Talk:The Prestige (film)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Third-party opinion needed?

Regarding the Adapatation from novel section, I am still concerned that this list is little more than a recitation of trivia. WP:TRIVIA indicates an desire to avoid this, and offers a route for fixing it (usually by moving "facts" into more appropriate content elsewhere in the article). Unfortunately, I can see no place where these items can go (while maintaining the tenor and quality of the article) or haven't already been referenced. Even the intro to the section duplicates material stated earlier in the article.

If I am the only one with this opinion, please let me know and I will drop the matter. I have offered numerous opportunities to achieve consensus, following steps outlined in Resolving disputes and used in other disputes (such as creating a temp page for offline content development and discussion of WP:OR and WP:TRIVIA concerns). For whatever reasons, the other editor dislikes this approach, believing them to be counter-productive and non-standard methods for resolution of article content disagreement.

This has been going on way too long (see Differences from novel temporary page and Differences to novel section above) and I'd like to call in a third-party from WikiProject Films to provide an opinion. Any one else think this is a useful step? If you don't, please indicate that as well. (plus I'd like to archive this page soon!)

—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  16:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, Jim. I don't know of another path toward resolving the argument. Cognita 03:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I dare say you would have elicited wider editorial participation in the initial discussion, had it been more concise. WP:TPG#Good practice, cautions against posts exceeding 100 words. A quick check (of initial discussion) reveals 3 posts averaging ~100 words by Cognita, 5 averaging ~180 by myself and 7 posts averaging ~500 words (or ~440 excluding your quote of article text) by JimDunning. How now brown cow? Since the section has changed (title, position, content) somewhat, I suggest someone archive much of this talk page and we discuss the section again, possibly involving/inviting more editors... one issue/topic at a time. --Deon Steyn 06:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll work on that — I was wondering why no one ever responds to my posts. I've been dying to archive this page, so I'll do that later today. Since the key contributors now agree to discussion there is no reason to keep the previous discussions front-and-center; they'll still be available in case someone needs to info mine them.

Interested parties should outline viewpoints in support of or against retention of the list of differences between the novel and the film as it is currently presented. Suggestions for change, where appropriate, are invited. I’ll request third-party input from WikiProject Films.

—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  12:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagreement resolution needed: to include novel/film differences list or not?

A list of differences of details between the storylines of the novel and the film has been added to the film's article under the section titled Adaptation from novel. For the past two months this content has been the subject of sharp disagreement between primarily two contributors, resulting in multiple reverts and fruitless attempts at dispute resolution. (Those interested in the gory details can find them archived at opening rounds and temp page dispute.) All parties now have agreed to consider other editors' viewpoints. This is an invitation for comments on whether to include the content or remove it. Other ideas are welcome.

• The original contributor believes the list to be "quite substantial and very important to the article," and that it should be left in the article "as-is" so editors can work incrementally to improve it.
• The other editor sees the list as trivial "differences in events [that] might be important, but only in the context of their relationships to larger elements," and had suggested including significant adaptation changes in the context of the existing Themes and Production sections; he sees none that still remain in the list that are appropriate for inclusion in the article. Other editors have expressed concerns about WP:TRIVIA as well, and WP:OR.

Please comment below. —  Jim Dunning  talk  :  16:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a need for it. The Production section is the best place for a non-controversial adaptation, and frankly such sections get very trivial and a hive for original research. Incorporate into the Production section in a way you can. Alientraveller 16:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Déjà vu... first of all, it should be widely accepted that adaptations will stray from the source material in some sense... This is especially true for films based on books, usually for conventional and creative reasons. Thus, a list of differences created by the editors themselves is trivial and also qualifies as original research due to lack of verifiability from a single source. If there is not a single source that makes the connection between the source material and its adaptation somewhere in the public scope, then it is likely not to be important. For example, the last line says, "In the film, Angier commands Olivia, his assistant, to go work for Borden to act as a spy for Angier. In the novel, this plan is Olivia's idea." Is this important? It's too much of a judgmental call to make when such a comparison is not backed by an authoritative source, such as a reviewer making this observation. In addition, I think that the section should be re-written as useful prose, with transitions between the differences that are cited. The rest do not have a place in the article if there is nothing to back them except an editor's personal experience in reading the book and seeing the film. What would be best, though, would be any detail about the reasoning behind any particular change in the adaptation process; that would make the section all the more encyclopedic. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it may be worked into the Production section, but as it stands now, the list itself is unnecessary and tedious. The structure is problematic in its simplicity ("in the novel this," "in the film that"), and should most definitely be changed into prose. Even then it should be condensed into a few examples, perhaps ones that deal with differences in theme, if possible. Is every little small difference noteworthy? I highly doubt it. María: (habla conmigo) 16:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think if it's trule relevant, like the director explaining why he changed something; it was my opinion that "differences from the novel" usually accompany the article on the actual novel, and not the film. Atleast, for WikiProject Books, they actually have a section that is meant for that type of stuff.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Not for fictional books, according to WP:BOOK and WP:NOVEL. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books#Structures. There is a section to reference adaptations, but it doesn't allude to including great detail. I'd highly suggest not working it into the novel's article, but that's just regarding the best interests of the wikiprojects. María: (habla conmigo) 21:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... Jim. Not to distract from the discussion at hand, I thought we were going to start with a clean slate, concisely discussing technical issues with this section, but now you are distorting the case...

1. I am not the "original contributor", I merely moved/merged this section from the Novel's page, at the suggestion of another editor who – like María – felt it more appropriate on the adapted work's page.
2. You are implying I don't want it changed (left in the article "as is") when I have already cited numerous sources, added the intro, changed the title etc. I merely objected to the unusual notion of removing it to a subpage, supposedly to work on, where consequently no one really worked on it and it wasn't visible to new editors.

Back to the real issues:

• yes, some of the bullet items are trivial... just remove such items!
• yes, it needs more prose (as I have stated before and as I've added already).
• The title is already "adaptation" (not differences) and does indeed cite sources (five), one of which explicitly discusses differences between film and screenplay.[1]
• Production section sounds like a reasonable place (perhaps a paragraph if not 3rd level sub section?)

As for it's importance, from interviews with the Nolans it sounds like the most difficult part of the project and I as a viewer found it interesting to note some serious difference to the original work and – as Erik said – it would be interesting to note why. Now, why should this information be hidden and removed completely? Just edit it!!! --Deon Steyn 06:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Deon, you are too the original contributor in one sense: you brought the material to this article. Jim D. didn't accuse you of writing it.

My preference is to use none of it. As others have said, comparisons between the original work and the film are original research. Cognita 08:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I merely wanted to show that he was distorting the arguments, by implying that I, as the original contributor, had some attachment or bias to it. As for "original research": it clearly is no longer just a "comparison" as you put it, but a description of the process of adaptation of the work and even if it were a comparison, comparisons per se don't amount to original research. Clearly some points of trivia can be removed (and a large amount already have, see the first diff [2]). Why should reader should not be allowed to read about the difficult process of adaptation and the resultant creative solutions found? --Deon Steyn 08:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for any "distortion" of the facts. Maybe revising such will help (feel free to adjust where appropriate) —

• The original contributor moved the list from the novel page at the suggestion of an anon contributor, believing it to be "quite substantial and very important to the (film) article," and that it should be left in the article while other editors work incrementally to improve it. He sees the copy in its present form as no longer just a "comparison" list, but a description of the process of adaptation of the work. He also observes that "even if it were a comparison, comparisons per se don't amount to original research," and that the WP:OR issues have been significantly addressed by the addition of cites. The editor also objects to its removal to a temp page (for development and disucssion) as time-wasting and an "unusual notion."
• The other editor sees the list as trivial "differences in events [that] might be important, but only in the context of their relationships to larger elements," and had suggested including significant adaptation changes in the context of the existing Themes and Production sections; he sees none that still remain in the list that are appropriate for inclusion in the article. Other editors have expressed concerns about WP:TRIVIA as well, and WP:OR. The primary objector also disagrees with leaving it in the article during the dispute, believing the section's poor quality degrades the article, especially since no one appears to be interested enough in using and/or improving the material.

Commentors, please use this description of the situation, and also review the original contributor's comments above. My apologies to the previous commentors, who are certainly free to revise or rescind their opinions in light of this change. I'm sorry if my characterization of the dispute is in any way erroneous — not my intention, but not all parties have been willing to utilize common paths to dispute resolution. —  Jim Dunning  talk  :  11:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Revised by JimDunning 12:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I still stand by my advice. It was meant to be as independent of an opinion as possible from the dispute at hand, based on my understanding of the content's appropriateness elsewhere. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit explanations

As suggested, I am going to "just edit it!!!" so I'm making the following revisions to the Adaptation from novel content, identifying any material that represents a "serious difference to the original work" that is "significant to the adaptation process" (if reputable sources can be found). Consequently, I've eliminated any truly trivial items (such as differences that are common to any adaptation process and are inconsequential to the themes and primary structure of the film) and any that are already covered elsewhere in the article. What is left will be moved into the Production and Themes sections as suggested. As requested, explanations for the changes are provided on an item-by-item basis.

—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  15:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Director Christopher Nolan and brother Jonathan worked on adapting the original epistolary novel into a screenplay for several years. Nolan feels there are many similarities between film directors and magicians and wanted the film to function as a magic trick. They eventually decided on a three part structure to simulate the three parts of a magic trick also mentioned in the movie (pledge, turn and prestige).

• Remove — this is already addressed in the lead to the Plot and Production sections.

The film employs much of the same plot elements as the book, with a crucial exception: Tesla’s device produces a perfectly healthy duplicate of Angier (or any other living organism or object).

• Merge with Production section — I will attempt to address this in the Production section, however, since, in the film the duplicates are immediately killed, is the result significantly different from the novel (where the "prestiges" exist in some sort of suspended animation as opposed to drowned — even in the film they are stored, apparently uncorrupted, in tanks of water, very similar to the crypt environment in the novel)? This is related more to the obsession/sacrifice theme (the lengths Angier will go to), but sources are required. I'll try to find something. There's also nothing to support that this is a "crucial" departure from the novel.

Another departure from the book is the manner in which one of the Bordens dies. In the film Borden sneaks into the backstage area and witnesses Angier drowning. He is seen by Cutter and accused of murdering Angier, and sentenced to death by hanging. In the novel, Borden sneaks into the backstage area. He is not seen by Cutter. Borden does not die.

• Remove — This may not be as different as it might appear, since in the book Borden's interruption of the illusion results in the appearance of Angier's death. I can find no sources indicating this change is significant to the story development in itself, except as part of the change in frame story, which is already noted in the Production section. Maybe someone can locate a source singling out the significance of this (if there is one).

The story in the novel is introduced by two characters (living in the 1990s) who do not appear in the film: (1) Nicholas Julius Borden, a descendant of Alfred Borden; and (2) Katherine Angier, a descendant of Robert Angier.

• Remove — Frame story already addressed in the Production section.

In the novel, the story opens and ends in contemporary England. In the film, all events take place around late nineteenth century London.

• Remove — Frame story already addressed in the Production section and was covered in the preceding item.

In the novel Borden disrupts a seance held by Angier, accidentally injuring Julia Angier and causing a miscarriage; however, Julia remains an important character throughout the story. In the film Julia does not go to a seance and does not have a miscarriage, but is accidentally killed during an illusion.

• Remove or Merge with Themes — On the surface, this appears that it may be significant, but both fates differ only in degree and both serve as a catalyst for Borden's and Angier's acts of revenge/counter-revenge. This intensification of the one-upmanship rivalry is already highlighted in the Themes section, but I've found an additional single source that hits on this and will add it.

In the novel Borden and Angier never physically injure each other while sabotaging performances, with the exception of the mortal wounds as a result of interrupting the Tesla transportation. In the film, Angier shoots off two of Borden's fingers and Borden allows Angier's leg to be broken.

• Find a way to merge in Themes — A difference in degree, although the "mortal wounds" reference to the novel may be a bit of an overstatement, since it's a prestige that doesn't die/suspend immediately. These are really indications of the film's more intense rivalry between Angier and the Bordens; I've found a single source that allows it to be added to the Themes section as such.

In the novel Borden interrupts Angier's act by turning off the teleportation machine, but in the movie he does not interfere. Instead we see Borden go backstage and he sees Angier's (clone's) death in the water tank.

• Remove — Actually erroneous as Borden very much interferes with the illusion in the film, but again just a difference in degree (in both works Borden's interruption results in momentous consequences), and appears to be more relevant to the change in frame story, which is already addressed. Also, I can find no sources to support singling this out.

In the novel, Angier obtains and publishes Borden's journal after obtaining Tesla's device. In the film, Angier and Borden obtain each other's journals both of which contain deliberately misleading entries.

• Remove — The manner in which the journals are used and adapted is already nicely covered in the opening paragraph of the Production section.

In the novel, Angier survives the events that have unfolded and is still alive in the 1990s, but in the film he appears to perish many times. He is shot by Fallon and dies at the film's conclusion.

• Remove — If you can call the creature still alive Angier. And isn't what Borden causes to happen to Angier during the interrupted illusion a sort of death? This is a repeat of the suspended-animation-duplicate / duplicate-drowned difference. Both dispositions have the same effect on the story line.

In the film, only a single Borden survives, whereas in the book one, possibly two, survives.

• Remove (for now) — How was this a key part of the adaptation process? It certainly appears to be an important part of the film's structure, since it ties in with "bringing it (the bird) back" (the third act), but this is just my take (WP:OR) and I haven't located a supporting source yet. Also, if I recall, Borden's fate in the novel is not exactly clear.

In the film, Angier commands Olivia, his assistant, to go work for Borden to act as a spy for Angier. In the novel, this plan is Olivia's idea.

• Remove — I can find no source that supports that this is significant to the plot or the adaptation process.

If anyone can find sources I couldn't, please appropriately include the material in the Themes or Production sections. Please do the research first to justify its inclusion (especially if unfamiliar with both the novel and film), and merge it into the existing material. This detailed entry will serve as a record of the pre-revision state for future reference.

—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  15:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Jim, you're being very generous and forbearing. I myself wouldn't have volunteered the time to do all that work. How often does it happen – rhetorical question here – that material is added to an article because just one person keeps promoting it although several others who've monitored the article longer say they don't think it's necessary or helpful? Cognita 03:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Finally! I moved it, it was edited and now both articles are the better for it – some would argue, because the section no longer exists in either :-) Pity it had to be this difficult and tiresome to accommodate different editing styles and to remember that perfection is not required. --Deon Steyn 08:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Live bullet

There was not a "live bullet" in the gun when Angiers shot Borden. A modern "live" round has a shell, gunpowder, and a bullet. A Prestige-era handgun did not use "live" rounds as we know them. Wikiteur 13:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

By that era (1878-1900) small arms using paper cartridges and percussion caps were not obsolete but were being supplanted by newer technology. Brass cased ammunition was commonly available, the Enfield rifle (among others) used a center fire brass cartridge at least as early as 1867, Pinfire cartridges being popular in french revolvers in the late 1850's.Saxophobia 23:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice history lesson Saxophobia, however Wikiteur is correct. The instance of the no bullet in the gun aspect involved a muzzle loader; clearly the status of live or not is irrelivant with a muzzle loader as there is no cartridge. There's either a bullet in it, or not. Jachin 18:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"See also" under Themes

Are the three wiki-links on the "See also" line under Themes appropriate? Nikola Tesla in popular culture is listy and does not describe in any way the thematic application of the historical person to fictional universes. Swampman and Identity and change also seem like personal observations of what the film's themes match, with no actual citation that I can see in the section that actually fits the latter two. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Except "Identity and change" does touch upon the subject of teleportation, and specifically refers to the book "The Prestige". -- Beardo 17:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, this isn't obvious to the end user. I'll see what I can do to clear up any outstanding issues. —Viriditas | Talk 01:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Mention of The Illusionist

I made a mention of the film The Illusionist in the intro as it came out the same year and those of us interested in both films but who have seen neither often get them confused, so I thought the link would help.

--Wowaconia 12:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the mention of The Illusionist, but to include Scoop as well when you say all explore the lives of stage magicians is superfluous at best. Scoop may have a stage magician (played by Woody Allen) as one of the central characters, but magic is nothing more than a sideshow and hardly warrants mention in a discussion of the film itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.0.33 (talk) 08:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. All three films were mentioned in review articles together. —Viriditas | Talk 09:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Borden twins: which is which?

I haven't read the novel but I checked it here on wiki. Now I understand the name Alfred comes from the real names of the twins: Albert and Frederick. At least it is in the book. If one of them keeps disguising as Fallon until he jumps out of the box in performing The Transported Man, that will keep the thing simple. But the two takes turns which confuses me. Which one is which during their every appearance in the movie? So far I identify some of them but still not be sure the rest. For example I can tell the one who loves Sarah is the same one who survives at last. The other one who causes the death of Angier's wife dies in the jail. But I don't know which one is shot by Angier and which one makes his fingers cut intentionally. Also which one is buried alive. These might be irrelevant questions but I wonder if anyone is interested in joining in identifying them? Or there is some source can tell? --Mato Rei 05:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the archive links at the top right-hand corner of the page. We have had a lot of fun discussing this topic! —Viriditas | Talk 08:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The Julia section in archive 2? I tried archives before in case it occurs but just a glimpse of the Contents. Never thought it's in that section. Yeah I also have fun now. Thanks! --Mato Rei 12:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fallon and Caldlow in the cast list

Which nicely segues into this topic: putting Caldlow and Fallon in the cast list. Caldlow shouldn't be there since Jackman isn't playing two characters, just one who uses a stage name; Caldlow is never presented as a separate character.* Putting Root there might get better mileage (although I still argue Root is played by a double), but even there Jackman is used merely for a "special effect" (presenting a look-a-like character). And then what do you do about all the duplicates, who are played by Jackman? Shouldn't they be listed as well (Hugh Jackman as Robert Angier/Lord Caldlow/Duplicates 1–999: An aristocratic magician with a talent for performance and his many stage doppelgangers.)? Now the Alfred/Fallon duality presents a thornier case. Here we have one actor playing two people playing one character. And to make it even more complicated, 90% of the time we see Fallon, it most likely isn't Bale playing him, but a double; and when it clearly is Bale playing Fallon, Fallon is playing at being Alfred. So how do we do that?

To make things simple, Fallon and Caldlow should be removed from the cast list simply because they don't appear in the official credits. And before anyone argues that articles often include uncredited actors, I point out we're talking about uncredited characters here. Thoughts?JimDunning 03:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

* yes, there is some mystery about Lord Caldlow's identity initially, but it ends as soon as we see who he is.

• Support. We need to go with official cast credits. —Viriditas | Talk 03:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps Jackman plays Fallon when Bale must play Alfred in one shot. Because Fallon and Angier rarely appear together. :D --Mato Rei 09:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• One thing that is for certain is that Hugh Jackman played the part of Root as well as Angier. This is most evident in the scene where the two characters talk to each other after Root auditions. The camera never actually shows the two of their faces in the same shot, instead a double is used to portray the backside of the character. This is done very convincingly and I must congratulate Nolan for fooling me on this issue the first time I saw the film. However, when Angier's face is shown, he is being played by Hugh Jackman, and when Root's face is being shown he is also being played by Hugh Jackman. --Cycleboy78 01:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Has the contention that Root is played by a double ever been adequately addressed? Jackman admits playing the double here. Viriditas (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Well, not in my mind since I have a very reliable crew member that states there was another actor, but my info counts for squat here and I've been unable to find any source to counter or clarify Jackman's statement in the interview. Oh well. Until more information comes to light I'd consider the discussion closed.
    Jim Dunning | talk 12:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Jim, I know you have good sources, but did you read the comment above my own? It's possible that both are true. That is to say, Jackman played Root and a double was used for the scenes where Root's face was not shown. Viriditas (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree. I was thinking of that scene as well. It's clear some kind of double was used, but it leaves open the question of how "much" of a double the other actor was (i.e. how similar were the faces). The crew member says they looked so much alike that cast and crew members often mistook the double for Jackman. My impression, however, is that Jackman's statement leads one to believe the key shots of Root and Angier were of Jackman, not a double. It would be nice if we could find a source with more detail.
        Jim Dunning | talk 19:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Question: Are you sure it does not appear in the closing credits of the film? I can check my DVD. Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the description of Tesla's device correct?

The synopsis states that the Angier who steps into the device is drowned, and the duplicate is transported. I think it's the other way around. Whatever is placed in the device is transported, and the duplicate is left behind. This is supported by Angier's recollection of his first transportation. The 'original' Angier is transported and then killed by the duplicate. Mcr29 18:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is beyond confusing, so there is no real good answer. See the talk archives (linked above) to check if previous discussion helps clear this up, if at all. The difference between "original" and "duplicate" is never made clear in the film (possibly to strengthen the twinning metaphor) but in the book, this is not a problem. —Viriditas | Talk 03:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• No provenance but I think all duplicate Angieres are the original one. Unlike the genetic cloning there is no original one and copied one. The machine works more likely to separate the original one into two equally. Just like the process of cell division happens to a person. So there is only the difference between living Angier and dead Angier. I may be wrong. --Mato Rei 04:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That sounds right. —Viriditas | Talk 04:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Even so, one *must* be the Angier who stepped into the machine, and the other is the one created by the machine. It's not as if two Angiers are created from nothing. To further my argument, Angier makes a dying comment to Borden about knowing what it's like to steal another man's work. The flashback of the duplicate shooting the original is then shown. So the first duplicate is the one who actually performed night after night and was killed by Borden. Mcr29 05:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Check the talk archives. There's no way to know any of this, so don't beat your head against the wall! :-) Each time Angier entered the Tesla machine he didn't know if he was going to be the man in the balcony or in the water tank. We don't know, either, nor does it matter. The whole point is to maintain the twin metaphor; it works for both Angier and Borden, doesn't it? Which Borden was executed? —Viriditas | Talk 05:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • A comment from Tesla in the film indicates that perhaps sometimes the duplicate was the one transported, and at other times, the original was transported. The comment was something about the unpredictability of the science. Scarletdown (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
    • It's a fictional machine without proper official explanation. So it's pointless to argue how exactly it works. That's why the movie looks a bit like a classic freak show. But in case if you feel the "duplicate" Angier disguises himself as Lord Caldlow to cover the death of the "real" one, Lord Caldlow is supposed to be the true identity of Angier in the first place. --Mato Rei 05:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
      • It doesn't matter who the original Angier or Borden is or isn't. This is a psychological conflict based on one of the oldest themes known to humanity, the Twin (mythology). The book paid more attention to the classical fictional device of a doppelgänger, whereas the film played more with the notion of look-alikes and evil twins: this is the inner rivalry, between Angier and Caldlow and Borden and Fallon. It's interesting to note that neither Angier or Borden are portrayed as truly evil, but rather simply flawed, incomplete, lacking something that the other one has. This rivalry is a commentary on both the inner and the outer battle within the characters and between them; this has less to do with actual clones or twins: that's the outer story and only serves to move the plot. You see, they were always competing against themselves more than they were against each other, although that isn't apparent to the casual viewer. Borden and Angier were trying to escape their respective milieu through magic: that was the greatest trick, neither one of which was able to perform. —Viriditas | Talk 06:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Well, I recall a short dialogue between Angier and Tesla that might hint the answer.

Tesla: Don't forget your hat.

Angier: Well, which one is mine?

Tesla: They're all your hats, Mr. Angier.

• • • • • I say this, based upon the machine in the stage when it replicated the hats. Judging from how it operated, at that point, it was the duplicate that was transported. Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many hats outside, but they would all have ended up in Tesla's lab. There is no way to tell whether the machine was changed, at any point after, but I don't see so much to go on, otherwise, without possibly extrapolating, looking at minor quotes.User:HPRS

--Mato Rei 06:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you know the original hat wasn't outside, and the rest are copies of the first copy that were teleported and replaced with a duplicate hat? 68.166.65.221 02:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Oh come now, enough with all these weaksauce pithy comments about which is the original and which isn't. We're dealing with a metaphorical mind upload into an identical biological entity. Which one stepped into the machine? BOTH! They are duality. You cannot seperate one from the other, they're identical instances. That's the beauty of the reveal of the machine, he's not killing a clone, or an imposter, or 'his double', he's killing himself. Every time. He is killing himself. Maybe it's the masters in chaos theory and multiverse dynamics that's bent my mind for that to have been obvious from the get go and it's wrong of me to assume our editors posting in this section are rather full of fail, but regardless. It's prima facie that they are one and the same, there is no 'other'. Jachin 18:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, to clarify my above comment. The instant the duplication occurs both the copy and the original ARE the original and the same until both seperate and have a difference between the two. Thus, on instant replication whichever is the 'real' him is irrelivant because they both have exactly the same memories and brain pattern, the same sentience is arguable based on one's religious belief of where the soul is, yadda yadda, all that jazz. Regardless, scientifically (where there is no soul) the replicatee and the replicant are one and the same because they are identical in every way. Hard to get your head around, but true. Jachin 18:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely. You should stick around and help add this information to the theme section with sources. Nice job. —Viriditas | Talk 02:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Why does he even bother performing the magic trick? Just spend a couple of days throwing a piece of gold into the machine - more money, less hassle, and no-one has to die. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.68.35 (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Assuming this isn't a rhetorical question, because Angier and Borden have a very personal connection to each other and Angier is obsessed with besting him. The Incident (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers in Plot and Themes

Much of the end of the movie is being spoiled by these two sections. Having seen the movie twice, I can say that I believe that knowing Borden and Fallon are twins will ruin the experience for anyone who has not seen the movie. I'm a longtime visitor of Wikipedia, but a first time contributor. Is it possible to put some sort of "Spoiler Warning" in the main page? Isaac 7-9

WP:SPOILER. Alientraveller 20:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

WP is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement, so the complete plot is referenced. Can you imaging a discussion of Romeo and Juliet as a tragedy without mentioning that they _____ in the end?
Jim Dunning | talk 20:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't asking to omit anything. Only adding a "Spoiler Warning" as a common courtesy towards anyone who stumbles onto the page before viewing the movie. That's not that big of a deal is it? Also, I believe after reviewing the guideline that you linked me to, that these sections deserve some sort of warning. Be it breaking the sections into smaller sections or adding an actual warning. Isaac 7-9

I should have amplified a bit more. The guideline says, "Spoiler warnings are usually redundant when used to cover an entire 'Plot' or 'Synopsis' heading". You're suggestion to break the section up implies the desire to provide details of the plot, but warn when a key event or revelation is about to be discussed. However, in The Prestige, just exactly where would you do that? You've focused on the Borden twins secret, but what about Julia's death, or Sarah's suicide, or Tesla's machine, or . . . ? What qualifies as a twist? Which twist should be hidden and which twist can be sacrificed? This is especially challenging in a film that is nothing but twists and turns, where we really can't break up the Plot section without sacrificing the quality of the writing. Thus, the whole plot section is full of secrets and therefore some would consider adding a warning appropriate for the whole section; but since WP is an encyclopedia, the warning is redundant (the whole Plot is revealing). This is true for most thrillers, mysteries and action movies.

With that said, there is a provision that says, "Spoiler notices may be appropriate in a subsection of a "Plot" heading, where there is consensus that the spoiler is particularly significant". This covers movies like The Sixth Sense, whose ending is the key to the story's success. The editors in that article refrained from placing a SPOILER tag, but do give some warning to readers with, "Anna's hand releases Malcolm's wedding ring, revealing the twist ending of the film — that Malcolm . . . " (notice I refrain from revealing the ending just in case you haven't seen the film). For The Sixth Sense I could even agree to putting a warning there because of the ending's unusual significance (and the Borden twin device doesn't rise to the same level (and many people figured it out long before the end)). But with most other films, how could you get consensus on what story element rates a warning?

WP also adds the provision, "Spoiler notices are more likely to be appropriate in newer works than in older works. Movies currently in first release, TV shows that haven't aired in all major markets . . . ." I'm unsure I agree with it, but it appears that warnings are suitable for films still in there first release. Again, I shouldn't be surprised when I go to an encyclopedia and see twists revealed in the Plot section whether the movie opened this past Saturday, six months ago, or 20 years ago. When I read the teaser for a book on the dust cover (or watch a movie trailer), I don't expect twists to be given away, but WP isn't a teaser, it's an encyclopedia.

Also, I don't see WP readers "stumbling onto" a WP article, mistaking it for an ad or review (which don't give away secrets).
Jim Dunning | talk 22:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's generally accepted (now) that Plot sections will contain all plot points, described in a NPOV ... IOW, no hiding the surprises or being coy. I'm not so sure about the Themes section, as I'm not sure I'd anticipate that plot surprises are divulged there (unless they're central to a theme). I'd support a {{spoiler}} and {{endspoiler}} tag there. -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 03:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I also think a spoiler warning should go somewhere in the article (the most obvious place being the Plot section). Change of policies about spoilers change, but the readers are not always aware of that. dariopy —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As this is an encyclopedia and lists plots in full context, the word PLOT should be read here as synonymous with SPOILER. As mentioned above, a warning would be redundent.204.17.31.126 (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot length

Currently 1085 words, or around 6.60 kilobytes. —Viriditas | Talk 05:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Rex Reed

Film critic Rex Reed doesn't appear to enjoy this film, and his negative reaction to The Prestige should be added to the article.[3] Keep in mind, this is the same critic who called Memento "despicable" and Batman Begins "paralyzing...the worst Batman movie ever made". It would be nice to have a good rebuttal to this strange, off-the-wall criticism. —Viriditas | Talk 09:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"Only to the audience" and planning of Angier's shooting

Can someone please tell me how he recounts his method "only to the audience"? It seems to me that he's explaining his method directly to Borden as he was dying. He tells Borden to "look where you are" and "it takes courage to walk in every night not knowing whether I was going to be the prestige or the man in the box" (paraphrasing). Obviously, he doesn't play a video to Borden showing him exactly what we, the audience see, but it was pretty clear to me that these clips were meant to be explanatory not only to the audience, but in a sense to Borden as well. The phrasing (included below) makes it sound like Borden never finds out how Angier did the trick.

"Similarly, flashbacks recount (only to the audience) Angier's method: that each time he disappeared during his illusion, he fell into a locked tank and drowned, and the machine created a duplicate who teleported to the balcony and basked in the applause."

Also, having just watched the film again, it seems to me that Cutter colludes with Borden to allow Borden in to kill Angier so that Angier can re-unite with his daughter (who he earlier recommends that she "needs her father.") Cutter leaves "Lord Caldlow's" estate disgusted, as he has stolen Borden's daughter and helped frame him for murder. I assume that he resolved to help Fallon/Borden to get his daughter back after finding out that Lord Caldlow was really Angier. Thoughts?

Leshrac55 01:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The ending of the film Angier is still alvie. This is the reason for Caines V.O. asking the audience to "see it" Now if you pause the DVD you will actually see an air bubble rise int he water. How am I the only one who see this? I will keep changing this page till people understand this. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.42.208.182 (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please review the archive links at the top of this page. We discussed this when the film was originally released. —Viriditas | Talk 15:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So what are you suggesting? An Angier hid in a water tank, held perfectly still and held his breath for a at least 5 good minutes... For what? If there is an air bubble it's probably because Jackman needed to breathe... 68.166.65.221 02:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The air bubble is real; I saw it twice in the theater and on DVD. I can upload a screen shot from the DVD with the air bubble if necessary. The point is, other editors have argued that this doesn't mean anything, however what bothers me is this: the Nolan's are really good at what they do. If we saw the air bubble, then you can bet they saw it, and if it was a mistake, it would have been digitally removed. The fact that they left it in the film is very interesting, and nicely parallels the end of the novel itself. On the other hand, it doesn't make sense. The Angier floating in the tank is clearly dead and has no way of getting out. —Viriditas | Talk 07:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the Nolans' are good at what they do. The bubble, as well as the monologue suggest that he isn't dead, and odds are, he left the top open to get out of. Quite clever.Zero X Marquis (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Plot Ending

In the plot description of this page it states that the film ends with Borden eyeing the water traps containing the dead duplicates of Angier. However, when I saw the film (and I may be mistaken in this) it seemed as if the trap shown immediately before the credits contained a living Angier. This fact was further emphasized when the camera panned away from the burning theatre and to the body of Angier, which had wide open eyes and appeared to be viewing the scene that had just occurred between Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale, and the credits roled immediately after he came into full view (only showing the body for a second). It may also be that the director included this to leave the audience guessing as to whether or not the body was alive or not and whether Angier did in fact have the last laugh. Either way, a reference to this should be included into the Plot Summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cycleboy78 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that like most Nolan films, the film is non-linear, so the plot summary synthesizes in many areas, including the conclusion. This format isn't de rigueur, and improvements are always welcome as long as the plot is short and sweet per WP:MOSFILM. As for whether Angier has his eyes open or is alive, that is pure speculation on the part of the viewer, and should not even be mentioned in the article unless we have good sources representing that perspective. —Viriditas | Talk 05:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Viriditas. Also, the discussion about the bubble needs to stop. Firstly, as V points out, there are no referenceable (sp?) sources that even mention it (only fansite message boards). Secondly, the bubble does not come from the prestige's mouth or nose: when first seen it is moving upward from below Angier's shoulders, not from any orifice that is involved with respiration (I suppose it could be one of the world's smallest farts, though). My guess is that it is there purely to show that the tank is definitely filled with water; similarly, the prestige's eyes are open not to hint at the possibility of life, but just the opposite.
Jim Dunning | talk 13:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

One thing I have noticed is that everyone discussing the film here has accepted the idea that Borden and Fallon are twin brothers. However, it is never confirmed in the film. As Angier is dieing from the gunshot at the end, he makes that assumption, but it is neither confirmed or denied by the Borden he was talking to, let alone by any other part of the film. The only place that this is confirmed is in the novel, which is not exact same story as the film. In fact, I personally assumed that he had made a duplicate of himself in the same manor as Angier. This is supported by Borden's talk with Angier when Angier asks him to write down the method of the trick. Bordon writes one word(later revealed to be Tesla) and Angier says "I want the whole method, not the keyword..." and Bordon replies "The keyword(Tesla) is the method." Because of this, it can be construed that Bordon may also have been duplicated by Tesla. Until it is known for certain what the writers of the film (not the novel) intended, I believe that this plot summary should include both possibilities.

Also, IMHO, the death of one of the Bordens seems as though it may have been staged or escaped. What I noticed is that the film writers obviously made the small red rubber ball very important. In the last meeting with his daughter in jail, Bordon tells her that it will be alright, shows her the red ball. When Bordon is reunited with his daughter he produces(possibly) the same rubber ball. That along with the phrase "Are you watching closely?" that Borden said to the prison guard insinuates (at least to me) that he still had a trick up his sleeve, there would be no other reason to say this considering how meaningful EVERYTHING is in the film. In addition, the Borden in prison is most likely the husband of Sarah, father of Jess since he obviously cared for her greatly. One loved Sarah and the other did not. So why would he be so happy to see his "daughter" if it wasn't his daughter. I realize that my comments here are rather argumentative, but I would really like this article to include clarification of these questions or inclusion of the different possibilities of the relationship of Fallon and Borden. I am not a wikipedia editor, but every once in a blue moon, I like to request information from those that can supply it better than I can. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.207.153.165 (talk) 09:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

- There is no reason to assume that Borden used Tesla's machine. Borden had always been about self-sacrifice, and even if the face of his own death would have lied about his method. I had never even thought that perhaps he also was a clone, but since learning that the book contains evidence that they are brothers, I don't think there's sufficient evidence in the movie to conclude that this plot point was changed.

As far as which one was which when? I agree with others that the one that died was the one that died was not the one that was in love with Sarah. When he says "I'm sorry for sarah. I never meant to hurt her", he seems to be apologizing to Fallen. It was afterall his affair and his general attitude towards Sarah which may have contributed to her death. As for the daughter, I think it's fair to say that neither man knew who's daughter she was. It could have been either of them, and so I believe they both loved her very much regardless of whether one of them was not in love with the mother.

The signifigance of the rubber ball is that in his trick, it seems that the same man throws and catches the ball, but you learn that it is actually 2 different men. The man that throws it disappears and the man the catches it is the one that emerges. This is forshadowing of the Borden in prison who is about to "disappear", and the Borden who catches it, so is primed to "re-emerge" as the prestige.

The death and re-emergence of Borden at the end is in itself a magic trick done in a similar fashion to the transported man. Borden says "Are you watching closely" not because he will escape death, but because he will re-emerge via his twin brother. The dedicated professional is still performing even in the face of death. Afterall, they show and reference the bird trick multiple times, and in the real version, one bird always dies. It is another that is the prestige.

To reference topics above, I believe the one that is buried is the one that loves sarah. His comment over dinner with sarah that he thought he might have lost something very dear to him that day, makes me believe that he is speaking of his brother. I don't think he was speaking about his own life. And since the one talking does not seem to get along very well with sarah, I think it's the one that doesn't love sarah. The only other possibility is that he was referring to losing his great magic trick if he had died underground. I just feel the first scenario is more likely. -Adam D. 4/26/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamdrayer (talk • contribs) 01:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Original research and unsourced information

I've just learned that there are a number of strict rules on Wikipedia we have to stick to and I've had a posting (about a specific part of the plot) removed from this discussion page thanks to this. I will now clean up the article itself so that it conforms to said rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.63.228.90 (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're referring to the plot summary and uncited material. Plot description is not considered original research as long as it objectively describes the film's events and characterizations. Copy in need of citations should be flagged with a {{Fact}} maintenance tag to alert editors to that need.
Jim Dunning | talk 19:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Los Angeles Magazine

In case anyone is interested, there's a lot of material in the following citation for expanding the production section:

• Wada, Karen (2007-02-01). "Tricked Out: How production designer Nathan Crowley transformed modern Los Angeles into Victorian London for The Prestige". Los Angeles Magazine 52 (2): 94-97. ISSN 1522-9149.

This cite will also allow us to upload additional images to the production section for critical commentary. —Viriditas | Talk 06:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Country?

I don't see why my edit was reverted.

Both IMDb ([4]) and All Movie ([5]) put it as USA/UK

Also, what was wrong with the flags? Many other movie articles use them, ie.Die Hard and The Lord of the Rings film trilogy

Thanks Pablo Alto (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Pablo Alto, I removed the UK from the Infobox since the primary studio production companies involved with the film are Touchstone Pictures and Warner Bros., both US. I see that IMDb has the UK on there, but IMDb and AMG are not generally considered the best reliable sources. Template:Infobox_Film says the country listed should be "the country or countries that the film was produced in." In this case, The Prestige was wholly produced in the US (LA and Colorado (location), to be specific). Also, I looked at articles from reliable sources like Variety ([6] [7]) and Hollywood Reporter ([8]) and they describe it as a US production. Yes, Nolan and his wife Thomas are producers, but they aren't providing the funding.

As for the flagicons, there has been much discussion about them and the consensus is, despite the attractiveness of their compact size, they don't convey enough information since not everyone is familiar with every country's flag. WP:FilmRelease covers the guideline.

I hope this helps, and thanks for working to enhance the article.
Jim Dunning | talk 21:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Cast section

I was thinking, do you think it would be better if we cut up the information under the cast list, and combine each part with the appropriate character? See the cast section in Transformers (film) for inspiration. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 03:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Try it out. If it doesn't work, we can always revert to a previous version. Viriditas (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll get on it soon. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 04:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The basic idea is there. I will add more information soon. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 04:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Good work. I'll try to help in a few days. Viriditas (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's probably not a good idea to remove the bullet points until the section is re-written in prose. Currently, we have what looks like prose, but is actually a list lacking bullets, and it's very awkward to read. Viriditas (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation requested

Julian Jarrold's and Sam Mendes's producer approached Christopher Priest for an adaptation of his novel The Prestige

I haven't been able to verify this information anywhere, and I am unable to get a copy of the source cited. I suggest removing this from the article unless someone can independently verify it with actual text from the source or from another source. Viriditas (talk) 08:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Source 11. Alientraveller (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I am unable to verify the information. Most, if not all of the information in the article can be verified in multiple sources. Except for this. Perhaps you can help me: Who is the "producer" that is being referred to here, and why is Julian Jarrold and Sam Mendes relevant here? Is the producer Valerie Dean? It would help if you could quote the Empire article. Viriditas (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Questins about Sarah ????

I saw the movie once or twice on hbo and I'm not sure about a few things 1.Who was the little boy sitting next to her when Sarah and Berdon first meet???? 2.Why did Berden cheat on Sarah by seeing Olivia???? 3.Why did berden kill Sarah with that trap he set up???? 4.Did anybody know that Berden killed 2 people near the end???? 5.Did Sarah and Berden`s daughter Jess know that berden had killed Jess`s Mother???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.106.105 (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What what and what what? I'd advise you 1) watch the film again, 2) read this article or 3) read the IMDB FAQ. Alientraveller (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Production photos

Regarding Talk:The_Prestige_(film)#Los_Angeles_Magazine, I am fairly certain (haven't confirmed just yet) that the production photos in this published article are the same from the DVD featurette. If this is true, is there any objection to uploading a similar screenshot from the featurette and placing it in the production section with critical commentary sourced to the L.A. Magazine article? Viriditas (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 00:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll upload them tonight/tomorrow, depending on my free time. Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Still working on it, but I'm making progress. Viriditas (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm in the process of uploading a still of the Tesla experiment with critical commentary. After that, I'll focus on costume design. Viriditas (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Uploaded as Image:The Prestige Tesla's invention.jpg‎. Now I need to add it to the article... Viriditas (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, although I think we should add Christopher Priest's comments on "Victorian modernism" to the article, but preferably as a paraphrase and not a direct quote as the L.A. Magazine expands upon this theme: "I didn't really want the film to feel too much as if it were set in the past, I really wanted to try and emphasize the aspects of that world that are exciting to a modern audience...It was a period in which there was far more visual advertising than there is now. Posters were everywhere, text was everywhere and our backlot streets were intended to represent that. There's a messiness, there's a hard-sell quality, there's a lot of imagery assaulting people moving down the streets in a way that actually exceeds what we even have today..." Viriditas (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

So do I. It's a good quote. Maybe: "Christopher Priest did not want the film to feel too much as if it were set in the past, and wanted to try and "emphasize the aspects of that world that are exciting to a modern audience". He felt that since it was a period in which there was a lot of visual advertising, with posters and text everywhere, the backlot streets were portrayed in a way that would represent that. He said that the imagery assaulting people moving down the streets, with the "messiness" and that "hard-sell quality", exceeded what we have today." That was just a quick draft, but something along those lines. Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 06:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll try and whip up something on Monday. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Costume design

Joan Bergin's work should be mentioned in the production section in reference to Victorian fashion. Viriditas (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means; I'm not really into fashion. Who's Joan Bergin? Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 14:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Bergin is the the costume designer for the film. She helped develop the "feel" of the period piece with Victorian costumes. The clothing had a significant effect on the visual design and finished product, particularly the contrast between the earth tones of the clothing and and the flesh tones of the actors wearing it. This is discussed in the featurette. I'll see what I can put together. Bergin is an award-winning costume designer, whose work on The Prestige was nominated for at least two awards. Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. It should be included. :-) Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 05:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

In progress. Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Viriditas (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Expanding Tesla

Tesla content could be expanded to include information from Jonathan Nolan in the Creative Screenwriting podcast interview, as well as his commentary from the featurette. The relationship between the character of Tesla and Borden should be made more explicit per J. Nolan (Tesla is to Borden as Edison is to Angier; Nolan states the former, but the latter is implied or left unsaid AFAIK), etc. Viriditas (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you add it in? Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 06:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying, but I could use some help. Viriditas (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I would love to help, but I don't have access to either source. I will be on the lookout though on the internet. :-) Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 14:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Both sources are available on the net. Viriditas (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'm working on a couple of projects, but I'll be here to help. Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 14:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Mr. Dunning appears to be AWOL. Viriditas (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Film score reviews

1. Christian Clemmensen, Filmtracks
2. Christopher Coleman, Tracksounds
3. Jonathan Jarry, Soundtrack.Net

Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Should I add these in under reception? Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 14:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it should go under its own section, such as "Soundtrack" or "Film score" depending on what the film project prefers. Viriditas (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but the section would be a stub. If we did make a new "Music" section, we could also add the soundtrack (if there is one), and more info on the score. Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 14:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case, it looks like the film project favors using a production subsection called "Music". Based on the information in the above three links, there's plenty of content for at least two paragraphs. Viriditas (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 15:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Good work. Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll add the last one later. Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 11:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, and I added a quote box as well. Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 05:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess it has been a while, but I have rewritten the music section. Hopefully since there a lot less quotes, the section is easier to read. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 11:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, but I think "lonesome" is idiomatic enough that it should either be put in quotes (with more of the quote to provide suitable context) or another phrase used.
Jim Dunning | talk 11:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

FA push

After a good copyedit, do you think we should submit this for FA status? And also, could the quote box be changed under "Themes"? It doesn't really blend in with the page. Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 06:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is there just yet, but we're getting close. The lead needs significant expansion, for one. There are also several areas where the writing has degraded and needs to be cleaned up. I also need someone to address the concerns I raised in Talk:The_Prestige_(film)#Confirmation_requested, and I've noted a request for expansion in Talk:The_Prestige_(film)#Production_photos. The referencing format is in disarray and should be standardized. I prefer last name first. Viriditas (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. Well I also prefer last name first; I think that is the way to go. Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 06:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the lead section in the initial GA review linked above and compare it to the current lead. Viriditas (talk) 07:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a bit longer. Honselty, I am hopeless at writing leads. What else should we add in? Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 07:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking for your opinion. The current lead doesn't really summarize the entire article. Just put in on the list of things that needs to be done before an FA nomination. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ringer

Under Plot it says Alfred Borden and Robert Angier are ringers for Milton the Magician. The word "ringers" links to the Shill article but this nowhere mentions "ringers". Are ringers and shills the same thing? If so it should be clarified somewhere. Either use the word "shill" here or mention "ringer" in the Shill article. Saintmesmin (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you make a valid point. I believe I did change it to "shill" a while back, but I was reverted. Viriditas (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Plot objection

The plot is very long and overly detailed. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

True. About 100 words have been added since the article attained GA. The first paragraph in the plot can easily be moved to another section as it really has nothing to do with the plot but with the overall structure. Viriditas (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Twins?

Borden and Fallon are twins? I thought one was a duplicate of the other? I thought Angiers went to see Tesla to get the device and that he learned about the device via Borden's diary? --Meteor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.208.23.113 (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No. at one point they state that Borden never went to see Tesla. I think its in a scene where Angier is talking to Tesla's assistant and says something like "Tesla never made another device did he?" to which the assistant responds "I never said he did" or something similar. 118.208.196.18 (talk) 09:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Pledge, Turn, Prestige authentic?

Are these three terms really used to describe real-world magic tricks? In other words, do magicians actually use these terms to describe their tricks? 123.243.229.92 (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No, they were invented by the writers. Viriditas (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The word prestige is used. see [Prestige]59.91.220.143 (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that is 100% bogus and should be removed from Prestige. Thanks for pointing it out. Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Priest's approval

In the Production section it says, "Priest approved the adaptation, describing it as "an extraordinary and brilliant script, a fascinating adaptation of my novel". I'm wondering if it is accurate as is, or should it say, "approved of the adaptation"? Currently it seems to say Priest had script approval rights. Is this correct? Unfortunately, I don't have access to the source publication, Creative Screenwriting, to verify. Anyone else have it?
Jim Dunning | talk 01:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, this statement is not sourced to Creative Screenwriting. This problem was introduced by Finduilas 09 here. The user hasn't been active since 2007. In any case, you can see how multiple editors have combined the material, and it now appears sourced to Creative Screenwriting. Prior to Finduilas' edit, the material was sourced to IGN, and reads: Commenting on Christopher Priest's take on the film, Nolan says, "I think he liked the screenplay. We got his blessing early on."[9] Finduilas' changed it to "personally approved" in 2006, and her edits were never verified until now. In other words, it needs to be reverted back to "blessing" to avoid the inaccuracy you have observed. Viriditas (talk) 09:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Changed to "approved of" for the moment. If someone wants to represent the IGN source, by all means, go ahead. I'm really no longer active on this article but I thought I would drop in and help out. Viriditas (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"The Pledge, The Turn, The Prestige"

Everyone seems to assume that these are indeed terms used by magicians--or that were used by Victorian magicians--to describe the structure of a trick. But some casual Googling e.g. in Google Books and elsewhere, doesn't seem to turn up anything obvious that's earlier than the novel.

Are these authentic magicians' terminology and if so does anyone have a reference for them? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Made up. See post just two above this one.173.72.140.146 (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Duh. Thanks. But then, shouldn't the article say something about this, given that the tagline for the film is "The Pledge, The Turn, The Prestige," and given that so many film reviewers indicate that the terms are real... either implicitly, by repeating Caine's dialog, without comment ( Ebert, Variety, LA Times) or by saying so explicitly (The New York Times: "the title is a magician’s term of art referring to the climactic surprise that seals a successful trick;" San Francisco Chronical, "The obscure title derives from the name magicians give to a trick's third and final stage") that the terms are real? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

P. S. Off-topic, I guess, but it seems to me that the explanation is bogus anyway, because it seems obvious that many magic tricks do not follow that three-part structure. Consider, for example, the sort of performance made famous by Cardini, where a magician walks on stage and proceeds to produce a seemingly endless supply of cards, flowers, umbrellas, etc. until the entire stage is littered with them. How does that fit the pattern? There's no "pledge" (the audience is not invited to examine the magician or his clothing) and no "turn" (nothing is changed or transformed; all that happens is that objects appear out of nowhere, without ever having disappeared in the first place). Dpbsmith (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The article could say something about the "common" misperception if a reliable source says something about it first. That is, WP editors can't make the observation you just made by comparing what the Chronicle and the Times said to a source which documents the terms are made up; that is Synthesis. However, if you find a source that comments on how reputable newspapers and critics/reviewers have been assuming a fictional device is real, that would be worthy of inclusion in the Reception section; it comes down to source and a question of significance. As to your observation about the "accuracy" of Priest's/Nolans' plot device, all I can say is the film is fictional.173.72.140.146 (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the point people are missing is that the pledge, the turn, and the prestige are embedded in the film. These concepts help show how the story itself, is the greatest illusion, and the notebooks make that clear. It helps to turn the subtitles on as the voiceovers can be hard to hear. If you do, you will get this. This could be discussed more in the article if we had sources. In other words, the entire film is an illusion. Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Identical twins / Duplicates

There is nothing in the film that suggests that Fallon and Borden are identical twins. All evidence points to the concept that Tesla duplicated them. Do not revert my edit. Hazelfo (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who reverted you, but they were entirely correct. You, on the other hand, should take a moment to read the archives, as this has already been discussed. Contrary to what you claim, everything in the film suggests they are twins and that they never used the machine. Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hazelfo, I've now jumped in to revert you in order to remove the errors you've added to the article. I've also left you a warning message on your talk page requesting reliable sources for this addition. Please provide them. The theory you are promoting was invented by an editor on the IMDb message boards, and has no currency in any reliable source. Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Hazelfo (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

How did Tesla know to build a duplicator when Angier asked him to build the same machine as he did for Borden? It doesn't matter. It's always lovely to see someone be intensely rude on the internet, though. It's just Wikipedia. It is entirely possible that both are valid theories. Hazelfo (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It does matter, and it sounds like you didn't pay very close attention when you watched the film. When did Tesla visit the UK? And, do you remember what Tesla's assistant said in scene 18, "An Exact Science is Not an Exact Science"? Tesla never made a machine for Borden, but Angier only hears what he wants to hear, and assumed that he did. The entire plot is constructed around the idea that Borden's magic is natural while Angier needs to resort to technology (and performance abilities) to even approach Borden's talent for and understanding of magic. Your "theory" not only goes against every aspect of the film, but if it were the slightest bit true, every scene would fall apart like a house of cards. We know Borden was already using a twin before he even met Tesla. Viriditas (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't matter, and you're a really rude person. It's Wikipedia, just goddamn drop it, it's over. Nevermind that you aren't even giving any thought to how "my" theory works anyway. Whatever. It doesn't matter. It's just a film, it's just Wikipedia. Hazelfo (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, when did Tesla visit the UK? And you're saying I didn't pay close attention to the film? Laughable. Hazelfo (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing rude about asking you to think about your ideas, and critical thinking certainly matters. Borden and Fallon were working together long before Tesla ever came to the UK. If you recall, Angier's wife died because Borden and Fallon were tying different knots. And Borden/Fallon never had any idea how Angier's trick worked, a fact you have conveniently neglected to account for in the first place. Angier's obsession led him to "buy" technology from Tesla, a superior "magician", in much the same way that Angier "stole" the trick from Borden. And it doesn't stop there. The rivalry between Borden and Angier is perfectly reflected in the mirror of the rivalry between Tesla and Edison. Recall Tesla's performance at the UK exhibition? It was a disaster, much like Borden's disastrous performances. Neither of these men were performers, but rather naturally talented and skilled, unlike Angier and Edison. Are you watching closely? No, you are not. It is important to think about your theories before you insist on adding them to the article. Thinking is not rude, it is required. Viriditas (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't intuitively know the difference between pointing out flaws in someone's ideas and implying that they are stupid and/or unobservant, then I can't help you. And this isn't about critical thinking, nor did I say that critical thinking didn't matter. I'm saying that this argument, right here, on Wikipedia, about a film doesn't matter, and you're taking this far too seriously. Nothing you've pointed out disrupts the possibility that Borden was duplicated, either. Yes, thematically it makes less sense, but that doesn't make it impossible within the context of the film. (Borden and Fallon were not tying different knots - Borden was trying a different knot after given the go-ahead by Angier's wife.) I've already explained why Borden/Fallon didn't know how Angier did his "trick". Nevermind that Edison wasn't actually in the film, huh? But again, it does not matter, and I am not automatically an idiot for seeing a film differently than you, though you still are incredibly rude. Oh and hey, when was the last time I added them to the article? Yesterday, once. This isn't an edit war. Hazelfo (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Everything "disrupts the possibility that Borden was duplicated", and nothing at all supports it, not even the cypher. You're not watching closely enough. You're simply being misled, just like Angier. If you want to "get it", watch the film again, but watch it from Cutter's POV. Viriditas (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Look, I've already admitted that I was incorrect on my talk page. Will you please just drop this. If you had simply politely explained why I was wrong this wouldn't have gone on as long as it did. But instead you decided to be rude, irritating, and condescending. Thanks for that, very helpful, very nice. Hazelfo (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I have politely explained why your theory is wrong, several times in fact. At this point, you're just being disruptive. Viriditas (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you were tremendously impolite and rude. Immediately saying I'm a malicious vandal, giving me a warning, telling me I just didn't pay attention, explaining parts of a film that I have seen to me, telling me that I have poor critical thinking skills and that I am unobservant, lines like "Are you watching closely? No, you are not" and "Thinking is not rude, it is required", etc. Come on. You were rude, even if you didn't intend to be. Again, it's not my theory. How many times do I have to tell you that? I have repeatedly asked you to drop it - this is something that doesn't matter, that I have disavowed, that I have given up. I'm not being disruptive, you're just dragging this out. Hazelfo (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Country origin of movie?

The opening section reads "The Prestige is a 2006 British film". The infobox has "Country United States". So, which is it? Both? 216.94.11.2 (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Its an American film because its entire production is American, and it was filmed entirely in California as well. Jordancelticsfan (talk) May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Suicide?

First off, thanks to everyone who's worked hard to make this such a good article, in both the specific WP sense and the general sense of the words. I know many parts of this article have been hashed through, and I checked the archives to make sure I wasn't bringing up another over-debated topic. (I'm pretty sure I'm not.)

Perhaps Sarah doesn't commit suicide. The film jumps from her looking at the rope to her swinging from it, but we don't see her taking the intermediary steps. Meanwhile, Borden makes it clear that he won't abide her talking to anyone about the secret. These things led me to believe that perhaps he murdered her.

Perhaps this is meant to be another "we can never know" type things, and perhaps it's less obtuse in the novel (which I obviously haven't read). Scartol • Tok 11:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but the reason we don't see Sarah "taking the intermediary steps" is because this is a montage, a technique used to "compress narrative time". I don't think it has anything to do with one of the twins murdering her, but it is an interesting POV I had not considered. If you look at the film again, and consider how the elements work, her character is written as if she has to kill herself. It's demanded by the storyline. So, this kind of alternative interpretation doesn't really hold up if you examine the dramatic structure. The tension must resolve itself through her suicide. I don't see why one of the twins would have murdered her. I think you are getting hung up on the fact that one of the twins loved another woman. Viriditas (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Because I don't want this to become a spiraling debate about the movie rather than a focused discussion of what should be in the article, this will be my last contribution to this particular exchange. However, I don't agree at all that Sarah has to kill herself, or that it's demanded by the storyline. In the scene just before her death, Borden insists that he will stop her from speaking to anyone about their secret. Does one of the twins "have" to murder her? Not necessarily, but it's clear that one of them does not love her — and presumably wouldn't be too broken up about doing it, especially if the only alternative is to have her spill the beans to Olivia. Again, I don't think it's knowable, but it might be worth mentioning that it's unclear whether it's a suicide or murder. Scartol • Tok 18:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on the information that we have, it looks like a suicide. She killed herself because she figured out that the one man she thought was her husband was actually two. Nobody killed her to protect the secret. She killed herself because she was so distraught by the realization. The story unfolds this way, naturally, from her alcoholism to her death. I will review the scene you describe again later tonight, but I doubt I will find anything new. It shouldn't be mentioned that the suicide is unclear unless we have a reliable source saying that. I've read much of the material on the subject and I've heard the key players talk about the film. They have never pointed at this possibility, but I'm willing to keep an open mind. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Scartol, I just watched the entire scene again on DVD. I believe my assessment was correct. Sarah's suicide follows naturally from the previous scene. In that scene, Sarah and Alfred are fighting, and Sarah is drunk and upset, possibly about his mistress, and perhaps about catching on to what is really going on, we can't tell, nor does it matter. Sarah asks Alfred to be honest with her, but he won't. Finally, she asks if he really loves her, and he answers, "No. Not today." In the very next scene, we see Sarah in Alfred's office, looking at all of the magic devices. She stops by the birdcage and through a flashback, she briefly remembers the first time she met her husband. Another flashback shows her recently at dinner with his twin, leading the audience to conclude that she has compared the two and has finally figured out the big secret. She grabs a rope in the office, and the camera cuts to the birds in the birdcage as we hear offscreen the sound of her hanging herself. The birds begin making noise, and the camera cuts back to her, dead from her self-inflicted hanging. This is open and shut. She killed herself right after her "husband" (possibly the twin) tells her that he doesn't love her, and after we see the flashback of her memories comparing the two men. I don't think anything more needs to be said about this scene. Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Lampman (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

obession?

What were teslas words on obession exactly? Something about it never turns out good or something —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.25.148 (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

From IMDb:[10]:

Nikola Tesla: Go home. Forget this thing. I can recognize an obsession, no good will come of it.

Robert Angier: Why, haven't good come of your obsessions?

Nikola Tesla: Well at first. But I followed them too long. I'm their slave... and one day they'll choose to destroy me.

Robert Angier: If you understand an obsession then you know you won't change my mind.

Removed reviews

Howard Waldrop and Lawrence Person of Locus Online called it "a great film," with Person asserting it's actually better than the book. However, while fellow Locus reviewer Gary Westfahl reviewed the film favorably, he said "the novel was subtle and complex, while the film is blunt and simplified."

These reviews were removed as "unreliable". I don't believe that is true, however, I would encourage someone to reevaluate this material and consider whether it is worthy of inclusion. I don't recall which editor originally added it, but I think it is salvageable. Viriditas (talk)

With no forthcoming response, I'll be adding these back in the near future. Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)