Let me rephrase that: He helped bring magic into the mainstream. You can't debate that, it is fact. People know who he is, he is popular.

And yes that does make you an illusionist. An illusionist is simply someone who entertains an audience with the use of illusion. No definition states that the illusion must me performed live, or that the apparatus must be inspectible.

Well I think that burning ropes escape Copperfield did was lame and if he did multiple takes and chose the best edit that makes it shameful.

But I'm not talking about Copperfield. I gave a specific example and you for some reason think that is ok to cheat like that.

Let me ask you this then. Why bother learning or thinking up tricks at all. Why not just film everything, cheat using camera tricks and just sell the dvds.

It is no different than a singer lip syncing. Sure it happens and sometimes people don't realize it but when that secret gets out the performer is raked over the coals by everyone.

So by your answer to my question I'm assuming you are ok with George Lucas and Steven Spielberg being called illusionists if they ever want to go by that title?

And Edward Norton in the movie The Illusionist could be considered an illusionist in real life as well?

I bolded the important part. Lucas and Spielberg aren't using illusion, they're using studio special effects. Norton is an actor, nothing more. He simply played a part of an illusionist and acted in a movie that was created with studio special effects. No magic was involved, therefore no magic was performed.

This shows your ignorance. You said they're paid and I asked you to show me the check. I have no doubt that he's using stooges. I have no problems with it, though. In one of his first shows, he used a girl for a surrounded levitation. She was bent backwards at a crazy angle while floating. It's the same girl that was on his first special in '01. He cut that girl in half in the park on one episode that was brought up to me plenty of times. She seems to look remarkably similar to a girl that was on Ripley's for not having a lower half. Thing is, I don't care. I'm getting more work, as are many others. Once again, your issue is that you don't make the money you want or that you're not entertaining at the level you want, which are generally related.

The "bend over backwards" girl is the one I know. She used to work with my wife and was telling her about her part time "gig" with Angel.

That doesn't matter according to his definition. You people are all over the place. You provide your example and when I submit something that uses your example you say oh no wait a minute.

According to miniserb it doesn't matter that it was a studio special effect. Everything that Edward Norton did in the movie was an illusion. Doesn't matter the method according to him.

And what are these amazing things you have accomplished in your 22 years on this planet? Have a list of awards somewhere? Post them so we can see.

You need awards to show you do great things? Did you know Criss Angel was Magician of the Year at the Magic Castle? In your opinion he has done nothing great, yet he has the awards to prove it.

You don't need awards to prove you've accomplished something.

And to the Criss Angel followers, it's their decicion. Its like telling people wrestling is fake. They still watch it and go to the shows.

No, my definition definitely requires the use of an illusion. Read it. I simply said that Criss may not have used examinable tables in his vanish illusion, but then again, you can't inspect Copperfield's walking through steel illusion or Origami.

You're missing my point that there's a difference between doing an illusion or trick on film, and an illusion or trick live. Live, you have misdirection. You make the audience look where you want, and then accomplish the magic while their attention is elsewhere, and they can't go back in time and watch again to find the secret. If you were to have just a straight shot of an illusion on film, and you could watch it 25 times, rewinding at your discretion, I'm sure you could figure it out after a while.

And NO, I'm not a Criss Angel "follower" I'm just tired of people ripping on him for the wrong reasons.

Bottom line, people like his TV show, and they watch it. He makes money, as does A&E. He's entertaining an audience with magic and illusion, which is more than I can say for a lot of "magicians" I've seen.

I'm not a fan either and I find Criss very obnoxious. I still watch the show because it's the only magic show on right now.

Why is there a new thread on this? All of use who know anything about magic know that Criss uses camera tricks.

There is nothing wrong with using stooges. I've used some and I'm only 13. It's just another tool to perform.

Also to X, Why do you think people who don't like Angel are mad because he's famous and your not?

I don't like him. He annoys me. It's not because he's well known. If that was the case I would not like Copperfield, Banachek, Blaine, Burton and many more magicians.

I'm not too concerned with entering contests. I'm more concerned with having people ask me to come back to perform for them again. You obviously don't have this happen much, because you don't seem to be able to entertain your audience to the point that they like you better than Angel.

What are these achievements you've gone on about? Hmm? At 22 what have you achieved?