's going to try to assault a policemen, but the other things could have easily ended up with violence.

Which is why I don't think for a second that any of it was 'real'.

MisterRawlings wrote:

Beardy wrote:They were both called Chris

Good name...

Who were both called Chris?? lol

The main participant in episodes one and two