|
Gorn Myson posted:I'd love for something like a TV seminar with a humourous bent. The closest thing I can think of is probably the radio show "Heresy" but that got a bit poo poo once Coren took over the presenting duties and they kept inviting Julia Hartley-Brewer. Not really a seminar, but you might enjoy the Mark Steel Lectures.
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 01:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 12:20 |
|
|
Mellomeh posted:Not really a seminar, but you might enjoy the Mark Steel Lectures. Thanks for this, I do like Mark Steel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 02:45
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:Even if there was no actual manipulation of the results (which we all know there can't have been) I can see why the lottery wouldn't want him to broadcast footage of him predicting the results before the draw. Even if it wasn't broadcast until afterwards it would still send out a bad message about whether or not its genuinely random. This is just silly. The point is, he did not and will not ever 'predict' them before the draw. For that reason, he'll never be shown predicting them before the draw. Whatever was recorded on that bus was either build up or was an alternative to the rather lame split screen trick he did use. And as for the second paragraph.... Really?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 09:03
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:Even if there was no actual manipulation of the results (which we all know there can't have been) I can see why the lottery wouldn't want him to broadcast footage of him predicting the results before the draw. Even if it wasn't broadcast until afterwards it would still send out a bad message about whether or not its genuinely random. No where near a trillion to one; it's 13,983,815 to 1.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 09:28
|
|
|
^^^^^Oh yeah it is, I always forget to ignore the order of the balls.hermand posted:This is just silly. The point is, he did not and will not ever 'predict' them before the draw. For that reason, he'll never be shown predicting them before the draw. Whatever was recorded on that bus was either build up or was an alternative to the rather lame split screen trick he did use. Oh yeah he's not going to actually do it. But to show someone trying and apparently succeeding before the draw (instead of alongside it) I think would do some pretty severe damage to the brand of the lottery, and it seems perfectly reasonable that they would not permit it. And yes the second paragraph is silly. I just find the idea of it amusing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 10:38
|
|
|
Even if he did predict the lottery numbers beforehand and they suppressed tht footage, the subsequent 'explanation' still would have been the most disappointing bullshit ever shown. The one where he explained that he did the horse racing stunt by simple manipulation of probabilities was the model the lottery one should have been based on; revealing a trick makes him likeable, pretending to reveal a trick but actually blatently lying by using the same pseudo-science mystical garbage that he used to debunk and expecting the audience to eat it up makes him look like a tosser. And he never does reveal anything anymore, presumably because all that's left to reveal is "I used an actor and a lot of money". I keep expecting his programs to lead up to one big final show where he reveals he's been playing some kind of career-long psychological trick on the audience...
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 10:39
|
|
|
Prism Mirror Lens posted:I keep expecting his programs to lead up to one big final show where he reveals he's been playing some kind of career-long psychological trick on the audience... Well he seems to be succeeding at this, we're still talking about him even though we know it's all bollocks aren't we?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 11:21
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:Even if there was no actual manipulation of the results (which we all know there can't have been) I can see why the lottery wouldn't want him to broadcast footage of him predicting the results before the draw. Even if it wasn't broadcast until afterwards it would still send out a bad message about whether or not its genuinely random. The Dirk Gently scenario, something every magician must dread (as long as they find themselves inside a Douglas Adams novel)
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 13:17
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:^^^^^Oh yeah it is, I always forget to ignore the order of the balls. But how would they not permit it. You don't need a license to make a prediction of something, on TV or not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 16:47
|
|
|
You do realise anyone reading the whole read catching up is going to having a weird image of Derren Brown cooking with some dude called Brendan in a weirdly designed house whilst Peter Capaldi is cussing at them watching EastEnders right? Which essentially more or less is the British TV thread in a nutshell. Carry on.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
It amazes me that people get angry at magicians for lying about how their tricks are done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
marktheando posted:It amazes me that people get angry at magicians for lying about how their tricks are done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 18:29
|
|
|
Hoops posted:I remember watching some "100 greatest magic tricks" or whatever, with David Copperfield doing the full on levitating around the arena. My friend got all huffy and said "well hurr, what a scam he's obviously wearing some kind of wire or something". Of course he's wearing some kind of wire of something. He can't fly. It's a trick. It's fun. Playing Devil's Advocate, maybe the point is that it was TOO obvious. I mean, I can't even begin to guess how some of Dynamo's tricks are done. Like taking someone's phone, making it tiny, putting it in a glass bottle, and making it normal sized again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 18:36
|
|
|
Hoops posted:I remember watching some "100 greatest magic tricks" or whatever, with David Copperfield doing the full on levitating around the arena. My friend got all huffy and said "well hurr, what a scam he's obviously wearing some kind of wire or something". Of course he's wearing some kind of wire of something. He can't fly. It's a trick. It's fun. Yeah, but that takes skill. Using After Effects to hide the wires in post, not so much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
blunt posted:The footage exists and was presumably supposed to be in the reveal (they used snowflakes in the show and the trailer). Lol this is not proof a video exists you buffoon, proof is the actual video. The truth is the reason Derren Brown didn't show the video is because he never predicted the bloody lottery numbers and with 13 million possible outcomes he couldn't afford to brute force the right combination. Edit: (This kind of media exposure is what encourages people to 'believe' that something more is at play and Derren Brown isn't just lying to us for an hour, its much more likely Derren Brown's people pointed the media outlets in the direction of these cover ups rather than them being 'discovered' by some canny investigator of truth). Also the idea of the lottery being afraid that people might realise the numbers could be 'predicted' being a reason for not allowing the video to be shown?! They'd love that, it would suddenly lend 'credence' to all the people who believe in lucky numbers or gambling systems rather than the crushing reality of astronomical odds and statistical independence. Royality fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Oct 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
Hoops posted:I remember watching some "100 greatest magic tricks" or whatever, with David Copperfield doing the full on levitating around the arena. My friend got all huffy and said "well hurr, what a scam he's obviously wearing some kind of wire or something". Of course he's wearing some kind of wire of something. He can't fly. It's a trick. It's fun. This is why I hate Derren Brown though (I used to love him!) because a lot of people don't go 'Oh wow that's an awesome trick I wonder how he did that trick' they go 'Oh wow cartoonish hypnotism exists and is real' and then start believing in it and it's a slippery slope towards thinking Homeopathy can cure cancer and taking up a subscription to Spirit and Destiny magazine. Though I suppose Derren Brown is good at making you notice who is an ignorant ballhead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
The only way to legitimately have the numbers before they are drawn is to either rig it or be astronomically lucky. But you don't even need to think of these two as options because he didn't even have the numbers before they were drawn. With David Copperfield, who care's if it's a wire, the clever bit is it doesn't LOOK like a wire. But then if you discover that it did look like a wire and they just edited all the wires out, then that's not as fun. You don't get that same "ooh wow" sense if you're watching Superman or something. Howards Bellend fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Oct 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 19:15
|
|
|
Royality posted:This is why I hate Derren Brown though (I used to love him!) because a lot of people don't go 'Oh wow that's an awesome trick I wonder how he did that trick' they go 'Oh wow cartoonish hypnotism exists and is real' and then start believing in it and it's a slippery slope towards thinking Homeopathy can cure cancer and taking up a subscription to Spirit and Destiny magazine. So you hate Derren Brown because some people are idiots? What? Anyway, if you want to know how Dynamo does some tricks, watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1YZsvkUK78 Beer bottle/phone one is first, there's a few more in the playlist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 19:19
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:So you hate Derren Brown because some people are idiots? What? Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 19:22
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:So you hate Derren Brown because some people are idiots? What? Not the only reason but certainly one of them!
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 19:28
|
|
|
So like any sensible human being, I like listening to BBC Radio 4 while going home, and the programme starting at 16.30 was all about stories and myth-creation on the internet. So of course they talked about the creation of Slenderman on the Something Awful forums for a good section of it  . I can safely say I never expected to hear about this forum on that station. Radio 4 puts our some weird stuff sometimes, I do love it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 19:36
|
|
|
Wouldn't mind catching that on the iPlayer. Know the name of the programme?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 19:44
|
|
|
7seven7 posted:Wouldn't mind catching that on the iPlayer. Know the name of the programme? http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01nl671/Digital_Human_Series_2_Tales/
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 19:48
|
|
|
Irisi posted:So like any sensible human being, I like listening to BBC Radio 4 while going home, and the programme starting at 16.30 was all about stories and myth-creation on the internet. This is amazing. I remember reading that very thread when it all started. That was only a few years ago, now it's pretty much the most popular scary monster thing around now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 19:59
|
|
|
Irisi posted:So like any sensible human being, I like listening to BBC Radio 4 while going home, and the programme starting at 16.30 was all about stories and myth-creation on the internet. Aw gutting - my drive home starts at 1630 and I, too, use Radio 4 to keep me sane on the motorway but today was my day off. May have to grab that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
Is that the woman from late night computer games programmes on channel 4?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 20:27
|
|
|
Irisi posted:So like any sensible human being, I like listening to BBC Radio 4 while going home, and the programme starting at 16.30 was all about stories and myth-creation on the internet. Had a listen on the iplayer. Quite an interesting programme. Didn't remember it as going on for three years at this point until they mentioned that. Had a little peek at the thread that started it, and unfortunately, it looks like the original images got lost with Waffleimages. Hearing about internet stuff on the radio/television is still weird to me. No idea why, it's just a bit odd for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 20:34
|
|
|
Royality posted:Lol this is not proof a video exists you buffoon, proof is the actual video. The truth is the reason Derren Brown didn't show the video is because he never predicted the bloody lottery numbers and with 13 million possible outcomes he couldn't afford to brute force the right combination. This is why the lottery thing really put me off him. The horse gambling episode was great. It was a lesson in odds that ended with the punchline 'Of course you can't loving predict which horse is going to win, you idiot. Congratulations, you've lost all your money!'. And then a couple of years later, he does a trick where he seemingly predicts the lottery. I kept thinking there was going to be some huge reveal, but no. That was it. Not only did he not come out and say 'of course you can't loving predict the lottery, you idiot', but he actually defended and stuck by his trick. It was so at odds to his previous work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 22:08
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:So you hate Derren Brown because some people are idiots? What? That video explains hardly anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 23:39
|
|
|
FAT WORM OF ERROR posted:That video explains hardly anything. It basically says the bloke whose phone they use has had the phone swapped earlier (without his knowledge), put inside a dummy bottle, and the dummy bottle is the one produced at the end. Simple but effective.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 23:50
|
|
|
Why is Paxo no longer wearing a tie 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
Metrication posted:Why is Paxo no longer wearing a tie More lowering of standards at the beeb.First Savile, now this. Time to write to the Mail.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 00:44
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:It basically says the bloke whose phone they use has had the phone swapped earlier (without his knowledge), put inside a dummy bottle, and the dummy bottle is the one produced at the end. Simple but effective. How many times did they try that trick before finding someone with the same model phone? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 00:47
|
|
|
Rarity posted:How many times did they try that trick before finding someone with the same model phone? You could prepare several different models, and walking around some busy streets for a day ought to net you enough correlate instances to put together some decent footage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 00:54
|
|
|
Rarity posted:How many times did they try that trick before finding someone with the same model phone? He could just have a lot of phones in a bunch of different colours. Just get the 10 most popular phones and you're probably covering 30% of the population. He can afford to pay guys to hand him things and guard set pieces till he uses them, so I'm sure he or his production crew can afford a few phones. Some of his tricks are pretty good. I liked when he took his grandma's crossword puzzle page from her newspaper and held it up to her, so you can see the page. He gently moved it it a circular motion and the crossword magically filled in. The presentation was great, because I can't imagine how he could switch the paper while he was holding it in full view. It's probably just advanced experimental technology, but I like it. Does anyone else think that performance magic has diminished in mystique in modern times? With advances in technology you can discount every trick as just being machine assisted in some way. Like his matrix balancing thing just being an exoskeleton support, or melting glass with his hands using a hidden heating coil. It's essentially Arthur C. Clarke's third law in reverse, any magic is indistinguishable from advanced technology. Xachariah fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Oct 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 01:15
|
|
|
Xachariah posted:It's probably just advanced experimental technology, but I like it. Yes, such advanced experimental technology as invisible ink. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 02:44
|
|
|
HoldYourFire posted:Yes, such advanced experimental technology as invisible ink. Well, I haven't heard of invisible ink which resolves itself when being gently rotated in a circular motion so I stand by what I said. Except maybe something like a reverse ecth a sketch or colour e-ink I guess, I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
Xachariah posted:Well, I haven't heard of invisible ink which resolves itself when being gently rotated in a circular motion so I stand by what I said.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 06:16
|
|
|
Derrenchat: http://derrenbrown.co.uk/apocalypse-qa/ Here he responds to accusations of fakery and actor-use, and legal questions. Apparently you do not have to have any kind of ethical discussion or consent for TV programmes - you just have to clear it with lawyers and health & safety!
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 10:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 12:20 |
|
|
Junkenstein posted:This is why the lottery thing really put me off him. The horse gambling episode was great. It was a lesson in odds that ended with the punchline 'Of course you can't loving predict which horse is going to win, you idiot. Congratulations, you've lost all your money!'. And then a couple of years later, he does a trick where he seemingly predicts the lottery. I kept thinking there was going to be some huge reveal, but no. That was it. Not only did he not come out and say 'of course you can't loving predict the lottery, you idiot', but he actually defended and stuck by his trick. It was so at odds to his previous work. Basically there's the "it's all bollocks" bit, then he actually predicts the right horse right at the end and walks away without explaining how. In the casino one he lost the bet, then at the very end the actual winning bet is written on the side of a building. Or whatever it was.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 11:49
|
|
