Talk:Derren Brown/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Is the [1] link appropriate? It seems just like an advert for a ebook to me.TallAlex

This article seems incredibly biased. It seems to accept the fact that he uses his 'skills' and incredible intelligence to perform his stunts. These stunts are obviously classic magic TRICKS, and as such he should be called a magician. His claims to use the power of the mind are simply misleading, and an article not touching that topic is lacking. This article should not be a promotion for Derren Brown, but should address the truth.

Yet what the 'truth' is, is debated. If the article were to be completely changed in order to fit the view that all he does is classic magic tricks, then the article would still be biased but in another fashion. It would probably be best for the article to currently remain as it is (with maybe some congratulatory adjectives removed), with a section for 'Criticisms', outlining the view shown above.

Also, I reordered the "Messiah" sections to the order the appeared on the program. Hugo Hadlow 20:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I should probably note that the BBC page on this here gets it wrong - although it correctly notes that he started at chamber 3, the bullet was in chamber 1, not chamber 2. He only pulled the trigger 5 times in all, as any number of other sources point out... Evercat 01:40, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

What did you think after he sat there after firing chamber 5? The smile on his face before he pulled the trigger on that chamber suggested he thought that 5 was the one with the bullet in it, then he just sat there for ages. I thought he'd bottled it. Of course this could all be part of the act, but it added to the tension none the less. Obviously if he had blown his brains out we wouldn't have been watching it, so that should have eased the tension, but it was still pretty scary. Mintguy 01:45, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes, he took ages to pull himself together after that. I expected him to quit, actually. Thinking about it though, the "mistaken choice" was also a great way to create tension, with the idea that even he wasn't sure where the bullet was. I guess we'll never know if he really thought it was in chamber 5... I would be interested to know how many seconds in advance it was filmed. Evercat 01:59, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

One thing - would it be fair use to lift the image straight out of Sky's page? Evercat 02:02, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think he's amazing in what he can do, but he may have gone too far with this stunt. It puts me in mind of that guy that's going to chop his legs off live on the Internet (has he done that yet). I expect Ch 4 will get a slap on the wrist from the IBA or ITC or whatever they're called these days. BTW I thought the Revels a la "The Deer Hunter" ad in the first break was a bit cheeky! Mintguy 02:04, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that. :-) I dunno about the "ethical issues" - magicians have done dangerous things before, and there are lots of movies etc that can be copied by people. I'm not sure the fact that it was real as opposed to simulated makes much difference. I for one was confident he would live (even if he had to quit to do so) Evercat 02:06, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Speaking of "ethical issues" I was watching the new series of "Trick of the Mind" tonight and he appears to set someone up in a situation that will terrify them without obtaining their consent at all. Was it a fake set-up using an actor or are there major ethical issues involved in the stunt? LJade728 22:08, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I think there was an element of hypnosis used in that sequence, and whilst Brown didn't explicitly get their consent, they chose to play the arcade game. -TonyW 22:17, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Hang on, I chose to play arcade games a lot as a kid, that doesn't mean I volunteered to be put into a horrific semi-waking nightmare. Hypnotising someone without their permission certainly is unethical. The fact he hasn't been sued shows that there is probably an element of the 'victim' being in on it. If you choose someone at random, you could pick someone with mental difficulties etc. The guy must've been in on it.Magic Pickle 17:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
It was very (obviously) fake. I think this falls under the "showmanship" category derren refers to in the opening of the program. Derren has certainly faked it before. 01:18, Oct 5 2005
Ok, so where is the skill? Anyone can just hire an actor to pretend they are 'amazed' by what happened. What's the point in watching? Magic Pickle 17:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

What's Derren's real name ?

Was Derren born "Darren"?

No, Derren was christened Derren. His full name is Derren Victor Brown.

So why was his stage name originally Darren as the article suggests? Magic Pickle 17:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Because Darren is a far more commom name. It is easy to misspell also.

Blanks do can kill

Minister Melvyn Nurse pointed a blank loaded gun on his temple while demonstrating to youth that "guns kill people." The shot shattered his skull. [2] [3]

TV-Actor Jon-Erik Hexum died similarly. [4]

Brandon Lee was killed by a prop bullet stuck in the barrel. [5]

Talamus 09:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

""There was no live ammunition involved and at no time was anyone at risk." [1] As demonstrated earlier in the programme, firing a blank cartridge at point-blank range can still be extremely dangerous or even fatal." Ok so we know blanks are dangerous - but the police said they knew no-one was at risk. therefore the whole thing was a trick, and not a 'stunt' where there was clear danger. I think this is the problem with Brown - he is claiming to use psychological techniques, when in fact he seems to be using 'tricks' which control the situation (if that makes sense) Magic Pickle


Russian roulette

I wonder if it would be worth mentioning how the suggesting of chamber one was (apparently) done. The following is from a Google cache of someones usenet post, but it corresponds with my memory and I think it's accurate:

If it fucks up it's not your fault.
Right?
Pick up the gun.
Take the gun under the table.
Can you see the numbers?
Ok. Move it around a bit.
Familiarise yourself with the numbers.
Make sure you can see them clearly.
I want you to choose one of these numbers.
You keep that number to yourself and have a look at them now and choose one now.
It doesn't matter which one it is you can change your mind as many times as you like.
Would you make that decision for me and you settle on a number.
Are you thinking of one now? Yeah.

Evercat 23:45, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Admittedly there's the possibility the whole thing was a sham. :-) Evercat 00:15, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Seeing as the bullet, live or otherwise, was in chamber one tends to tie in with the use of the word 'one' a number of times in Brown's instructions, and he had chosen a guy who was nervous and probably more susceptible to such an auto-suggestion. --TonyW 16:04, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia is the place to include speculation as to how a magician's tricks are done. It's very easy to convince yourself that an apparent method is the 'only' way it could be done. Conan Doyle insisted the 'only' way Houdini could escape from handcuffs was to dematerialise his hands. The point of a good trick is that you can't work out how it's done. Wikipedia should contain confirmed facts, and not even reasoned arguments, let alone speculation. For what it's worth, I'm a friend of Derren, he asked me for advice when planning 'Russian Roulette' and no one has come close to the method in this discussion. More than that I'm not willing to say. --Scaramouche 14:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Well you've apparently confirmed that it was indeed a hoax, if the "method" was other than the one he claimed (ie a real honest-to-god game of Russian roulette) Evercat 16:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The end point is entertainment by awe. That has been achieved immensly by Derren in this show. With much anticipation and applause..:) -Procrastinating@talk2me 21:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
OK so the end result is entertainment - fine. But surely then Derren has no unique selling point. Any performer can hire an actor and pretend to play Russian Roulette with them. Therefore why are we watching Derren - because we believe there is the possibility he is really playing Russian Roulette. If it is a hoax, and there was no danger, there is no point in watching Derren. When you see a magician you wonder how the trick is performed but you know it is a trick. With Derren he seems to imply his performances are more 'real' than magic - but he's basically dressing up unskilful hoaxes. Which is less than 'magic'! Why only Simon Singh has bothered to publicly point this out is beyond me. Magic Pickle 17:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"Waking Dead" arcade game trick

I just removed the following:

Recently (June 2005) a clip from an episode of this series has been widely circulating the internet, most commonly on forums dedicated to online gaming. In the clip, Derren claims to create a video game he calls "Waking Dead" which is able to put people into a "catatonic trance". He accomplishes this by "carefully timed flashes". Derren explains that "roughly 1/3 of people who play it" (implying 1/3 of the entire population) is vulnerable to this effect. The absurdity of this claim appears to be lost on most viewers, since if the phenomenon were real then this effect would be well documented in medical journals, it would be used by the US Military to combat the insurgency in Iraq, it would be used by law enforcement, etc. The episode is thus quite obviously revealed as a staged hoax -- a technique well known to Derren.

Some of this may be worth inclusion, but it is currently uncited and written slightly POV. violet/riga (t) 5 July 2005 13:57 (UTC)

Here is my reworded cited and hopefully POV-free version.

Recently (June 2005) a clip from an episode of this series has been widely circulating the internet, most commonly on forums dedicated to online gaming. In the clip, Derren claims to have created a video game he calls "Waking Dead" which "is able to put roughly 1/3 of the people who play it into a catatonic trance". In the episode he places the video game in a local pub, to lure a (supposedly unsuspecting) patron into playing the game. He then "kidnaps" the catatonic "victim" and places them in a real-life recreation of the video game, having him fire an air gun at "zombie" actors outfitted with explosive squibs.
As with Derren's infamous Russian Roulette staged hoax, this episode has raised considerable controversy. Mick Grierson (credited in the episode as "Zombie Game Designer") put up a website linking to various articles about the episode.
Works for me. I've added it to the article. func(talk) 6 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)

This is VERY unlikely since some research into this phenomenal claim Photosensitive epilepsy suggest that only a few in 10,000 ever get this syndrome.(not a 1/3...) I don't wanne be negatively POV'ed about it ,should this be included? The Procrastinator 22:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC) --

I don't think this phenomenon *is* "photosensitive epilepsy" which would have caused the guy watching the game to have had an epileptic seizure, instead of dropping into a catatonic state like he seemed to do.

I tried to remove this line but it got put back in, I'm not all that familiar with editing wikipedia. Indigo 11:18, 12 April 2006 -- I just watched the segment, and I don't believe it for a second, but it leaves me wondering - what was the point of the whole thing? Was it an experiment in fooling the audience, or was it just a scam to get TV ratings like the Fox "Was Apollo Faked?" special? Jafafa Hots 12:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


The effect in action seemed more like normal use of hypnosis. (See highway hypnosis) In the clip Mr. Brown clearly timed the screen flashes to those emotions of the player he wanted to enhance. Hypnosis is not a mass effect you can use against multiple persons -- so no fancy military applications or "pacify-Iraq" use. :)
However. I see no point discussing whether the claims of Mr. Brown are true or not. (Some people insist rising this question when illusions are in question.) Stage artist, magicians, and hypnotists are entertainers. Their job is to entertain, not to speak truth every time they open their mouths. Tricks must be staged, and staging may require a bit of truth bending. That is Ok.
So the point is simply to entertain -- like the Fox scams, except that Isn't Fox supposed to tell the truth? :D
At least Mr. Brown always tells us that his tricks are tricks and he is a normal human being. He has never claimed to posses any metaphysical powers á la Uri Geller, he is not telling us he can fly like David Blaine. His show does not even include David Copperfield style bad dance acts.
Entertainment, entertainment, entertainment... Talamus 10:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
He doesn't claim to have metaphysical powers - he does claim to be able to read people via psychological techniques - and that's the controversy. A magician entertains us, but we know he is fooling us - the problem is when someone fools us and hides the fact. Magic Pickle 17:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Being able to read someone via "Psychological Techniques" is not difficult. For example, you can very often tell if someone is lying or telling the truth. You can see if someone is angry, depressed or whatever just by reading facial expressions (however hard the person tries to cover their emotions). This is what Derren Brown does. He is just better at it and knows how to implant thoughts into peoples' heads by subtle suggestion. Whether what he does is hoaxed or not, it makes everyone who watches him question the method i.e. "How did he do that?!", and I think that is the reaction every single magician, show hypnotist, conjurer, or entertainer wants isn't it? -- IanUK 10:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
So via the 'psychological techniques' he can make a normally sensible person commit a serious crime? (The bank robbery) - hmmm.. 'Psychological suggestion' is a pretty unproven field, at best. I don't know how he does it, brilliant - but he doesn't do it through 'psychology' that's the nub of the controversy. Cheers. Magic Pickle 18:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the point of the preceding bit of the show where he took the 13 people and got rid of all but 4 to leave only the most suggestible people? He didn't claim to take just anybody off the street to do it, he specifically chose those he could manipulate the most (and even then he only had a 75% success rate 80.168.139.168

Other 'Mind' magicians

I've removed the following paragraphs:

Whilst Brown is certainly the most successful 'psychological magician' by the yardstick of media exposure and television appearances, he is by no means a pioneer leave alone an originator in this field. American psychologist turned entertainer 'Marc Salem' has appeared on both sides of the Atlantic, in the theatre as well as on television, with his project 'Mind Games', receiving a critical acclaim which if anything exceeds that accorded Brown. Moreover British-Dutch magician 'David Berglas' was a household name in the 1960s and early 1970s with his intense, interactive television shows which drew heavily on his training as a psychotherapist at London's renown Tavistock Institute. The cult British-based performance artist / conceptual artist aladin likewise has formal training as a psychotherapist which he used to devastating effect in confounding the queues and VIP Room guests at nightclub The Ministry of Sound in the early 1990s with feats of apparent mind-reading.
But Brown's astute use of the machinery of PR to cast him in the mould of a superstar have not unnaturally made it diffucult to see him objectively in the history of 'psychological entertainment'. None of this can detract from his current status as an exceptional magician however.

This may well be a good addition (if reworded to remove some POV) but I don't think that it's particularly appropriate here. violet/riga (t) 17:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Other 'Mind' magicians

hi violet - i was interested in seeing your posting about derren brown. i think there needs to be a section putting derren into context - he is too important a figure NOT to have this. i have done an edit on text provided earlier by SHAZZAMM and have removed POV as you suggest. it looks fine now.

this is how it now looks:

Other 'Mind' magicians
Whilst Brown must be deemed a great success as a 'psychological magician' by the yardstick of media exposure and television appearances, he is not alone in pioneering or originating this form of entertainment. From the 1990s onwards American psychologist turned entertainer 'Marc Salem' has apeared with his project 'Mind Games' to critical acclaim on both sides of the Atlantic, in the theatre as well as on television. British-Dutch magician 'David Berglas' was a household name in the 1960s and early 1970s with his intense, interactive television shows which drew heavily on his training as a psychotherapist at London's Tavistock Institute. The cult British-based performance artist / conceptual artist aladin likewise has formal training as a psychotherapist which he used to apparently good effect in confounding the queues and VIP Room guests at nightclub The Ministry of Sound in the early 1990s with feats of apparent mind-reading.
But regardless of Brown's adroitness in using the machinery of PR, he has to be seen as a significant figure in the history of 'psychological entertainment' and as a quite exceptional magician.

regards lynrdandersen Lynrdandersen 11:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh thank you so much Lynrdandersen! But SINCERELY - why are people so pedantic? Your editing has just made the section look lame by comparison with my words. 'Point of view' is important as magic is anyway subjective. But point taken - and I hope fans like myself are allowed to register that Derren is the greatest, but that there are OTHER great magicians around
Shazzamm Shazzamm 23:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm still not too sure that this needs inclusion - we don't have a comparison of Tony Blair with previous Prime Ministers. I think it's a worthy inclusion, but I think it should really appear elsewhere. I really don't see it as being "pedantic" either, and calling edits "lame" is not a particularly nice thing to do. violet/riga (t) 20:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
i take both your points onboard. 'Shazzamm' - i do sympathise; i did enjoy your language but in the interests of balance and to do justice to your quite tasty contribution it was better if we allowed the reader some space to form a view. 'Violetriga' - one of Wikipedia's strength is how quite exceptional research is accrued by readers/browsers and surely 'Mind Magicians' is the worthy kernel of a stub elsewhere. until such time as Shazzamm or others initiate a new article (presumably we will then have the mind magicians term in Derren's article!) however i think it fits in fine as a footnote of sorts. hmm?
lynrdandersen
Lynrdandersen 01:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Sounds great. violet/riga (t) 14:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised Banachek wasn't mentioned on the page in the Other 'Mind' magicians section. He might not be as famous as Derren, but he's an excellent mindreader, he tours a lot and can be seen consulting on the American TV show "Mindfreak" featuring Criss Angel, and may have developed at least a few of the techniques Derren has been seen using. Anyway, I agree that "Mind Magicians" or "Mentalism" deserves its own stub, and perhaps there some small discussion of the techniques (some of them are secret, some have been published) can begin there, away from any one magician's name.

MarkTAW MarkTAW 23:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


Terrible

I watched an episode of his show, it sucked. All the tricks were obviously acted and you dont have to be a psychological illusionist to figure that out. The bad acting was just painful. Real magicians have to train their tricks, not just tell the actor what to say. Lapinmies 22:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

That's an absolutely ridiculous statement, based on nothing more than your personal disbelief. He guarantees that 'at no point are actors or stooges used on this show'. If it ever turned out he lied, then his carreer would be down in the pothole so he is very unlikely to make such a statement if he wasn't sure that it was true. All his victims are induced through hypnotic suggestion, through his knowledge of psychology he is able to manipulate the subconcious of his targets by feeding them subliminal commands to do what he wants. Although most of his act is around 80% traditional magical trickery, the remaining 20% uses tried and tested psychological methods such as NLP (neuro-linguistic programming). (Unsigned comment)
The anonymous editor disproves their own point - Derren Brown can "guarantee" that "at no point are actors or stooges used on this show" with no risk at all. There is no refund to be demanded, and if it ever turned out he lied (which it seemingly did - linked in the article is the anti-endorsement of the 'game creator' for his zombie game episode) it wouldn't ruin his career at all, people would leap to defend him on the grounds that he *guaranteed* he doesn't use stooges. If you say something is true and you're famous, someone "revealing" it not to be true won't harm your career. The career of Uri Geller also proves this point, with a strong believer contingent remaining despite Randi's "revealing" evidence. Ironically, this is part of Derren's own material, that people will believe what they want to believe regardless of evidence or counterevidence. Perhaps material consisting of lies is justifiable on that basis. RavenBlackX 13:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You make some good points. Does it matter if he lies? Is it all part of the act? Perhaps. It tends to break down the contract between audience and magician. The audience don't know how the magician does his trick but knows he is tricking them - they admire his skill and trust that he is not lying when he says 'no camera tricks' 'no stooges' - because the reliance on that proves the entertainment is based on skill. The difference here is Brown claiming to have a skill (psychological techniques / behavioural psychology etc) which means he has a greater insight into how people behave - but does he?. He's claiming to have a skill the rest of us don't have. Ironic that this perhaps shares a place alongside the claims of 'real magic' that hoaxers have perpetuated for years! NLP, for example is regarded by some as a pseudoscience - it's not necessarily a proven technique.Magic Pickle 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Lapinmies, just because you think the show 'sucked', doesn't mean that it's fake. You say they were 'obviously' acted. How come? Why should I believe this to be anything but yet another viewpoint? -UK-Logician-2006 22:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Because it does not make people wonder how he did it. He should adjust his tricks so that people at home can get some other reaction than "Ah, actors". Real magicians always have some perceived randomness in their tricks, Derren does not. His tricks look like he does nothing but tells the actors what to do. Lapinmies 09:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Errr...Lapinmies, there _are_ other reactions than "Ah, actors". Just because you don't experience them, it doesn't mean they don't happen. You shouldn't assume things to be merely because that's the way you experience them. That seems incredibly small-minded and petty, IMHO. -UK-Logician-2006 21:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
In many cases he does use very obvious suggestion techniques to his subjects. This is certainly not evidence that suggests the show is faked --Beachy 12:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Magic Pickle is right, NLP is considered being a pseudo-science. It's used in psychotherapy but has not been scientifically tested. Also, practitionners of NLP don't favor scientific methods. I would believe Derren Brown if he rather said that he uses social psychology, instead. --jeepee2 23:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be a section about the fact the Derren claims to use 'psychology' when actually he uses stooges and classic magic tricks...

There shouldn't be a problem with that. It could be named 'Criticisms'. It would be necessary, of course, to make sure anything written in such a section was strictly NPOV. -UK-Logician-2006 22:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Brown does not use stooges and at no point during the article is it claimed that he is anything other than a magician - so what's your beef? Mr Twain 11:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
OK so if he didn't use a stooge for the zombie video game hypnosis we are entering a whole minefield of ethical issues. Hypnotising someone without their permission, putting them in a terrifying situation without their permission, possible photo-epileptic seizure etc etc etc. I don't claim to know how Brown carries out his tricks, but there seems to be confusion in this discussion as to whether he is an illusionist, a hoaxer, or a psychologist. Maybe all three. But his usual schtick is to claim he can predict manipulate thru psychology. And the russian roulette and zombie game throw that into doubt Magic Pickle 17:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
As he says in introductions, his show is a fusion of a variety of techniques. Yes, the ethical side is quite interesting. As for the Russian Roulette one, well that was easily done - he influenced the guy to choose a specific number after making sure that said person was very susceptible to such techniques. violet/riga (t) 17:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the ethical element is so strong - that Brown would be at risk of legal action from his 'participants' if they did not give their permission- therefore we have to ask how much the 'participants' know. Besides it's debatable that someone can be hypnotised against their will. I think you may have fallen for Brown's schtick in believing he managed to 'influence' the roulette guy (with his amazing psychological techniques...!) As the police said - they knew there was no danger of Brown being shot - therefore he used a good old fashioned magic trick - it really didn't matter which chamber the guy chose. Magic Pickle 12:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Also what about the show where he turned people temporarily into serious criminals? There was no permission given for this to happen... hmm... The participant who did not turn into a criminal expressed how he felt he had strength of will and morality for not turning into a criminal. I wonder how the others would feel knowing they did give in. but then again- how much did they really know? Magic Pickle 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


Don't forget folks, that the people who are hypnotised/enticed/seduced/duped or whatever MUST GIVE PERMISSION for their experience to be broadcast. If any of the people feel they have been violated or unfairly treated, they can simply not give permission for it to be shown on television.
We don't know how many refusals to broadcast Derren gets because they aren't shown and he's hardly likely to mention them. The people we do see commiting the armed robberies, being scared out of their wits in a room of zombies, or believe they are talking to the dead in a seance, are obviously good sports, are easy going, and realise they have had a practical joke played on them, and are happy for people to see and share their experience. If you ask me, there are no ethical issues involved. People who didn't like being tricked refuse to have their involvment broadcast, and those who don't like the techniques through religious or other reasons, can simply change the channel.
Whether it's acted, hoaxed or completely real, so what? It's entertainment and get's everyone talking about it. Mission accomplished. -- IanUK 10:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
"If any of the people feel they have been violated or unfairly treated, they can simply not give permission for it to be shown on television" - so as long as you, the TV producer give people the opportunity to refuse to appear in the prog, it's OK to violate them and unfairly treat them in the course of the production? Buh?

One vital flaw in the point you are making - so you are hypnotised/enticed/seduced/duped etc without your knowledge, and you refuse for the footage to be shown. The fact remains you have been hypnotised/enticed/seduced/duped in the first place without your permission!. Surely there could be legal grounds to take action on this, especially in the case of hypnotism. I would say though that hypnotising someone against their will is impossible anyway, but supposing it isn't... are you seriously suggesting that there is no ethical (or legal) problem with hypnotising someone and then putting them in a very scary situation without their permission? What if the person selected had mental problems? I'm sure a lot of people would go beyond 'it's all OK I can refuse to sign off the permission sheet' to 'that was an extremely disturbing and unpleasant experience for me which I did not give permission for - I need to take further action'. But one word covers all this: stooge. The seance and armed robbery are a bit different because people volunteered. I could be wrong here and correct me if I am, but the zombie video game man was not told in advance he was involved at all? Like I said, stooge.Magic Pickle 16:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There could well be grounds for legal action, but that would appear to be in the hands of the participants themselves rather than us idly speculating on the internet. This all seems a bit like second-guessing jury verdicts - we're just in full possession of the facts. Thus far, Derren has yet to be sued and I'm sure that every legal and ethical scruple will have been examined, precisely to avoid this (although a legal case would probably enhance Brown's reputation rather than sully it!) Brown is a magician, and a good one at that. That he has created a 'meta myth' about his abilities is testament to his showmanship - hence his reportedly being 'comfortable' with people asking whether what he does is 'real' or not. His real psychological innovation is more in the way he manipulates his audience rather than his victims. Calling 'stooge' is just a cheap shot, and without proof to back it up is about as meaningful as saying that he really reads minds, man. Carpsio 10:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarifications

"Derren Brown asked a leading figure at a psychic training school to go into another room and draw a number of simple pictures on any topic they wished." so. how many people were involded?

There was just one person. I've modified the article to say 's/he' instead of 'they' to reflect this. If anyone knows the gender of the person drawing the pictures (I'm not sure), then by all means change the word to show the person's gender. -UK-Logician-2006 22:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
She - fixed. violet/riga (t) 22:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Chess Exhibition

I'm suprised there is no mention of his exhibition of playing 9 chess games at once against some very good international players.

For the record, he finished with 5/9 points (winning overall), but if there is no article I won't say how it was "done". Paddyohale 02:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

He explained how it was done at the end of the show, what is still up for debate is how he managed to predict the numbers before playing the games.

Image

Surely this article needs an image of Derren Brown himself? It should not be that hard to find a fair use image. --Seth Turner 16:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

there has been a great full image of him that was removed ,I can't see the reason for it ,can you help ,or ask an admin to reopen the erased history logs ? --Procrastinating@talk2me 20:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The image was removed because the uploader failed to provide source information. When uploading images it is important to accurately provide their source and tag them correctly. The JPS 20:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, fair use doesnt require attribution (see Common misunderstandings), though it's generally a good idea to give it if you know the source. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 23:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
That link you provide seems to suggest that just because a source is provided doesn't mean it is fair use, not that fair use doesn't need a source. The JPS 23:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding POV

Is stating what is essentialy Browns own claims about his abilities the same as no POV?

This article reads like Mr. Browns personal PR info. I think at least mentioning some of his critics might approrpriate.

From my POV this article's POV is a very positive POV from mr.Brown's POV.

Details regarding 2005 show "Messiah"

The article reads: "Using a false name each time, he succeeded in convincing four of the five "experts" that he had powers, and they openly endorsed him as a true practitioner. The fifth expert, whilst impressed by Derren's performance, asked to meet him again before giving an endorsement."

Which four? Who failed to endorse him? Phiwum 16:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

A more detailed breakdown of the programme is available here, and it suggests that it was the Cross-Cultural Minister at the second performance with Derren as the Christian preacher who would not endorse him without further proof. The other experts either directly endorse his abilities, or acknowledge them in such a way as to imply their clear endorsement.

Is he attractive?

A few people at my work think he's really sexy.... I just wondered if this was a common view among the ladies of wikipedia (and any guys of course!!)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Minglex 17:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


Attractive? Yes, of course! But I'm pretty sure that has little to do with his appearance and more to do with his sucess and achievement.

87.74.11.141 16:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think he is very sexy even though he is balding and a little short. ;-p


Blonde2max 19:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Thanks- and sorry if i upset minglxe :) Blonde2max 19:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

A section about his memory skills

Hello, I've noticed throughout a lot of his shows that he has an exceptional memory and his patience for memorising and learning things are outstanding. In particular, his use of memory in his gambling days (such as memorising cards). Also, did anyone see the show where he explained how he uses an imaginary mansion in his mind to remember things, and he has a card room with 52 individual objects that he puts a note on when they come up in a game of cards? Another show which excercised his memory skills was when he memorised the OS map of London. Is it worth creating a section about his memory skills? Gregh 16:23, 8 May 2006 (GMT)

Yes Minglex 20:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

if You mean his fucking amazing memory skills..than YES. :) --Procrastinating@talk2me 17:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

For those who have seen his live show

Hey again. I saw his live show in 2005 and I thought it was excellent. I noticed that the section of the article regarding his show is very vague. Should it be expanded on with a detailed (or even vague) list of what he does/has done in his shows? Or at least a more extensive description of his tour. If my memory was sharp enough, I would write about the things he did during the show but the only thing I seem to remember is how awesome it was. What do people think? Gregh 16:26, 8 May 2006 (GMT)

great. do it man. be bold.--Procrastinating@talk2me 18:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
During the stage show DB specifically asks that its contents is not discussed in public forums. However, when the show's run has finished and his management have confirmed that the show will not be repeated, I think it would be a great inclusion here. RichardShakeshaft 08:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words

"Some observers have commented, however, that most of Brown's act consists of standard magic tricks and that little psychology or suggestion is actually used."

Who is "some observers"? A person and their freiends? I'm going to comment that Brown's acts are done by God itself. I'm an "observer". Does that mean that the statement "Some observers have commented, however, that Brown's acts are done by God itself" should be in the article as well?


No plants/stooges

"It should be noted, however, that no actors or stooges are used in filming"

Anyone have a citation for this? Do we know this to be true, or only that he claims it? The procedure described in the article for picking subjects for his live show sounds random, if it's being described accurately, but that says nothing about his TV shows. Axlrosen 22:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

At the start of each TV show DB announces "This programme fuses magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship. I achieve all the results you'll see through a varied mixture of those techniques. At no point are actors or stooges used in the show." I believe this has changed slightly from series to series, but there has been the actor/stooge declaration there for a while now!

  • The zombie arcade game issue is perhaps the most murky in terms of possible stooges. If the 'hypnotised' man was put into the zombie horror game without any foreknowledge whatsoever it opens up a can of ethical and legal problems. I don't think Channel 4 could have afforded to take the legal risk, even if they ignored the ethical problems. Magic Pickle 23:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)