Criss Angel exposes psychics on A&E

orphia nay said:
So has the show screened and has anyone here watched it?

Did Geller pretend to have powers and if so, what did Criss Angel say?
Click to expand...


The Uri and Criss Angel series is going to be one of those reality shows where you knock off a contestant each week. I think it's a way off from happening yet.
 
I'm puzzled about this show too. Geller claims to have real psychic ability, while Angel bills himself as an illusionist. I'll be disappointed if this Angeller hybrid attempts to convince viewers that mentalism is some kind of supernatural skill. The show premieres October 24, with a 2-hour broadcast on Halloween, and is set to run for 5 weeks. The shows are supposedly going to be broadcast live. It would be interesting to see Geller attempt live mentalism at some point, rather than having 5 hours of cold reading to edit down to 45 minutes for broadcast. Though there's nothing to prevent him from bringing in his own stooges, NBC shouldn't have been foolish enough to sign a contract that prevented them from bringing their own challengers either.
 
William Parcher said:
Criss Angel is dating Britney Spears. Just thought I'd mention it.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. Angel was hired to add some "magic" to her VMA act, but backed out when her lack of professionalism and reluctance to put in the practice time made it clear that the performance would be a disaster. Hmmm, maybe he can predict the future after all...
 
Chris Angel is hot, he can preform 'magic' to his hearts content, I find him to be a master at his craft :)
 
Dating might be the wrong term. There are multiple reports of them partying together in wee hours, holding hands, and retiring to the same room in Las Vegas. A fling?
 
I so hope this show is going to de-bunk Geller (yet again!)

Actually, if it doesn't, it means Angel has sold out on any respect he has for skepticism. I suppose it represents a crossroads in his career to some extent...

C'mon Angel - we need one for the team!

DeVega

PS: Yep, it would be a great draw to have him at TAM!
 
DeVega said:
I so hope this show is going to de-bunk Geller (yet again!)

Actually, if it doesn't, it means Angel has sold out on any respect he has for skepticism.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.

Randi talked about this briefly during the dinner after his Vermont lecture. Apparently, the answer is simply that Angel is a babe in the woods when it comes to business, contracts, negotiations and such. In short, he's no match for Geller off the stage.

It appears that there are no normal human beings in your world, everyone is either a hero or a villain, and the slightest misstep automatically puts someone in the enemy's camp.
 
Geller was recently on a radio show: (10/06/07) where he spoke of this show a little:

http://www.planetparanormal.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=38

His comment was that they will be looking for the next great mentalist act. That he doesn't really care HOW they do what they do, but that they are mesmerizing, and have a lot of charisma.

So basically the show sounds like it is like American Idol or You Think You Can Dance: it's looking for a next great performer or act (who will I suppose get jobs in Vegas and such after this).
 
Isn't that a tacit admission by Geller that that's exactly what he is? A mentalist gone "deep cover"?
 
Beady said:
He's neither, he's just an innocent.

This forum is the only place I've ever encountered where innocence is considered a crime. Randi's not the only one who's getting fed up with it.
Click to expand...


The word "dupe" carries no connotation of blame, as you are implying. So to the extent we are arguing over terminology, please explain the difference between an "innocent" as you say, and a "dupe," meaning "one that is easily deceived or cheated" (I'll leave "dope" out of it for now).

To the more substantive issue...I didn't hear Randi's original statement, so I can't respond to it (but I'll ask him next time I get the chance)...but you seem to be arguing that Angel has zero business acumen and therefore cannot be blamed for how he and Gellar come across on a TV show in which Angel stars.

I'd like to know why the "lack of business sense" excuse can hold water when:

1. Angel has been in "the business" for years, is probably worth millions of dollars, and can undoubtedly hire the best legal representation in town to advance his interests/wishes.

2. Angel's business acumen, or lack thereof, has no bearing on his willingness to participate in a television show that may very well present Geller as a genuine psychic.

If Angel has no problem with such an arrangement, he can rightly be accused of "selling out" wrt his skeptical cred (to the extent he ever claimed to have some). But OTOH, if Geller's awesome skills of contract negotiation have forced Angel, against his wishes, to participate in a show that is sympathetic to Geller's claims of psychic powers...well, please explain how the word "dope" does not apply to Angel.
 
It was a very brief interlude in an extended conversation, and I don't remember the exact wording (if anyone else who was there remembers, and if they're reading this thread, I wouldn't mind if they gave their version); I therefore am not going to get trapped into defending or explaining Randi's comments.

I would, however, like to point out that they were Randi's comments, not mine. I would also like to point out that Randi is personally and more than passingly acquainted with Angel and I am reasonably certain you are not; I therefore lend more weight to Randi's take on things than I do to your arguments.

Finally, I believe it is exactly this black-and-white, either-or type of thinking and argumentation that has me, and I believe Randi, so disgusted with the forum. It certainly does not conform to any kind of scientific method.
 
Jimbo07 said:
Isn't the whole point of magic (as a profession) to use tricks to create magnificent illusions.

At least it's more fundamentally honest than psychics...
Click to expand...

Exactly. Although they claim they're going to be sawed in half, nobody really believes that they will be. They make their living creating the illusion that they'll be sliced in half, and everybody accepts it while suspending their disbelief during the show.
 
Beady said:
It was a very brief interlude in an extended conversation, and I don't remember the exact wording (if anyone else who was there remembers, and if they're reading this thread, I wouldn't mind if they gave their version); I therefore am not going to get trapped into defending or explaining Randi's comments.
Click to expand...

The only one "trapping" you is yourself. You advanced, and presumably agreed with, Randi's alleged rationale for Angel's involvement. Don't pretend anyone here is putting you in an unfair position by asking you to defend a position you explicitely advocated.

I would, however, like to point out that they were Randi's comments, not mine. I would also like to point out that Randi is personally and more than passingly acquainted with Angel and I am reasonably certain you are not; I therefore lend more weight to Randi's take on things than I do to your arguments.
Click to expand...

First, you can't put forth Randi's words to support your position and then hide behind the fact that they are "Randi's comments not yours" when you are challenged.

Second, I never took issue with Randi's characterization of Angel as an "innocent." I took issue with the idea that Angel's business naivite absolves him of responsibilty for his decisions, especially decisions whose implications do not require any business accumen to fully comprehend. Saying that Angel bears no responsibility for promoting Geller as a genuine psychic (if the show does that) becuase he's a naive businessman is a dumb argument, whether it comes from Randi or anyone else.

Finally, I believe it is exactly this black-and-white, either-or type of thinking and argumentation that has me, and I believe Randi, so disgusted with the forum.
Click to expand...

Huh? If Chris Angel is participating in a program that portrays Geller as genuinely psychic, how is it wrong to say that it damages his skeptical credibility? I'm sorry if that's too either-or for you, but I genuinely don't see how it can be viewed another way. Please explain how it can.

It certainly does not conform to any kind of scientific method.
Click to expand...

You are expecting debate on an internet forum to conform to any kind of scientific method? Whose being "innocent" now? :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom