Are you people serious??
Of course Cris Angel was good for magic. Laymen were fully entertained and blown away by his shows. They were magical, mysterious, and had the element of danger. His character although strange was shown to be likable.

His use of unorthodox methods to achive his "magic" were brilliant. All that matters is the effect. The audience is the TV veiwing public. He manipulated the elements to create a magical experience for those watching.

Stooges, camera tricks, and cheating . . . hello, that is how we do magic. Anything we can do to create the effect is valid. Each venue has its limitations, problems, and liabilities. How we overcome them is the secret to our magic. Magic is about altering the state of the audience's mind. If it is made to be belivable then mission accomplished.

Let me see . . . who else said this . . . Ted Annemann, He said he would use 99 people to fool one, if that was the goal.

D Kristof

One more part the the Annemann quote that as usual most people miss. He followed it with "there had better be a darn good reason to fool that one". but why quibble.

Second of all Angle did NOT fool that one is the point I guess most are making. NOBODY believes he floated complete strangers so the Annamann quote does not really apply here.

Someone mentioned how he would be the most popular magic show since David Blaine. Great how many have we seen on TV since then anyway?

I guess I liked the old form of magic for audiences and the Copperfield style better than the freak show style. But if this is the future of magic he is on the cutting edge to say the least. I hope he does well and keeps going for years to come, THAT would without a doubt be great for magic in general.

To DannyDoyle,
It seems you disliked the character of Cris Angle as well as the magic he performed. So let me address both of those dislikes.

One: His magic did fool laypeople. Most of those watching television were wondering how this could be happening. Indeed it is a different style of magic than the Copperfield type, but it was still magic. How far you want to take that kind of magic is up to the performer. He pushed the limits and might have lost a few, Richiardi did the same thing back in the 60's.

Two: Freak show magic . . well that might be his genre. If he is going for the teens and 20's demographic then he is most likely using the correct angle. Remember he did have a very successful run on broadway. I am not a big fan of the his style but I can appreciate his take on the art.

D Kirstoff

Magic is the bottom of the rung? Yes it might not be as popular as music...etc., but you're a magician right? Then please have some self-respect, for yourself, and your art. Don't say it's the bottom of the rung Jack. If it is toward the bottom then we as magicians need to move it up.

As far as did Chris Angel fool people yes, he did. It's mixed though. I've heard BOTH Good, and Bad from Lay-People. I'm happy he has a special, and it brings magic to people's minds. My only think is don't do editing, pre-show work (Unless as Osterlind says, you tell your audience, such as Osterlind's Imp Pad routine), camera tricks...etc., because Lay-People are smart on that stuff. Yes his specials are good, but to me personally, I wish he'd do it, as if we were there in person. I know we all cheat. I just think certain cheating isn't good, like stooges, editing...ect. I know it's the effect ultimately that counts. All I can do is speak for myself, and my own set of ethics. Ed, (Eddini).

If everyone who hates Criss Angel's style is done ripping him apart, I'd like to address the actual question of the thread. My personal opinion is that it is not Criss Angel specifically that was good for magic, but the fact that we have a new face pushing magic into the mainstream. To me it doesn't really matter who the magician with the new special is, as long as they keep coming! The magicians who hate Blaine or Angel or anyone else who makes it onto television will never give them proper credit. It absolutely cracks me up when people on here actually try to minimize his ratings. Only 1.8 million people? How many people are you performing for? Magic will always be at the bottom rung until we can learn to put our collective egos in check and support those of us who are actually helping magic stay in the minds of the people we also hope to entertain. Man, I thought actors were petty and spiteful!

Very nice point Ed. Probably one of the betters I have heard in this topic.

If I get booked because of Criss Angel, he is good for magic.

Exactly... Candini

All the bitching....bitch when you get your own special gentlemen

And if you say (like many did with Blaine) you could do that because it was special effects or tricked shots or even store bought tricks... no, you couldn't.. they have a marketable image...fresh and intriguing...and now they are rich...dont hate...Love it.

I think his magic stretches the "too perfect theory" and ultimately leads spectators to the solution. They may not know exactly what he does but I'm sure they realize television has something to do with it. Ultimately I think this will hurt televised magic. It is just too much to ask for spectators to believe this stuff happens without television tricks. Live magic will alway be live and well.

Blaine and Copperfield are much more believable.

Well now levitator, I am not trying to tear anyone down or "minimize" the ratings, and as I said in my previous post, I did not see any of these specials, and I won't because they are not being aired on network television.

I was just putting in perspective how much impact he may or may not be making, that's all. I have still to this day not heard anyone talk about the show, except here.

How many people am I performing for? Well, I personaly am not the subject of this thread. Do I have a television show? No. Am I performing for that many people at a time? No. But then again no one on this thread is asking "Was Drs_Res good for magic" now are they?

*Edit*
I just re-read my post, and I see that last part may not come across as serious as I meant it to. It's not me being sarcastic, just making a point in all seriousness, please don't take it the wrong way.

Thanks.

I enjoyed the music.

I like his look, it works for him.

I like the fact that it is highly promoted and no matter what you think, this is a good thing for all forms of magic.

I especially like the fact that last week I received a phone inquiry and it went like this.

Caller: Hello, I'm looking to hire an act for an upcoming event and we are looking for someone that can do what Cris Angel does so let me ask you,are you as good as him?

Reply: Yes (finish reading before you start freaking on me)

Caller: Really! You can levitate people?

Reply: Yes

Caller: Are you available on Dec 17, 2005 for a show in Hawaii for 100 people?

Reply: Yes

Caller: How much do you charge?

Reply: $50,0000 plus expenses for that type of performance.

Caller: Wow! That's outrageous our budget is only $1,000.00 (one-thousand)

Reply: Sorry, but I can't help you.

Caller: Can you suggest something else that we could do?

Reply: (I said this in a most polite manner)
With a budget of $1,000.00 (one-thousand) and 100 guests to entertain might I suggest 100 movie tickets.


Sebastian Black

Sebastian--

Heh. I bet you're about to get a hundred PMs asking... "Umm, did you get the caller's number...?"

Brian....lol, only 93 more to go.

A little off-topic:

I caught a few minutes of one of the specials last night. Just before Criss levitated, he stated overtly that, "It is not a trick." The scene then changes to a shot of him floating with his arms out to his sides (his posture closely mimicking the crucifixion), while wearing a large cross around his neck.

Just what is it he'd like his audiences to believe, I wonder?

Ben Blau

That he knows the power of evocative imagery. It's more like the ascension than the crucifixion, though I know what you mean. Ever seen a Salvador Dali painting of the crucifixion?

The mechanics and stability of the suspension were uncanny.

Just checked in; are people still tuning into the show?
I only lasted three episodes and taped over one so I could watch UFC when I got home from work.


A.

Hey Black
I'm still laughing......That's Really Funny!
I too think that this is a good thing.
Just not super entertaining for the insiders....but what is?
I liked Banacheck and Jermay. the Hellsromism stuff was a bit twisted.

Although I think this thread asks an interesting question, I would ask a different one.

Compared to various other phenomena in magic today (bad performers who aren't well rehearsed, folks who bludgeon their audiences with volumes of flourishes or effects without a clue on how to connect to those audiences, etc.), has Criss Angel raised the bar of what can be expected from performers, or lowered it?

For all the talk of camera tricks, I know how a few things were done, and I know they were not only expensive, but also took lots of practice. Although he might have levitated a stooge, he did present such things in front of genuine people, which is why the audience at home can relate.

He's not my style, but really, is that the point? Borrowing someone's soda and making a live tarantula appear in the cup seemed to impress the spectators; isn't THAT the point? And if not, why not? Do you also discount the spectators as the ultimate reason for your own performing?

Usually, magicians are a joke on the performing food chain; this might be due to the kinds of magicians I mentioned before (move mavens or those lacking a clue as to be actually entertaining), but regardless of WHY, it's a fact that we are one step below prop comics. Unless.

Unless there are folks willing to do things that AREN'T possible by means the audience is familiar with. No happy little boxes. No silk productions. Weird internal logic which is alien to most. Granted, it's not for everyone, but wouldn't pushing expectations, as Criss does, be good for magic? Or is it raising expectations without hope of the rest of us being able to deliver? (And what does that say about us, if true?)

I'd say that Criss has blazed his own path. Honestly, do you think he's worried about all the grousing, or do you think he's more focused on actually doing his own thing? (Here's a hint: don't you think he be doing more standard things, if he was worried about not being stereotypical enough?)

So, although one might not like his presentations, or one might think that his numbers aren't high enough, or one might be grabbing at the idea of camera tricks and edits, he's still expanding the envelope of magic. Just because he's not necessarily in the same room in the house of magic that some of us might be doesn't make him bad; he's probably a better performer than many of us, if in a different style. If he's raised the bar, that means he's a good performer, because a cr*ppy performer wouldn't be able to do so, right?

And, to any of you who decide to blaze your own trails, I'm rooting for you too.

So, to ask it in the negative, is Criss as damaging to magic as stagnation? Does Criss presenting unexplainable acts hurt magic for other performers?

I think everyone's answers to these might say more about ourselves than about Criss...

Cheers!

I liked when he missed the effect with the girl at the table before finding the car. It made him seem more real.

Ahem...I'll confess - I haven't seen his show.

However, I've read various comments and seen his 'image'.

Whatever success he's enjoying - my guess is this.

Firstly, he looks the part -i.e. marketability (is that a word?). Secondly, I'm assuming he has some modicum of talent, because 'image' is'nt everything right? and he has his own show, unless of course that's sheer 'luck', and thirdly....I'm at a complete loss, lol - maybe I'm just in touch with my 'feminine' side,