talkmagic.co.uk

i can't believe it's all cameria tricks though. that's so lame

http://www.gofish.com/searchVideo.gfp?s ... riss+angel

reggaetonia - please stop posting those meaningless one-liner posts with the video link...

Please stop this. This is getting very annoying now. We know how it all works and don't need these links.

i realise this is an old post however i have just uncovered it. so Criss Angel is supposedly exposed and suddenly the responses chime in... "well written piece...".

(1) i have not seen the trick refered to so i am unable to comment on the accuracy of this thread's original post.

(2) assuming just for a moment that sniperx is right regarding this particular trick, his comments go way beyond reasonable when he says:

quoting sniperx:
This means that every single “illusion” that angel performs on mindfreak now can be debunked as not even illusion
unquoting.

for the logical thinking person, that statement alone is enough to make one question the accuracy of the "sniperx piece" as much as the "integrety" of Criss Angel's assertion that what you see on TV is exactly the same as what you would see if you were "there".

perhaps Angel's arguement is somewhat similar to the one that David Copperfield would have used when he made the Statue of Liberty vanish... what you see is what you get... subject to what side of the mirror you're sitting on.

so this could mean that all of Criss Angels illusions and such could not be "impromptu" when he says that they r....so he's lying...now all of his illusions....could be all staged....thats pretty big

-Adam-

how could it mean that???

so, i know that there are alot of people who want this thread to die, and im sorry to prolong its demise, however i would like to give my two cents.

i can apreciate chris angel doing whatever it takes to achieve a desired effect. though the idea that he could be using stooges for some of his tricks does bother me a bit, it is no different than using any other prop. that being said...

What does bother me is that he staged the entire thing and then said that it was a magic trick. it is no different than using special effects to do something that is impossible in a movie. for him to flaunt that as a trick is the same as calling Keanu reaves a magician because he could fly in the matrix.

theaceofthespade wrote:so, i know that there are alot of people who want this thread to die, and im sorry to prolong its demise, however i would like to give my two cents.

i can apreciate chris angel doing whatever it takes to achieve a desired effect. though the idea that he could be using stooges for some of his tricks does bother me a bit, it is no different than using any other prop. that being said...

What does bother me is that he staged the entire thing and then said that it was a magic trick. it is no different than using special effects to do something that is impossible in a movie. for him to flaunt that as a trick is the same as calling Keanu reaves a magician because he could fly in the matrix.

It's one thing to keep a debate going when you have statements to make that have impact and purpose.....

Staged the entire thing, are you kidding me? You're going to take him to task for doing exactly what every other magician does? Staged...

Alright then.

Are you a card magician? If so - you are guilty of staging anytime you stack a deck, mark a card, crimp a card, daub a card, secretly reverse, use a dupe, use a card from a different colored deck, use a gimmick/gaff card, use a gimmick case, force a card, side steal/palm/pass a card as a way to control it for a revelation/climax.

Are you a coin magician? If so - you are guilty of staging anytime you switch a coin, palm in a duplicate, use a gimmick/gaff coin, etc....

That doesn't even scratch the surface..... but are you starting to get the idea? He set up a situation so his audience could experience an illusion. How is that different from Copperfield or Burton? Do you think stage illusionists just get lucky because a giant circular saw just HAPPENS to be laying around the venue they were performing at?

I'm sorry - I know I probably come off as an ass when these debates pop up, but I can't take it. I can't take these newcomers coming in, jumping on a bandwagon - thinking they know everything. I have asked for proof time and again, and I'm never supplied with anything beyond a suspected camera cut.

Ace of spade - post an introduction. Say hello and tell us about yourself. Don't just join a board to talk about why you think Criss Angel is a bad performer when you obviously don't know much about being one.

I have read many other threads both here and elsewhere on criss angel and whether he uses camera tricks and stooges and that him using camera tricks and stooges are raising the bar for magic in a misleading and unachievable way. This is a little dishonest as the stooges overreact thinking you can get a much better reaction out of the quarter in the soda can than you do.

I like criss angel and think he has made magic popular again (with the help of david blaine) he's also help make magic hip and cool but he overhypes everything (I think the building walk was overhyped he crawled down half the way on his butt not walked) and I think people are starting to get fed up with him. I heard in his new series of Mindfreak he exposes a few tricks and I also read someone say they thought he was only in on it for the money

However, if like everyone says he uses camera tricks and stooges then sooner or later he will be exposed and his career will be over but I don't think he's worried about what someone says on the internet as it can all be considered heresay.

As mentioned before, the effect which got Blaine off to media-hero standing was his rendition of the Balducci, which was also 50% camera trickery.

But it didn't stop him becoming famous.

It could be said that most magic you seen on the TV contains camera trickery, as any angle-sensitive stuff is always shown from the optimum viewpoint, i.e. the precise place we'd ideally love our spectator to be.

@demitri: sorry to have offended you demitri, but I have now posted my intro.

i understand what you are saying, and really dont have a problem with a plant, or even several plants, or any number of gimmicks, so long as there is actually a trick. but that trick, the one the thread was about, was completely staged, audience and all. to me, it is no different than one of the rehearsed skits on a show such as Saturday Night Live. anyone could have come and done that. now, that is fine if he is performing for the lamen, which i concede, he mostly is.

My point is that if i wanted to see a completely staged illusion, with no real spectators and all actors, i could see some much better ones in LOTR.

Sure, all magic is staged somewhat. thats what makes it magic. however, the point is that it should never be completely staged. something should be performed.

and how dare you compare that effect to what a stage performer does. a stage performance must be done with precision and rehearsal. if a mistake is made, the trick is ruined. but chris angel had no problem; he could have done that 100 times and picked the best one. IT TOOK NO SKILL AT ALL! NONE! you would know the difference if you had ever found a giant circular saw lying around back stage...



@misanthropy: i agree mostly. dont get me wrong. i do like chris angel. Thompson and banachek cant be wrong . but sometimes, i think that he lets his ego get the best of him. and the fact that he did a fake trick (as stupid as that sounds) does point toward the idea that he is in it for the money.

@seige: the difference between this trick and blain's, in my opinion, is that blain did at least do some levitation. there was a real trick involved.

as for the angle sensative stuff, i just claim to be a fung shui master and tell them where they need to stand

Are you claiming that Criss Angel used stooges for the coin in soda can videos??

The majority of the overacting in the video clips is the fault of the spectator. They overreact BECAUSE they're on camera. Do you think David on the L&L videos is REALLY that stupidly fascinated by every card trick Michael Ammar shows him? They're hamming it up because they're on TV and people are watching them.

Every comment you've made, Misanthropy has been as a result of second-hand information. Instead of reading or hearing about what Criss Angel is doing on Mindfreak - why don't you watch it?

He's not exposing tricks - he's teaching the TV audience how to do some basic effects. It's a way to get people more involved in it. Let's not paint him as the Masked Magician just yet.

This is my problem. A few people get the ball rolling, and it seems like all of the momentum behind these theories comes from that. Instead of bothering themselves to see if the effects have been done before (every single one that has been labeled a camera trick has been done thousands of times by thousands of performers), they just parrot what the first guy said.

If he was a phony/fraud using camera tricks only - wouldn't his own consultants have quit by now. Would Luke Jermay, Banacheck, Johnny Thompson, Jeff McBride, and Lance Burton (to name a few) continue to associate themselves with Criss Angel if these rumors were actually true? I have to believe these guys have more respect and love for their art to do so - and their continued support and contributions to the show quell any rumors that armchair conspiracy theorists can come up with (but never actually produce concrete evidence to prove).

I see your point, Seige, but I don't see that example as real camera trickery. Setting the camera for the optimum viewpoint is no different than maneuvering yourself to the optimum angle when performing live.

To me, camera trickery is when post-production does all the work for you. To date, I have seen little compelling evidence that these effects were achieved solely in the editing room.

I can compare that effect to a stage effect because NO ERRORS WERE FOUND DURING THE PERFORMANCE! At no point during the actual presentation could the entire method of the hallway illusion be discovered. ONLY THROUGH slow motion replay and frame-by-frame comparison could any errors be seen to expose the method.

I can compare this to a stage illusion, because I'm speaking of the effect. I can't Tivo Lance Burton on stage in Vegas, to figure out his methods - so I can only judge on what is seen INITIALLY, not after the fact.

No different than rehearsed skits on a show. That's fine - but please realize that you seem to be forgetting that every single aspect of any stage show is completely rehearsed, and every movement is choreographed.

I will concede that the hallway illusion wasn't pulled off perfectly, and it wasn't the greatest effect I've ever seen - but the fact that it takes no skill to do, doesn't make it an ineffective trick.

what i meant about the stage thing was that if they make a mistake then its done and too late. if chris angel makes a mistake with that trick then he can just do it over again and no one is the wiser.

i found one of your previous posts in this thread,

I highly doubt any working magicians/illusionists are using an entire audience of stooges. I see what you're saying and all, but the comment is grossly inaccurate.

and feel that you are missing the point. the point is that for this trick, all the audience was in fact staged.

HOWEVER, let me reiterate. i have a lot of respect for chris angel and dont have a problem with stooges. I am merely talking about the trick in question.

I ask one question - for the hallway effect - who was the audience?