# Talk:The Prestige (film)

I updated plot. It still needs to be cleaned up. The twins both took on the identity of Borden and Fallon. It is never revealed who was really Borden, if that was even the real name of the characters in the film. 
Previous user(s) wrote as if it was certain that Angier and the film audience knew that Angier would end up drowning every time the trick was performed. This is not accurate. Angier specifically says at the end of the film, "It took courage to climb into the machine every night; not knowing if I'd be the man in the box or the prestige."
Please refer to this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHKan75x7GI

Unless I've misunderstood you, that's absolutely incorrect. The key to knowing who they were was who each one loved. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that point you mention I agree to be true. The point I was trying to make was that neither twin was absolutely attached to being Bordon or Fallon. The way the article was written previously, at least the way I read it, made it seem as if one twin was attached to being Borden while the other twin was attached to being Fallon. That's what I felt was needed for correction. The way it reads now, whomever improved the article, kudos.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.173.233 (talk) 03:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 

The Plot has many holes and one of these are patched by words: "It took courage to climb into the machine every night; not knowing if I'd be the man in the box or the prestige." - that was not true statement. Apparently these were "non-significant" details, but machine did generate double outside of box and "original" died every time, except the first clone, who was shot by original. Otherwise we can also suppose that original was transported every time outside of tesla coil and double was created, then Angier was already a clone and original was shot in Tesla lab - you can see that in the case of hat, that disappeared, before appearing again(and sending away clone/original).
The idea was great, but IMHO there was some more magic going on with Cutter that is not clear even after watching the movie - Cuter took a bullet, when he made coffin for twin. Also Cutter had no moral problems when lady broke her fingers... also it is not clear when transformation of his character happened and when he was aware, that Bordon/Fallon were twins - actually it would be hard to conceal it in the beginning. The whole Angier wife's burial scene as well makes no sense - what is the point there? One twin apparently is affected by death of Julia and even tries to apologize instead of real culprit and it seems, that later both of them has no remorse about this event by blending both personalities - there was a chance to extend evil/good twin story there, but it is left as it is and both twins actually spoiled each other lives, so they are both quite evil. All and all - despite the final line of Angier, he was either clone who was killing his clones, or Angier was dying every time - that actually seems to be main concept, where there are similar ideas played around in sci-fi stories, only this seems to be more shocking for screen. Movie is great to the point where it tries to explain the plot - I would not suggest it to watch to anyone who enjoys some integrity about stories. Despite the Borden's lines of stealing tricks, this movie still betrays  spectators: Angier tried to make a trick, where bird is still alive after the cage trick(where bird symbolizes his wifes death), but Cutter in the end uses the trick to impress Borden's daughter, where bird is crushed... so he at the end is moraly accepting the Borden's trick of making stronger knot that Julia could not escape... Angier(or his clones) relived all the suffering his wife was going through in last minute of her life, but Borden's lies costed life of Julie and his wife. And one more thing - the chance that twins would develop pimple on face(that is different process from twin cloning and does not develop at birth) is virtually impossible, so it would be better if actor was without any non-DNA differences on face, just like healing fingers - even birth marks and any scratches are not parts of cloning process. Generally all plot holes seems to be because of faulty adaptations of original story.92.40.249.149 (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's just absurd.  The "original story" (which I've read) has little to nothing to do with the film.  There was no "faulty" adaptation and most of your points are just mistaken. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
As a corollary: the plot summary still says "Angier used the machine to create clones of himself atop the balcony, while the original Angier would fall through the trap door to be drowned". This isn't really inaccurate, and in fact it negates some of the ambiguity of the film. Even if we knew how the machine worked, we couldn't definitively say that either of the Angiers is the "original". They are all your hat, Mr Angier. twl_corinthian (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, "they are all your hat," but only one is the ORIGINAL hat. I really like this movie, and recently re-watched it. Simply stated, the "original" Angier shoots the first clone he makes. Then, the "original" Angier DIES the first time he performs the trick. The clone created in the previous performance dies in the next. Somehow, it's STILL "Angier," with all his memories and experiences. This may fly in the face of the concept of "real" cloning, but it's necessary to the plot. The process repeats until Borden stumbles on "the secret" below stage, and is blamed for the "murder" of Angier. The man onstage ALWAYS went in the box, and ALWAYS drowned. And he knew this would happen from the moment he appeared in the balcony; he KNEW he was the next one to drown, yet went through with it. If that's not obsession, I don't know what is. (And none of this is to argue whether these are "plot flaws" or not. Just how I interpret it.) Jororo05 (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The plot summary is still rather problematic and confusing. Fallon is not even mentioned. I've made some small edits to include him but I believe more clarity is still needed.
Fashoom (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

There was a lot of clutter in it. I've trimmed and tidied it up; hopefully it's clearer now. Been a while since I've seen the film so I welcome any corrections. Popcornduff (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
The plot is correct, but in chronological order, not in the order it appears in the film. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The explanatory description I added to the final section was not clutter, that section was incomprehensible without it. It is not significantly longer now, but does contain considerable clarity that was lost when my edits were removed. Fashoom (talk) 04:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Just saw the movie today and looking back it, wasnt Fallon introduced AFTER the incident? Was it actually Borden's fault for tying a different knot, the Langford? Think we need some more details on how they were sabotaged each other's shows and reputations. BlackGhen (talk) 07:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I just saw the movie today and I'm surprised no one has pointed out that Bernard Fallon and Alfred Borden are almost anagrams. Maybe that is mentioned in the novel.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.73.112.43 (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC) 

Why is the genre described as supernatural thriller? There are no supernatural themes in the film.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.22.82 (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC) 

Agreed.  I've reverted the latest addition.  I'm familiar with the literature on the film, and I don't recall seeing the term "supernatural thriller" used in any source. Viriditas (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The fact that Tesla's machine clones objects and people is supernatural. Tomeasy T C 08:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, that's completely wrong.  The fact that Tesla uses science to clone objects and people is science fiction, not supernatural. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow, I am not just wrong, but "completely wrong". Lucky me, I was not totally completely wrong, confusing the supernatural with science fiction. Tomeasy T C 12:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
It's a common mistake, and it's important for you to understand why you are completely wrong.  The word "supernatural" means a "force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature" which is completely the opposite of what Tesla's device represents, and more to the point, completely misrepresents the symbolism of duality personified by the War of the Currents between Tesla and Edison and similarly between the rival magicians. The complete analogy is as follows: the practice of stage magic appears supernatural in the same way that advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic (the supernatural). Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not about you. What you said was completely wrong. -- Jibal (talk) 09:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Prestige (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929211326/http://video.movies.go.com/theprestige/ to http://video.movies.go.com/theprestige
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119165359/http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/740/740205p1.html to http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/740/740205p1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Why do you want me to see that? Are there other philosophical parables I should study? It looks super arbitrary and "original research". EDIT: spelling Medico80 (talk) 10:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Anger and Boredom. Coincidence? :)

Currently the "Plot" section states: "Angier [...] poses as an aristocrat, Lord Caldlow".
But Angier actually is Lord Caldlow.
He mentions changing his name to spare his family embarrassment (to his wife).
Also, he admits to Borden that he always was Caldlow (near the end, at the jail). Lvmik (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)