Talk:Criss Angel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

His real name and birthdate

Recently there has been a revert war between me and an anonymous user over whether or not to include his real name in the article. I posted, "Please stop removing his given name and birthdate. If it isn't factual, please discuss on the talk page first", and the anonymous user replied, "Well, we would except, no it isn't factual, Criss doesn't want this type of information out! His birthdate hasn't been confirmed, therefore, I think its best to wait until he tells the media something (yea, right) to gather the truthful facts (not something you just researched on the internet). So can you be one of the few (besides the Loyal) to respect his privacy and please stop posting it? - User:Someonewhocares" (Note that there is no User:Someonewhocares.) His birthdate in in his IMDb listing. Furthermore, an article on the website of Forbes Magazine gives his real name. (Here is the link to that article.) This is therefore publicly available and publicly verifiable information! Listing the real name of a person who uses a pseudonym or who has changed their name is a perfectly valid thing to do in an encyclopedia article. --Idont Havaname 23:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I also recently looked for his birthdate on Google. There is a site (amiannoying.com) that lists the birth year as 1967, but IMDb is listing it as 1968. Since that appears to be disputed, and he doesn't give out the birth year (just the month and day), I have added some information to the article about this. However, since Forbes has confirmed his birth name, and they are one of the most high-profile magazines in the U.S., his birth name is definitely information that has been made public. --Idont Havaname 23:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

20:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)Is his exact birthdate really that important? DKISS

Generally speaking, if we know it, we include it. In making articles here, we usually like to include whatever we'd find in a regular, printed encyclopedia. So birth dates are fair game. --Idont Havaname 20:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. DKISS

The same thing has been happening on IMDb. He has an official fan club called "The Loyal" who take it upon themselves to troll the internet trying to cleanse it of any reference to any information which has not been officially released by Angel, such as the fact he is married to Joanne Sarantakos, his birth date, his real name etc. This is meant to be an encyclopaedia, the information should stay. Sarahe 01:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Name and Birth Year

According to Public Records and Copyright Records, Criss Angel's birthname is Christopher N. Sarantakos, and his date of birth is December 19, 1967.

Source: copyright.gov - United States Copyright Office

- Izzy Galvez 07:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Please stop changing my name to "A Blind Dave".

I didn't change your name to anything, I merely reverted your doubling up of information already listed here. Obviously "A Blind Dave" was the name provided on the earlier version. Sarah Ewart 02:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hope that my name isn't reverted back to "A Blind Dave". That's disrespectful, I posted this information originally. Well, I now know to be logged in when I post... Izzy Galvez 03:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the information because you provided identical information twice on this page and partly because IMDb message board threads are irrelevant to an encylopedia. That is why I reverted you and that is why your previous name came up. You might like to take note of: WP:AGF Sarah Ewart 03:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That thread was relevant and had an indepth explanation, but I understand your point, it was redundant, and basically needs no further explanation, it is a reliable source. I don't want you to think that I am blaming you, I understand it was reverted, and not intended to be disrespectful. Izzy Galvez 03:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou. I agree the copyright information is a reliable source and I also agree (as you might have noticed elsewhere on this page) that verifiable information should be included, regardless of the claims by the Loyals. Sarah Ewart 04:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Criss Angel does not want his real name or birthday freely available in order to maintain his art's 'purity.' Please respect his wishes and the wishes of his twin brother. preceding comment by 66.31.9.153

This is an encylopedia, not Angel's personal webpage. If we have the information and it is verifiable, it should be included. Sarah Ewart 04:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Religion

I have recently been told something disturbing for us of the Loyal reading this article. A friend of my moms has told me that the olny reason he can do what he does is because he is Satanic! Can someone out there help me to prove him wrong?

Um, Angel is an illusionist...a magician...that's it. He's trying to make it interesting and intriguing so people want to tune in each week to watch and go out and buy his merchandise. That's all there is to it.Sarahe 01:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Links

Someone keeps inserting a link: [1] which links to a website which claims, amongst other things, that "Criss Angel, is actually the transcendentally illuminati form of the powerful mind-magician of earlier times, Rasputin." I'm removing it again, but it's something to keep an eye on.Sarahe 01:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Age

Not that I want to start a fight or anything, but the Loyals are pretty vocal about him not wanting to publicize his birth year. They scream at people (even other Loyals) for discussing such things (or at least they do on the official Loyal board), and consider anything that doesn't come straight from Criss' mouth a complete lie.

Just a thought...

Daya 00:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleaning up the page/adding new pictures

I am currently in the process of smoothing out the details of the Criss Angel article and am curious if anyone else finds the article a little bland for the scope of Criss Angel's work?

Besides the sparse details of his breadth of work I'd like to also point out the pictures used make Criss out to be a pro wrestler or stage persona. If anyone has anything more recent, especially some cool shots from the Mindfreak season I'd love to see them up to replace the current ones. Thanks, -Jimmy

Criss Angel was never a pro wrestler, can you explain what you meant by this? -Izzy Galvez 22:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I am thinking the impression might be easy to get since you could easily confuse him with Sting formerly of the WCW due to hair and dress, as well as he is pretty ripped in some photos. Tyciol 04:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Jimmy means the pictures give the wrong impression of Criss and make him appear as if he is a wrestler. That's how I understood his comment, anyway. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

What I mean to say is that the pictures are goofy, I'd like to post some new ones in place of the current ones. -Jimmy

Privacy

Criss Angel wishes that his privacy be respected, and that personal topics not be discussed. (i.e. religion, marital status, political views, etc.) But vandalizing this article, and calling me "disrespectful and arrogant" is immature, and inappropriate.

His birth name and birth date have been confirmed and are verifiable through reliable sources, and this information should stay, as it is in no way personal to the person Criss Angel is, and is simply identification. However, any information posted that is personal, should be removed, as it will most likely be not accurate, or inappropriate.

Please, understand, that I do respect Criss Angel, and I am only trying to improve this article. -Izzy Galvez 22:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This information is personal to who he is, and he does not like the information made public. Many other sites have agreed to leave the information out, you are the only person who puts up a fight about it. If you respect Criss Angel as you say you do, then respect his wishes. Your article is perfectly fine without the information. I'm not trying to be rude here, but if someone does not wish for information to be plastered all over creation for everyone to see, then I think it's only fair to omit the information. He is known to the world as Criss Angel, and putting information like his real name on the internet, causes a problem for his family's private life. How can it be vandalism when I received an e-mail from directly from Wikipedia telling me to remove the information if it was not appreciated by certain people? -209.23.197.244

Please cease removing verifiable information. It is considered vandalism. This is an encyclopedia—we include all information that is verifiable. It is not Criss Angel's site and we do not function according to his personal fancies. If you received an email from the help desk, I suggest you misunderstood it. No one on Wikipedia would advise removing someone's name when it has been independently verified. There was a similar case on the article Tron (hacker) where Tron's parents took legal action because they did not want his surname published on Wikipedia even though it was verified. Wikipedia went through the German courts to retain this information. The information about Angel is verifiable. It remains. Removing "objectionable" content refers to libellous information, not true and verifiable information. Please stop removing this information or you will end up with you IP blocked. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It is the preference of Criss Angel that his real name, birthDATE, marital status (etc.) be kept private. As a previous viewer stated, many sites have agreed to keep this information secret and do not argue. Frankly, it should not matter whether or not the information is verifiable and/or from a reliable source as it is undesired for it to be revealed. You should respect the privacy wishes of those you post information of on this site. Personal preference of whom you post about DOES matter as they can, if they chose, take legal action. It is THEIR identity and if they wish to keep it unknown, then you should respect that as a human being. To keep such information up is disrespectful to that person and their lifestyle.

Criss Angel can choose what he does or does not reveal about himself on his television show or his official website, but others do not have to abide by his whims. While some information on celebrities should be kept private (e.g. home address, personal phone/e-mail/etc.) information such as a celeb's birth name, DOB, marital status, etc. is considered to be fair game and encyclopedic. As far as legal action goes, it's hard to imagine a suit that would be laughed out of court more quickly than one for revealing a celbrity's name and birthday.

Or, to quote from this page, When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia. In an article on a celeb who performs with a stage name, one would expect to find their birth name and DOB. I can't imagine seeing a little note that someone who starred in a TV show didn't want his or her real name published. Kufat 08:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be rude, don't get me wrong, I'm just a Loyal trying to make it clear that there are some things that he wishes to keep private, because, frankly, it shouldn't matter what his birth name or DOB is if you're really a fan. And I have come across encyclopedias while doing school reports that don't reveal DOBs and whatnot that you can easily find on a biography by googling that person. I just don't get why it has become such a big deal for such a small bit of information to stay posted or not. The fact of the matter is, if you want to know more about the man through this site, then know what he wants you to know. If there is something that is being kept out or requested to NOT be published, then maybe there's a reason for it. Everyone has their reasons. I hardly use this site anymore just because you never know if anything is factual until you hear from the person you're inquiring about, and even then, you know do not know if they are telling the truth. I understand that his birth name and DOB is fair game beings things of that nature/versions have been previously published, but I also do not see why it is such a big deal to keep it down. If you get too many complaints, then repost it. MeAndOnlyMe 06:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A Wikipedia biographical entry should contain all pertinent biographical material, unless there's a compelling reason for leaving something out (and this is not such a case). —Wasabe3543 20:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The biographical information should not be removed at the whim of the subject, particularly if the subject has celebrity status (celebrity status brings lower expectations for privacy). To do so invites the biasing of an article, the censorship of valid information, and the changing of the article from NPOV to the subject's POV. --Kaze0010 08:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Birthday verification

Is there a reference for his birthday? If not, it should be removed. --Mpeisenbr 18:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. If you would like to cite the source appropriately in the article,
you can find the reference in the Talk Archive.
- Izzy Galvez 01:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Professional and performing

I changed the phrase "People who are not professional magicians are strongly discouraged from performing these stunts." I feel omitting the word professional is necessary as surely what is important is whether you are a magician, not that you chose to make a career out of it. Perhaps it should be further changed to 'magician of great power' so as to discourage weak magicans from attemping such things. -125.253.17.93 07:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

External links, fansites

Would the most popular fan sites of Criss Angel be appropriate to include in this article? I have seen that some were added in the past, but were removed from the external links. I am just curious about the requirements for External links. In the meantime, I will look at the rules and such for an answer. --Izzy Galvez 22:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have found that my questions are answered in the External links article.
I edited the External links to include two of the most popular, and regularly maintained fan sites dedicated to Criss Angel - angelofillusion.net and mindfreakconnection.com. I also organized the External links to have sub-headers to separate the official websites from the other links.
-- Izzy Galvez 23:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Concerning surname

I don't know if this is of any importance, but if his real surname is Sarantakos then he is of Greek descent (a Greek-American). Sarantakos is definetely a Greek surname and judging from the ending in -akos his ancestors came from the southeast (Lakonia) of the Peloponnese peninsula. Again, I don't know if this is of any importance. Kalambaki2 23:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Criss Angel has said many times that he is of Greek descent. Ofcourse, his father was Greek, and his mother is Greek as well. He has said that his mother was raised in Mystra, Greece, and that Greece holds a special place in his heart.
It is not that significant, but I think it is great that you have made such a connection.
-- Izzy Galvez 01:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Lakonia, eh? I wonder if that makes him a Spartan. He should be entitled to wear a funny hat if it does. 09:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Concerning fan sites...

Are you aware some of the people removing your information, are people that run those fan sites? Just something to think about...
-- preceding comment by 209.23.197.244

They are a good resources of informative and miscellaneous information related to Criss Angel, and the External links to those web sites should stay. However, if they are removing information from this page, then it will be handled appropriately. One of the things one must be aware about Wikipedia, is that it is an Encyclopedia. If the information is verifiable, then the information should stay. Criss Angel's birth name and birth date have been confirmed and verified, and therefore, this information should stay. This has been discussed many times before.
-- Izzy Galvez 04:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether they run fan sites or not. They are vandals. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

reads like an anvert -67.53.19.206 08:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"reads like an advert" that is, and forgot to sign in....sorry all DevoutHeretic 08:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of CG / post-processing / camera effects

I think Criss Angel (I could be wrong) uses in-camera or post effects to make his illusions seem so real. This, in my opinion, is not true magic in that ANYTHING can be done this way; I'd much rather prefer to watch an unedited video (meaning no special fx) of an illusion.

I 100% agree. I watched an "illusion" that was done inarguably through imaging and not real film, and the illusion required agreement from the "untrained" observer filmed to give a mystified reaction to the trick(s) when they full know that the intended trick isn't even happening before their own eyes. Colour me pissed off he even has a TV show to do this sort of thing. Messatsu 02:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• "I think" is certainly no proof nor is "inarguably through imaging and not real film". The fact that you don't know how it is done doesn't mean it cannot be done. That's the whole thing about street magic (and magic in general). The tricks are, in fact, often disappointingly simple when one is told about them, but they are surprisingly hard to see without knowing. Just because you don't have enough imagination to come up with an answer doesn't mean there is camera trickery and CGI used. Sure, some tricks defy common sense (such as walking through a glass) but have actually rather simple explanations and are perfectly doable as live close-up performances (eg. the walking through glass is one of the oldest tricks in the book and it has been done way before any cameras even existed). Why would Angel use camera trickery for something which can quite easily be made without? Sure, some tricks are really amazing and coming up with an explanation is really difficult, but that doesn't mean there isn't any explanation. Claiming that he uses camera trickery without proof is obnoxious.

• • "I think" is certainly no proof nor is "inarguably through imaging and not real film".The comment directly above mine isn't me, it's unsigned as is yours. How could I possibly agree with myself? Blah, blah proof. Often times you can tell when someone has a genuine reaction or not. Well, I can anyway. And these are definately not genuine reactions. Messatsu 00:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yes indeed Criss uses mostly camera tricks that are performed in front of audiences that are all in on it. His editing has become so sloppy you can even see the camera tricks exposed in his videos. Take a look at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRR30Tll6wY&search=chris%20angel and you'll see a particpant running away from the camera with a stick. You will see him use the stick at 2:42 in the video and then he is seen running off camera in the background later. Why would anyone run from such a cool trick..shouldn't he be amazed like the rest of the crowd if they were seeing a real trick .Read all the comments posted for more details. This is one example of MANY things that are so ovious when you pay attention. DannyDunn

• • Come on, you can't be serious. That's just ridiculous. "Look, there's a man running with a stick, that's absolute proof that Criss Angel uses camera tricks and all the spectators are hired actors." Just read your own text again to see how ridiculous it sounds. How can you make *any* assumptions about anything simply because a man runs with a stick? *At most* it may mean that he is a Criss' assistant (no-one has claimed he doesn't use hired assistants to aid in his performances), nothing more. He may be a relevant part of the trick, or he may simply be a member of the camera crew positioning himself. Claiming that Criss uses camera trickery and the entire public is hired just because of that is ridiculous.

• The stick is used to similate the girls hand when the camera shows the volunteer shake her hand. She is gone before this happens..again via a simple forced camera perspective. The stick man is seen getting away....and everyone seeing the stunt live saw what really happened yet they act all stunned at the seeing girl vanish. ( ACTORS ) DannyDunn

• • And your proof of this is... what? You can't think of any other explanation than that all the spectators are hired actors?

• • • Think of an explanation... I don't have to. I know how its done. ( know people connected with the production company ) You keep believing in fairy dust. You're going to feel mighty stupid reading your posts when it all becomes public knowledge. If Wikipedia had existed in Mili Vinilis day people would also have been defending them saying its really them singing... how stupid would they feel know? You'll find out soon enough. I'm not wasting any more time preaching to brick walls. See for yourself.. log on to any magicians discussion forum and you'll see that the heated debate is not weither he uses camera effects ( Its a commonly known fact amoung magicians ) but weither its considered a legit form of magic performance or not. DannyDunn

• • • • Care to give a good reference? I *have* read some forums and all I see is people assuming they are camera tricks (without any concrete proof given) and other people jumping in the bandwagon. In one forum someone commented IMO quite well with a post along the lines of "next you'll be claiming Houdini used camera tricks to make an elephant disappear". Many of Criss' performances are very possible without using camera tricks. Assuming that he uses camera tricks in them anyways, that would make him a liar (he has clearly said in his TV show that he does not use camera tricks) and it wouldn't make too much sense either. Ok, perhaps you are right and he is a liar and a fraud, but I would like to see some concrete evidence before believing that.

• • • • • Concrete evidence... thats too funny as my next video has the proof on the concrete. Eventually it will be a known fact that camera tricks were used. Thanks for acknowkedging its possible. I can't go into much more without exposing my connection to the show but here is some more video evidence. Note how the camera moves away from the first spot Criss starts off in. In this video you can see scratch marks on the concrete made by the manhole cover as he removes it . The camera cuts away from the manhole cover to show Criss, later when the camera pans down the scratch marks are no longer there because you are looking at a fake manhole cover in a different location. The real cover is a few feet off camera yet you are forced ( via forced camera perspective) to ONLY see the fake cover that he peels off the ground. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/176801/criss_angel_crawls_out_of_a_storm_drain/ If you were there in person you'd see how it really works. DannyDunn

• • • • • • Ever hear of the rotating platform supposedly used by David Copperfield to make the Statue of Liberty disappear? Same difference; if it were performed in front of a live audience, I'm sure Criss could come up with a way to create the illusion, regardless. Unless you were actually there and was actually in on the entire production of the stunts, there is no way that you can claim with 100% certainty that he relies heavily on camera tricks and plants in the audience to perform his tricks on the show. If that were, in fact, true, then he did the same thing with his LIVE SHOWS, as well, and I'm pretty sure that many of the illusions he performs on his show he does on stage, as well. Having been given the honor to attend a live show of another famous magician (the aforementioned Copperfield), I can tell you that it is not hard to perform elaborate stunts without the use of camera tricks or special effects, on or off the stage. And live shows aren't usually televised, so it would be rather difficult for Criss to use the same 'tricks' to fool the audience watching Mindfreak to fool his live audience, as well, not unless each and every audience member who attends his live show is paid off and let in on all of his tricks, beforehand; something that I highly doubt Criss - or any magician, for that matter - can do. You don't here people bitch at Siegfried and Roy for copping out and using camera tricks to achieve their illusions, do you? No, I thought not. Oh, and a simple stick is NOT a very good simulation for a human hand, no matter how far away you are from it. Unless that stick had a rubber or synthetic hand on it, the stick does not concrete proof of fakery make.

• • • • • • • Yes I know about that rotating platform. Copperfield no longer used camera tricks ( but he did then ) . Yes I understand Chris has done and will do live shows again. In these shows he had some cool stuff but I can tell you he won't be doing the elaborate things he does now in the show. ( levitating outdoors while totally surrounded ..etc ) His live show was good and original looking but it used standard magicial apparatus and secrets to pull it off. I don't know what you are talking about regards paying an audience. I never said his live shows were fixed .... only the mindfreak series. And yes I do know 100% that he relies heavily on camera edits in mindfreak. I also know that there is no way you are willing to except that until it becomes public knowledge ( and it will some day ) then you'll feel as silly as the Milli Vinilli defenders. People didn't bitch about Siegfried and Roy because they didn't use camera tricks. They did however use camera stuff on a TV special ( vanishing the Disney castle ) but everything was the exact same magic as the performed for a LIVE audience day after day in Vegas. NO CAMERA TRICKS. Don't you find it odd that nobody is all over the web claiming other magicians use camera tricks only Angel? No, I thought not. DannyDunn

• • • • • • • • I find it even more odd that the only ones claiming that Angel is a faker on his own show, are the ones that are apparently fawning over David Blaine and who can't even give definitive proof of this 'fakery' on his own show. Oooh, a guy with a stick ran away from the crowd during one of his illusions. Tht MUST prove that he's faking it, right? Please. That's not proof, that's just mere assumption; the guy may have just been an innocent bystander in the crowd, and freaked out, during the stunt. Some people CAN overreact, when something that's deemed 'impossible' happens before their eyes. And how do you know that he CAN'T duplicate any of his big stunts on Mindfreak in any of his live shows? I do remember seeing a video of his performing the title stunt of Episode In Two on stage. He makes an elephant and a dude disappear in broad daylight; a variation of the SAME TRICK that magicians perform on stage, millions of times. He levitates a girl in the middle of Las Vegas; another stage illusion modified for the street. It is NOT that difficult to translate a stage illusion to street magic and vice-versa. Really, if you're going to accuse him of being a complete faker on his show, then you need to extend that accusation to his live shows, as well, or just don't accuse him of stupid stuff like this, at all. To be honest, I highly doubt that Criss has much control over how his show is edited for TV; that's partially up to A&E, his sponsor and the one airing it. It doesn't matter how real or fake something is on TV, the producers WILL edit it for maximum 'wow' factor; that's just a fact of life. Accusing Criss Angel of camera fakery, when A&E most likely calls most of the shots with how the show is run and how it's edited, is just unfair and ungrateful. And this goes for ALL magicians; in case you forgot, David Copperfield doesn't do TV specials, anymore, apparently, so he CAN'T alledgedly use camera tricks to fool the audience, and even if he was making them, how can you explain the ONE CONTINUOUS SHOT of him walking through the Great Wall of China? Forced perspective, maybe? Sounds like you're just trying to discredit Criss as a David Blaine wannabe who just wants attention; at least he doesn't risk going to the ER every time with a bunch of stupid 'endurance' stunts that have nothing to do with his street magic.

In the walking thru glass stunt he says to the camera man.. " Don't cut away..keep one continuous shot" but after the glass is examined the camera zooms up on his shoes as he unties them. The glass is moved then ..off camera while we are forced to look at his shoes. Everyone else there saw the switch yet they all act impressed. If we had been standing there we would have seen how it was really done.

• The glass trick is one of the oldest tricks in the book and it can be done before a live audience and it does not need any form of camera trickery (at most it needs for the audience to be only at one side of the window so they don't see the trick happening in the other side). Just because you don't know how it works (and it is rather simple, really) doesn't mean that camera trickery is used. "Everyone else there saw the switch"; what's your proof? "I don't know any other solution" is not a proof. The trick does not need "switching" the glass (just a special glass which has to be installed in advance) and since the trick can perfectly be performed before an audience, and Criss certainly knows this trick, why would he resort to camera trickery? Besides, you only explained how he "switched" the glass when he was removing his boots, but you don't explain how the glass is switched back after he has gone through. Ah, of course, CGI, greenscreens, whatnot. Bullshit. That's just not necessary to perform this trick.

• Of course the glass doesn't have to be switched but it is moved/altered while the camera looks away..... this is forced camera persective and considered a camera trick. Everyone there saw what really happened and that makes them actors.

• • You just don't get it, do you? *Why* would Criss use that when *it's perfectly possible* to do the trick without resorting to camera editing/perspective/whatever? Of course he could use camera tricks but why would he? There's no need. Besides, if it really was necessary for the camera to not to look at the glass while it was sliding (which is the trick in this performance: The glass is larger than it looks, part of it being hidden inside the wall, and this part having a hole in it) why it wasn't necessary for the camera to not to look at the glass when the glass slides back? Are you saying sliding the glass to one direction would be clearly visible but sliding it back to its original position is not so visible and doesn't require camera "fakery"?

Here is Criss himself explaining how one works. This trick was featured on MindFreak but only looked good from the cameras point of view as people on the street would all see how its done. http://www.yourdailymedia.com/media/1142851570/Chris_Angel_Reveals_His_Secrets DannyDunn

• So what? All tricks are just that: Tricks. Of course he doesn't levitate for real. It's a trick. Tricks require misdirection to work. Many tricks are based on the audience (and camera) to be in a certain place to work. This is nothing odd. Most stage magic are based on the audience seeing the scene from one direction only. So what? This is not "camera trickery" because the camera sees what the audience sees. It doesn't require the audience to be hired actors.

Here is yet another example... view this video ( listen closely to what he say to the girl) and then read the comments below. http://www.dumpalink.com/post/1127379217/Chris_Angel%5Cs_ButterFly_Trick then watch the video again. The proof is all there. DannyDunn

• The proof of what? That he uses misdirection, like *all* magicians in the world? That in some cases he may use some hired assistants to aid in his performances? So what. All magicians do that. There's no "camera trickery" involved any more than there is "fooling the audience" by misdirection.

• Misdirecton???? There is NONE used here. Its in front of your face if you pay attention. He asks her to pick ANY animal and she says Butterfly. ( thats an insect not an animal ) Then the camera switches angles from over his shoulder to over her shoulder. This is when the camera was stopped and he simply put a butterfly between his palms. What if she had said horse or hippo... how would that have appeared between his hands. Both a planted volunteer and camera edits were used here. Live in fantasy disbelief if you wish but Camera tricks are used.

• • Uh? "Live in fantasy disbelief"? What do you mean with that? That I really believe that there's something "supernatural" going on? Of course everyghing he does are tricks. Sleight of hand, misdirection, things which defy common sense but often have a very simple explanation (other than the tired "it's a camera trick/CGI"). Magicians have been performing these tricks for hundreds of years, way before there were any cameras around. These small tricks are in no way different. There's no *need* to resort to camera trickery.

Look Here http://www.metacafe.com/watch/30413/chris_angel_on_fire/ and you'll notice many of the people in the crowd are in a different position when Criss reappears than they were when he vanished. ( much easier to spot on a video tape or DVD compared to web videos )The camera was cut and restarted after he changed costumes. The fire extriguishers were used to help cover the edit point. Again... ovious when you look close enough.

• I have watched the segment dozens of times and I see no people changing places. Sure, the cameraman moves a bit forward, making some of the audience scroll towards the sides of the image, but that's just normal perspective. Not so obvious to me. I would say it's more probable that it "becomes obvious" to someone who wants to see people "changing places" badly enough. And you are claiming that they hired the hundreds of people present in the stunt to cheer? Sure, theoretically possible, but implausible.

• Try this for yourself. Go to Vegas and hang around the Aladdin. Be in the area when Criss is shooting one of his tricks. You'll be invited to participate in a " cool trick" and you'll get to be seen on tv but you'll have to play along because you'll know the secret. You'll be told..."Ok you know the secret but this looks cool to those watching at home." and then you'll watch them stage the entire thing and tell you to act amazed. Been there done that. DannyDunn

• • And that is the only possible explanation because... what? You can't think of anything else?

Its good viewing and lots of fun to watch but its not reality television as previous stated in the article. Its not even magic... its scripted fiction complete with editing, actors and special effects. DannyDunn

• There's no evidence to suggest that it is or isn't magic, either way. However, you must also realize that - despite it being his show - there ARE things that Criss doesn't have a say in; how the show is edited and what content goes into it when it's aired is one of them. So far, there are two stunts that we know of that were NEVER RELEASED by A&E, even on the DVD sets, because they contained subject matter that dumb people could try to replicate. Criss has announced that he REGAINED THE RIGHTS to those episodes, which indicates that at one point, A&E took those rights away from him. Of course, they're not going to show you each and every trick, from beginning to end, in one continuous shot; that would take up far more time than is allotted for the episode. Not only do they have to cut it down for TIME, but - since this IS a TV series - they also edit it to give the biggest 'punch' to ratings, meaning that they try to keep in all of the best, most action-packed scenes as possible, and cut out any dead or uninteresting segments. And then, there's the interview segments that they have to wedge in there; that takes more editing from the actual action to do. And don't forget about the commercials. Would you want to see each and every agonizing second of the crew setting up his In Two stunt? I wouldn't, nor would I want to see Criss ride all the way to his next locale, with him just chatting it up with friends and family. All of these edits are present in David Blaine's specials, in David Copperfield's specials, in Lance Burton's specials, in pretty much any televised magic special known to man. I've seen the camera work on David Blaine's specials, and they're identical, if not WORSE, than those on Mindfreak. Does that mean that he relies on them like a crutch? No, of course not. Does it mean that he is in full control over what is shot, how it's shot, and how it's edited for TV? Again, no, it doesn't. EVERY magician who televises any of their stunts deal with this same kind of camera crap; it doesn't mean that they're purposely doing it to make their tricks work, just that they are slaves to the wills of the broadcasting corporations, same as any other show.

Also, I find it rather odd that all of the nay-sayers are only accusing him of being a fraud on his TV show, and not in his live shows, as well. Logically, if he was taking all these liberties with the tricks on his TV show, then he'd be a pretty ineffectual magician in real life, but even the haters admit that that is not so. As someone on here said before, why would he use such blatant corner-cutting in his performances when he doesn't have to? He's obviously a pretty competent magician on stage; why would he dumb things down on his TV show? As a professional who won three Magician of the Year awards, I would think that he wouldn't stoop so low, just to get ratings.

• You are correct. He isn't a fraud live on stage. He achieves his effects there through skill and is a true artist. Its the television magic bit that is a fraud. DannyDunn

• • Again, there is absolutely NO PROOF that your claim is correct, and even if it is, that would be stupid of him. Think about it: if he is such a badass 'true' magician on stage, why in the world would he stoop to using childish camera tricks and paid actors to fake his way through his tricks on a TV show? It makes no logical sense: if he were to (excuse the term) bullshit his way through his TV show, yet do 'real' magic on stage, then he's a hypocrite who's setting himself up to fail miserably. IF he's faking it on the show, and people find out about it, then they won't go to his live shows, because his credibility as a magician has already taken a downturn by his deception. People won't believe that he's a good magician ANYWHERE if he fakes all his tricks on TV; they'd assume that he's a massive faker and incompetent on stage, as well, and so not go to his shows. Instead of gaining interest from the public, by doing this, he's actually LOSES such faith from them. Again, a lot of the tricks that he performs on his show he has performed many times on stage in his live shows; if he can perform those same stunts without the aid of camera tricks or actors, then why in the world would he resort to using such childish fakery on the show? Because it's there and more convenient, right? That's stupid; if he can perform the stunts without the aid of those implements, then it would be career suicide to perform them WITH their aid on the show. In essence, you CANNOT accuse him of being a faker and a fraud on his show, without extending that same accusation to him on his live shows, as well; if he's an awesome magician on stage, then he has no reason to fake his way through his tricks on his TV show. Think about it, and if you're still convinced that he's a faker on his show, then give me one good reason why. One good, logical explination for why he'd throw away his integrity and credibility for a cheap fix on his show and ONLY on his show. Why is he ONLY a fake on his TV show, and nowhere else? Give me a logical explination for that, and I may consider it. Otherwise, don't make claims that you cannot prove as absolute fact. SynjoDeonecros 22:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • Can you prove he's NOT using camera tricks??? NO. In the same manner I can't prove to you he is. I didn't say he was a badass magician. I said he has performed live. What tricks are you talking about that he performed on stage that he did on his show? Did he walk on water in his stage show..? NO. Did he float from building to building outside ? NO. Did he levitate surrounded ? NO. Does he walk up a wall? NO

I certainly can accuse him of using camera tricks because my own professional connection to the show and my knowledge of the magic performing arts make me aware of how it is done on stage and what limits there are to such performances. The magic community is pretty tight and we all know how Criss did his stuff on stage ( its all done the same way by other magicians and has been for many years) we also know that the stuff he is doing on televison is what it is.. camera tricks. I'm glad you enjoy the show and hope you keep enjoying it. Just don't put too much effort into defending his tricks as something you'll see in his live show. You'll feel silly when the camera tricks become public knowledge. DannyDunn

• • • • Cutting himself in half, his upcoming Metamorphosis illusion, making a person disappear...can you really tell me that he hasn't done THOSE on stage? Maybe he DOES walk up a wall in the theater (I do believe that in the episode featuring his stunt, he DID mention that if you came to his LIVE SHOWS, you'll see him walk up and down the walls of the theater, so that blows your entire theory out of the water). Maybe he DOES float from balcony to balcony inside the Aladdin without visible wires or apparatuses. Maybe he DOES levitate a person surrounded by people. If you were actually as connected to the show as you say you are, then you CAN prove that he's using camera tricks on the TV show, because YOU CAN USE YOUR CONTACTS TO ACQUIRE THE EVIDENCE NEEDED TO PROVE IT. Or, can you not, because of a contractual agreement you have with Criss expressly forbidding you from revealing anything about the show to the public without his consent?

• • • • Again, what is the logic of him performing all of his stunts and illusions on stange in front of a live audience without the aide of camera tricks or paid actors, then turn around and make liberal use of those cheats on his TV show? Again, if you are so connected with the magic community, then you'd realize that cheating your way through your tricks on a highly-publicized TV show or special is professional suicide, because if it gets out that the magician doing so IS doing so, then it wouldn't matter HOW good of an illusionis he really is in his live shows, NO ONE WOULD COME TO SEE HIM, BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE LOST ALL FAITH IN HIS CREDIBILITY. Plus, it makes no sense to cheat your way through a trick on TV, then perform that same trick flawlessly without any special aide in your live show. If you've got the skill to perform the trick by itself without any corner-cutting, then why cut those corners when performing it on TV?

• • • • Also, your argument all hinges on the assumption that Criss has complete and total control over what is shot, how it's shot, and how it's edited for TV. However, even if he's the Executive Producer of the show, he still has to bow down to the wills of his sponsors, and to the wills of the network airing the show. He may have SOME control over what is shot and how it's shot, but he has NO control over how it's edited for TV, nor is his control over what and how a stunt is shot absolute. It's like accusing your teacher of suspending you from school, when it's the Princapal who gave the order; you just can't do it.

• • • • In the end, all that I'm hearing from you and most everyone accusing this guy of fakery is heresay and VERY circumstantial evidence that can easily be debunked by a thorough examination from an impartial jury. No, I can't prove that he doesn't use camera tricks, but I'm not the one accusing him of doing so, because some dude with a stick ran away from one of his stunts. Going by the most basic logic, your arguments are not only rediculous, unjustified, and irrelevant, but it's also contradictory and makes you look like an idiot for bringing it up, in the first place. You're the ones making the accusations; you need to provide the proof for it, and that doesn't mean a guy with a stick running away. Take a video camera, follow Criss around for a while, and film him doing some magic tricks. He has no access to YOUR camera, so you should be able to use whatever you film as undeniable proof that he's using camera tricks or not. You can FILM the guy with the stick running away, and maybe even be able to stop him for a quick interview, if you want. You've got the tools to expose him, so stop whining about it and actually DO IT, if you're so sure that he needs exposing. Otherwise shut your yap, and keep your conspiracy theories to yourself, alright?

• • • • Oh, and before I forget, you mentioned earlier that right now, only Criss Angel is accused of using camera tricks in his shows and specials. No one else is apparently suffering those same accusations: not Copperfield, not Siegfried and Roy, not David Blaine, not Penn and Teller... not even for PAST usages. However, in that same post, you stated that Copperfield DID use camera tricks in his TV specials. That, in and of itself, is a gross contradiction; if Copperfield did use camera tricks in his specials, then why is no one bashing him for that, now? Is it because he stopped? Why did he stop? Is it because he DOESN'T do any more specials? If I remember, his last big 'special' (where he teleported someone who wrote in to him to wherever they wanted to go) wasn't televized, but was done entirely ON STAGE; I should know, because I've BEEN to one of his performances for the stunt. It was my 20th birthday present, I believe. Got a nifty logbook about his career, out of it. According to this very website, his last televised specials was Tornado of Fire, back in 2001. I hadn't heard ANY accusations of his using camera tricks or other fakery in his specials, even when they were being broadcast, and I still don't hear anything about it, now. So, if he WAS using such trickery in his specials, then WHY HASN'T ANYONE CALLED HIM ON IT, YET? Probably because HE DOESN'T, or if he did, no one wanted to slam on such a popular and well-known magician. Criss, on the other hand, is relatively 'new' to the public eye, so he's easy pickings. I'll bet you, dollars to donuts, that in a few years of his TV show, all of this (again, forgive the language) bullshit about him faking his way through is tricks on TV will have died down to barely a whisper. That, and I'm pretty sure that by then, David Blaine would have finally gotten himself killed by one of his own stunts, leaving his followers (who seem to make up the bulk of the haters against Criss, what with their presumed rivalry and whatnot) to find another magician to fawn over. SynjoDeonecros 06:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"The Loyal"

On Criss Angel's main site this is how he refers to his fans or something. I signed up, personally, but can't access this "Loyal Community" link, which I assume is some sort of forum. For whoever finds this, a link should be made directly to this Community since it is probably offsite, and a very separate aspect from his site, to be listed below it. Tyciol 04:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I Would Like a Website Link on the Criss Angel Page

My Criss Angel site is www.crissangelmindfreak.freewebspace.com. I would like to have a link to this from the Criss Angel page. 129.71.212.176 16:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)