Criss Angel

[Guest]

And like I said, as for as the people wearing the parafanelia... Those are some of the ones you can be assured are not in on it, yet you are trying to argue its obvious they are.

[Guest]

You are probably that knowledgeable about certain illusions, that you know without a doubt that stooges must be used. That makes certain things obvious, TO YOU. I'm sure many here are. But there are a lot of people watching live and on the tv that don't know what is what. And for them, his use of stooges has the same effect as a great stage or street performer using them.

[Guest]

Originally posted by n9soto:
And like I said, as for as the people wearing the parafanelia... Those are some of the ones you can be assured are not in on it, yet you are trying to argue its obvious they are.

If it looks a duck and acts like a duck but the performer wants others to believe it's not a duck while the quacking is happening... they have a challenge. Not my challenge. Just common sense.

They are "in on it" and simply not used effectively which is a methods discussion not a suspicion discussion.

Once the suspicion is there it does not matter, the damage has been done. As things stand the viewing audience has plenty of reason to suspect both camera trickery and audience collusion when watching the shows.

[Guest]

OK. They are all stooges, and absolutley every one in the production team is a complete moron for letting the paid actors wear CA stuff, and making it look so obvious.

NO, Sir. That is not the case. Like you said, common sense. Do you really think they somehow aren't aware that people are wearing these things, or think we won't notice? That is wrong. I know for a fact its wrong. And I know for a fact they gather honest to goodness laymen, that are not part of the trick to be in the audience. This is not my opinion in the matter. It is a varifiable fact. Stooges? Yes. But not the ones you are accusing. So it is not that obvious then.

[Guest]

Originally posted by n9soto:
OK. They are all stooges, and absolutley every one in the production team is a complete moron for letting the paid actors wear CA stuff, and making it look so obvious.

NO, Sir. That is not the case. Like you said, common sense. Do you really think they somehow aren't aware that people are wearing these things, or think we won't notice? That is wrong. I know for a fact its wrong. And I know for a fact they gather honest to goodness laymen, that are not part of the trick to be in the audience. This is not my opinion in the matter. It is a varifiable fact. Stooges? Yes. But not the ones you are accusing. So it is not that obvious then.

If you continue to make ad-hominem comment about me I will lower my opinion of you. As things stand you have yet to demonstrate an ability to form a cogent argument.

Perhaps the discussion offered by Darwin Ortiz about lay audience suspicions from his "Strong Magic" book would be of interest to you.

[Guest]

ok

[Guest]

n9soto, I think you are missing the point of Jonathans posts.

[Leonard Hevia]

My twelve year old niece likes Criss Angel, but mentioned that she suspects he uses editing shots to accomplish his magic: "First he shows you something, and then the camera moves away..."

Mark Wilson was correct in his Magic article. Television magicians are losing credibility with their viewers through camera trickery...

Of course I fooled her with Giant B'Wave and the Anderson Tear...it was live...

[Guest]

Edward, I understand what he was saying.

My only point was his mistake in thinking that those shot wearing parafanelia are the stooges. And I explained exactly how and why his assumptions were wrong there. I have even agreed that he does use stooges at an all too frequent pace. And yes sometimes they might be obvious. My entire argument was on those wearing CA products. Never did I insult Jonathon, like he implied. And my arguments of the fan situations do not not lack substance or clarity, like he also implied.

I get the point. I think maybe some don't get mine.

[Guest]

Originally posted by n9soto:
...I think maybe some don't get mine.

As it happens I did understand your message about the folks being there as a special occasion and wearing the merchandise in the same way some folks wear fanish apparel at concerts.

My concern is that given the context and obvious stoogery in action throughout the show the presence of folks wearing that merchandise can and likely does act as a clue to the presence of stooges.

[Guest]

I personally like Chris Angel persona etc..
He seems a nice guy.

The onll problem is that for me these tv magic specials have nothing to do with magic.

Magic is an Art form.
No one should spil it with stupid camera and editing tricks.

I'm really saddened that some magicians think that using edit tricks is the same that using a double sided playing card.

The double sided playing card is an INSTRUMENT for magicians.
And obviously it implies there's a trick and the audience shouldn't be aware of it.

But in this case CHEATING isn't involved.

If instead we see Mr. Angel float like a bird in the air, and all the audience screams in awe..
and we discover at home that it was an editing trick..
obviously here there's CHEATING!!
It's cheating because editing is not an instrument for magicians.
Editing and camera tricks are instrument used by special effects guys for movies!

People like Cardini, Slydini, Arturo de Ascanio etcc.. studied magic for years with passion, love and care.
Why would Ascanio bother to practice hours for a double lift, if all that he needed to do was to hire a great camera editor?

Because he loved magic.

All this editing tricks is changing tv magic into special effects movies.

If i see Mr. Copperfield who floats on the Grand Cnayon on tv, instead of Superman, is because i know that Copperfield is doing something magical( i mean without camera tricks, but with other means).
If i knew Mr. Copperfield obtained it by camera tricks, i would instead watch superman.
At least there is a story.

The only editing that for me is not cheating is the editing who avoids for people at home to understand the trick.
I mean, if there is a bad angle, and people at home could glimpse a thread, cameras should be put in an angle in order to avoid people at home to see the thread.
But if the thread is transformed in a rope, by camera tricks..this is special effect.

Why bother to write thousand of books on magic, if all we need to do is study some showmanship and some special effects.

I agree with the Harry Potter comment.
Which is the difference between a magician who uses editing tricks and Daniel Radcliffe, the actor interpreting Harry Potter?

One big difference.
That Harry Potter is a movie, and we know it is fiction.
Instead if we watch the magician who uses editing tricks, at least we espect from him, showmanship, sleight of hand, misdirection, gaffed cards(why not!)..but never special effects.

Special effects is one thing and you could study it in a cinema or movie school.

But magic is another thing.

So if i buy a blue screen and with some editing i float in the air..
i'm considered a magician and is it fair?

Please..
be serious.

[Leonard Hevia]

Precisely, Crimsonking. Criss Angel's editing trickery is not fooling a 12 year old tween. That's not good.

I caught his program on cable late last night and as Jon Townsend mentions, it's ridiculously obvious he uses stooges. He asked a young lady to just think of a simple object, and he correctly divined it on a scratch pad with no pumping whatsoever: a stick figure. The figure then "magically" appeared on his tongue and on the hotel mirror. A gross violation of the Too Perfect Theory--as well as an insult to my intelligence...

[flynn]

One of the anonymous posters wrote that criss "has magic chops equal to he best of them" Not so sure about that one. That one episode where he was at some mall transforming almonds into roaches, my sister figured that one out even tho she knows nothing about pk's. He should've practiced the handling for that one some more. His card skills are nowhere near s good as say Bill Malone or Joshua Jay. But still I watch cause the show is entertining and the only game in town. Also didn't Johnny Thompson say in his interview with Regal that all his stuff was legit?

[Richard Kaufman]

No, John didn't say that. He said that more was legit than you think. However, John was referring to seasons one and two. Season three, John wasn't involved in the magic and had little to no input.

[erlandish]

There was a Q&A with Banachek that talked about how some of the stuff that would appear to be stooging might actually be dual reality work.

It's halfway down this page, with a clever example of the principle in action:

http://themagicwoods.co.uk/forum/viewto ... a&start=30

[dariuszantos]

this thread is turning into magician top trumps.
criss angel is a lousy magician, but then who isnt these days, bring back lance burton

[flynn]

He still fools the crap out out of lay audeinces tho. And why is everybody doggin on him anyways? Is it cause he got all popular and all the haters didn't. If it weren't for him there would been no interest in people buying magic books, magazines and instructional DVD's from other good magicians that didnt make it big like he did. Not to mention all the interest in magic which im pretty sure got lots of magicians booked for there services. If he was so lousy this thread wouldnt have been on its second page.

[DrDanny]

I'm not jealous of his fame and wouldn't want it for any amount of money. I just think he's a creepy jerk who talks funny and dresses funnier. That dead-dad-looking-down crap makes my skin crawl, frankly. Oh, and he's ugly, did I mention that? :-)

[JimChristianson]

Anyone know why he fired Banachek? And why Johnny Tompson no longer works with him?

Rephrase...Anyone know who will actually tell? :-)

J.C.

[Richard Kaufman]

He fired Banachek becaus Angel felt that the Banachek cover story in MUM wasn't complimentary enough--you can read this in MUM editor John Moehring's column in the last issue.

Johnny Thompson no longer works with Angel because his contract wasn't renewed.

Both simple statements of fact.

[JimChristianson]

Seems as though a lot of people walk away from their dealings with Criss with a bad taste in their mouths...

[Eric Fry]

Angel's audience is a generation that willingly pays big bucks to see "concerts" in which the singer is merely dancing and lip-synching to recorded music. The audience knows this -- and is perfectly satisfied. They simply don't want from a concert what an earlier generation would expect: spontaneity, invention, improvisation, musicianship, singing ability, a unique experience ...

I'm not sure where I'm going with this except to say that his audience's exectations may differ from an older generation's.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Not every incarnation of mass-media friendly magic will be to all of our liking.

However, as RK said a while ago, a rising tide floats all our boats - so let's at least enjoy the renewed interest in our craft.

[Richard Kaufman]

Perhaps it's really "a rising turd floats all boats"?

[David Alexander]

There was much more to his firing of Banacheck, but it will only come out if Steve decides to talk and make it public.

[David Alexander]

Not every incarnation of mass-media friendly magic will be to all of our liking.

However, as RK said a while ago, a rising tide floats all our boats - so let's at least enjoy the renewed interest in our craft.

Not my experience. David Copperfield and Lance Burton both made me considerable money over the years in increased bookings because I worked for the kind of audiences that attended their shows.

As a typical example: A few years ago I did a walk-around gig at a corporate event before dinner. After dinner they went over to a local performing arts center to watch Lance do his show. The event's theme was magic.

On any numnber of occasions I've had people tell me when I was working their country club or corporate event that they'd seen David on television (or seen Lance in Las Vegas) and realized how entertaining a magician could be.

I cannot say that either David Blaine or Cris Angel have done anything similiar for my business. As best I can tell, both are viewed as freaks with a teenage/twenty-something audience, not the sort of sophisticated entertainment corporate and country club audiences are willing to pay to have at one of their events.

[DrDanny]

Not my experience. David Copperfield and Lance Burton both made me considerable money over the years in increased bookings because I worked for the kind of audiences that attended their shows. ....

Your (or any individual's) income is not the only measure of the effect of high-profile acts on the art. Better to notice how it encourages the involvement of more young people. True, most will ape the current flavor-of-the-day, e.g. the "StreetMagic" phenomenon. 99% of them will lose interest soon enough, but perhaps the remaining 1% will bring something new and creative.

I agree that Lance Burton, Copperfield, Henning, et al, are good for the art, but so was David Blaine, and to a lesser extent so is Angel.

[JimChristianson]

Aguably, your 1% would have come to magic anyway.

One thing Blaine and Angel understand deeply is how to tap into the public's imagination. Part of that success lies in the fact that they live the image whenever they're out in public. Tony Andruzzi would be proud.

[Mark Williams]

He fired Banachek becaus Angel felt that the Banachek cover story in MUM wasn't complimentary enough--you can read this in MUM editor John Moehring's column in the last issue.

Johnny Thompson no longer works with Angel because his contract wasn't renewed.

Both simple statements of fact.

I recently spoke with Luke Jermay...and he too, is no longer employed by Criss. Luke told me he (Jermay) was better off on his own.

[David Alexander]

Not my experience. David Copperfield and Lance Burton both made me considerable money over the years in increased bookings because I worked for the kind of audiences that attended their shows. ....

Your (or any individual's) income is not the only measure of the effect of high-profile acts on the art. Better to notice how it encourages the involvement of more young people. True, most will ape the current flavor-of-the-day, e.g. the "StreetMagic" phenomenon. 99% of them will lose interest soon enough, but perhaps the remaining 1% will bring something new and creative.

I agree that Lance Burton, Copperfield, Henning, et al, are good for the art, but so was David Blaine, and to a lesser extent so is Angel.

When you make a living as a professional, as I did for a very long time, you care very much about how other performers affect your income. Having been in magic for a very long time I would observe that as a working pro, I was far better off with a smaller population of amateur magicians, especially a small number of amateurs who thought what they did was worth getting paid to do. Most of the time, they weren't and they hurt my income.

As far as "new and creative," a great deal of what I see in amateur magic that is considered "new and creative" isn't useful for professional work. It is only suited to sell to amateurs who play with it as self-amusement. There's nothing wrong with magic as a hobby, but it takes a very long time to work up something "new" into something that is entertaining and worth charging people to see.

[bagelsandlox]

You guys have to realize this: Criss Angel is a Las Vegas magcian? Who supports him? Las Vegas Magicians. Why? It's GOOD FOR BUSINESS!