(Close Window)
Topic: Will this do damage to magic or Criss Angel?
Message: Posted by: The Hitchhiker (May 27, 2007 09:25PM)
Should make lay people think about appreciating [b]real[/b] Magic Artists.

Damage? no damage...
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 27, 2007 10:06PM)
This is one of two types of guys. One disgruntled fan who bought in to his BS about being "real" or a magician who bought into it.

Funny thing is that this is the type of thing that bites you square in the butt when you use it as he does.

I think this is why his live show is going to have trouble. When 90% of what you do relies on this type of thing, what can you expect?

I mean who is shocked by this? I bet the only people even interested in this are magicians. Nobody else bought it anyhow.
Message: Posted by: Lusion (May 27, 2007 10:56PM)
Danny,
I am not a Criss fan but his live show is good, that's how he started off. You need to understand that for a TV series he needs to constantly come up with new stuff so he will 'cheat'. It's kind like the new pop stars, they were able to crank out songs then lip sync. LOL
His live show is very good well when I seen it years ago, before the TV series that is. I only think he could get better from being in front of the camera and getting better funds for better consultants.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (May 27, 2007 11:08PM)
Very good...Lot's of work involved in this...he should be rewarded :)
Message: Posted by: Drew Manning (May 27, 2007 11:19PM)
This is interesting.

I don't want to play Devil's advocate here because I have seen a fair number of things that were set ups on his show. Think back the linking wedding rings and the time he produced a champagne bottle from a borrowed jacket for example. Not saying these were bad things, just using them to illustrate that what we saw isn't exactly how it goes in the real world.

That being said, the clips posted here appear to be legit and make sense on the surface, but if we strip them down and analyze them the way they stripped down the original footage, who's to say that these are correct? I am not an expert at digital editing, so I can't say that there aren't flaws in the film maker's findings.

I think it may actually help Criss in the long run. People love to see celebs fail. Assuming that enough of this stuff gets out (could have been leaked by his own PR people) people catch on to what is happening on TV and so they decide to go see him live anyway because they want to see how he's going to pull it off when there is no one there to edit things.

I have seen a wee bit of footage of him pre Mind Freak and he isn't bad. Has anyone else seen his no curtain presentation of Metamorphisis? His style wasn't for me, but the effect was well executed and it took less than 2 seconds.
Message: Posted by: Lusion (May 28, 2007 12:29AM)
Yes live he did it with smoke- or rather something looking like smoke-frost. Looked good some nights.
Message: Posted by: IllusionJack (May 28, 2007 03:28AM)
Impressive analysis. Well explained. Also an impressive use of the digital compositing that doesn't really look like digital compositing (until you break it down like this guys has done). His live show is still going to be awesome.

--Jack :pepsi:
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 28, 2007 10:00AM)
[quote]
On 2007-05-28 00:19, Drew Manning wrote:
This is interesting.

I have seen a wee bit of footage of him pre Mind Freak and he isn't bad. Has anyone else seen his no curtain presentation of Metamorphisis? His style wasn't for me, but the effect was well executed and it took less than 2 seconds.
[/quote]

You mean the one where he burned the retina out of the audience with a wall of flame? No curtain. I love that. He still had a cover, so it was fire not a curtain, it was still COVER.

How could he have gotten better, as someone said, if he is using camera stuff as a crutch? Seems to me as if he would actually digress.

I hope his live show goes well. Someone is spending a large fortune on it. It would be better for "magic" if he was a success. I would pull for him more without the pompus attitude and the "I am better than anyone" attitude.

I have never liked his style, and he does cater to a less than mainstream audience. I wonder if that audience is enough to keep him in ticket money. I hope so.
Message: Posted by: kregg (May 28, 2007 11:06AM)
A/ It's on TV.
B/ There is only the standard "don't try this at home" disclaimer.
C/ Wait until his Cirque show opens ... magic is a live event.
Message: Posted by: JoyJoy (May 28, 2007 12:03PM)
Ethics!
If you say "no camera trick", "like live", etc... how poor - how deep do you need to fall, how worthless is your word, how deplorable/pitiableis is somebody who decides to betray to be successful/to get money

=> Thatīs what the public should see. But: Sadly nobody sees it and sad enough that if they would see it, there would be no giving of a receipt. Lying did get normal in our association today.
Message: Posted by: Christopher Starr (May 28, 2007 12:24PM)
Wow...I certainly learned a whole lot more about digital editting. Even if these explanations are not 100% accurate, they are plausible.

The internet has been a real blessing as well as a curse. One the one hand, we have unprecedented access to information and multimedia content that we never had before. As soon as something happens in the magic world, we can all share and discuss it. The downside is that others can also expose it just as easily.

Think about David Copperfield's Statue of Liberty vanish, back in 1983. How would this have faired in the internet world of today? Like Criss Angel's stunts, David did that for the publicity. Obviously, he couldn't do it in the live shows, but it has helped to sell tickets through out the years.

I guess the point that I'd like to make is that Criss Angel isn't the first performer to use outrageous TV stunts to promote his live shows. Copperfield "flew" over the Grand Canyon, made a national monument "disappear", "walked through" the Great Wall of China, etc. All TV stunts, which later drove people into the theater to see the live shows.
Message: Posted by: Lusion (May 28, 2007 01:35PM)
Chris Starr thumbs up! Your right my brother! They are doing what works, and the key to the shows are filling up the seats!
Message: Posted by: Drew Manning (May 28, 2007 03:33PM)
[quote]
On 2007-05-28 13:03, JoyJoy wrote:
Ethics!
If you say "no camera trick", "like live", etc... how poor - how deep do you need to fall, how worthless is your word, how deplorable/pitiableis is somebody who decides to betray to be successful/to get money

=> Thatīs what the public should see. But: Sadly nobody sees it and sad enough that if they would see it, there would be no giving of a receipt. Lying did get normal in our association today.
[/quote]


Well, if memory serves, he dosen't ALWAYS say WYSIWYG when doing an effect. Sometimes he does and if he expresly says that, then I would expect that he uphold that concept. (I can't recall if he said that in relation to these particular effects or not).

Assuming that the video shows his true mehtod of levitating between two buildings, is that really any different than some of the methods used in a live theatrical performence by other magicians? I don't think they are. The difference is that he edited in his background cover where as in a live performce, it's blended into the stage scenery when needed.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 28, 2007 03:35PM)
The "implication" is he leans on camera tricks.

Actually that is more my belief LOL. But it seems so.
Message: Posted by: The Mac (May 28, 2007 05:49PM)
No one really kicked up a storm when Copperfields Tornado of fire special had a lot of digital touch up..But criss gets nailed everytime
Message: Posted by: Gerry Walkowski (May 28, 2007 06:50PM)
I loss faith in TV magic shows years ago when Copperfield started messing with the TV cameras. Unfortunately David Blaine and Chris Angel are taking up David's bad habits.

Gerry
Message: Posted by: Paulo Cabrita (May 28, 2007 06:51PM)
When magicians work with camera trick, this situation can happen...

Paulo
Message: Posted by: Slim King (May 28, 2007 09:19PM)
At this point, [b]What's the difference between Criss Angel and a scene from Harry Potter?[/b]
Same deal....
Message: Posted by: The Mirror Images (May 28, 2007 10:45PM)
Hey what does Criss care when he laughs himself to the bank. Ta Da that is magic...money in the bank...he made millions.
Message: Posted by: Chezaday (May 29, 2007 12:27AM)
Well .. first off, I would have never seen this footage if you didn't post it here on the Café. It's fine on here .. but it shouldn't be available to the general public, they'll question everything on TV.

You know, I would do the same stuff if I were in his shoes ah, boots .. money talks!

Steve
Message: Posted by: Eddie Garland (May 29, 2007 02:13AM)
Me too Steve!

I suspect the Cirque show will be spectacular. Seen a Cirque Du Soleil show that in some aspect was not magical?
Criss and this particular franchise will be solid together and perfect.

These youTube videos do nothing but spread the man's fame...nothing more.
Folk want flights of fantasy on TV/Web right now and he provides it. I suspect the pro's are working more and amateurs are being more tolerated because of Angel, Blaine, Cyril and others. Seems all good to me.

As far as camera tricks, I heard this season Criss fights a velociraptor on Musha Cay.
Message: Posted by: The Mac (May 29, 2007 02:16AM)
Copperfield used camera angles and stooges (vanishing train car). He used video compositing In Voyeur. Blaine's levitation was edited. Criss Angel does it too. These guys have another thing in common: [b]They are now rich and famous.[/b].... Now where's my camera?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 29, 2007 08:27AM)
[quote]
On 2007-05-28 18:49, macGyver(south Africa) wrote:
No one really kicked up a storm when Copperfields Tornado of fire special had a lot of digital touch up..But criss gets nailed everytime
[/quote]

How does this affect him in one way or the other. Criss uses them CONSTANTLY. To do card tricks for pity sake.

As for anyone who says they would do the same thing, ok go ahead, but it seems to me that it is a backward step.
Message: Posted by: ChristopherM (May 29, 2007 09:46AM)
Richard Osterlind's latest DVD releases are a timely contribution to our art. I like the title.

Magic on TV is fun to watch; I enjoy it. Makes me want to see more live performances.

I don't think those clips will damage either magic or CA, certainly not to any noticeable extent.
Message: Posted by: Paulo Cabrita (May 29, 2007 10:05AM)
I do not like who make camera trick, because I think the art of illusion don't need this camera trick.
Message: Posted by: Drew Manning (May 29, 2007 10:36AM)
In the end, I suppose it really doesn't matter. I think we just want more "real" magic and less TV special F/X.

The main thing in magic is to entertain the audience and as long as CA has a fan base that is willing to sit and watch, he's done his job.
Message: Posted by: Regan (May 29, 2007 11:11AM)
I just think it is sad that the only tv specials now are filled with the camera trickery. What does this say about the state of our art? Is a broadcast of an actual live stage show not exciting enough for the audience?

I used to love watching magic on tv when it was filmed on stage. The Lance Burton, Copperfield, World's Greatest Magic, etc. I loved them. However, the minute they went outside and started making tanks, airplanes, large statues, and so on, disappear I honestly hated it. I hated most of the Blaine routines.

Example: Blaine walks up to a 'stranger' on the street and says: "Think of a number between such and such." The 'stranger' thinks hard and says, "OK, I've got one." Blaine concentrates very hard for a moment and says, "It's 34". The 'stranger' in utter shock and amazement almost faints. After they finally get their mile-wide jaw closed they say, "Oh, my God!!!! How did you do that???? I can't believe it!!! He just asked me to think of a number....and he knew what I was thinking!!!! He guessed it right off the bat!!!! Wow!!! He is amazing!!!!! This is unreal!!!!! I have never seen anything like this in my entire life!!!! I can't believe this is happening!!!!"

I despise this kind of 'magic'.

Like someone already said, some of this stuff is no more than a Harry Potter movie. Digital effects has even ruined movie-going for me. I just don't like it. It used to be fun to see stunts, etc., and wonder how they did it, but now it just isn't amazing anymore. The reason it is not amazing anymore is because there is no wonder involved. I guess everything has to become more and more extreme, but for me, it's not enjoyable when I know it's done with computers or cameras. If this trend of tv magic continues, I wonder if the public will eventually cease to be be amazed by magic?

Regan
Message: Posted by: The Mac (May 29, 2007 11:21AM)
Technology is becoming so advanced that they are workng on making soldiers invisible..what will become of magic?
Message: Posted by: Jazz (May 29, 2007 02:43PM)
The use of CGI by CA has been discussed a lot in this same forum. Lots of opinions, pros and cons. These videos are really interesting. Very nicely made. I assume a CGI expert did them, not a magician of course. However I think most lay people will be uninterested.

I think it was only a matter of time before this happened. Now with internet and all the technology I think it was going to happen sooner or later. Especially since CA has been under all this fire for resorting to such antics a lot. I expect Criss to focus on his new Vegas live show, which I think will be great. I see his TV run starting to wind down. I donīt foresee a 4th season of Mindfreak. Still a pitty.

Again, I liked the technical videos but I think this thread should be moved to secret sessions.
Message: Posted by: Drew Manning (May 29, 2007 03:27PM)
[quote]
On 2007-05-29 12:21, macGyver(south Africa) wrote:
Technology is becoming so advanced that they are workng on making soldiers invisible..what will become of magic?
[/quote]
We can employ military technology to make our jobs as magicians easier :wink:
Message: Posted by: Magic Chris (May 29, 2007 05:02PM)
Hi everybody

I was really shocked by this link:

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=1b4T94F7kM4

A magician reveals some of the best and most
popular magic tricks and illusions in the world !!!!
Message: Posted by: JoyJoy (May 29, 2007 05:20PM)
[quote]
On 2007-05-29 18:02, Magic Chris wrote:
I was really shocked by this link:
http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=1b4T94F7kM4
[/quote]
yawn... a really nice clip (DC imitation: Daniel Chesterfield), but how often will it Be posted here?
Message: Posted by: Paulo Cabrita (May 29, 2007 08:00PM)
Very good camera trick...
Message: Posted by: howdoidisconnect (May 30, 2007 10:44AM)
The difference between Copperfield and Blaine to Criss , is that the first 2 don't claim to use no editing, they don't claim not to use stooges etc etc. Some of Copperfield stunts I am sure contain special effects, but he wasn't bleeping on about how it all real, you 'can't fake this stuff'
I think its Criss' claims that landed him in trouble.

Leason, if your gonna use tv editing and effects, don't claim you don't.

The reality is this kinda thing also harms the reputation of the people around him as well.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 30, 2007 03:03PM)
The very wording of "you can't fake this stuff" is kind of an idiotic claim anyhow.

So we are left to think he has powers? LOL. Almost as if he is working for children.
Message: Posted by: chichi711 (May 31, 2007 03:07PM)
[quote]
On 2007-05-27 23:06, Dannydoyle wrote:

I mean who is shocked by this? I bet the only people even interested in this are magicians. Nobody else bought it anyhow.
[/quote]

I don't ofter disagree with Danny, but............... :)
Criss Angel was on a local radio station just this morning. I listended by chance. It is a station I don't listen to, but happened to be scanning through and heard Criss Angel Mindfreak up next.

I was shocked at how many people honestly think this guy has sold his soul to the devil. I was laughing in my car as I was driving. The funny thing is they flat out asked him if he had sold his soul. His response was "I am not the devil". Well after the interview that just got more people wound up. He said he is not the devil, but he didn't say he didn't sell his sould blah blah blah. What I am getting at is this. PEOPLE HAVE BOUGHT IN.
Message: Posted by: Jazz (May 31, 2007 03:14PM)
One thing is to like or dislike the entertainment that Criss Angel provides; and a very different one is to actually believe that any supernatural stuff is involved. I also know some people that are really convinced that he has some type of "pact" with the devil. I mean, come on!!!

I can respect anyone that has his own opinion if he likes or not his magic. But these people? Remember what P.T. Barnum used to say "Thereīs a sucker born every minute"
Message: Posted by: chichi711 (May 31, 2007 03:41PM)
I am not one of those people. I am just telling everyone that we toss Angel to the side and make fun, but laymen don't. We over look that a lot.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 31, 2007 04:07PM)
Chichi, not a HUGE number of people have bought in.

More bought in to David Blaine and the fly thing.
Message: Posted by: Kevin Ridgeway (May 31, 2007 04:37PM)
Danny I disagree with you, Criss is NOW a bigger name amongst lay people that Blaine. Perhaps I feel that way cause of the demographics we perform for and are around most the time. But everywhere we go around the country, they are talking about Criss. They know more about Criss, than they do what's his name...which is what they almost always say.

He even shows up in the tabloids...whether you like him or not, people know him and are paying attention.


Kevin
Message: Posted by: Drew Manning (May 31, 2007 04:56PM)
The more we all talk about him, the better it is for him. I don't wish him any harm or to see him fail. I admit that for the amount of bank he's pulling in, I can't say that I wouldn't do the same thing.

It is true more people know about CA than DB. Even lay people are starting to get wise to CA's stunts.I was talking about the show we're working on in the off topic section of another non magic forum I belong to and someone asked me about CA. A friend of mine who is a non magi said something to the effect of he thought we were talking about magicians and wanted to know how CA name came into it.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 31, 2007 05:29PM)
[quote]
On 2007-05-31 17:37, Living Illusions wrote:
Danny I disagree with you, Criss is NOW a bigger name amongst lay people that Blaine. Perhaps I feel that way cause of the demographics we perform for and are around most the time. But everywhere we go around the country, they are talking about Criss. They know more about Criss, than they do what's his name...which is what they almost always say.

He even shows up in the tabloids...whether you like him or not, people know him and are paying attention.


Kevin
[/quote]

Within that very spacific market yes people know him. Outside it, not so many.

Almost EVERYONE knows Copperfield, and Blaine is indeed vanishing from the landscape.

Keep in mind the blitz on right now for Criss as his new show opens and the A&E is in the third season. BASIC cable by the way. Blaine mya have reached more people with his first special on ABC than Criss has ever had watch him on A&E, just a number fact really.

Point is even WITH the blitz on, hardly anyone outside a very spacific target, and magicians know the guy. Travel through the center of the country, maybe people know just enough to be appauled.

That being said I will say again, I hope he does well. I hope he ends up enjoyng mainstream success and I hope he has a long run with huge crowds in Vegas. He has worked hard and this is impossible to deny.
Message: Posted by: Jazz (May 31, 2007 06:13PM)
Hey chichi, I didnīt mean to imply you were one of those. Nope, just that I as well know of some people that think the same. Again not a huge number, but a bunch.

I think DBīs manager team must come with something new pretty soon, or CA will complete erase him of the map.
Message: Posted by: santos (May 31, 2007 06:24PM)
THIS IS IN THE WRONG POST! NOT GRAND ILLUSIONS...
Message: Posted by: videokideo (May 31, 2007 06:35PM)
Criss uses some sort of video cuts, effects, or stooging 90% of the time. I never thought Id see the day where a bunch of magicians say, "hey, that's ok in my book". What happened to actually performing the tricks that you claim to do with lots of hard work and practice?

The up side to me is knowing that if you stand CA next to me and many others on here on the street, we'd kick the crap out of him seeing we actually perform the magic... weve had no choice but to learn he tricks without the aid of video.

Makes me wonder how little talent there is out there when the guy getting all the tv time really has little if any. Had I known blaine and angel's work wouldnt be pitchforked by the magic society, Id pull this stunt many many years ago. Many of us have been doing street magic since we were kids. On the streets, in bars, point being all in front of unknown spectators at any given time. My teachers always looked down on those who couldn't really perform. Now many look up to it..sad.

I said it before.. his new live show with the dancing men in spandex will make him a god again. But without all the swinging clowns, my guess is he'd bomb. Just another distraction and tactic to hide the lack of talent.
Message: Posted by: Nell (Jun 1, 2007 10:54PM)
Admittedly, I did not read this entire thread, so someone may have touched on this already. Also, I have not seen every episode, or even most of the episodes of Mindfreak; however, never once have I heard a claim of "no camera tricks" or "this shot will not cut away"...the typical pre-magic spiel that almost every conventional filmed magic show/special has. The audience only assumes it to be the case...
Message: Posted by: Drew Manning (Jun 1, 2007 11:03PM)
He's made those tpye of comments befroe, but not on everyshow.

The things that CA is doing that he's getting the most press for like the building levitation may involver the use of some CGI, but not every effect he does employs that method.

His coin matrix is a real magic routine, as is his swallowing needles and PK touch and those are just the ones that I can recall off the top of my head. We all know he is using some stuff that is impossible in "the real world" but he is by no means strictly a product of clever editing.

His Goth type style may not appeal to eveyone, but I venture to say his name has a lot more mainstream recognition than you would think. Next time you're in a group of non magicians, mention Lance Burton and CA and see who reacts and notices the name. That's no diss on LB as he is my favorite, but even though he is more "real" and more successful, IMO than CA, his name is not as well known in the general populace.
Message: Posted by: wardini (Jun 2, 2007 12:24AM)
I'm not a big fan of CA but he must be doing something right to get where he is today.

Personally I dislike the use of camera tricks and stooges in TV magic but I can also appreciate that with the commonplace use of hi-definition home recording and easy freeze frame and analysis it becomes harder to achieve 'clean' effects by 'traditional' methods.

I also expect that there's huge pressure by the TV companies to 'go that extra mile.'
Message: Posted by: Adam Milestone (Jun 2, 2007 03:23AM)
Camera tricks should never be used to accomplish an illusion. DC was mentioned, but the only ones that I believe were actual camera tricks were the searchlights in the statue and the Grand Canyon seemed to have a couple of shots that didn't look to authentic, but as far as I know that's it. I've read TOF may have had touch ups, but as far as I know they weren't used as a method. Stooges are just another gimmick and gimmicks are fine.
Message: Posted by: Nell (Jun 2, 2007 11:28AM)
DC's Grand Canyon and CA's building levitation are pretty much the same thing. It's what is out of the frame which makes it happen. CA could have done that all in one shot, but like most film/television, the editors pick the parts that look the best. How many people truly believed either of them was levitating such a great distance, anyhow? It is an illusion. And, I'd also like to add that most of CA's acts that I hear people talking about, now, are more classic magic pieces(maybe not in presentation, mind you). The 2nd season of his show seems slightly less camera-gimmicky, or at least a little more balanced.
Message: Posted by: Gerry Walkowski (Jun 2, 2007 07:01PM)
Years ago I remember reading in Tops, or was it the New Tops, where someone was at one of the filming sessions for David Copperfield's show when he made a baby elephant appear from an empty box. According to the person who was there they showed the box empty, and then the baby elephant was brought out and placed into the box. David told the audience that they were to act surprised when he opened the box and that later on, during a different film session, they would actually produce the elephant. Yeah, right!

I also seem to recall a forward levitation which many said was physically impossible, at least back then. Everyone said it was careful camera editing that made it look like a miracle.

It's this kind of nonsense that made me lose interest in Mr. Copperfield A LONG TIME AGO.

Gerry
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 2, 2007 07:34PM)
[quote]
On 2007-06-02 12:28, Nell wrote:
DC's Grand Canyon and CA's building levitation are pretty much the same thing. It's what is out of the frame which makes it happen. CA could have done that all in one shot, but like most film/television, the editors pick the parts that look the best. How many people truly believed either of them was levitating such a great distance, anyhow? It is an illusion. And, I'd also like to add that most of CA's acts that I hear people talking about, now, are more classic magic pieces(maybe not in presentation, mind you). The 2nd season of his show seems slightly less camera-gimmicky, or at least a little more balanced.
[/quote]

Levitating such a great distance? How about "at all"? Let alone a great distance.
Message: Posted by: The Hitchhiker (Jun 2, 2007 08:37PM)
[quote]
On 2007-06-02 20:34, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-06-02 12:28, Nell wrote:
DC's Grand Canyon and CA's building levitation are pretty much the same thing. It's what is out of the frame which makes it happen. CA could have done that all in one shot, but like most film/television, the editors pick the parts that look the best. How many people truly believed either of them was levitating such a great distance, anyhow? It is an illusion. And, I'd also like to add that most of CA's acts that I hear people talking about, now, are more classic magic pieces(maybe not in presentation, mind you). The 2nd season of his show seems slightly less camera-gimmicky, or at least a little more balanced.
[/quote]

Levitating such a great distance? How about "at all"? Let alone a great distance.
[/quote]


When DC did it ideals and expectations were different, now it's just childs play........
Message: Posted by: Drew Manning (Jun 2, 2007 09:45PM)
The long and short of it is that 99.9% of people KNOW it's all a trick of some sort. Does it really matter if someone flies on wires and uses an editing trick to cover the wires or if some one uses a state of the art computerized tool and proper lights in the theatre to mask the workings?

I don't think so. Every one knows it's the [b]illusion[/b] of flight. I think with TV it is much easier to edit the effect to look a certain way than it is to properly present it in a theatre, but every one still knows we can't levitate. If we could, we'd all be consultants to the Dept. of Defense, not magicians.
Message: Posted by: Adam Milestone (Jun 2, 2007 09:49PM)
The appearing elephent was on MoDC 6, the same special as the Canyon levitation and the levitation was the first thing the TV audience saw with no claims being made at all. After the Giraffe illusion is when the no CT line comes in so no claims were made regarding the Canyon and CT so if they used it's not like he was saying one thing and doing another. That's why he did it first as the big opener; it was a throwaway and he knew it he did one more illusion that done withuout CT to space it a bit so the no CT line wasn't right AFTER the levitation. The appearing elephant was acommlished with the same method as The Big Black Box and Things that Go Bump in the Night as far as I can tell, but who really knows for certain. I just don't see DC using out and out CT and editing to accomplish the illusion, angles maybe, but not CT except for Portal I suppose, which BTW after seeing nine times I still can't understand fully how some of it's done. Which DC illusions in particular, other than the ones mentioned, do you think use CT as the method? Even if DC did use them once or twice early in his carreer as far as I can remember those were the only ones that stepped over the line and he had the good sense to stop I hope Criss will too. If he doesn't that can only hurt magic on TV as people have accepted that it would look the same if they were part of the audience. If we betray that then at least some will be convinced everything is a CT, but then a number of them already do! LOL!

Have a look at the opening of the Canyon special.

. http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-3054008430023321613
Message: Posted by: Phil J. (Jun 3, 2007 02:08PM)
Will these videos damage magic? No more than the Masked magician TV series. Ask anyone who watched it to explain any of the tricks exposed and I'll bet they can't.

Will these videos damage CA? Of course not. The public accept that magicians use mirrors, sleight of hand, etc to achieve miracles. To most people CGi is just another weapon in the magicians arsenal. The only people who won't accept these videos for what they are are the ones who believe that CA really can levitate or vanish in mid-air. For these mis-guided souls nothing will convince them otherwise.
Message: Posted by: Jazz (Jun 3, 2007 02:46PM)
Of course everyone knows itīs a trick (well except some goofs, that really believe he has "sold his soul"). To use wires, mirrors, etc, that has been part of magic forever. To use CGI, then I think thatīs crossing the line. Magic is supposed to happen live, not CGI effects like in a movie.
Message: Posted by: Adam Milestone (Jun 3, 2007 06:55PM)
Can't believe I'm gonna poke DC rather than CA, but DC did say he was heavly influenced by movies! LOL! :)
Message: Posted by: Nell (Jun 3, 2007 10:18PM)
[quote]
On 2007-06-02 20:34, Dannydoyle wrote:

Levitating such a great distance? How about "at all"? Let alone a great distance.
[/quote]
This was the essence of my point... I suppose my phrasing was a bit off, but yes, indeed, at all...
Message: Posted by: RSD (Jun 20, 2007 01:29AM)
How would magicians feel if the Masked Magician came back and exposed Angel?
Message: Posted by: Swann101 (Jun 20, 2007 05:15AM)
I can't believe some guys actually thinks it is ok that DC, CA and Blaine are using "camera tricks"??? That should totally be against the ethics of magic, like revealing secrets like the masked magician, like building unauthorized illusions etc. There is no way you can talk it right! I am totally against it.
Then we can all just start our own TV shows and it would be like sci-fi movies, where do you draw the line?! Just don't do it!!!
Message: Posted by: Matthew St. Cyr (Jun 20, 2007 11:09AM)
I would have to agree with the majority. CGI is unacceptable. To show magic on TV, such as in a theater "taped before a live audience" and all that. I used to love DC's magic specials...Lance Burton and The World's Greatest Magic. Those are the performances that really inspired me. You knew that you were seeing what that audience saw for the most part. Sure there may have been a few different camera angles, but it was authentic. If I was to go out and shoot a magic video and levitated across two buildings or made my Ford Explorer magically appear, I'd be completely screwed when I get tickets sold to a show or go and work a restaurant....then people wanna see it live. "Well, um...gee, how bout I show you a card trick instead?"
True, it did work for CA and DB....but for the rest of us to try and employ the same tactics, would be to shoot ourselves in the foot. I say if you can't do it live, just don't do it.
Message: Posted by: Drew Manning (Jun 20, 2007 11:22AM)
[quote]
I would have to agree with the majority. CGI is unacceptable.
[/quote]
Can you explain to me how this is any different than using say a black art device to hide the workings of a levitation presented live? Different mediums have different requirements.
Message: Posted by: Matthew St. Cyr (Jun 20, 2007 01:31PM)
[quote]
Can you explain to me how this is any different than using say a black art device to hide the workings of a levitation presented live? Different mediums have different requirements.
[/quote]
The difference being I can perform a black art levitation live. If I was to televise it, it would be exactly the same as what the live audience would see. There is no misdirection in CGI, there's no pinache. I could go out and shoot a levitation video and then edit it on the computer and give the DVD to people, but what's the fun in that? Or I could do a Balducci levitation somewhere impromptu and have people swear that I was at least a foot of the ground.
All I'm saying is that it just doesn't feel right to me, I prefer to show my magic live and be able to do everything that I say I can do.
Message: Posted by: Drew Manning (Jun 20, 2007 02:09PM)
That may be true to some extent, but you still rely on a BA device to hide the method. In this case, the hide is accomplished with a video edit.

The long and short of it is, the more people talk about him and what he does or doesn't do, the more successful he'll be because he's getting publicity.

Some people forget that despite editing tactics used in some episodes of MF, he's still a talented magician. The Magic Castle doesn't award magician of the year to someone who can only amaze an audience with camera tricks and edits. If they did, Steven Spielberg would have that same award.
Message: Posted by: Matthew St. Cyr (Jun 20, 2007 03:07PM)
I completely agree. I'm definately not disputing that CA is a talented magician! I definately wish him all the best and want him to succeed, I just wish that it could be done without the editing....and digital tricks.....
Message: Posted by: Bill Hallahan (Jun 21, 2007 05:35PM)
I didn't find the analysis in the videos to be totally conclusive in all cases.

Here are my observations about the [b]first[/b] video.

First, one camera might have had a filter, and the other didn't.

Second, editing out a person moving on the bottom of the frame doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the magic. The producers might have done that to remove extraneous motion. Or, it could have been a performance on another day.

Third, the camera on the ground could be moving slowly and digitally tracking the image, which explains the relative cloud position changing.

Fourth, I think there is a good case made that there were separate performances edited together, but that in itself, while perhaps a poor practice because it's easy to spot, doesn't mean the [i]method[/i] involves camera tricks. In fact, only one point he made presumed a camera trick was related to the method, which I (possibly) refute above.

The [b]second[/b] video provides a hint to what I think is the likely method, and that method does not involve a camera trick!

The analysis for the [b]third[/b] video was clearly flawed. For one thing, a less luminous item [i]will[/i] look darker when a brighter light source is present. Consider the color black on your computer monitor. When you turn the monitor off, the screen probably looks mildly green, and yet black is the same as when it's off. It's the other light emitted by the screen that makes it seem black.

Also, the motorcycle had less visible surface area as it tilted and got closer to the bright source, so it would reflect less light and appear relatively darker than before. Finally, there is a video effect present in almost all recorded images, the camera adjusts for light intensity to avoid image washout.


I'm still curious what magic Criss Angel has done where there is conclusive proof that camera tricks were used. So many magicians chat about it, but when it comes down to specifying a specific scene, they fall silent.

I'm not saying he hasn't, but a blanket statement without anything to back it up is just baseless. I don't get to see the show very often, so I'd like to know what it is that is fake.

I am virtually certain that one thing Criss Angel did that many magicians claimed was done with camera tricks didn't use them at all. With a huge budget, seeming miracles can be accomplished in bizarre ways.

So, what I [i]can imagine[/i] might be happening is that someone states that Criss Angel uses camera tricks. Soon the rumor spreads, and people who are totally fooled start assuming that he [i]is[/i] using camera tricks. Then discussions like this ensue.

By the way, it's not too hard to take David Copperfield's legitimate magic videos and make an analysis like this guy did. He ignores possibilities to make his point. And, none of his points [i]prove[/i] that the method involves camera tricks.


Check out the posts at [url=http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=180316&forum=171&4]Why it is really stupid to bash David Blaine[/url] by Bill Palmer. While the topic starts off about David Blaine, Criss Angel is also mentioned.

Criss Angel cannot harm your own magic, [i]even[/i] if you are on television. If you're not, then it [i]clearly[/i] can't matter what he does.

And don't forget, Criss Angel's popularity has gone up continuously since his specials aired, so the public clearly doesn't feel the same way that some magicians do. Most people's reactions can be summed up nicely by one current response at Youtube (the person's name was omitted only so that he can't search for his own user-name and end up here at the Magic Café.

[quote]
dude, it's fake, we all know already, GOD!!!!
Anybody with a brain can figure that out!!!!
Is there anything you have to prove?!
[/quote]
Note, from the perspective of some here, that poster missed the point... however, from the perspective of most layman, it's [b]all[/b] fake, and either the magician is putting something over on them another way [b]or[/b] the magician is highly entertaining while fooling them. Worry about being entertaining while fooling people. Then David Blaine and Criss Angel can't affect you. If they can't affect you, then how can what they do be considered unethical?
Message: Posted by: Swann101 (Jun 22, 2007 08:00AM)
Bill, it definitely can affect you! They are creating expectations they no magician, not even themselves can live up to! I can't tell you how many time laypeople has came up to me and asked to levitate like Blaine, let me tell you the Balducci is not going to do the job here, they want to see you rise at least 5ft, because Blaine can do it. :) I have always loved Criss Angels magic [b]until[/b] he started his TV specials! You can't compare that to the quality of magic seen in worlds greatest magic and the earlier Copperfield specials. "Camera trick" breaks magic down!
Drew how can you compare the black art with with CGI? That doesn't make sense!
Message: Posted by: mark2004 (Jun 22, 2007 09:28AM)
[quote]
On 2007-06-20 15:09, Drew Manning wrote:
That may be true to some extent, but you still rely on a BA device to hide the method. In this case, the hide is accomplished with a video edit.

The long and short of it is, the more people talk about him and what he does or doesn't do, the more successful he'll be because he's getting publicity.

Some people forget that despite editing tactics used in some episodes of MF, he's still a talented magician. The Magic Castle doesn't award magician of the year to someone who can only amaze an audience with camera tricks and edits. If they did, Steven Spielberg would have that same award.
[/quote]
While it's all well and good for magicians to have the recognition of organistaions such as The Magic Castle, it's the recognition of the public that ultimately counts the most if the traditional craft of performance magic is to have a future. If the public begins to assume that magic on TV is done with post production techniques (whether digital or other) then why bother trying to achieve effects with magic techniques? With modern digital systems you will be able to achieve effects that look much more spectacular than anything that could be done live. So then magic on TV becomes the domain of George Lucas and friends.

The crucial characteristic that's always distinguished magic as a performing art is the way it has been rooted in live performance - even when it's shown on TV. Mark Wilson understood that when he pioneered the concept of magic shows on network TV. You have to preserve the distinction between fictional entertainment (eg. TV shows such as Bewitched or Charmed or movies such as The Prestige or any one of a gazillion other examples) and magic shows, which are, in a sense, documentaries of a performance. What I mean by documentaries is that they are honest and accurate coverage of a performance, even though the performance itself may obviously involve illusions that present a type of fiction. If audiences can't depend on shows being honest documentaries in that limited but crucial way then they'll assume they're watching just another effects based fiction. (Apart, obviously from the sad and rather worrying few who are dumb enough to believe that Criss Angel has sold his soul to the devil).
Message: Posted by: Bill Hallahan (Jun 22, 2007 10:18AM)
Swann101 wrote:
[quote]
Bill, it definitely can affect you! They are creating expectations they no magician, not even themselves can live up to! I can't tell you how many time laypeople has came up to me and asked to levitate like Blaine, let me tell you the Balducci is not going to do the job here, they want to see you rise at least 5ft, because Blaine can do it:) I have always loved Criss Angels magic [b]until[/b] he started his TV specials! You can't compare that to the quality of magic seen in worlds greatest magic and the earlier Copperfield specials. "Camera trick" breaks magic down!
Drew how can you compare the black art with with CGI? That doesn't make sense!
[/quote]
You are correct I suppose. It can affect you if you do the same things as the guy on television.

This issue also exists if they do any routine you don't do at all, and they ask to see it.

Of course, you can simply say, "I don't do that," and move on to your next routine. They'll still be impressed you levitated at all.

Swann101 wrote:
[quote]
I have always loved Criss Angels magic [b]until[/b] he started his TV specials! You can't compare that to the quality of magic seen in worlds greatest magic and the earlier Copperfield specials. "Camera trick" breaks magic down!
[/quote]
As I asked above, what [i]specifically[/i] are you referring to and why do you [i]know[/i] it is a camera trick?

mark2004 wrote:
[quote]
While it's all well and good for magicians to have the recognition of organizations such as The Magic Castle, it's the recognition of the public that ultimately counts the most if the traditional craft of performance magic is to have a future. If the public begins to assume that magic on TV is done with post production techniques (whether digital or other) then why bother trying to achieve effects with magic techniques?
[/quote]
Not quite. The public doesn't [i]begin[/i] to think this, rather the public has [i]always[/i] thought this, which is why disclaimers have always been necessary.

Since the issue has always existed since the dawn of magic on video, no magician created it.

People judge you based on yourself, not on others.

And, since the public [i]expects[/i] deception from a magician, the question to ask is, why do they accept it? They obviously do since both Criss Angel and David Copperfield's popularity numbers for their demographic are high.

Use a disclaimer.

I think there are certain disclaimers that fall outside the theatrical role. The disclaimer should be made by a trusted source, and the credibility of that source is at risk, and the magician. However, I have seen nothing but general charge with no specifics, and [i]every time[/i] I saw specifics that related to camera tricks, they weren't credible, or they weren't proven.

Using confederates is another matter. I might believe that, but then I have no issue with that either, as long as the public doesn't. Some of the public know too, they aren't stupid. Read the quote from the person at Youtube above, it sums up most of the publics attitude.

The public only dislikes a charlatan, but Criss Angel has openly admitted to using trickery many times. Beyond that, most of the public could care less about specific methods.

mark2004 wrote:
[quote]
The crucial characteristic that's always distinguished magic as a performing art is the way it has been rooted in live performance - even when it's shown on TV.
[/quote]
Again I agree. In fact, truly great magic can [i]only[/i] be done live. When I watched the performance of Tommy Wonder doing his "Ring, Watch, and Wallet" routine, I saw the entire audience gasp. I didn't gasp, but I bet I would if I had been there. Television creates a sense of detachment. Maskelyne recognized both this, and the issue of credibility, which is why he wrote that magic [i]had[/i] to be performed live. Film projectors existed in his time. Maskelyne perhaps overstated the case, I myself do like magic on television, but I don't think it's anything like live magic.

mark2004 wrote:
[quote]
Mark Wilson understood that when he pioneered the concept of magic shows on network TV. You have to preserve the distinction between fictional entertainment (eg. TV shows such as Bewitched or Charmed or movies such as The Prestige or any one of a gazillion other examples) and magic shows, which are, in a sense, documentaries of a performance.
[/quote]
Again, I agree. However, what Mark Wilson also realized is that a disclaimer is necessary. It wouldn't be necessary if people didn't already have mistrust. The mistrust exists to begin with for [i]every[/i] television magician, and they form their own reputation.

So, let the public form an opinion of each magician. Give them some credit. The public does realize that not every performer is the same, and they'll sort out who they think is real, and who isn't, and more importantly, who they want to watch.

There is no real harm. If there was, then the public wouldn't want more of these specials, and the demographics clearly indicate that they do!

mark2004 wrote:
[quote]
What I mean by documentaries is that they are honest and accurate coverage of a performance, even though the performance itself may obviously involve illusions that present a type of fiction.
[/quote]
All magic is based on fiction, at least all the magic I perform. I don't think that when I perform it, but I am using trick methods!

The criteria you are establishing are based on the supposition that it can do harm to other magicians. I know Mark Wilson has referred to a loss of trust. I like, respect, admire, and would like to be like Mark Wilson, but I disagree with him on this. He performed magic on television, but I watched his shows as a child, and later his specials as an adult. I have the audience perspective, which is the important perspective on this particular issue.

I believed in his magic because he told me to, and I liked and trusted him.

It wouldn't have mattered if another magician had lied to me before about anything. I still would have thought Mark Wilson's show was great. This is because Mark Wilson was, and still is, a great magician.
Message: Posted by: Drew Manning (Jun 22, 2007 12:11PM)
[quote]Drew how can you compare the black art with with CGI? That doesn't make sense!
[/quote]
Using editing to remove methods from film [b]is[/b] the same as using BA to hide the method of a levitation because they both serve to hide how the effect was achieved. On TV, you edit. Live you use special lights and curtains to hide something from the audience. Same thing. Both methods take something that isn't meant to be seen and conceal it from the audience. If the video editing merely removes a support mechanism from the shot, it's the same.

Let's say a magician does a show and it's filmed for TV later. The multiple camera angels happen to catch a method but the producer still insists on using that shot in the final run because it looks very dramatic, but edits out the mechanism to protect the secret, but still be able to use the dramatic shot. Is that fair? After all, a live spectator would never be able to view it from that angle.
Message: Posted by: itsmagic (Jun 22, 2007 03:57PM)
BA is the same as video editing? That's not even close for comparison.

CA shouldn't claim he doesn't use camera tricks or video edits when he does.
Message: Posted by: Drew Manning (Jun 22, 2007 04:02PM)
[quote]
On 2007-06-22 16:57, itsmagic wrote:
BA is the same as video editing? That's not even close for comparison.

CA shouldn't claim he doesn't use camera tricks or video edits when he does.
[/quote]

But it is! They both hide the mechanism that made the levitation possible, therefore, they serve the same purpose. Think what you want, but it's all the same.

Your argument that he shouldn't make claims about what he is or isn't doing has nothing to do with the comparison of BA to video editing. Both are an end to a means.

What about the second part of my post on editing TV magic? You didn't respond to that....
Message: Posted by: Harry H (Jun 22, 2007 05:13PM)
Criss Angel takes it too far. It's one thing to use camera angles-Franz Harary typically-by Criss uses TV trickery every show, and stooges. He is so fake it's about time someone exposed him. What he does isn't magic it's video production!

It won't harm magic as a whole as the stunts are too far fetched for most to perform.
Message: Posted by: AnthonyMaze (Jun 22, 2007 08:31PM)
You can correct me if Im wrong, but in any of those three effects, did CA ever say he WASNT using special effects? Its been a little while since I have seen the television version so I don't remember....
Message: Posted by: Jazz (Jun 22, 2007 11:04PM)
He does Anthony, he does, or at the very least, he implies it very strongly.

Bill: I have to respectfully disagree with you. Something may be unethical even though it doesnīt directly affects me.

Drew: Sorry, another vote against. BA canīt be compared to CGI. Not even close.
Message: Posted by: Steve Fearson (Jun 22, 2007 11:46PM)
I don't know about CGI but a camera cut is enough to ruin the magic for me.

I love to watch magic and try to figure out the tricks. When the camera cuts, cuts, and cuts it's no longer interesting to me. Anything could have happened during that cut. You don't have to be a magician to realize that. They may just as well say, "close your eyes, just for a moment."

It's just easier for them to do the magic with the camera than actually come up with real, workable illusions. It's unfortunate in my opinion.

As far as the masked magician exposing the tricks CA does.. who would care. They're all done the same way. Stooges and camera cuts. Boo and hiss. Exposure of those techniques could indeed destroy magic. Laypeople will assume everything is done with cameras and stooges.


Steve
Message: Posted by: DJM (Jun 23, 2007 12:40AM)
This is a good example why I can't stand Criss.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=uVosmZk8eDo

If I wanted to see something like that, I'd go watch Big again. You must agree that Tom Hanks is a much better actor than both of these girls.

"OMG OMG, I'm 20.. I'm really 20!! Mom!! Mom!!"

The girl's mom: "Who are you, who are you?!"


Just pathetic.
Message: Posted by: Drew Manning (Jun 23, 2007 10:59AM)
Well, we all have our opinions on the guy, and I really don't see an issue with what he does. He's making bank and not hurting magic in the process.

The funny thing is as I was watching the clip above, my son was standing over my shoulder and he said "Dad, that's so fake. You can't use magic to change a kid into a grown up" :lol:
Message: Posted by: Adam Milestone (Jun 23, 2007 01:07PM)
What illusions in particular do you think Copperfield uses CT or edits or CGI as the method? The Canyon and statue are the only ones as far as I know that use edits or CT as part of the method, but David's trip across the Canyon was in '84 long before CGI, so it couldn't have been that. Personally I've always thought that the shots of “him” where he is seems to be hundreds of feet in air was in fact a dummy or a mannequin as I couldn't believe he'd really put himself in that position just for an illusion
Message: Posted by: TWOCAN (Jun 23, 2007 07:50PM)
[quote]
On 2007-05-27 21:49, Lance Richardson wrote:
I must say this is VERY well done and should make the lay people think.
So the question is who will this damage?

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRybVvTR9Gc&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQeTmqQHLJI&mode=related&search=

[/quote]TV TV TV ITS Been fooling people since it was invented. If some people believe what they see on TV Than they deserve to be fooled.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jun 23, 2007 08:31PM)
You've convinced me...[b]they deserve to be fooled![/b] :)
Message: Posted by: Drew Manning (Jun 23, 2007 08:44PM)
I don't think it's about being deserved to be fooled. The job of the magician is to fool, so that has nothing to do with TV, so much as it does good magic.
Message: Posted by: ibm_usa (Jun 23, 2007 09:50PM)
[quote]
On 2007-05-28 19:50, Gerry Walkowski wrote:
I loss faith in TV magic shows years ago when Copperfield started messing with the TV cameras. Unfortunately David Blaine and Chris Angel are taking up David's bad habits.

Gerry
[/quote]

Down with Blaine! Down With Blaine..... something must have happened to him because I haven't heard much on him. maybe he actually got a dollar out of what he was doing... SO Mr.Blaine, whats your next trick? locking yourself in a box while starving yourself? that's not magic that's called living in the projects... Blaine is a disgrace to true magicians. why doesn't anyone have ever challenged him to actually work on an actual effect without trick photography and cheap bite-out coins?
Message: Posted by: AnthonyMaze (Jun 25, 2007 11:02PM)
If you had your own TV show, people to use at your disposal, and truckloads of money.... what would you do?
Message: Posted by: Drew Manning (Jun 25, 2007 11:42PM)
[quote]
Blaine is a disgrace to true magicians. why doesn't anyone have ever challenged him to actually work on an actual effect without trick photography and cheap bite-out coins?
[/quote]
Well, as much as I dislike Blaine's style or lack there of and as much as it irks me that his first magic special was made up of 80-90% off the shelf beginner to intermediate magic effects, he has done a lot to bring magic back to the main stream. I don't really care for his endurance stunts either, but he has done a lot to revive magic especially with the younger crowd. Although I am currently not taking any paying gigs, it is guys like Blaine and Criss that help those who do have a demand for their services. Like these guys or not, they keep some folks round here working and earning a living.

Posted: Jun 26, 2007 12:44am
Quote:


On 2007-06-26 00:02, AnthonyMaze wrote:
If you had your own TV show, people to use at your disposal, and truckloads of money.... what would you do?


I'd so the same thing that CA is doing- milk it for all it's worth. He's a millionaire magician. How many of US who sit around and **** and moan about what he does can make that claim?
Message: Posted by: AnthonyMaze (Jun 26, 2007 02:23AM)
At least your being honest Drew... many magicians right now would trade in their entire act to have the publicity that Criss Angel gets in one day. If you follow Criss' past you'd know that he has got to [b]love[/b] all this attention right now.

I honestly couldn't tell you if I would do what he's doing, because I've never been in that position with all the money and publicity.

Fame is a fishing pole, who's to say [b]you[/b] wouldn't take the bait?
Message: Posted by: Drew Manning (Jun 26, 2007 10:58AM)
Tons of cash, a fast expensive car, hot chicks, and free reign of a Vegas casino...I wouldn't have to think twice about it. Well, since I'm married, I might reconsider the chicks part. :lol:
Message: Posted by: Adam Milestone (Jun 26, 2007 11:21PM)
[quote]
On 2007-06-20 12:22, Drew Manning wrote:
[quote]
I would have to agree with the majority. CGI is unacceptable.
[/quote]
Can you explain to me how this is any different than using say a black art device to hide the workings of a levitation presented live? Different mediums have different requirements.
[/quote]
Simple, you can't use CGI live on stage as you can BA. Using BA is more akin to say a TT wherein spectators looks directly at the method and still have no clue that anything is going on. But, adding digital enhancements to cover the method on a televised illusion; that's just cheap and cheesy. CT and CGI are not magical trickery, but are editing trickery! ;) [b]Very[/b] big difference!
Message: Posted by: Steve Fearson (Jun 27, 2007 11:02PM)
How many of you can name the channel on the cable box off the top of your head?

I know it's a&e but for the life of me I can't name the channel. I think that says something.

Just curious
Message: Posted by: Phil Thomas (Jun 27, 2007 11:10PM)
Next week, Mindfreak gets moved over to Cartoon Network. :bg:
Message: Posted by: Jazz (Jun 28, 2007 11:23AM)
It should be moved to the Sci-Fi channel
Message: Posted by: Adam Milestone (Jun 28, 2007 03:38PM)
It’s 31 here in TO, but then I’ve been watching A&E for much longer than I’ve watching Mindfreak. Unless it's like CNN, it could be on different channels in different locals. Last show he did a nice Tip Over Trunk with a cardboard box. The steamroller was OK (the glass walk was a nice convincer), but I don't know why he had curtains around the back of the giant rolling wheel; I'd have had metal sheets painted the same colour as the steamroller instead. Criss is much better when he sticks to magic and doesn't employ CT and such.
Message: Posted by: sirbrad (Jun 30, 2007 02:22AM)
[quote]
On 2007-05-27 22:25, The Hitchhiker wrote:
Should make lay people think about appreciating REAL Magic Artists.

Damage? no damage..


[/quote]

Will what do damage??
Message: Posted by: Adam Milestone (Jul 3, 2007 10:16AM)
Criss' use of CT and such.
Message: Posted by: artofillusion77 (Jul 3, 2007 11:20AM)
I belive criss is a great performer and has done a lot for our art, he brings creative illusions to the street and is putting magic in a new age.
Message: Posted by: Drew Manning (Jul 3, 2007 11:40PM)
I was watching the show tonight (missed the new episode) and he was doing dove work in the streets. Thought that was pretty cool to take what is normally done strictly for the stage and doing it on the street by borrowing scarves, sweaters, newspapers etc. Didn't really see any CGI or CT employed there :lol:
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 7, 2007 04:13PM)
As to the question of wheather they should use these methods or not why are they not governed by the same common sense approach?

I don't care WHAT method they use, just don't get caught!

Isn't that the whole point? I don't care if he uses CGI, I don't care if he uses little fairies from Disneyland to levitate, simply DON'T GET CAUGHT!

This has been my problem with TV magic in general of late. The OBVIOUS use of stooges and CGI brings down the public as they cop to it almost immediatly.

Now mind you that I still think we should get together and send Criss and David Blaine fruit baskets for lowering the bar SO FAR for what passes for entertainment in this day and age! Heck when Criss with SUCH a high profile gets busted with stooges and CGI, and then they see live magic and are fooled with obviously none of the above, it makes me look that much better. In a strange sort of convoluted fashion he is good for live magic if you think of it right.

Harry Anderson used a camera trick in Hello Sucker, and it was so perfectly used that NOBODY knew, heck most magicians didn't catch him and many owned the trick! Use them, use anything you have too, just don't get caught.

I can't even figure out why this is a debate.
Message: Posted by: Adam Milestone (Jul 8, 2007 10:42AM)
Why is there a debate? CGI is not a magical technique; it's a movie making tool. Name a magic book that even mentions using CGI as the method. You can't because it's not magic, plain and simple. If the general public became aware that magicians used CT edits or CGI to create the illusion, then it could potentially hurt magic on TV for a very long time to come. Copperfield didn't need to use CT etc. to vanish a Lear Jet, nor did he need them to walk through The Great Wall or to fly. CT are just that tricks done by the C not the magi and therefore should not be classified as magic. If what you say is true than anything that uses CGI is magic be your standards. I agree with Danny that the effect is everything and who cares what method you use, but there are exceptions to every rule and in this case the exceptions are CGI, CT, and editing that hides or is the method.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 8, 2007 02:47PM)
Ever see the old footage of when Moving Pictures first came out? Tell me that camera tricks are not a part of magic and its history. Please.

Cameras, CGI, all tools of a new age. The key is to BLEND to tools so as not to get caught. Your missing the point. Tell me where there is a list of what I am and am not allowed to use to accomplish anything I want to. Please because in 20 years of performing professionally I have never seen this list, or run into another professional magician who has heard of such a thing.

So according to your "logic" when something else does the trick it is not magic. So the Zig Zag is not magic, nor is Oragami, or any illusion where basically a woman steps into a box and something happens. Seems to me that Copperfield uses many of these sorts of illusions.

Well the key then is in the way it is presented so he does not get busted on the method right? The box does the trick as much as the camera. Where is all the outrage? How about self working card tricks? Hate those too? The magician does NOTHING and yet here we have magic.

See your caught up in this silly idea that magic is about "magic" or about the "magician" or some silly set of rules we must abide by. It is not. It is for the audience, you have heard of them, they are the ones who pay to see the show.

If you can use ANY method and credibly fool them, or as I have said, don't get caught, then who cares? You are completly ruling out innovation by your idea of having spacific things we are and are not allowed to do. Heck when the audience gets wind of the rules, we have NO WAY of fooling them anyhow now do we?

IF you can credibly fool people with CGI then that is fine. Problem lies within the fact that it is not credible. It is OBVIOUS, and he gets caught. Camera edits the same thing. BUT again Harry Anderson used a camera trick MASTEFULLY and nobody was outraged. Reason was he FOOLED MAGICIANS who owned the trick! No outrage because he didn't get busted. It was BRILLIANT.

In this case the end DOES justify the means.
Message: Posted by: Drew Manning (Jul 8, 2007 09:26PM)
[quote]Ever see the old footage of when Moving Pictures first came out? Tell me that camera tricks are not a part of magic and its history. Please.[/quote]

I could, but I'd be telling a lie! Houdini was one of the first people to experiment and use CT in magic. Granted at that time, he didn't have a TV show, but he was one of the first film makers to use stop motion in his films before there were a lot of special effect techniques avaialble. Of course Danny, I suspect you already knew that ;)

As for the rest of your ideas, I agree. Magic is all about the end effect and pulling it off without getting busted. Don't get busted, and you're good to go.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 9, 2007 01:22AM)
I should state for the record, I am [b]not[/b] a Criss Angel fan at all. Quite the opposite.

I feel his reliance on the methods is his downfall. [b]But[/b] that does not make the methods themselves bad.
Message: Posted by: Drew Manning (Jul 9, 2007 07:03PM)
I don't know that they detect a difference in the two, but a lot of what CA presents doesn't appear to be something you can buy at a shop. Where as DB on the other hand does a lot of stuff that people would tend to look for in a shop.

I'm not a retailer, that's just my possible explanation for what you're descrbing.

Now, if you can hook me up with a car dealer that will let me drive a Viper off the lot, I'd surely buy that effect from you :lol:
Message: Posted by: artofillusion77 (Jul 9, 2007 07:48PM)
I must be one of the few criss angel supporters on this board. Having known him personally before his fame (criss gave me guitar lessons at his brothers music shop "monster music") I can vouche for his character. Hes one of the nicest people I've ever come across. I personally believe his effects are tremendous. I think his showmanship is unparalled in magic today.

Does anybody think that criss's exposure does wonders for our art...From the beggining his goal was to bring magic into the mainstream. I believe it is getting there. I believe he does inspire people to perform magic and not only perform but inspires people to get through their day to day life. He does the stunts he does to make people who have a dick for a boss, or a tough neighborhood around them think if he can get through that then I can get through the difficult times I'm going through.

Has anyone on this board read criss's book? Now I know in the book he says repeatedly he does not use digital effects and camera tricks for his tricks. Most of you would say, "well of course he would say that hes not going to tell people he does." Well maybe it's just from knowing him personally but I believe he doesn't. I'm also going to apologize here for what I'm about to say but I believe there is a sense of jealousy amongst most people on this board. Try and tell me you wouldnt perform his effects or use stouges if you could be in his posistion.

I've also had the privillage of seeing his live show on broadway and every effect he does on his show he has the ability to perform live. Magician of the year three times. That has never been done before...give credit where credit is due.
Message: Posted by: artofillusion77 (Jul 9, 2007 07:50PM)
And steve her name is joanne she's from garden city, she happens to be a nice lady but they are currently being divorced.
Message: Posted by: Drew Manning (Jul 9, 2007 09:46PM)
Art-

I agree with you. I think Criss is a very talented magician, despite what some people say about him.

His presentation style is very vivid and he does things that surprise you, even when you think you know what's about to happen. Think about his presetnation of swallowing needles...

I would in a heart beat do what he's done and is doing, although I think I'd have to hire a different image consultant. The pouty Goth look just doesn't work for me :lol:
Message: Posted by: Steve Fearson (Jul 9, 2007 11:53PM)
With all due respect... The idea that anyone who criticizes Criss is jealous is nonsense. If we all adopt that attitude, magic can just go down the proverbial sh**ter. I make fun of Criss because I find him a bit ridiculous. Beyond the poking fun.. I think his specials are terrible.

I had the opportunity to consult for Criss and flat turned it down. In return, he stole and sold the gimmick he was after. The people who have consulted for him have found out the hard way what exactly his character is. He expects that he can take everthing, permission or not.

I certainly don't want to get into any arguments, you see.. my opinion is my opinion and you are welcome to disagree. Magician of the year means nada. List some of the other "Magicians of the year" from the group you're referring to and you will see that most are not deserving of any such title.

Criss Angel had a fairly original stage show if you overlook the blatant Cirque ripoff. Also, you must think a sub trunk is original. His specials are terrible magic-wise. Let's not kid ourselves about that.

As I said in the previous post.. People like his specials, but they are not magic fans. They are jackass fans.

Criss Angel is rapidly gaining a very bad reputation among magicians, that is just a fact. And if anyone really believes he can perform the illusions that he does on the show live in person.. well.. I don't know what to say except that you are kidding yourself.

I don't want to argue so please don't insult those who would critique him by calling them "jealous". I have been offered my own specials at various times in more than one country but am not interested. But if I were to do a special, I would not use camera tricks. At least not blatantly to the point that it seems I take the audience for fools.

To assume someone is jealous of another simply because they have fame or success is misguided. I love Derren Brown. He is good. If the theory were true I would also hate him right? So would all the other "haters". But nobody hates Brown. Because he is good. Get it?

The fact is that some magic on tv is good and some is not. Criss Angel is not good in my opinion. That stems from knowing about magic and how it should be done. If I, or anyone on this board could do better is quite irrelevant.

Does anyone tell Roger Ebert to "go do better if you think you can?"

Steve

PS. If he has been cheating on his wife like the papers say, he's an all around turd and a bad role model for his audience, which is 10 to 16 year old boys.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 10, 2007 01:09AM)
[quote]
On 2007-07-09 20:48, artofillusion77 wrote:
I must be one of the few criss angel supporters on this board. Having known him personally before his fame (criss gave me guitar lessons at his brothers music shop "monster music") I can vouche for his character. Hes one of the nicest people I've ever come across. I personally believe his effects are tremendous. I think his showmanship is unparalled in magic today.

Does anybody think that criss's exposure does wonders for our art...From the beggining his goal was to bring magic into the mainstream. I believe it is getting there. I believe he does inspire people to perform magic and not only perform but inspires people to get through their day to day life. He does the stunts he does to make people who have a dick for a boss, or a tough neighborhood around them think if he can get through that then I can get through the difficult times I'm going through.

Has anyone on this board read criss's book? Now I know in the book he says repeatedly he does not use digital effects and camera tricks for his tricks. Most of you would say, "well of course he would say that hes not going to tell people he does." Well maybe it's just from knowing him personally but I believe he doesn't. I'm also going to apologize here for what I'm about to say but I believe there is a sense of jealousy amongst most people on this board. Try and tell me you wouldnt perform his effects or use stouges if you could be in his posistion.

I've also had the privillage of seeing his live show on broadway and every effect he does on his show he has the ability to perform live. Magician of the year three times. That has never been done before...give credit where credit is due.
[/quote]

At least you have an impartial opinion LOL.

You gotta be kidding me. They gave him the 2008 magician of the year already! Come on man.

He has not brought the magic to the mainstream. A basic cable channel, with a goth theme, not really mainstream. But keep up the hero worship.

I see where your comming from. A person offended that you make sweeping generalizations about jealousy simply for a difference of opinion would mention how you seem to be a Criss Angel wanna be. Glad I am not offended.

You really need to sepporate your little fantasy life, and what you remebmer about your guitar lessons from reality. To say he does NOT use camera tricks, in the face of what has been shown is just willfull blindness. There is none so blind as one who will not see.

Maybe time to open your eyes huh?
Message: Posted by: DJM (Jul 10, 2007 10:11AM)
[quote]
On 2007-07-09 20:48, artofillusion77 wrote:
I must be one of the few criss angel supporters on this board. Having known him personally before his fame (criss gave me guitar lessons at his brothers music shop "monster music") I can vouche for his character. Hes one of the nicest people I've ever come across. I personally believe his effects are tremendous. I think his showmanship is unparalled in magic today.

[/quote]

That's the problem, you only knew him before his fame.. Since then he has become another Hollywood star diva with a huge ego who would do anything for money.

And about him writting that the doesn't use camera tricks.. did you find his book at the Fiction section of the store? ;)
Message: Posted by: Drew Manning (Jul 10, 2007 10:56AM)
[quote]His specials are terrible magic-wise. Let's not kid ourselves about that.
[/quote]

I think it's more a hit or miss thing with him. Some of what I've seen from him has left me cold (levitating above and in the atrium of the Luxor) and some of it has given me a good laugh (changing a spectator's snack foods into bugs). Some of it was just out of the box magic (coin matrix using SMS) that any of us can duplicate. Some of the other stuf he's done has been very tradional magic (remember the dove productions on the street?) just presented in a way that while techincally correct, could have used a better presetnation.
Message: Posted by: Kent Wong (Jul 10, 2007 11:20AM)
This is an interesting debate. I've always believed that, as a magician/entertainer, I have a very unique role. I am paid to lie. Either expressly or implicitly, I lie to the audience during each and every trick. Indeed, without such lies, there would be no magic.

The audience knows I'm lying to them. In fact, they give me permission to do so in order that I might entertain them. The question, however, is how far can I go in lying to the audience? Can I use a one-way deck? Can I use mirrors? Can I use a stooge? Can I use CT? If you are going to draw a line, where do you draw it and why?

It seems as though a new generation of magician has evolved. The Television Magician. In the past, we had magicians like Copperfield and Henning performing their television specials for live studio audiences. In those days, it was implicitly obvious to the home viewers that CT was not being used.

Today, however, the television magicians are no longer performing in a live studio audience. They perform for small groups of spectators on the street. How are we to know if those small groups of spectators are laypeople or stooges? Indeed, if they are simply actors playing their role and the "real" audience are the viewers at home, now the television magician really is nothing more than an actor.

If the television magician takes that one step further and accepts that he is doing nothing more than making a magic-based movie for a home viewing audience, then why wouldn't CT be acceptable? When audiences turn on their televisions to watch a movie, don't they give implicit permission for the producers to use all of the tools at their disposal to entertain?

I'm not saying this is something I would do, since I am not in the role of a television magician; but if you are a television magician, is there anything wrong with using every tool at your disposal?

This does pose a dilemma for us magicians who perform live, since we obviously don't have these tools to use. But, it is also what makes our live performances so much more incredible. For instance, we've seen movies about space ships for years and years - yet a thrill still came over me when I got the chance to see the space shuttle launch in real life. It wasn't moving at warp speed, and the technology seemed primitive compared to the movies, BUT IT WAS REAL!

Kent
Message: Posted by: artofillusion77 (Jul 10, 2007 11:28AM)
Steve I respect your opinions and I also am not trying to create an argument in anyway. I know who you are and I know your talented. you have your opinions I have mine. you say criss is'nt good. I say he's an innovator. You say he upsets the magic community, I say he helps us because he gives us exposure. Granted I'm not at all in the same circle of people your probably surrounded with but I would think more people would be looking to hire us due to his exposure and ratings...I don't want to get into his personal life because he does not like too..I think he is a good person with a good heart and so is his family. Again steve I have a tremendous amount of respect for you and what you have created. I'm sure you had your heros and people you looked up too. Criss is mine. Your probably right about his audiance.

danny doyle I am in no way a criss angel wanna be. I simply respect him for who he is and what he has accomplished. You shyould also know that the premeir episode for season 3 of his show was the most watched show on cabel television that day...I think that's pretty mainstream..your intitled to your opinion as I am mine. I was not trying to offend anybody.

DJM I disagree. Criss meets every person after one of his demonstrations. and he is still the same person that I have known before his fame.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 10, 2007 11:43AM)
Most watched show on cable, which is addressable to less than 40% of the country let alone world, IN THE SUMMER SEASON on Wednesday night. Not a HUGE statistic now is it when looked at in the light of day.

Hey you know Criss and I have never attacked the man personally. I believe this nonsense with his divorce is his OWN business. I had one, it bites and I would hate the world talking about it. No matter the circumstances, he has tried to keep that away from being seen and I for one respect that.

As for his book, well it makes sense to claim you DON'T use tricks such as camera methods and CGI. The problem is as I said he has committed the cardinal sin in my opinion and gotten caught. I would think if he has half a brain, which he does, he would deny it in his book. That is smart, but when your called on it it is tough. "Who you going to believe, ME or your own lieing eyes?".

You can not tell me you don't think he uses these methods and be credible. You can tell me that you don't believe in gravity, but you are not going to float off the planet any time soon.

As I said you are willfully blind and unable to sepporate Criss the person, from Criss the personality. The first one seems like a far better person to know, than the second one.
Message: Posted by: artofillusion77 (Jul 10, 2007 12:07PM)
I think his stage personaility is a good one. I like that it is different from the old, boring tuxedo. I like the goth look I think it actually gives off the idea he has super natural powers lol. I don't think he used CGI or anything like the sort to create his levitations. I don't think he used any white washing effects. I do think he has come up with something unique that one day will be sold or bought by another magician. maybe I do have lying eyes. mabye I'm just being optimistic that it is a great method that we will one day be privillaged to know. Regardless of what people say I will always admire criss's determination and drive as well as his talents.
Message: Posted by: DJM (Jul 10, 2007 12:13PM)
Dude, if he used such an amazing method that no one has heard of he would bring thousands of people to watch his levitations, instead of like 10 people the way he usually does. Common sense.

By the way, it's obvious from this video that he's using CGI.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6_SQ7bP9dYI

The part where he flies over the trees looked much more real when Spielberg did it in ET.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 10, 2007 02:46PM)
His determination, his drive, not in question. Heck I don't even question his talents. It is his JUDGEMENT which is in question in this case.

You remind me of the guys who would come in when I was working the counter at Magic Inc. I would show them a chop cup, and then when they bought it and found out how it was done sometimes they would ask "NO what about the method YOU just used?" As if there was a special method.

Well that was the method used. And in this case THAT IS THE METHOD USED. You are holding out hope so your fantasy comes true. Not a good combination.
Message: Posted by: artofillusion77 (Jul 10, 2007 03:00PM)
Guess I'm just a wishful thinker then...you guys can think its CGI I'm going to say he came up with a method on how to do it other than that.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 10, 2007 03:04PM)
You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad!
Message: Posted by: DJM (Jul 10, 2007 03:51PM)
[quote]
On 2007-07-10 16:00, artofillusion77 wrote:
Guess I'm just a wishful thinker then...you guys can think its CGI I'm going to say he came up with a method on how to do it other than that.
[/quote]

So let's see if I get it right.. He sells for 100$ this gimmick that makes him levitate a few inches, and only with stooges in front of him.. We know that since he already explained how it's done.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WZ8rwIAz1QQ


But at other times he can fly high in the sky with regular people everyehere, while using this other method that you are talking about.

Hmmmm, ok..
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 10, 2007 03:55PM)
You do seem to have summed it up perfectly.
Message: Posted by: artofillusion77 (Jul 10, 2007 05:42PM)
I dunno maybe it is how you say maybe its not....i don't really care what you think I respect both of your opinions why can't you respect mine? I think he has a method becuase of all the people that are surrounded with him.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 10, 2007 06:00PM)
I can not respect an opinion, when it is just contrary to fact.

Can I respect your opinion if you tell me 2=2+5?

Can we respect the opinion that gravity will not pull us to the planet?

Obviously no. Opinions have to have some representation in reality to be respected unfortunatly.
Message: Posted by: artofillusion77 (Jul 10, 2007 06:39PM)
Can we respect the opinion that gravity will not pull us to the planet?

I never once said criss can fly. all I said was that I think he has a method. the same way he has a method for walking down the building. your insulting my intelligence at this point why is uncalled for. all magic is contrary to fact. that's why we do it to make the impossible possible
Message: Posted by: DJM (Jul 10, 2007 07:08PM)
Dude, you need to understand that there's nothing that can make people fly like that without the use of stooges and camera tricks. It's nice to believe in stuff and all, but come on.. This is pretty obsurd.

Next thing you will tell us that he found a real method to walk on water with regular people swimming around him. (He didn't).

I'm really not trying to offend you, I just find it pretty weird to see these kind of naive posts on a magic forum.
Message: Posted by: jamesbond (Jul 10, 2007 07:26PM)
GUYS!!!

It's just entertainment and he "made it" - let's face it... He broke a few "rules" sure - as a magician I hate him but as a marketer I love him. One of my close friends is in his "think tank" coming up with stuff all the time - he told me there is approx 150 people working on his show (including plants etc.). the whole thing is put together as a movie - except telling anybody about this - sure he makes magicians mad but who cares? Did it work for HIM? Betcha he gor like 100 mil contract that will allow him to be the real illusionist he wanted to be and if didn't chose that route he would be still doing some frigging parties like the rest of us... TV is not about magic - it's all about RATINGS guys. and let me tell you it's not easy for magicians to get them these days (for the "pure unspoiled ethical" magicians that is - check it out your self). If you can get them by camera tricks good for you, the only people who care are magicians, but they are not paying Chriss $100 mil so it's all good...

Bond james Bond
Message: Posted by: artofillusion77 (Jul 10, 2007 11:43PM)
Regardless of what people say that you may hate him as a magician, I think he's done a lot for our art...Don't hate Criss as a person just because you dislike his act...hes a great person with a great heart
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 11, 2007 02:41AM)
Maybe this should be in the "Grand DElussion" section, for you seem to be under one.

Yes Criss is a great person if you say so. It still does not make his performance choices smart.

I don't believe I questioned his heart.
Message: Posted by: Steve Fearson (Jul 11, 2007 09:58PM)
Everyone here makes good points.

I think the problem starts when someone signs a 20 special or whatever it is magic deal.

Aren't there only like 7 tricks in magic? Levitation, vanish, penetration, etc..

It's just too much of course it's going to end up being repetitive crap and he will need to resort to whatever means just to keep the show going.

Only sign for what you can do. I do 12 good minutes. If I were to agree to a 10 special deal I'd be doing a disservice to magic. That's what he's done in my opinion.

I have no problem making fun of him or his personal life because it's in the news.. by his request. You asked for fame, you take what comes with it. Fair enough?

The only other point I'd like to make is that everything has a lifespan. When we're born we're novel and exciting. Then we get old and not so exciting. Then we fall apart and are gone. It happens to neighborhoods too. They start out good, they end up boarded up and dangerous. It's no coincidence that magic is now being performed primarily in the ghetto. The magic we grew up with is reaching the end of it's lifespan and people are resorting to camera tricks, cgi.. anything to get one last gasp.

Magic is being reborn, but not as anything we would recognize as magic and certainly not in these Criss Angel specials. Or Blaine.

The future of magic is more along the lines of this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fb6DA6Y4hjY

People are fooled, they are intrigued and excited. They don't know what the heck to think. And nobody had to resort to camera tricks or cgi. It's real magic. Old school.

All the best!

Steve
Message: Posted by: Laszlo Csizmadi (Jul 16, 2007 12:41PM)
LAS VEGAS, NV (July 16, 2007) -- Lindsay Lohan left rehab on Friday following the completion of a 45-day residential treatment program, and was seen at a Las Vegas club the following night.


Lohan's party received another surprise as "Mindfreak" magician Criss Angel arrived at the club, joining the group on the main VIP stage. Lohan took the mic to give a shout out to Angel, said the rep, to which the "packed house went wild." The rep said that Lohan and Angel hung out chatting and laughing until closing, at which point they left the club together.

Reports indicate that Lohan and Angel were playing Blackjack at the club, and then they were escorted to Lindsay's suite at Caesars Palace.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Casanova new trick on the Yahoo page. :)
Message: Posted by: magic4545 (Jul 16, 2007 01:11PM)
Don't confuse art with business... He has done business. True art, as far a magic goes, would not abuse the medium of television so heavy handedly, just for the sake of a few cheap thrills.

All that it takes is one appearance by stooges on an episode of Oprah and discredit everything... Not only everything that he does, but everything that anyone might do on television in the future.

Or the exposure of an effect that is so heavily dependent upon camera choreography and cuts that when someone finds out how it was done they feel that the effect was 'cheating' and not ingenious.

At this point, with Criss Angel, we might as well be watching cartoons.

There is SOOOOO much good magic out there that could be done... With all of the money that is being made, why can't they just use all of the magic that's out there instead of having to set up so many bally stunts and contrived outcomes?

I feel that most tricks for sale can be done effectively by the inventor of the piece. Why don't they get inventors like me to fly out to Vegas, or wherever, teach Criss the effect and the nuances that make that effect work successfully for me, and then adapt it, on the fly, for Criss?

I would sell more of my effects, audiences would see more creative magic, and we'd get to see a better produced version of youtube stuff, while restoring the trust and credibility to a medium that is being compromised, episode by episode.

What I liked about David Blaine's early specials is that he was a little less into the hype, and more into using simple, effective stuff. Then, he would use the trick photography/editing/media manipulation stuff to put an exclamation point on an effect like the Balducci, just to catch us off guard.

Using that kind of manipulation as heavily as Criss Angel does is like getting addicted to a drug... Anything used in the extreme as much as Criss Angel uses manipulation of the medium of television leaves many of us without much enthusiasm for his work.

To answer your question, I believe that this will do damage to both. The worst part is the damage to magic, because those of us practicing the art didn't ask for this, and we deserve better. Stop using the medium to enable your shortcuts. Get back to the basics of effective LIVE effects and the REAL audience reactions to them.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 16, 2007 02:19PM)
[quote]
On 2007-07-16 13:41, laci200 wrote:
LAS VEGAS, NV (July 16, 2007) -- Lindsay Lohan left rehab on Friday following the completion of a 45-day residential treatment program, and was seen at a Las Vegas club the following night.


Lohan's party received another surprise as "Mindfreak" magician Criss Angel arrived at the club, joining the group on the main VIP stage. Lohan took the mic to give a shout out to Angel, said the rep, to which the "packed house went wild." The rep said that Lohan and Angel hung out chatting and laughing until closing, at which point they left the club together.

Reports indicate that Lohan and Angel were playing Blackjack at the club, and then they were escorted to Lindsay's suite at Caesars Palace.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Casanova new trick on the Yahoo page. :)
[/quote]

Sounds pretty convienent for both of them dosn't it?
Message: Posted by: Steve Fearson (Jul 20, 2007 10:26PM)
I wouldn't touch Lindsay Lohan with YOUR wand.
Message: Posted by: The Mac (Jul 21, 2007 10:15AM)
Um isn't criss old enough to be her dad?
Message: Posted by: PirateJohn (Jul 21, 2007 11:30AM)
What's the difference between Lindsay Lohan and a street light?

One's a skinny pole that's dim all day and lit all night and the other guides pedestrians.
Message: Posted by: Drew Manning (Jul 21, 2007 12:14PM)
[quote]I have no problem making fun of him or his personal life because it's in the news.. by his request. You asked for fame, you take what comes with it. Fair enough?

[/quote]

Absolutely! If you don't want the hassels that come along with fame, don't go on TV and try to make a name for yourself. He chose to trade his relative anonimity for the paychecks that come along with fame. Now, he has to deal with it. I don't feel sorry for him in that respect. I wouldn't want my life splashed all over the pages of the tabloids, but for the kind of bank he's pulling in, I might be hard pressed not to do what he's done.

[quote]It's no coincidence that magic is now being performed primarily in the ghetto.[/quote]

Well, if we're talking magic for TV, it may have to do more with the reaction the specatators will give. I have noticed that the education levels of the people I perform for will dictate their response. As a general rule, both groups can be equally blown away by an effect, but a more educated audience isn't likley to respond with a bunch of jumping up and down and explitives the way we often see on TV these days. The more educated set will be left just as flabergasted, but the signs are more sublte and might not make as big an impression on a TV audience, although I know they are stunned.

[quote]It's just entertainment and he "made it" - let's face it... He broke a few "rules" sure - as a magician I hate him but as a marketer I love him.[/quote]

That's a fairly honest analysis, and has some merrit, IMO. I don't think that Criss is going to bring down the fraternity etc. I think some of his stuff is to over the top for my tastes (levitating over the Luxor) but we all talk about him and like the radio shock jokcs of the 80s, the more people talk about him, the more viewers he'll pull in. Like Howard Stern, there are people who will watch the show eventhough they dislike it, just so they can talk about the guy after the fact. In the mean time, he's laughing all the way to the bank.