Okay, you again.
This'll be fun. First of all I do not support "tv magicians", I only watch them for entertainment
. And btw, nickedge, you're just encouraging more arguement about the subject but oh well. Now to go into my arguement with facts. Okay, Criss Angel does entertain people because he's a t.v. magician. It's obvious he uses stooges (for example, in the levitation and window penetration, he had stooges in the back to enhance
the illusion) but not camera tricks, only camera jumps which is to fit all of his effects into a 22 minute show. He does not do fake magic because there is no such thing as "fake magic". Magic is an illusion and cannot be cheated because it is still an illusion. Criss Angel does however stain the art of magic but only to some extent but only to enhance his illusions (camera jumps, stooges), never to create them. Yes, Criss Angel's show is
entertainment but he himself is a magician. Realize the difference. A football player using steroids cannot be compared to Criss Angel because the football player is cheating but does not entertain nor is a magician. There is a difference because you can cheat at football but you can't cheat at illusion because again illusion is the wonder that happens in the spectators' minds whichever way it is put there
and football on the other hand is something that you yourself do. The spectators have the wonder and you are just there to realize it for them. It may sound cheesy but that's what it is. If you need an example as proof, just think about you doing magic in the mirror to yourself. Is that magic? No. There is nobody to feel wonder or mystery. You yourself may feel entertainment but that's not magic. It's just you having fun practicing. Also, back to the camera "editing", you can actually find exposure in "antique" principles which is of course where Criss comes up with his new effects. He actually hints that often by recognizing past magicians. That and the entertainment is the only respect I have for him. I don't really like him as a person but hey, who does? Oh and btw, in real life you accuse people after you have exact
proof. It's not, you accuse people if there is no proof of them not
doing what is accused. Confusing,
but it makes sense.
If you want to argue or oppose, feel free to do so.