Criss Angel exposes psychics on A&E

[Questioninggeller]

48 - Sucker #2

Tuesday, July 31 10:00pm ET
Wednesday, August 1 2:00am ET

Last season, Criss introduced viewers to some of the biggest scams ever perpetrated. This time, Criss exposes even more scams as he becomes a certified psychic and divulges their secrets. He shows some common scams when he sticks friends with the bill at a restaurant and loses his expensive necklace unveiling the ultimate scam of all time. Then, Criss will reveal the ultimate secret, the words that unlock the key to attaining anything you desire: sex, riches and power.


http://www.aetv.com/criss_angel/criss_episode_guide.jsp?episode=235829

[Drudgewire]

Is the last part a punchline?

[DJM]

I can't wait for the show where psychics expose his lame camera tricks and stooges.

[Questioninggeller]

Is the last part a punchline?

No, just seems poorly worded.

[Brattus]

Oh Boy! Criss Angel is gonna save us all! That sure is nice of him.

[vexed]

I can't wait for the show where psychics expose his lame camera tricks and stooges.

Well the one BIG difference is that Chris Angel doesn't claim to have powers, where psychics do...

[Jimbo07]

I can't wait for the show where psychics expose his lame camera tricks and stooges.

Isn't the whole point of magic (as a profession) to use tricks to create magnificent illusions.

At least it's more fundamentally honest than psychics...

[DeVega]

This is good to see - sounds very similar to what Derren Brown was doing in his 'Messiah' programme... de-bunking as entertainment.

It seems as if Angel is changing his focus somewhat. I'll be very interested to see how this develops.

[Reager]

I'd never before seen Mindfreak, or Chris Angel. While his style took some getting used to, I rather enjoyed the program. Enough so that I watched the follow-up episode. I had no problem with his "secret of life" bit, which was really to make a point about all those hucksters promising the same.

I'm sure it's been mentioned before, I wonder what the possibility is of getting him for a TAM.

[MWare]

I'm sure it's been mentioned before, I wonder what the possibility is of getting him for a TAM.

Randi seems to chat with him from time to time and I think he does work mostly out of Vegas, so it doesn't sound unreasonable. But a large part of the community here seems to strongly dislike him. I don't understand if it is because of his style or whether there is something about his illusions that bothers people. I don't know much about magic, but I seem to hear a lot of complaints that he uses a lot of stooges. I'm under the impression that many feel that that is a cheap trick more than a legitimate illusion technique.

[VulcanWay]

I'm still confused as to why the hell he is going to be on a show with Geller if he's into debunking...

[Reager]

Randi seems to chat with him from time to time and I think he does work mostly out of Vegas, so it doesn't sound unreasonable. But a large part of the community here seems to strongly dislike him. I don't understand if it is because of his style or whether there is something about his illusions that bothers people. I don't know much about magic, but I seem to hear a lot of complaints that he uses a lot of stooges. I'm under the impression that many feel that that is a cheap trick more than a legitimate illusion technique.

That may be a legitimate criticism of him as a magician, but I don't see why it means he shouldn't be a speaker at TAM. He's young, popular, and is (hopefully) a skeptic, at least with regard to paranormal abilities. His involvement with TAM can only be a plus, IMO.

[Pipirr]

Criss Angel at TAM? I'd be even more motivated to attend.

Working with Uri Geller and doing a paranormal debunking show sounds like a zinger of a topic.

[Calcas]

I'm still confused as to why the hell he is going to be on a show with Geller if he's into debunking...

Where does it say he's going to be on a show with Geller?

[Pipirr]

With the intention to bring forth a unique and mysterious live competition series, NBC has recently inked a deal with Criss Angel, illusionist famed for Criss Angel: Mindfreak, and Uri Geller, known for his claimed psychic powers, to team up for a new series called Phenomenon.

Inspired by an Israeli version judged and monitored by Uri Geller, Phenomenon is a reality series that features an intensive search for the next generation mentalist. Each week, 10 hopeful mentalists must compete to demonstrate an extensive array of mystifying talents in front of weekly celebrity guests who participate along with a studio audience. While Geller and Criss Angel assess and evaluate the participants, viewers at home will determine the winner.

From here. (http://www.buddytv.com/articles/criss-angel-mindfreak/criss-angel-and-uri-geller-joi-8387.aspx)

[Questioninggeller]

I can't wait for the show where psychics expose his lame camera tricks and stooges.

I don't think Angel's "camera tricks" are any different than some of Penn & Teller's camera usage. For example, P&T's act used to have the duo strapped upside down. Or what about when Penn drove over Teller in a 18 wheel truck? That was a camera angle illusion (as they revealed later).

Also Angel has Johnny Thompson, Banachek, and many others working on the show advising on magic. So if you have a problem with some of illusions there are plently other magicians involved to make his show happen.

Lastly, professional magicians don't seem to have a problem with him:

Criss Angel Named 2005 Magician of the Year
From Wayne Kawamoto

Criss Angel, creator and star of A&E's popular "CRISS ANGEL MINDFREAK," was named 2005 Magician of the Year by The Academy of Magical Arts (AMA) at a press event at Hollywood’s Magic Castle.
...
Gay Blackstone told us that she has known Angel since he was eleven-years-old, and that he still owns the poster that was signed by her late, legendary husband, Harry Blackstone, Jr. "He is now the leading edge and the epitomy of magic,” said Blackstone. “We try to advance the art and the science of magic and he was the absolute perfect choice this year."


http://magic.about.com/od/biosonfamousmagicians/a/2005magicyear.htm

I'm still confused as to why the hell he is going to be on a show with Geller if he's into debunking...

As noted elsewhere (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88298), Randi discusses this on the Paul Harris show. Listen at:

http://www.kmox.com/pages/2615.php

(Click on the upper right, "Paul Harris Show: James Randi")

I don't think Geller knew what he was getting into.

[Pipirr]

I don't think Geller knew what he was getting into.

Sounds like an elaborate episode of 'Punked".

[Phrost]

Good for him. I'm not a fan of his "Hot Topic" Magic style, but I'll tip my hat to anyone helping to out these frauds.

[oakster]

mmnnn!!

[Orphia Nay]

So has the show screened and has anyone here watched it?

Did Geller pretend to have powers and if so, what did Criss Angel say?

[Pipirr]

So has the show screened and has anyone here watched it?

Did Geller pretend to have powers and if so, what did Criss Angel say?


The Uri and Criss Angel series is going to be one of those reality shows where you knock off a contestant each week. I think it's a way off from happening yet.

[Ausmerican]

He's young, popular, and is (hopefully) a skeptic, at least with regard to paranormal abilities. His involvement with TAM can only be a plus, IMO.

40 is young these days? COOL!

[bokonon]

I'm puzzled about this show too. Geller claims to have real psychic ability, while Angel bills himself as an illusionist. I'll be disappointed if this Angeller hybrid attempts to convince viewers that mentalism is some kind of supernatural skill. The show premieres October 24, with a 2-hour broadcast on Halloween, and is set to run for 5 weeks. The shows are supposedly going to be broadcast live. It would be interesting to see Geller attempt live mentalism at some point, rather than having 5 hours of cold reading to edit down to 45 minutes for broadcast. Though there's nothing to prevent him from bringing in his own stooges, NBC shouldn't have been foolish enough to sign a contract that prevented them from bringing their own challengers either.

[William Parcher]

Criss Angel is dating Britney Spears. Just thought I'd mention it.

Pic of the cute couple. (http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_01/CrissBritBM_468x572.jpg)

[bokonon]

Criss Angel is dating Britney Spears. Just thought I'd mention it.
I don't think so. Angel was hired to add some "magic" to her VMA act, but backed out when her lack of professionalism and reluctance to put in the practice time made it clear that the performance would be a disaster. Hmmm, maybe he can predict the future after all...

[karmicserenade]

Chris Angel is hot, he can preform 'magic' to his hearts content, I find him to be a master at his craft :)

[karmicserenade]

Criss Angel is dating Britney Spears. Just thought I'd mention it.

Pic of the cute couple. (http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_01/CrissBritBM_468x572.jpg)

Ewww he would not sink so low would he??? It just kinda' looks like she is following him...they were supposed to do a show together, this could be from their rehearsals....dunno, but he can do sooo much better than her.

[William Parcher]

Dating might be the wrong term. There are multiple reports of them partying together in wee hours, holding hands, and retiring to the same room in Las Vegas. A fling?

[VulcanWay]

Please, oh please, expose Geller!

[DeVega]

I so hope this show is going to de-bunk Geller (yet again!)

Actually, if it doesn't, it means Angel has sold out on any respect he has for skepticism. I suppose it represents a crossroads in his career to some extent...

C'mon Angel - we need one for the team!

DeVega

PS: Yep, it would be a great draw to have him at TAM!

[Beady]

I so hope this show is going to de-bunk Geller (yet again!)

Actually, if it doesn't, it means Angel has sold out on any respect he has for skepticism.

No, it doesn't.

Randi talked about this briefly during the dinner after his Vermont lecture. Apparently, the answer is simply that Angel is a babe in the woods when it comes to business, contracts, negotiations and such. In short, he's no match for Geller off the stage.

It appears that there are no normal human beings in your world, everyone is either a hero or a villain, and the slightest misstep automatically puts someone in the enemy's camp.

[Reager]

So Angel's not a sell-out..he's just a dope?

ETA: (or should it be "dupe")

[Denver]

Geller was recently on a radio show: (10/06/07) where he spoke of this show a little:

http://www.planetparanormal.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=38

His comment was that they will be looking for the next great mentalist act. That he doesn't really care HOW they do what they do, but that they are mesmerizing, and have a lot of charisma.

So basically the show sounds like it is like American Idol or You Think You Can Dance: it's looking for a next great performer or act (who will I suppose get jobs in Vegas and such after this).

[Big Les]

Isn't that a tacit admission by Geller that that's exactly what he is? A mentalist gone "deep cover"?

[Beady]

So Angel's not a sell-out..he's just a dope?

ETA: (or should it be "dupe")

He's neither, he's just an innocent.

This forum is the only place I've ever encountered where innocence is considered a crime. Randi's not the only one who's getting fed up with it.

[Reager]

He's neither, he's just an innocent.

This forum is the only place I've ever encountered where innocence is considered a crime. Randi's not the only one who's getting fed up with it.


The word "dupe" carries no connotation of blame, as you are implying. So to the extent we are arguing over terminology, please explain the difference between an "innocent" as you say, and a "dupe (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dupe)," meaning "one that is easily deceived or cheated" (I'll leave "dope" out of it for now).

To the more substantive issue...I didn't hear Randi's original statement, so I can't respond to it (but I'll ask him next time I get the chance)...but you seem to be arguing that Angel has zero business acumen and therefore cannot be blamed for how he and Gellar come across on a TV show in which Angel stars.

I'd like to know why the "lack of business sense" excuse can hold water when:

1. Angel has been in "the business" for years, is probably worth millions of dollars, and can undoubtedly hire the best legal representation in town to advance his interests/wishes.

2. Angel's business acumen, or lack thereof, has no bearing on his willingness to participate in a television show that may very well present Geller as a genuine psychic.

If Angel has no problem with such an arrangement, he can rightly be accused of "selling out" wrt his skeptical cred (to the extent he ever claimed to have some). But OTOH, if Geller's awesome skills of contract negotiation have forced Angel, against his wishes, to participate in a show that is sympathetic to Geller's claims of psychic powers...well, please explain how the word "dope" does not apply to Angel.

[Beady]

It was a very brief interlude in an extended conversation, and I don't remember the exact wording (if anyone else who was there remembers, and if they're reading this thread, I wouldn't mind if they gave their version); I therefore am not going to get trapped into defending or explaining Randi's comments.

I would, however, like to point out that they were Randi's comments, not mine. I would also like to point out that Randi is personally and more than passingly acquainted with Angel and I am reasonably certain you are not; I therefore lend more weight to Randi's take on things than I do to your arguments.

Finally, I believe it is exactly this black-and-white, either-or type of thinking and argumentation that has me, and I believe Randi, so disgusted with the forum. It certainly does not conform to any kind of scientific method.

[FramerDave]

Isn't the whole point of magic (as a profession) to use tricks to create magnificent illusions.

At least it's more fundamentally honest than psychics...

Exactly. Although they claim they're going to be sawed in half, nobody really believes that they will be. They make their living creating the illusion that they'll be sliced in half, and everybody accepts it while suspending their disbelief during the show.

[Reager]

It was a very brief interlude in an extended conversation, and I don't remember the exact wording (if anyone else who was there remembers, and if they're reading this thread, I wouldn't mind if they gave their version); I therefore am not going to get trapped into defending or explaining Randi's comments.

The only one "trapping" you is yourself. You advanced, and presumably agreed with, Randi's alleged rationale for Angel's involvement. Don't pretend anyone here is putting you in an unfair position by asking you to defend a position you explicitely advocated.


I would, however, like to point out that they were Randi's comments, not mine. I would also like to point out that Randi is personally and more than passingly acquainted with Angel and I am reasonably certain you are not; I therefore lend more weight to Randi's take on things than I do to your arguments.

First, you can't put forth Randi's words to support your position and then hide behind the fact that they are "Randi's comments not yours" when you are challenged.

Second, I never took issue with Randi's characterization of Angel as an "innocent." I took issue with the idea that Angel's business naivite absolves him of responsibilty for his decisions, especially decisions whose implications do not require any business accumen to fully comprehend. Saying that Angel bears no responsibility for promoting Geller as a genuine psychic (if the show does that) becuase he's a naive businessman is a dumb argument, whether it comes from Randi or anyone else.


Finally, I believe it is exactly this black-and-white, either-or type of thinking and argumentation that has me, and I believe Randi, so disgusted with the forum.

Huh? If Chris Angel is participating in a program that portrays Geller as genuinely psychic, how is it wrong to say that it damages his skeptical credibility? I'm sorry if that's too either-or for you, but I genuinely don't see how it can be viewed another way. Please explain how it can.


It certainly does not conform to any kind of scientific method.

You are expecting debate on an internet forum to conform to any kind of scientific method? Whose being "innocent" now? :rolleyes:

[dannagain]

I can't wait for the show where psychics expose his lame camera tricks and stooges.

:D

[Azrael 5]

I don't think Angel's "camera tricks" are any different than some of Penn & Teller's camera usage. For example, P&T's act used to have the duo strapped upside down. Or what about when Penn drove over Teller in a 18 wheel truck? That was a camera angle illusion (as they revealed later).

*snip*.

Penn and Teller don't use camera edits to create tricks,Angel does.The example you gave of P&T was a stunt and they revealed it to be so.If Angel owned up to editing after his illusions that would be okay.He doesn't.
WHen Penn drove the truck over Teller it was stated from outset a number of choices as to what effect was.

[DJM]

Penn and Teller did those "camera tricks" as some kind of joke. Criss actually takes it seriously and uses it for many of his routines.

[Azrael 5]

Penn and Teller did those "camera tricks" as some kind of joke. Criss actually takes it seriously and uses it for many of his routines.

Tutuuutuuu! :D

[DJM]

Is that the sound of pwnage? ;)

[karmicserenade]

How do you know Chriss uses camera tricks? I am curious, and if there is undeniable proof, then I will have to hang my head in shame for Chriss Angel :(

[Denver]

When I was watching a tv special featuring Chris wandering around the streets and levitating, one thing noticeable in those non-location-specific levitation demonstrations is that he positions the people behind him, at a very specific viewing angle. This is also true of the cameras: never do you see him from the front, and specifically, his whole body from the front, with the ground in front of him shown too.

If you look around on the web for explanations of levitation trickery, you can find out why.

[SkepticalEd]

It was a very brief interlude in an extended conversation, and I don't remember the exact wording (if anyone else who was there remembers, and if they're reading this thread, I wouldn't mind if they gave their version); I therefore am not going to get trapped into defending or explaining Randi's comments.

I would, however, like to point out that they were Randi's comments, not mine. I would also like to point out that Randi is personally and more than passingly acquainted with Angel and I am reasonably certain you are not; I therefore lend more weight to Randi's take on things than I do to your arguments.

Finally, I believe it is exactly this black-and-white, either-or type of thinking and argumentation that has me, and I believe Randi, so disgusted with the forum. It certainly does not conform to any kind of scientific method.

C'mon, Beady, get off your high horse! Your trying to align yourself with Randi is a turnoff. You are your own person, speak for yourself and let Randi chime in with HIS views if he so desires. If you are "so disgusted with the forum," so long! Ease on out and let others who want to discuss the subject not be subjected to your interference. This is not a scientific forum, we are not scientists, take a break!

[SkepticalEd]

I'm not replying to anything.

I would like someone to explain to me why after I reply to a post and click on Submit I get a page with a popup in the middle of the page that says (I've never included a URL in my replies and I had to edit the Message in order for the system to let me post this!): vBulletin Message:
You are only allowed to post URLs () to websites after you have made 15 posts or more.

Note: If you use the built-in "Enhanced Editor" to type your responses and you select a smilie from the smilie list you may find the system will believe you are trying to include an URL in your post. If you experience this problem either use the "Standard Editor"

We are sorry for any inconvenience this may cause.

[DeVega]

I was not bashing or defaming Angel - in fact, I like him and his shows very much. Which is why I so fervently hope that he comes across well in this somewhat strange pairing with Geller.

I find your suggestion that he is such an innocent abroad a rather strange defence. He's not some dumb kid - no, I do not know the man - but I am sure he would not thank you for the inference that he has become involved with the show because he has little business acumen. He is highly successful at what he does - lives and works in Vegas, has tv shows and a strong fan-base...

Has Randi actually said he is "disgusted" with the forum? Well, I'm truly surprised and sorry to hear that - personally, I find it one of the saner places on the internet to hang out & I recommend it to friends all the time. But if he is so disgusted, I guess its closure must be imminent since it is his forum.

[Beady]

Saying that Angel bears no responsibility for promoting Geller as a genuine psychic (if the show does that) becuase he's a naive businessman is a dumb argument, whether it comes from Randi or anyone else.

Please quote the passage where I said that, or said that Randi said it. People have been guessing why Angel went into a partnership of sorts with Geller, and I offered what so far has been the only possibility based on anything other than pure speculation and argumentation based on an excluded middle.

Second, you said you were going to ask Randi directly, "next time I get the chance." Presuming that you can only do one thing at a time, why are you responding to me rather than PMing Randi? If you can do two or more things at once, why don't you ask him while you're at the keyboard?

Or, and here's a really radical idea, rather than base your arguments on pure ignorance, why don't you ask Angel, himself, why he's working with Geller? Here's the address: loyal@crissangel.com.

In the meantime, Randi's informed opinion is good enough for me.

SkepticalEd:


Ease on out and let others who want to discuss the subject not be subjected to your interference. This is not a scientific forum, we are not scientists, take a break!


This is a forum that welcomes opposing opinions. It is not a fan site.

BTW, you're wrong. This is a scientific forum. JREF is dedicated to promoting critical thinking and the scientific method (all from http://www.randi.org/jref/index.html). (http://www.randi.org/jref/index.html) That this forum is on the internet does not nullify the underlying philosophy and goals. Arguments follow rules and are based on evidence. Proportionately few people here are scientists, although there are a pretty fair number, as well as doctors, lawyers, law enforcement and other professionals (not to mention many professional and amateur magicians).

I suggest you learn a little more about where you are before you start trying to throw your weight around.

[DJM]

To those here who criticise Criss for appearing on the show, if you did a little research then you would know that he is on the show as a skeptic, and he would make it very obvious on the air. It's even been published that he will try to debunk some of those who claim there that they have supernatural powers.

I's easy to attack people and call them "sells outs" or whatever, but at least have something to back it up with.

[DeVega]

Thanks, that's good to know DJM
(by the way, we have the same initials, so every time I see your sig, I have a brief moment of thinking - 'hey, I never wrote that!')

I've only seen what's on the JREF so far - as I am in the UK, I'm not even sure if we'll be getting the show here any time soon - I hope that we will. As I've said previously, I do like Angel & I'll watch anything he does (even if he's not as good as my main man, Derren Brown! ;-) I would be really sorry if he abandoned his skeptical stance.

I wait with baited breath...

[Beady]

Has Randi actually said he is "disgusted" with the forum? Well, I'm truly surprised and sorry to hear that - personally, I find it one of the saner places on the internet to hang out & I recommend it to friends all the time. But if he is so disgusted, I guess its closure must be imminent since it is his forum.

First, he said it to me, or words to that effect, in two private conversations (while we were waiting to debark from the first cruise, and again in the car on the way to his Vermont lecture), so I may have been indiscreet in mentioning it. OTOH, there were others present both times and he said nothing about not repeating it.

I don't recall his words, verbatim, but the tenor was that he's generally of the opinion the forum isn't pulling its weight in promoting or reflecting the Foundation's goals. That's why the forum has to be pretty much self-supporting (ie the Forum requires donations separate from those to the Foundation). I believe the forum will continue so long as it can be perceived to have some educational value, but posts such as SkepticalEd's to me, above (the post numbers aren't displayed during composition, but it was made at 9:46), and his attitude, are not helping.

ETA: Post #47.

[Jeff Wagg]

Just to be clear.. there has been no mandate handed down that "the forum must be self-supporting." This is not the case, however the forum is very expensive (it costs more than the academic scholarship program, for example), and we need help to sustain it.

That said, the JREF and Randi recognize the forum as one of our most valuable resources.

[Reager]

Please quote the passage where I said that, or said that Randi said it.

Ok...


Originally Posted by DeVega http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3044546#post3044546)
I so hope this show is going to de-bunk Geller (yet again!)

Actually, if it doesn't, it means Angel has sold out on any respect he has for skepticism.


Then you said...

No, it doesn't.

Randi talked about this briefly during the dinner after his Vermont lecture. Apparently, the answer is simply that Angel is a babe in the woods when it comes to business, contracts, negotiations and such. In short, he's no match for Geller off the stage.


Now please, try to tell us you didn't say what you said...


People have been guessing why Angel went into a partnership of sorts with Geller, and I offered what so far has been the only possibility based on anything other than pure speculation and argumentation based on an excluded middle.

No one has said your/Randi's explanation is not exactly what happened. What we've been saying (at least I have) is that such an excuse does not dismiss the charge that Angel has "sold out" wrt to skepticism, if he willingly participates in a show that portrays Uri Geller as a genuine psychic without any skeptical counterpoint. If you disagree with that, please explain why.


Second, you said you were going to ask Randi directly, "next time I get the chance." Presuming that you can only do one thing at a time, why are you responding to me rather than PMing Randi? If you can do two or more things at once, why don't you ask him while you're at the keyboard?

Randi's emails tend to be short, and this is an issue that I'd like to discuss with him in some detail. I speak with him fairly regularly and will ask him next time I see him.


Or, and here's a really radical idea, rather than base your arguments on pure ignorance, why don't you ask Angel, himself, why he's working with Geller? Here's the address: loyal@crissangel.com.

No thanks, but feel free to do it yourself and receive a form response by some lackey.

In the meantime, Randi's informed opinion is good enough for me.

Are you dense? No one is arguing with Randi's opinion as to why Angel is participating. But the explanation that Angel lacks any business acumen (an explanation YOU put forth, using Randi's words to bolster your opinion) is not a sufficient reason (IMO) to give Angel a pass if he ends up lending credibilty to Uri Geller, which is what we are dicussing.

[krelnik]

Well, on a more positive note....

This thread started with a link to one of Chriss Angel's Mindfreak episodes (http://www.aetv.com/criss_angel/criss_episode_guide.jsp?episode=235829) that exposes scams and psychics.

More recently, we've all seen ads for the Angel/Geller show Phenomenon (http://www.nbc.com/Phenomenon/) on NBC.

Wouldn't it be cool if one of the reasons Angel agreed to be on Phenomenon is he's actually going to use footage from it in his next "Sucker" episode of Mindfreak? He could easily have a camera crew working backstage without arousing Geller's suspicions that anything was going on.

Yeah, I know, doubtful. For one thing, A&E (where Mindfreak airs) is a Disney property, and Phenomenon is on NBC, a Disney competitor. And there seems to be no overlap in production companies between the two, according to IMDB.

We can dream, though.

[Enlighten]

James Randi said:

Criss wanted to call to assure me that he wasn't going to let Geller get away with any of his supernatural claims nonsense. That he was going to come down on him and say "no" its a trick.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88298

[Enlighten]

Penn and Teller don't use camera edits to create tricks,Angel does.The example you gave of P&T was a stunt and they revealed it to be so.If Angel owned up to editing after his illusions that would be okay.He doesn't.
WHen Penn drove the truck over Teller it was stated from outset a number of choices as to what effect was.

According to Penn and Angel, Angel doesn't use camera tricks. Listen to Penn interview with Angel, specifically, the mp3 I have that discusses this is The Penn Jillette Radio Show from 2006.02.07 . Also it should be pointed out that Penn and Teller were accused of "camera" tricks on their TV shows as well. On Angel's DVD he reveals some of his illusions if your curious.

What is your evidence Angel does? A lot of people think they know how some illusions are done, but really don't.

[Reager]

James Randi said:



http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88298


My fear is that Geller will attempt to use this show and exposure as a way to "blur the line" between his claims of psychic powers and acknowledging that he's been doing tricks all along. Sure the skeptics will criticize him, but most in the media would probably lap it up, earning him the rounds on all the talk shows and boosting his otherwise langushing career.

[DJM]

According to Penn and Angel, Angel doesn't use camera tricks. Listen to Penn interview with Angel, specifically, the mp3 I have that discusses this is The Penn Jillette Radio Show from 2006.02.07 . Also it should be pointed out that Penn and Teller were accused of "camera" tricks on their TV shows as well. On Angel's DVD he reveals some of his illusions if your curious.

What is your evidence Angel does? A lot of people think they know how some illusions are done, but really don't.

Those effects are done with camera tricks and stooges. Just for an exmaple, I can give you plenty more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRdv_VNPe7g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRR30Tll6wY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf4EaDtbBEk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfg1SCHKwp0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47pRIniVg1Y


The evidence is in those videos, if you actually pay attention.

[Azrael 5]

According to Penn and Angel, Angel doesn't use camera tricks. Listen to Penn interview with Angel, specifically, the mp3 I have that discusses this is The Penn Jillette Radio Show from 2006.02.07 . Also it should be pointed out that Penn and Teller were accused of "camera" tricks on their TV shows as well. On Angel's DVD he reveals some of his illusions if your curious.

What is your evidence Angel does? A lot of people think they know how some illusions are done, but really don't.

Well I'm not one of them.Some on here will testify that when it comes to magic I am very knowledgable.Having been interested for 30 years!

He doesn't use camera tricks a la Penn and Teller,but subtle edits.
Study DJM's links and come back to us with some sense.

[AgeGap]

I think MTV like edits and stooges cheapen magic. Throw camera tricks into the bag and you could pull off any effect. On the other hand magic shows are not made to be watched exclusively by magicians.
In response to critical angles, aren't most magic tricks to some extent dependent on where the spectator is. The truck trick was good because it is hard to believe so much set up would be done to perform the trick.
BTW I think Criss Angel's playmate out of the bag was done with a mirror. I had to resist calling it bimbo out the bag.
I like magic that has skill or a cool gimmick at it's centre. Each to their own, I suppose.

[firecoins]

I like magic that has skill or a cool gimmick at it's centre. Each to their own, I suppose.

The point of performing magic is the effect it has on the audience. The method should be invisible. The method has nothing to do with how a trick should be judged by the INTENDED audience. If an audience believes a magician did something tricky through skill or gimmicks, the effect is a failed effect.

If Chris Angel is using camera angles and the audience believes the effects, so what? David Blaine has done this. David Copperfield has too. Penn & Teller revealed they did AFTER the effect had worked. If Chris Angel is doing effects and the audience believes he using camera angles, even if he isn't, Chris Angel isn't doing a good job. Keep in mind, the magicians who criticize Chris for use of camera angles don't have tv shows. There is a HUGE difference in performing a few tricks live and putting on a television show.

[DJM]

BTW I think Criss Angel's playmate out of the bag was done with a mirror. I had to resist calling it bimbo out the bag.

Of course, but if you watch the video again you will notice that the entire crowd there can see how it's done, and there's a very obvious camera trick.

It's not magic, it's like watching a cheap movie.

[Bob Klase]

Originally Posted by Enlighten
What is your evidence Angel does? A lot of people think they know how some illusions are done, but really don't.

Well I'm not one of them.Some on here will testify that when it comes to magic I am very knowledgable.Having been interested for 30 years!

I'm not one of them. I'm probably more knowledgeable than 80-90% of magicians in general, having been studying and doing magic for almost 50 years.

He doesn't use camera tricks a la Penn and Teller,but subtle edits.

Unless I don't understand that correctly, I disagree. Angel does a lot of good stuff and some that's not so good (just like anyone else that's ever done a weekly TV series with magic). But some of the things he's done are much closer to the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park than they are to 'subtle edits'.

[Bob Klase]

The point of performing magic is the effect it has on the audience. The method should be invisible. The method has nothing to do with how a trick should be judged by the INTENDED audience. If an audience believes a magician did something tricky through skill or gimmicks, the effect is a failed effect.

And if an audience believes a magician did something tricky through editing, the effect is a failed effect.

If Chris Angel is using camera angles and the audience believes the effects, so what?

There's no generally accepted definition of "camera tricks", but there is certainly a difference between 'camera tricks' and 'using camera angles'. Using camera angles is not always 'camera tricks'. Most of the time it's controlling the viewing angles, which is done in a lot of live magic. At a live David Copperfield show you're not allowed to watch from back stage or the wings. In close up magic there are tricks that have critical angles and wouldn't 't be done surrounded, or with people laying on the floor looking up.

Filming two scenes where no one sees any magic, then editing them together to create a magic trick is more than just using camera angles.

David Blaine has done this. David Copperfield has too.

Blaine was criticized when he did it the same as Angel is. Copperfield did it early in his television career. While he didn't get as much criticism then as Blaine and Angel do now, I think that's because he wasn't as blatent about it, and because there was no internet then. And he didn't build his career on it.

Penn & Teller revealed they did AFTER the effect had worked.

If you're still talking about the truck running over Teller, that was not a camera trick. P&T could have brought the truck on to a large stage and done the same trick with no cameras at all. So it really has no bearing on a discussion about camera tricks.

If Chris Angel is doing effects and the audience believes he using camera angles, even if he isn't, Chris Angel isn't doing a good job.

Again, every magician controls viewing angles of tricks that have bad angles. That really doesn't belong in a discussion about camera tricks other than to determine exactly what counts as a camera trick. If Angel is using the editing room to create magic that never happened, you could make an argument that it's okay as long as he never gets caught. But he does (not just by magicians). When he does get caught, it doesn't just hurt the Criss Angel show, it's bad for magic in general. In the last 8-10 years I've had many people tell me that they don't watch magic on TV anymore because "it's all camera tricks", or because "they can do anything on television". When magic on television loses credibility with enough people, there won't be any more magic on television.

Keep in mind, the magicians who criticize Chris for use of camera angles don't have tv shows.

That's a meaningless cop-out that I've been hearing since David Blaine's first special. Using that as a reason, no one would be allowed to criticize Angel except other magicians that have had TV shows. No one could criticize any stage magician unless they did stage shows. No one could criticize bad movies unless they worked in movie production- bad script- don't criticize unless you've been a scriptwriter. Bad acting- don't criticize unless you've acted in a movie. Your kids have a bad teacher at school- no criticism allowed unless you've been a school teacher.

Perhaps we shouldn't even allow people on this forum to criticize Sylvia Browne unless they've written a book, or given psychic readings, or been on Montel Williams a few dozen times.

And we'd also have to outlaw praise. If you don't know enough to criticize unless you've done your own TV show then how could you know enough to praise without doing your own TV show?

There is a HUGE difference in performing a few tricks live and putting on a television show.

There's a lot of knowledgeable magicians who've never been on TV but know a great deal about the difference. Many of them know the difference between doing magic and creating special effects, then calling it magic.

[DJM]

But some of the things he's done are much closer to the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park than they are to 'subtle edits'.

I disagree with that, Bob. The effects on Jurassic Park look much more reliable than what we see on Mindfreak. ;)

[Enlighten]

Those effects are done with camera tricks and stooges. Just for an exmaple, I can give you plenty more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRdv_VNPe7g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRR30Tll6wY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf4EaDtbBEk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfg1SCHKwp0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47pRIniVg1Y


The evidence is in those videos, if you actually pay attention.

I've seen those clips before and I've paid attention. One person here rightly mentioned one way one of the illusions can be done without editing. It is method Angel uses in some other illusions.

Well I'm not one of them.Some on here will testify that when it comes to magic I am very knowledgable.Having been interested for 30 years!

He doesn't use camera tricks a la Penn and Teller,but subtle edits.
Study DJM's links and come back to us with some sense.

Above you wrote:

Penn and Teller don't use camera edits to create tricks,Angel does.The example you gave of P&T was a stunt and they revealed it to be so.If Angel owned up to editing after his illusions that would be okay.He doesn't.
WHen Penn drove the truck over Teller it was stated from outset a number of choices as to what effect was.

I said:

According to Penn and Angel, Angel doesn't use camera tricks. Listen to Penn interview with Angel, specifically, the mp3 I have that discusses this is The Penn Jillette Radio Show from 2006.02.07 . ...


Listen to the interview then I have two questions: Do you think Penn is lying/covering for Angel? If so, do you have a problem that Penn won't "own up" to the editing of "[Angel's] illusions"? [Depending on your answer I have a follow up.]

If anyone is curious about one method of Angel's levitation "without cameras":

http://cliquemerch.sparkart.com/crissangel/viewmerch.php?merch_id=495

[Bob Klase]

I've seen those clips before and I've paid attention.

Maybe you'll like this one better:

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

One person here rightly mentioned one way one of the illusions can be done without editing. It is method Angel uses in some other illusions.

The fact that something "can" be done without editing is not proof that it was done without editing any more than the fact that someone doesn't know how it was done is proof that it was done with editing.

Listen to the interview

Is there a link to that interview here? I can't seem to find one. But I can answer anyway:

then I have two questions: Do you think Penn is lying/covering for Angel?

Hard to say until I can listen to what he actually said. But if you're claiming that Penn said Angel does not use camera tricks then there's several possibilities including:

1- Penn doesn't say exactly what you think he says.
2- Penn hasn't seen the shows and doesn't know what Angel does.
3- Penn is not being honest.
4- Penn does mean the same thing you do when he uses the term 'camera trick'.

Since Il haven't seen anyone here give a working definition of "camera trick" I'll vote for number 4 without hearing the interview with an option to change the vote after listening to it. What tricks qualify for the term really depends on what the term means.

If so, do you have a problem that Penn won't "own up" to the editing of "[Angel's] illusions"?

Nope. I don't have a problem with it, at least not without hearing what he said.

If anyone is curious about one method of Angel's levitation "without cameras":

It's not a new method. Angel didn't invent it. That method could not be used in all of Angels levitations. And it's irrelevant unless someone has claimed that particular illusion was a camera trick or that all his illusions are camera tricks.

BTW, even the illusions that I know were camera tricks could be done without the camera. It would be a little more work and expense, which may be the reason they went the cheap and easy route.

And if anyone is curious about methods for everything Angel has done, I could provide links to books, video's and magic shops that have them all. But I won't.

[Dunstan]

First, he said it to me, or words to that effect, in two private conversations (while we were waiting to debark from the first cruise, and again in the car on the way to his Vermont lecture), so I may have been indiscreet in mentioning it. OTOH, there were others present both times and he said nothing about not repeating it.

I don't recall his words, verbatim, but the tenor was that he's generally of the opinion the forum isn't pulling its weight in promoting or reflecting the Foundation's goals. That's why the forum has to be pretty much self-supporting (ie the Forum requires donations separate from those to the Foundation). I believe the forum will continue so long as it can be perceived to have some educational value, but posts such as SkepticalEd's to me, above (the post numbers aren't displayed during composition, but it was made at 9:46), and his attitude, are not helping.

ETA: Post #47.

(emphasis mine)

If we're going to attack new posters with the insinuation that "people like you are the reason Randi will shut down the forum," then this place deserves to die.

[DJM]

I've seen those clips before and I've paid attention. One person here rightly mentioned one way one of the illusions can be done without editing. It is method Angel uses in some other illusions.

I guess you haven't paid too much attention if you don't see the evidence there. But I'll try to make it even more simple for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Om66ysYZOhU

At 3:18 notice the person in the yellow outfit.. There's an edit right before the bull "hits" criss, and then we see that person suddenly appearing on the other side.

I don't think there's a need to expose how it's done, since it's something a 3 year old could figure out.. but let's just say the parts of the bull and Criss were filmed separately.

This reminds me of the tricks I used to do as a kid.. I would take a video camera, and film a friend of mine for a few seconds.. then I would pause the camera and make him disappear. Many of Criss' effects are based on that concept.

At least I didn't insult anyone's intelligence by calling it magic.

[Bob Klase]

At 3:18 notice the person in the yellow outfit.. There's an edit right before the bull "hits" criss, and then we see that person suddenly appearing on the other side.

Guess you didn't realize that when Criss teleports away from the danger he creates a small teleportation field for 6-8 feet around him. Obviously Mr Yellow-shirt was caught up in the teleportation field and that's how he managed to move 10 feet in less than 1 second.

This reminds me of the tricks I used to do as a kid.. I would take a video camera, and film a friend of mine for a few seconds.. then I would pause the camera and make him disappear. Many of Criss' effects are based on that concept.

Before there was movie special effects, there was movie 'magic'. The French magician Georges Méliès was the first to make things vanish and appear by stopping and starting the movie camera. Apparently history does repeat itself.

[Azrael 5]

Enlighten,it might help if you link or upload the Mp3.Otherwise you could be mistaken.

So if that levitation he sells in his shop is so good why doesn't he perform it on TV?

I'll save you answering.It's garbage that's why.

[Bob Klase]

So if that levitation he sells in his shop is so good why doesn't he perform it on TV?

He did perform it on TV. I believe it was in the first season of Mindfreak but it may have been the second.

[DJM]

But remember that Criss didn't perform it the way that it should be performed, but used many stooges to make it seem like it can be done surrounded. Which I believe is what Mr. 5 meant.

What if people bought the DVD because they wanted to levitate like it shows on Mindfreak? That's like a misleading advertisement

[AgeGap]

I think it is sad if you need to use editing to perform a trick.
I think it is sad if you need to use stooges to perform a trick.
I just wonder who makes the call to use these techniques. Is it Criss or the production team?

[Azrael 5]

But remember that Criss didn't perform it the way that it should be performed, but used many stooges to make it seem like it can be done surrounded. Which I believe is what Mr. 5 meant.

What if people bought the DVD because they wanted to levitate like it shows on Mindfreak? That's like a misleading advertisement

Thats what I meant in my post.I assumed people would realise that.:rolleyes:

[firecoins]

And if an audience believes a magician did something tricky through editing, the effect is a failed effect.People aren't arguing that the effect failed. They are arguing its unfair he used editing.



There's no generally accepted definition of "camera tricks", but there is certainly a difference between 'camera tricks' and 'using camera angles'. Using camera angles is not always 'camera tricks'. Most of the time it's controlling the viewing angles, which is done in a lot of live magic. At a live David Copperfield show you're not allowed to watch from back stage or the wings. In close up magic there are tricks that have critical angles and wouldn't 't be done surrounded, or with people laying on the floor looking up

A camera trick in fact well defined. Anyhting using a camera to create an effect including angles are camera tricks. Copperfield certainly can use camera tricks in his live shows. Since i am not familiar with what tricks he does in is act on stage nor his exact methods. Copeerfield had used camera angles on his television specials.
I am familiar with live tricks that can not be performed surrounded. I perform them.


Filming two scenes where no one sees any magic, then editing them together to create a magic trick is more than just using camera angles.

Whatever it takes to create the effect for the television audience from anlges to scenes, they are all camera tricks.


Blaine was criticized when he did it the same as Angel is. Copperfield did it early in his television career. While he didn't get as much criticism then as Blaine and Angel do now, I think that's because he wasn't as blatent about it, and because there was no internet then. And he didn't build his career on it.

People believed Blaine actually was the real thing. None of them deserved any of the critisicm they received.

If you're still talking about the truck running over Teller, that was not a camera trick. P&T could have brought the truck on to a large stage and done the same trick with no cameras at all. So it really has no bearing on a discussion about camera tricksIf you say so.




Again, every magician controls viewing angles of tricks that have bad angles. That really doesn't belong in a discussion about camera tricks other than to determine exactly what counts as a camera trick.Actually it does. On a television show you control what the television audience sees with angles and editing.

If Angel is using the editing room to create magic that never happened, you could make an argument that it's okay as long as he never gets caught. I am making that argument.

But he does (not just by magicians). When he does get caught, it doesn't just hurt the Criss Angel show, it's bad for magic in general. Yes it is. But I don't see how this eliminates the use of camera tricks on television.

In the last 8-10 years I've had many people tell me that they don't watch magic on TV anymore because "it's all camera tricks", or because "they can do anything on television". When magic on television loses credibility with enough people, there won't be any more magic on television.


There was plenty of bad magic on television like World's Greates Magic. It did prevent magic from being televised until Blaine. Its my opinion in general that magic is a live art and television is not the correct medium.

That's a meaningless cop-out that I've been hearing since David Blaine's first special. Using that as a reason, no one would be allowed to criticize Angel except other magicians that have had TV shows.Alot of magicians were jealous of Blaine because of the "simple" effect Blaine made famous. I am doubtful of any magician who critizes a magician purely based on methods and not whether that magician is successful in to the lay audience.

There's a lot of knowledgeable magicians who've never been on TV but know a great deal about the difference. Many of them know the difference between doing magic and creating special effects, then calling it magic.
This is doesn't make any sense.

[DJM]

It's not just about Criss using camera tricks and stooges that people have a problem with.. it's also him using them in such a sloppy way that it's just so obvious when watching it. The one with the bull is one example of many where he just doesn't seem to care about how bad it looks.

Copperfield got a bit of help from the camera on his specials? Well, the one where he made the Statue of Liberty disppear is a classic example. But at least he took it seriously enough so that the audience would have no idea this is how it's done. Heck, even most of the people watching it there live couldn't see how it's done.

Big different between a professional and a clown.

[Bob Klase]

People aren't arguing that the effect failed. They are arguing its unfair he used editing.

That doesn't make sense. I didn't bring up failed effects, you did.

If an audience believes a magician did something tricky through skill or gimmicks, the effect is a failed effect.

I guess when you wrote that I should have replied "People aren't arguing that the effect failed. They are arguing its unfair he used editing."

A camera trick in fact well defined.

I must have missed that definition in my official magician's dictionary and in many discussions in the last 50 years about exactly what counts as a camera trick. I'm hoping you can provide me with the reference to the definition so I can point people to it next time the subject comes up- I'd hate to have to tell them that it's true because Firecoins says so.

Anyhting using a camera to create an effect including angles are camera tricks.

Your well defined definition isn't very clear there. A camera can only film from one angle- the director has to decide which angle will be filmed. If more than one camera is used, the director has to decide which angles will be filmed and which won't. The the director or editor have to decide which angle will be shown on TV. By your definition, the only way to do magic on TV without using camera tricks is to have enough cameras to film every angle, then show every angle on TV.

Copperfield certainly can use camera tricks in his live shows. Since i am not familiar with what tricks he does in is act on stage nor his exact methods. Copeerfield had used camera angles on his television specials.

I'm reasonably familiar with almost everything he's done on TV (including the methods). Since the mid to late 80's most of what he's done has been taped during live shows.

I agreed that he had used camera angles on his specials. I even said that he had used camera tricks (which, despite your claim does not always include camera angles).

I am familiar with live tricks that can not be performed surrounded. I perform them.

Then you should know they're not camera tricks.

Whatever it takes to create the effect for the television audience from anlges to scenes, they are all camera tricks.

When you say "whatever it takes"... "from angles to scenes", you need to include a little more information. What's included between angles and scenes? If you do a chop cup routine for television, you require the cup and ball. A cup and ball now constitute camera tricks according to your definition.

If you do a routine that can be viewed from the rear it's okay when you do it live, but if you do the same trick for television and don't allow the camera to film from the rear you're using a camera trick?

And if a trick can be done surrounded but the television camera only films it from the front, that's a camera trick? Your "well defined" definition has some holes.

People believed Blaine actually was the real thing. None of them deserved any of the critisicm they received.

Who didn't deserve it? The people that believed it was the real thing (that would be a 'them', or Blaine (who would not be a "them")?

If you say so.

I say so.

Actually it does. On a television show you control what the television audience sees with angles and editing.

In a live show you control what the live audience sees with angles. In a live show you can't use editing- that's a big reason that magic is better suited to live performances than television. A live audience can be reasonably sure that you're not using editing to create the magic.

Everything on television is edited. Sometimes it controls what the audience sees, sometimes it's required to make the trick work, and sometimes it's done for any of a hundred other reasons such as shortening the time required to show it. Just selecting the points where the camera will be started and stopped is editing.


If Angel is using the editing room to create magic that never happened, you could make an argument that it's okay as long as he never gets caught.
I am making that argument.

Fine. Whether or not it's okay is opinion. But the fact is that he gets caught.

Yes it is. But I don't see how this eliminates the use of camera tricks on television.

I didn't say it eliminated anything. The excessive use of camera tricks could eventually eliminate magic on television.

There was plenty of bad magic on television like World's Greates Magic. It did prevent magic from being televised until Blaine.

Did anyone say there was never any bad magic on television before? I didn't.

And even the World's Greatest Magic had a lot of good magic on it- Bill Malone's performance of Sam the Bellhop, the Pendragons Metamorphosis, Mark Kalin and Jinger, Jeff Hobson's Egg Bag, Rene Lavand's 'I Can't Do It Any Slower', Penn & Teller's Bullet Catch, Tabary's rope routine, Lennart Green's performance. I'm sure there's something in there you liked if you actually saw all 5 shows.

Its my opinion in general that magic is a live art and television is not the correct medium.

I'd agree if you said that television was not the best medium for it. There is no correct medium- just some that are worse than others. Dunninger, Banachek and others have successfully done magic on radio, and radio is not the best medium either.

A lot of magicians were jealous of Blaine because of the "simple" effect Blaine made famous.

And a lot of magicians criticized Blaine for other reasons. Not every criticism is made because of jealousy.

I am doubtful of any magician who critizes a magician purely based on methods and not whether that magician is successful in to the lay audience.

What exactly do you doubt?

This is doesn't make any sense.

What part do I need to explain?

There's a lot of knowledgeable magicians who've never been on TV but know a great deal about the difference.

It doesn't make sense that people can know a great deal about something even if they've never done that 'something' themselves?

Many of them know the difference between doing magic and creating special effects, then calling it magic.

I'll rephrase that one:

"Many of the knowledgable magicians I referenced in the previous sentence know the difference between the following two things:

1- doing magic on television

2- creating movie special effects using various methods and then calling it magic.

Various methods would include such things as filming 2 different scenes and then going into the editing room and putting parts of each of those 2 scenes together to make it appear that only one scene was filmed. For example- filming a magician standing against a blank wall waving his hand and later filming another scene with a young woman standing against the blank wall. Later, in the editing room, the 2 scenes are edited so that it appears that the magician there waved his hand and the young woman magically appeared standing next to him.
Or filming a magician standing still and holdin a pose, then matting that into a scene with a different background so it appears that he's floating 50 feet off the ground.

Make sense now?

[Azrael 5]

I wouldn't class a camera angle as a camera trick.Editing or deliberate re-takes is camera trickery.

Im dissapointed to see Derren Brown straying into edits nowadays.See his live shows and then his TV shows.Notice the difference.

[JonWhite]

Camera angles? No problem. A great many effects are angle sensitive and these have to be controlled by the magician whatever the situation. I don't see why taping it should be any different to live.

Tricks (such as many performed by Angel) however where the entire effect is almost completely dependant on post production rather than any "magical" ability by the performer suck.

[dudalb]

Penn and Teller did those "camera tricks" as some kind of joke. Criss actually takes it seriously and uses it for many of his routines.


WHich make me lose respect for him as a magician.

[RenaissanceBiker]

Camera angles? I saw a magician/bartender at a club in Milwaukee once. He did some pretty amazing things to keep people lined up at the bar and earned some good tips in the process. There was a second story balcony above the bar. For some of his tricks he would ask people up there to come down because he didn't want them to see the tricks from up there. We all know they are tricks. If he only wants them seen from one direction, indulge him.

I saw Chris Angel demonstrate the levitation trick, and reveal the secret, on TV. It became obvious why the trick can only be viewed from one direction. Still, from that direction it was pretty impressive.