ok i love triumph i also love color changing triumph what do you guys feel about taking oz pearlman's emerge triumphant and combinding it with a color changing deck

feed back please

I don't like color changing triumphs and I don't like emerge triumphant so... yeah.
I think that a standard triumph routine, when done right, is one of the most amazing tricks you can do with cards and the emerge triumph thing or a color changing finale takes away from the main climax.

I've never really been into the triumph too much anymore. did it heaps when I started, but now...maybe once in a while. All I do now that has anything sorta similar to it is "waltzing cheek to chek" from josh jay 'cause LOOOOVE doing anniversary waltz, and "back in time" from sankey.

I love Triumph. The version I personally prefer is Vernon's original (the original with the push-through), but there are some great variations out there.

Having said that, I am not a fan of Emerge Triumphant. It is, in my mind, a classic example of trying to pool too many climaxes into an effect. There is a HUGE structural flaw in the routine. Think about this - you start with a deck of cards, shuffle them face up into face down, then show that everything is restored except for a selection. Great effect, now imagine that after you show the selection, you show that the deck is in new deck order. What is the first conclusion any reasonable spectator would come to? The deck was never shuffled - which is exactly what happens! At the end of the effect, you give the spectator a foothold to working backwards and ascertain the method. All this without adding anything significant or relevant to the effect. I believe that the new deck order ending serves only to significantly weaken the effect.

The color changing deck idea is a good one - however, I would be careful while choosing or constructing a routine. Triumph is a strong effect by itself, and one of the great convincer's in the routine is the ability to show multiple backs and multiple faces in the deck at the same time. With most color changing/triumph routines, you lose this aspect, and consequently, the triumph part of the routine is less convincing. There are nevertheless great color changing deck/triumph routines out there, David Williamson's Funner Color Stunner come to mind, but just be mindful when you're picking routines.

Hope this helps.

Cheers
Ted

I agree that the new deck order ending of Emerge Triumphant is anti-climatic, but I disagree with your assumption that they can conclude that "the deck was never shuffled." First of, a false shuffle is meant to look like a real shuffle, and it DOES. If that isn't the case, perhaps in a regular triumph, a spectator could assume you never actually shuffled the cards face up and face down. Following your logic, a spectator would come to the conclusion that you gave them a different card when it changes in their hand, or that you switch it before you put it in the middle in an ACR. I used to perform Emerge Triumphant and never got caught. While the end does detract from the standard triumph climax, it is in no way "structurally flawed." Whether or not a piece of an effect is relevant to the other is arguable - for example effects where a deck just changes color for no apparent reason. The instant download, "Revolver," comes to mind. What matters is the reactions - it doesn't matter what the magician thinks about the trick.

I actually think the new deck order could add to the effect but only for certain performers. As an example I'll cite several gambling demos that end with an entire deck display of some sort(either a new deck order display or a display in which all four of a kinds are clumped together.) There are a few techniques I have seen used to make these work. One, the final display is at the end of a lengthy demo thus making it seem more impossible that a stacked deck could have been maintained for so long. The other, at some point in the routine the faces of a mixed deck are shown. Obviously you will need some skill with deck switches or perfect faros to pull off that latter.

I have nothing against the full deck order at the end of Emerge Triumphant although I have held off performing it as such, lacking a surrounding routine that could help drive home the significance of the final phase. My guess is that most people wont go through the time and effort to build a routine that will help set up that final reveal. So for the most part I agree with Ted but I will also say that I think it can be done well. Only problem is that Emerge Triumphant is a fairly easy trick(advanced beginner or maybe intermediate) but building a routine that could really sell it would be very hard.

Juan Tamariz has great version of triumph from his book Sonata.

The original triumph was performed with a push through shuffle (or strip out if you ask Johnny Thompson...), as the story goes, Vernon was able to do it so well that people thought it was a genuine shuffle. I don't doubt that a technique if done well, can fool and nullify the possibility that deception has occurred. However, this doesn't address the structuring issue of the effect. Following my logic, let's take the d0uble lift equivalent of what I believe to be a glaring structural flaw. You do a double to show three of clubs, you then apparently give this card to the spectator where it changes into the nine of diamonds, all is right in the world. However, what happens if you then show the spectator that the top card on the deck is the three of clubs? It gives them a foothold in which to work backwards. Since real magic obviously does not exist, the only logical explanation is that you switched the card as it gave it to them. I'm not saying that the effect won't fly this way, but it makes it easier for the spectator who is not in a moment of suspended disbelief to logically deduce the method. Good routines are structured to block out potential methods of backtracking. Vernon's Ambitious Card routine published in Stars of Magic is a good example of this principle.



The age old argument. I used to perform a very sloppy side steal, but I've never gotten caught either, that doesn't mean that it wasn't a bad side steal. What we're ultimately looking to achieve is art right? Because we can get away with sloppy technique and bad routining does not mean that it is a good justification. As for if an effect is relevant or not, that depends on the way you choose to present your work. Fitzkee gives the now classic example. If you were in the middle of a conversation, and you produce a ham sandwich out of the air, people might be amused, but no body cares. However, if someone mentioned that they were hungry, and you reach out and produce a sandwich, now the effect has context, it has proper framing and now there's a reason for someone to care, to relate. Watch Tommy Wonder perform, he exemplifies the roles drama and theatre should play in a performance. What matters is reactions, but an artist must care about his craft and he must work to perfect it, otherwise he cannot achieve greatness in his art.

Cheers
Ted