Some magicians love to have double endings for their routines.

Eg:

1) In triumph
1st ending: Card selected is the only card reversed in the whole deck.
2nd ending: Card reversed is the only red card in the blue deck.

2) In Out of this World
1st ending: All cards are separated into reds and blacks. But there was one mistake in each of the blue and black piles.
2nd ending: The names of the "mistaken cards" have been written down in an earlier prediction and you produced the prediction.

Some people think that having a second ending will dilute the impact of the first. But some think it would adds to the overall impact.

Whaddaya think?

hey.

I think the first trick is fine but the second one is not. Here's the reason. The focus, depending on your presentation, is on the uniqueness of the one card in triumph. How its special and so forth. The second ending re-enforces this notion.

Whereas in OOTW, usually, the idea is that the spectator has some intuition because he can sort out the deck using his instincts and thus is in the limelight. When you add your second ending, you give the impression that you are one step above him hence not only reducing his contribution to the magic but trying to steal te limelight in a way that goes against the spirit of the trick. Perhaps if you can find a novel way to present it, you might be able to pull it off.

CSJ

IMO, both is fine, it really depends on how you present it (I do really think so when I say this, considering how much I believe in absolutes for magic theory).

If I were performing, I would prefer the first ending to the second since it directly adds to the effect.

The second ending is more of a twist, which is possible and if your style is one of the "magician in trouble... but not really" thing which teases your audience in a playful manner, I don't see why not. In the given scenario, the magical element isn't diluted on the whole, though I do not see how it is strengthened either.

I often have 2 endings to the end of an effect. Like a prediction after a good guess of things. Or a ambitious with a color change card for the ending.

Because sometime, it just give the final kick to the audience and they will be totally amazed and lost. After that, no explaination is needed before everything just happened in front of their eyes.

Larry

Hmm, if you have two or more endings, i think it is important that you audience will remember all the endings.

It would be nice if they said: ' OMG, he did this, then this, then this!!!'

Sometimes one subsequent endings can kill previous climax. So if they happen to cancel one another, then people will say 'oh he did alot of stuff, then suddenly, this happened'

Actually either reaction i also don't really mind, maybe because i am not a perfectionist.

Anyway, i believe that the rule of thumb is that the next climax must be more powerful then the previous one. They must progressively become more amazing. If you have 3 climaxes to one effect and they are about the same strength, then that will probably be a problem.

Let's see... Example would be, how about David Stone's Card in mouth. It is essentially a card in mouth effect right? But he does alot of stuff before the card crawls out of his mouth. If i did remember correctly, he did a hot shot cut, wrong card, do some rub-a-dub, card vanish, and suddenly the card is in the mouth. The moment the card crawls out of the mouth, it's sort of nice. But then you'll suddenly think, why the hell did he do all those before that. What's the purpose? Because at the end of the day, the audience did not received anything.

The next important point to note is the timing of which these climaxes are presented.

-One immediately after another, or
-wait a while for audience to let it sink in before presenting the next.

This greatly depends on the trick you are doing. One technique may work better with some tricks while the other may work better with other tricks.

Example : Cups and balls?

Paul Gerdner: His Cups and steel Balls, if you have seen it, his final final load is a huge ball that doesnt even fit into the cups. He shows it immediately after revealing 3 usual final load. (Some see this as a extra climax, i certainly do, because it brings audience to a higher level.)

John Mendoza: His cups and balls, the version i saw has a 278 cents (sense) climax. He waited quite long after his final loads, to reveal this final climax.

In both cases, it worked well. but if you are working on something, it is important for you to figure out yourself which one will work the best. Not just work, it has to be the BEST option.

Last important thing about multi climax routines, it is essential to sell every climax like it is the last. You know there's more but the audience doesn't. I can't exactly put into words why this is important but it just is.


ZiAn

I tend to disagree about your comments regarding David Stone. To me personally, David Stone is a very clever guy. Everything he does work for him well all because of his personality. He knows very well what works and what don't.

He is a graduate with philosophy major, so yarh. He knows how to deal with people. Check out his stuffs, his theories especially. They are all interestingly real.

I think you misunderstood what he was trying to do. He was trying to show that the card came out of the deck and then he makes it vanish and it appears in his mouth. That doesnt complicate the effect but makes it more impossible.

I never see David Stone's CTM effect so can't comment on it.

I remember reading in a book (by Derren Brown, I think... not too sure) that by having a lot of things "happen" before the final climax, it will it very hard for the spec to recontruct the whole effect. Maybe, that's what Stone was trying to do.

Eg:
Coin put into left, disappear and reproduce it by La Masque.
Spec: It's in the other hand.

Coin put into left, didn't disappear, close left hand again (coin muscle p across), open left hand, La Masque again.... reproduce.

Spec: Huh? I saw it in the left leh.... :wacko: