Talk:The Prestige (film)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Jonathan Jarry of SoundtrackNet

My understanding is that Jarry is a forensic biologist, not a professional music critic, and I don't think we should be highlighting his criticism as pull out quote. He's still in the article, though. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't see why he can't be both, but your edit is fine with me. I only added it to give the section some bulk, as there weren't many reviews out there. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 04:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding some of the content back inline in that section, but I think we should reserve pull quotes for notable experts in the field, or notable quotes in general. Do you think Jarry qualifies? I looked into it, and he doesn't seem to be a known music critic. Has he published anything? Viriditas (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the pull quotes. I don't really have an opinion about the removed stuff. I think the current info sums up his review well, so I guess we can just leave it at that(?). 05:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Shortening the plot section

Apologies, but because of the excessive length of the plot section (see MOS:FILM) and the maintenance tag, I attempted to shorten it. I admit, I liked the previous plot section, but we need to get this thing under control. If anyone else wants to give it a try, please do so. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I already did, but someone came along and included more details, though I appreciate their efforts because it shed new light on story development. Right now I am trying to incorporate those changes into the article. JTBX (talk) 01:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Themes

I suggest this be deleted. This is not a film of any artistic or cultural significance. This section reads like a bad high school essay to boot. 67.190.86.13 (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestion is noted, and ignored. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Title

The article fails to explain what the Pledge, Turn, and eponymous Prestige are. It seems awkward to note that the film was divided into three sections based on the three steps of a magic trick in the music section, despite the fact that they are not mentioned before. According to Wikiquote:The Prestige, Cutter's narration is as follows:

Every great magic trick consists of three parts or acts. The first part is called "The Pledge". The magician shows you something ordinary: a deck of cards, a bird or a man. He shows you this object. Perhaps he asks you to inspect it to see if it is indeed real, unaltered, normal. But of course... it probably isn't. The second act is called "The Turn". The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary. Now you're looking for the secret... but you won't find it, because of course you're not really looking. You don't really want to know. You want to be fooled. But you wouldn't clap yet. Because making something disappear isn't enough; you have to bring it back. That's why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call "The Prestige".

Does anyone agree that this parallel in the film's title, narrative style, and soundtrack should be expounded upon? --Boycool (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, yeah that's a good point. Any suggestions for how to deal with this? Millahnna (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest incorporating it into the plot section, but I'm not sure how that would affect the clarity and word count. Perhaps the connection could be mentioned under "Themes"? If nothing else, we could have a sentence in the lead saying something along the lines of, "The film's plot parallels the three steps of a magic trick: the Pledge, where an ordinary object is displayed, the Turn, in which something extraordinary happens, and the Prestige, where everything is returned to normal." --Boycool (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well if we cover it in the lead we need to include it in the article somewhere. I had the same thought about the problem of covering it in the plot. I think right now I'm leaning towards your themes idea. I also had the passing thought of covering it in the production section where we talk about the book but I think that would be out of place since we are talking about the rights to the novel more than its content. I wonder if there's material in reviews and interviews that we could mine to expand on the themes idea a bit: since that concept informed so much of the film's construction (the three acts, the music, etc.) it seems like we should be able to find the material for it. I guess I know what I'm googling tomorrow. Millahnna (talk) 02:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I would offer my own interpretation, but I know it would be worthless. An interview with Christopher Nolan would really be best, but a review from a reliable source could work too. --Boycool (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I tried to think of a way to include it in my revisions of the plot section, but abandoned it due to the fact it was already lengthy. I like the idea of adding it into a Theme section as well "Selene Scott (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)"

Maybe include the above narration within a separate quote box? (Just an idea) ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Modern Victorian fashions

What on earth are "modern Victorian fashions"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I would have to take another look at the sources and the edits in question, but going from memory, modern Victorian fashion would refer to a retro style updated for contemporary use. The early countercultural movement of the 1960s in the US, for example, dressed in modern Victorian era outfits resembling that period. As for the film, my understanding is that the fashion designer updated older styles for the period piece, giving them a modern flair. Again, I'm going from memory as I'm currently on my phone and away from my desk. Viriditas (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Some bombs in here

Some funny person changed the "Distributed by" credit to something that's clearly wrong (Mario Bros instead of Warner Bros). Maybe the whole document should be revised. 138.16.114.63 (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Vandalism reverted. Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The name Fellon

Should not Fellon be Felon? The names Alfred Borden and Bernard Felon cannot randomly be an anagram.

• No, it's Bernard Fallon. --Boycool (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I understood the name to be Fallon as well. "Selene Scott (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)"

• The name is Bernard Fallon. Besides, "Alfred Borden" and "Bernard Felon" are not even an anagram. 79.101.214.222 (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

In the plot section, why does the last paragraph or so refer only to "Fallon"? Aren't both individuals actually both names? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjengles3 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Chung Ling Soo

Chung Ling Soo was a real magician, not an allusion to Ching Ling Foo. He also famously died performing the Bullet Catch, mentioned a few seconds earlier in the film, and his public character was a lie, just as speculated by the film's characters. That's why I edited the synopsis of the plot, leaving out the mention of Ching Ling Foo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.189.189 (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. Somebody added Foo to the plot section, and I've now removed it. I thought your edit was vandalism, and I erroneously reverted. Soo is discussed in the appropriate theme section. Viriditas (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)