Dbaker it was a camera trick, I know the method and the gimmick can actually be seen in the video in the background. I respect you from seeing your posts on here, but I think you're also acting out of character too, you usually have more class in your posts.

Last night's 'Mindfreak' episodes strenghtened my point.

The whole bookstore 'pick a word' trick he has done before.
The trashcan vanish he's done before. This time, they tried to make it look like doing it a second time was harder than the first time. Like it was fresh and new BECAUSE he was repeating a trick.
Give me a break.

Question for the Loyal: Do you believe that the girl hitching a ride wasn't planted there or planned?
If you believe that, please answer me this: Why was she perfectly microphoned on a busy road in the Louisiana swamp lands? They had a mic on her, people. Which means it was setup. ...Which is fine. What is not fine is that they went on and on and on about how it wasn't setup or planned.

Like I said: He - and his 'consultants' - have run out of ideas. He needs to go away for a while now.

No, he actually said it WAS setup and planned. She said it wasn't but he told the camera "Even you guys don't believe this" He said he didn't believe it either, and then continued with the trick. It was obvious it was a setup, he SAID it was a setup, and proceeded with a trick for entertainment value that was setup.

I enjoy the fact he has gotten back to some of his powerful illusions and closeup effects. I wish he would do more of them. I watch for the reactions of people, which is the same reason I perform illusions. I don't care if the trick has been done before. To the audience member, the trick is new, and I love to be the fly on the wall, watching them freak out and not have an explanation. It is that moment of belief in a miracle that drives me to keep performing.

Really? What about when that "moment of belief" is no more than a reaction from a paid actor - as soooooooo many of Angel's are? If that crap is what drives you to keep performing, you need to work in making infomercials - not in magic.

Anyone catch that little performance of Cups & Balls that he did last night? It was good, and he didn't use a fancy cup, only a tea cup?

Michael Ammar did that ages ago.

Sigh - Nothing new - yet again...

He's the reason when someone here's there's a magician around they want to see them. When they watch Criss on TV they immediately want to see a magician live.

I do not believe all the people are stooges. I think heCriss has damaged his credibility now because of the many CTs he has used, and now no one knows what is real and what is CT. That is unfortunate, because I think some of the tricks Criss is doing on this season are getting real reactions from real people.

That's BS Maloney.

People have wanted to see magicians long before Angel was around, and they'll still want to long after he's gone. If he's done anything to the industry's performing sector (though I doubt he's had any effect), he's harmed it by giving it an unfavorable image.

You are correct that Criss Angel is not the reason people want to see magicians but you cannot dispute the fact logically that his act has not inspired A. Many new magicians to get interested in the art of magic and B. Magic to be more mainstream and discussed and recognized

They may do some lame things sometimes, and at other times do some great things, but David Blaine and Criss Angel have made magic more accessible to many more people just by doing what they do, whether it is good or bad.

Like msconce said, Angel has put magic into the main stream. I don't think you could ask one person who Criss Angel was and they wouldn't know. Angel, along with Copperfield, Burton, Blaine, Sigfried and Roy, etc have put magic where it is today. People want to see it because they recognize it form TV.

If you hadn't included that second bit about Copperfield, Blaine and the others I would have been extremely upset, and have corrected you immediately.

True, but I question whether those are positive aspects.

A: Plenty of those Angel "inspired" became the youtube magicians that expose methods - bad for the art.

B: I don't see why magic being discussed more often is good - seeing as it's an art based in keeping secrets.



Again, I question whether magic's new-found "legitimacy" is a positive aspect.

Secondly Marshall Brodien and David Berglas have been selling magic in retail chains for decades (since the 70s in Brodien's case), I submit that these two have done more to bring people into magic than Angel has - and bringing in people who are truely interesed in being magicians for that matter.


I've spoken to many people who have no idea who Angel is.
1: If you don't have cable, you probably don't know who Angel is.
2: If you're over the age of 40 (and not a magician) you probably don't know who Angel is.


You need to stop with your assumptions about why people want to see magic Maloney. Just like your last attempt, this one is BS.

People have wanted to see magic since before TV existed. The art is millenia old, and continues to draw audiences like flies to honey. It's got nothing to do with Angel, Blaine, Copperfield, etc - they're just this decade's headliners.

I would have to agree with everything he just said. Houdini was famous when there was no tv and he was succesful At one piont of his career he was making what today would be 215,000 dollars a week. Which we then can conclude that many people wanted to see him perform he broke house records in euroope for many years.
tv has nothing to do with people wanting to see magic or in the example above escapes. MAybe alitle but not how you are saying. Good marketing and publicity is why the great have an audience. Plus the are remarkablr showman.


Sean

I must clarify. When I agreed with maloney's statement about blaine, copperfield, etc. I was under the impression that his tone was indicating he meant in the current age of magic. As you said, the last decade or so. Within the media, I believe they have helped. I believe maloney's statement was a little simplified. He should probably have put it, "with the foundation of magic started by the earliest performers; Angel, Copperfield, Burton, Blaine, Sigfried and Roy, etc. have put magic where it is today". That statement is a little more complete, but could also probably be argued.