I wouldn't say that I believe it adds weight to the points but the arguments that have been made against it being real aren't dissimilar to the arguments people make about the moon landings being faked,
It's kind of odd stance, because all you have as arguments, is "because Derren said so".
In similar way, when Zborniak tries to sweep it as "conspiracy theory" he only does so because it is the only thing that could validate his straw man of an argument.
We all watched the same evening entertainment show. It was just a show, a TV feature run by illusionist. For all intents and purposes, it was a large scale, glorified pulling dove out of the hat with a snare and a loud "tada" at the end.
There are only two ways to execute such show:
- One is to make audience go "how the ef". You do the trick, everyone knows it was a trick, but they stay tuned, because they want to understand what happened - they want the reveal - the explanation of how on earth was it done. It's the very same reason that makes you stay til the end of "Sting" or "Oceans Eleven", or the "Hustle" series.
- Second one is to make audience go "what the ef". You convince them the trick is real and they stay tuned to witness the bizarre and stare at it in awe as if they witnessed blind men regaining sight and disabled dancing at the faith healer performance. It's the same reason that makes you stay until the end of "Stigmata" or "Paranormal Activity 17", or the "Twin Peaks" series.
Derren Brown prefers second method. His show contained most far fetched elements, like one touch hypnosis, guy who doesn't spot six cameras per room in his own house, end of the world with fireworks on tight Channel 4 budget, disappearing props in different camera takes of the same scene, repeated footages in timeline weeks apart, mirrors on the walls that nobody ever looked at directly and psychological reinvention of main character as shallow and full of goblee dee gook as office trust exercises involving walking on hot coals. And, once again, we all watched the same entertainment show, but most of us saw just that - illusionist show, but a few of you saw what they presumed to be reportage.
Us, explaining to you, that it wasn't true story, is not conspiracy theory, because there was no conspiracy to begin with. You cannot defraud someone voluntarily attending illusionist show, as long as they understand it was just a illusionist show. You wouldn't scream conspiracy when a birthday "magician" pulls very long handkerchief out of his assistants ear. You wouldn't feel defrauded when Blair Witch Project ends with someone standing in the corner of a basement at a building site. Even if original Blair Witch Project setup and websites in pre-Sundance times given an impression their film was "based on true events". You would understand that you are watching a movie, a mock up, not documentary, and distance yourself accordingly. It's not any different with Derren Brown's shows.
it doesn't however, it infact weakens the view others have of them.
