talkmagic.co.uk

Lord Freddie wrote:

nameless wrote:

Grimshaw wrote: These are the people Derren is appealing to. Not you lot who claim you could do better.

Ah, the old 'he doesn't make shows for magicians so you're not allowed an opinion' gambit ... truly the Godwin's law of internet magic forums.

Plus you daren't voice an opinion other than "this is wonderful!!! Wow!!!" because it's Derren...

Of course you can, its kind of the point of a forum. I'm sure we'd all agree that The Events were weak and Hero was just awful. If I remember correctly, some episodes of Trick or Treat were pretty lifeless too.

I fancy, nameless, that you missed the point of my post completely. Magicians are allowed an opinion of course, but they won't approach it with the eyes of a layperson. See, that's why I mentioned my attractive female friend who watched it with me. Because she represented the masses Derren is trying to appeal to. Geddit? Strewth, I didn't think I'd have to spell this out.

This kind of ties in with a post I made elsewhere on the forum regarding Dynamo. Your eyes are tainted with magic, you cannot hope to view things in the same way as someone on the street.

Besides, there really is no magic in these episodes....something else he's doing wrong apparently....but because he started as a magician, I suppose we feel it pertinent to comment and that perhaps our opinions are more valid than most.

I'm just trying to comment on the shows. First was okay, second wasn't great, third sounds interesting, it's on tomorrow.

MisterRawlings wrote:

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.

Not really the point imho. If you've been told that you're not going to be part of the show then you shouldn't be part of the show. I'm not disputing the legality of it, I'm attacking the ethics of it.
Working on the presumption that he really wasn't in on it then he's just been put through an emotional trauma as well as had his home violated by strangers... burglary is the technical term. That's absolutely disgraceful, end of.
And having a letter from Derren (and presumably a big follow-up visit) with a new telly doesn't even come close to compensating for the experience. It's akin to sexually assaulting someone and then saying "It's ok, I really have feelings for you" by way of excuse.

There was an episode of The Real Hustle where Jess effectively entered a house by swiping the keys through the letterbox, rearranged stuff, took stuff away etc and left hidden cameras to record the householdder's reaction. All explained and nicely repleaced/returned after the reveal of course but I'd guess they didn't have permission in advance to do that. Not sure what that proves, if anything.......

Vanderbelt wrote:Not really the point imho. If you've been told that you're not going to be part of the show then you shouldn't be part of the show. I'm not disputing the legality of it, I'm attacking the ethics of it.
Working on the presumption that he really wasn't in on it then he's just been put through an emotional trauma as well as had his home violated by strangers... burglary is the technical term. That's absolutely disgraceful, end of.
And having a letter from Derren (and presumably a big follow-up visit) with a new telly doesn't even come close to compensating for the experience. It's akin to sexually assaulting someone and then saying "It's ok, I really have feelings for you" by way of excuse.

All of which, is a bloody good point.

Vanderbelt wrote:Not really the point imho. If you've been told that you're not going to be part of the show then you shouldn't be part of the show. I'm not disputing the legality of it, I'm attacking the ethics of it.
Working on the presumption that he really wasn't in on it then he's just been put through an emotional trauma as well as had his home violated by strangers... burglary is the technical term. That's absolutely disgraceful, end of.
And having a letter from Derren (and presumably a big follow-up visit) with a new telly doesn't even come close to compensating for the experience. It's akin to sexually assaulting someone and then saying "It's ok, I really have feelings for you" by way of excuse.

I think that is basically what i said a couple of pages back, or something of that ilk. The ethical aspect of it is what gets me.

edit: this is what i said on the other page

wittyusername wrote:how do you swing it when its a whole audience (either on one of his shows or at the stephen fry shooting where they weren't in the know) you WOULD have to do a debrief for the people who viewed it- and vet very throughly first
I have to say then, if it is all done with real people, i don't agree with the fact he is messing with people's mental health.
It's fair enough your usual mentalism but seeing someone being 'shot' is going to leave you feeling more uneasy than a book test and you never know what people are going to do afterwards, you don't know what has happened to people in the past either (i'v been kidnapped for example- true(!)
and that is tempting fate a bit, it's more disturbing for people than having someone guess what type of hairspray you use.

Perhaps the problem is that we expect Derren to do stuff very much like the successful Channel 4 series of a few years ago and also like his stage shows. He's doing something very different so it's not meeting our expetations even though he hasn't promised to do what we expect?

I think the third Trick Of The Mind series was pretty poor really, at least compared with the previous two. The trick with Matt Lucas stood out, but that one in Vienna with the watch and the big wheel representing the time etc....boy that went on a bit. The other stuff he's doing that moves away from the mentalism is something he needs to do or he'd have become pretty stale. The stage shows are obviously where he carries on with that shizzle.

Mandrake wrote:Perhaps the problem is that we expect Derren to do stuff very much like the successful Channel 4 series of a few years ago and also like his stage shows. He's doing something very different so it's not meeting our expetations even though he hasn't promised to do what we expect?

i'v only just recently started paying attention to him (i don't have a television)
so i haven't seen much of his stuff old or new, but even i find this new stuff (mostly) boring

Thought this might be of interest with regards to some of the comment in this thread:
http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2011/11/claim-claim-2/

Vanderbelt wrote:

MisterRawlings wrote:

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.

Not really the point imho. If you've been told that you're not going to be part of the show then you shouldn't be part of the show. I'm not disputing the legality of it, I'm attacking the ethics of it.
Working on the presumption that he really wasn't in on it then he's just been put through an emotional trauma as well as had his home violated by strangers... burglary is the technical term. That's absolutely disgraceful, end of.
And having a letter from Derren (and presumably a big follow-up visit) with a new telly doesn't even come close to compensating for the experience. It's akin to sexually assaulting someone and then saying "It's ok, I really have feelings for you" by way of excuse.

The participant signs things to say Derren and his team can do all that kind of stuff, it's also explained to you that such things may happen. They go through vast psychological screening and interviews to make sure they are emotionally strong enough to deal with what might happen to them and they are well aware that when they sign up, what happens to them may not be very nice at all. He did a very similar thing with his Trick or Treat show. Also, it's not burglary since they have been given the keys and permission by his partner (and in actual fact by him when he signed up). So be careful what accusations you throw around in your 'humble opinion'.

MisterRawlings wrote:The participant signs things to say Derren and his team can do all that kind of stuff, it's also explained to you that such things may happen. They go through vast psychological screening and interviews to make sure they are emotionally strong enough to deal with what might happen to them and they are well aware that when they sign up, what happens to them may not be very nice at all. He did a very similar thing with his Trick or Treat show. Also, it's not burglary since they have been given the keys and permission by his partner (and in actual fact by him when he signed up). So be careful what accusations you throw around in your 'humble opinion'.

It's not really the point though is it?

He was told they didn't want to use him, fair enough. He assumed that was that and moved on.
They then proceeded to secretly film him, set things up to make his life miserable and vandalise his property simply because his other half had given them keys and he had signed a bit of paper.
Surely being told that you weren't chosen negates everything you agreed to when you signed up?

phillipnorthfield wrote:

MisterRawlings wrote:The participant signs things to say Derren and his team can do all that kind of stuff, it's also explained to you that such things may happen. They go through vast psychological screening and interviews to make sure they are emotionally strong enough to deal with what might happen to them and they are well aware that when they sign up, what happens to them may not be very nice at all. He did a very similar thing with his Trick or Treat show. Also, it's not burglary since they have been given the keys and permission by his partner (and in actual fact by him when he signed up). So be careful what accusations you throw around in your 'humble opinion'.

It's not really the point though is it?

He was told they didn't want to use him, fair enough. He assumed that was that and moved on.
They then proceeded to secretly film him, set things up to make his life miserable and vandalise his property simply because his other half had given them keys and he had signed a bit of paper.
Surely being told that you weren't chosen negates everything you agreed to when you signed up?

Well I think it would be rubbish if I was picked and they told me I was, then when everything started happening it would have been blatantly obvious (to me and probably many others) that something wasn't right and it seemed a bit too set-up. Would lose the genuine reactions of me as the participant. Nothing that bad actually happened to him, which some people on here complained about!

If you wouldn't be happy with something potentially horrible happening to you, with no warning of when it might happen, then don't apply for the shows. It makes that point clear. If you did apply you're probably well aware how Trick or Treat worked, with the subjects having no idea when or what would take place.

What did they realistically vandalise? They gave him a new TV. I don't know, I guess I'm a little surprised people here are such wet fishes. Beadles about, other prank shows and The Real Hustle play nasty things on people all the time. Maybe Derren should stop making shows because a tiny amount of people, mainly magi, don't approve. I'll tweet that to him now, I'm sure he'll really care.

These 'Experiments' haven't been great. That's about it. He's not trying to put on a Magic show, he's probably a bit bored of only ever doing that type of thing.

Yes, if you sign up to one of Derrens shows you know what you're in for but there is no need to be so abrupt explaining that point.
They could of smashed something that was irreplaceable, and buying a new one doesn't cut it, I'm sure he didn't expect his room to be trashed like that, Derrens shows (which focus on one person) *usually* end up having an over all positive effect on the subject- i didn't think so in this case, all he got was a s**t night and a new television and only got that because they smashed up his old one.

With regards to the ethical aspects (well more to do with the participant and their mental health) Derren has just posted this on this website: (hope it's ok to link out)
http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2011/11/claim-claim-2/" target="_blank