Angel ripped on Mad TV

[Brad Henderson]

Funny skit on Mad TV taking a shot at Angel. Seems to be the consensus that he uses paid extras and stooges. While some will argue that being spoofed is a sign that you've made it, I would contend that being spoofed HAVING ONCE BEEN REVERED is a sign of success. Criss seems to have skipped that stage.

[David Alexander]

It's also a bad sign when the spoofs and parodies are more entertaining that the original...see "MimeFreak" on YouTube.

[John McDonald]

It seems Angel has played with fire and got burned. Any erosion of the credibility of magic on TV is a BAD BAD thing.

[John LeBlanc]

I seem to recall a time when "no camera tricks" meant "no camera tricks." (Well, with that one Copperfield exception. Biggest camera trick I ever saw.)

Gary Ouellet really pushed the line "the camera will not cut away" and "you will see exactly what the live audience sees" and for good reason.

I think the constant chorus about Angel's use of stooges and the like is a pretty good indication that poor choices were made in the name of "compelling television."

At the end of the day, today's "magic" on television is barely related to the "classic" magic television along side which many of us grew up.

[DocDixon]

Originally posted by John LeBlanc:
I seem to recall a time when "no camera tricks" meant "no camera tricks." (Well, with that one Copperfield exception. Biggest camera trick I ever saw.)

Gary Ouellet really pushed the line "the camera will not cut away" and "you will see exactly what the live audience sees" and for good reason.

I think the constant chorus about Angel's use of stooges and the like is a pretty good indication that poor choices were made in the name of "compelling television."

At the end of the day, today's "magic" on television is barely related to the "classic" magic television along side which many of us grew up.

Do you think some of this change in "camera ethics" came from a change in the business model? Copperfield used the TV specials to indirectly promote the LIVE touring show. With Blaine, Angel there really is no live show to currently promote. Without a live show to live up to the TV hype, it takes away some of the motivation keep the cameras honest.

DD

[John LeBlanc]

Originally posted by DocDixon:
Do you think some of this change in "camera ethics" came from a change in the business model? Copperfield used the TV specials to indirectly promote the LIVE touring show. With Blaine, Angel there really is no live show to currently promote. Without a live show to live up to the TV hype, it takes away some of the motivation keep the cameras honest.

I think that's probably a part of it, but I believe it's mostly a confluence of things. Largely, what we see on television today is packaged by someone else -- someone who isn't the actor. They make decisions based on the incestuous world of television and marketing where, once an idea appears successful, lots of others pile on for a piece. What we end up with is a program that's created in the editing suite, not in front of an audience. (Not always, of course, but that's what I've seen more often in the last few years.)

Does that make these sorts of shows good, bad, somewhere in the middle? Taken individually, the shows are benign, either making a profit or not. The long view -- in my opinion -- is they will force the next guy who really wants to do a legitimate, live in front of an audience show, to go to exceptional lengths to prove that the television audience is really seeing what the studio audience is seeing.

Personally, I don't run into too many normal people who refer to Angel. It used to be people would refer to Blaine, but even that doesn't occur all that often. Copperfield? Yes, still; he's the gold standard. Regardless, out in the "wild" we have an opportunity to absolutely blow someone away and show them what "real" magic looks like. And I think that's our duty.

[David Alexander]

Television, especially cable programming, is a medium of the quick and cheap. With the advent of so-called "reality" television and the development of lighter, hand-held cameras, a pseudo-documentary feel can be created giving a sort of "realness" to the final product. Thank the success of the Blair Witch Project and cheaply produced music videos and a general lowering of acceptable standards for all of that.

Further, it is far cheaper to hire an audience of actors and tell them how to react as you think they should, as opposed to spending the time to work out a performance piece in front of a live audience.

This was my argument about Blaine's creative editing: why bother to develop any skill with sleight of hand when clever editing simply eliminates the need for skill?

Blaine and Angel are creatures of television. Their product is given away for free. Their preceived value is that they can attract an audience that is attractive to certain advertisers. It has yet to be demonstrated that either are a theatrical attraction that will cause people to spend their money to see them.

As has been previously stated: David Copperfield remains the gold standard in this respect.

[Jim Maloney_dup1]

Originally posted by David Alexander:
Blaine and Angel are creatures of television. Their product is given away for free. Their preceived value is that they can attract an audience that is attractive to certain advertisers. It has yet to be demonstrated that either are a theatrical attraction that will cause people to spend their money to see them.

David, you've mentioned this before, but you seem to forget that Criss Angel did have a successful live show that people paid to see and which received generally positive reviews.

-Jim

[David Alexander]

Jim,
For clarification - what was the venue and how large was the audience?

[Bob Klase]

I saw the show 6 or 7 years ago. It was in the basement of the WWF store (or museum?). I don't remember the exact location, but we walked there from the Port Authority bus terminal.

IIRC the tickets were about $15 and $30. It was sort of a nightclub setting with a small stage area and everyone sat at tables or booths. I would guess it could hold around 150 people if full (maybe less). There were probably about 75 people at the show I saw.

[T Baxter]

How many of those were stooges? :)

T. Baxter

[David Alexander]

That again validates that he was working a small venue.

Since we do not know the financials behind the show, if it was subsidized like others or if it was four-walled or exactly what, we do not know if the run was successful, ie: that it made money for the performer and/or investors if there were any.

Partially filling a 100+ seat venue in NYC is hardly on a par with David Copperfield, Lance Burton, or S&R, or even any of the small traveling illusion shows currently working performing centers around the US, so it remains to be seen if Angel's work on cable television, his performing persona, will cause people to buy expensive tickets in Las Vegas to see him work.

[Dustin Stinett]

Originally posted by Entity:
How many of those were stooges? :)

T. Baxter

Three.

[David Alexander]

Originally posted by Dustin Stinett:

Originally posted by Entity:
[b] How many of those were stooges? :)

T. Baxter

Three. [/b]

Would that be with Curly Howard, Joe Besser, or Curly-Joe DeRita?

[DocDixon]

Mr. Alexander,

I trust you not mentioning Shemp was an unfortunate accident.

Sincerely,

DD

PS: Odd story that has nothing to do with this thread. About 20 or so years ago I was in the Oakland section of Pittsburgh. About a dozen protesters were standing outside the Syria Mosque holding up signs reading: We Want Shemp.

It turns out there was a Three Stooges Festival in the building and they were "protesting" the shortage of Shemp film shorts being shown at the festival.

This protest was moronic, silly and a huge waste of time.

I was drawn to it immediately.

They said they would be happy if, instead of Curly's "nyuk, nyuk, nyuk" they could get one new convert to Shemp's "me, me, me, me"

I acquiesced. Good times.

[Brad Henderson]

Criss show was part of the larger WWF (later WWE) complex. I spoke with one of the staff members. He intimated that the show was not very succesful commercially or artistically (they were making fun of him even then.) While they liked his goth style illusion segments, they hated everything else.

I believe the first special he did was banked by WWE if I'm not mistaken.

[EdAndres]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTVFvavwNdg

[Rennie]

Originally posted by John McDonald:
It seems Angel has played with fire and got burned. Any erosion of the credibility of magic on TV is a BAD BAD thing.

It was bound to happen. He relies very heavily on camera trickery....
Bring back the likes of Fred Kaps.
Rennie

[Joe Pecore]

http://www.mefeedia.com/entry/madtv-cri ... k/6204807/

[John LeBlanc]

Originally posted by EdAndres:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTVFvavwNdg

There was always something in the back of my mind saying Angel reminded me of someone else. It took a little while, but I found it.

Compare the Angel video to this one. (Ratt, 'Round and Round' from 1984.)

This video is certainly worth a view if only for seeing Uncle Milty (his son managed Ratt at the time), and for the ubiquitous 1980s hairband high-kick demonstrated here at :30, several times in the Angel video, and probably legally trademarked anyway by David Lee Roth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5gMeXz2YMw