Talk:The Prestige (film)/Archive 1

message: Please see this page with updated release date information.  Thanks ju66l3r 02:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Release Date

message: It says that there might be a spoiler warning in the Plot section, yet the "spoiler" is stated in the trailer for the movie. So should the Spoiler Warning be taken out?
Deflagro 22:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ah okay. Deflagro 23:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler Warning? 

message: Should something be mentioned about themes that come up repeatedly in the movie?  Namely questions of ethics dealing with the number of birds that are killed and, similarly, the treatment of Hugh Jackman's character(s)?  The concept of getting one's hands dirty, etc?   
Your thoughts?
:If it's true that Angier was originally an aristocrat, then it makes sense that he refuses to get his hands dirty, instead choosing to steal the ideas of others.  Borden was willing to risk his life to perform the bullet catch, and Fallon went so far as to cut his fingers off to pull off the transported man illusion.  In contrast, Angier paid Tesla to make him a machine, as well as relying on Cutter as his ingeneur. This could be developed into a section. —Viriditas | Talk 11:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recurring Themes? 

message: In retrospect, rather implausibly, the wild goose chase on which Borden thought he had led Angiers resulted in Angier's one and only opportunity to upstage Borden. Why Borden sent Angier to Tesla is never explained.
:This probably shouldn't go in the plot section.  One explanation is that both Borden and Angier attended the science fair where Tesla presented his experiment.  Borden used Tesla's name for misdirection, and Angier ate it up. —Viriditas | Talk 22:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed comments in plot section

message: Tesla and Edison's rivalry over electric current is contrasted with Borden and Angier's competition for magical supremacy.  As such, Tesla and Edison serve as foils for Borden and Angier, respectively. Historically, Tesla is considered a genius without a sense of pragmatism (like Borden's character) and Edison is viewed as an expert in application and presentation (like Angier).
:I don't recall who originally wrote this, but parts of this have been removed as "speculation".  Could someone describe which part fits that description, as it appears to be an accurate, substantiated description of the established rivalry.  Sadly, this lonely nugget has been relegated to the trivia section, when instead, it should be elevated to its own section.  —Viriditas | Talk 06:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be elevated unless a source for this interpretation can be found. Phil Sandifer 14:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I respecfully disagree, and I have created a new section.  It would be helpful if you could give a specific criticism, targeting particular claims.  —Viriditas | Talk 08:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that any interpretations of the film that cannot be traced to a reviewer or critic are original research. I'll tag the relevant statements. Phil Sandifer 15:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now tagged. Two additional problems - I'm unconvinced the Borden/Angier rivalry is a theme. It's the literal plot, not the theme. Second, I'm not sure a magician who wrote a review of the film is a sufficiently reliable source for thematic analysis. My issue here, in the larger sense, is this - right now the movie is in theaters, and there are dozens of reviews of it. It seems to me that the critical perspective to make any sort of thematic analysis doesn't exist yet, and like this section would necessarily be original research. Phil Sandifer 15:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's not a thematic analysis, but an observation of the core conflict of the story, so you're right, (even though an author makes the  claim that the rivalry is a theme, obviously the word is used loosely); the theme has not exacly become manifest aside from a few hints, such as the themes of identity and sacrifice discussed in the Creative Screenwriting interview by Shewman, but the Nolans have said very little about theme.  If theme serves to reflect meaning or an idea, a thesis, moral, or premise, then one story may contain multiple themes or thematic elements.  Some authors claim that the theme amounts to revelation that we can see, which is highly ironic if the theme is one of misdirection (Are you watching closely?)   There are themes of rivalry, duality, sacrifice, and obsession in the film, but these are also part of the conflict; these themes have a tendency to be abstract, non-physical, and intangible, but not always. Time and place (setting) can reflect the theme, whether simple or complex, and can be inextricably linked to the  plot.  In terms of this film, it is probably inaccurate to reduce the broad theme to one of rivalry; however, we know there are three timelines, one for each act (pledge, turn, prestige), and it is probable that the rivalry theme pervades one of those, such as The Turn. I'm going to start making some changes to address your criticism. —Viriditas | Talk 04:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rivalry 

message: Nolan confirms the validity of splitting the plot into three acts.  —Viriditas | Talk 08:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Revert the subsection headers back.  They section the plot better, anyway. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 12:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't revert them unless you can find some source for their location in the film. Otherwise, while it may be verifiable that there are three acts, it is not verifiable what they are. Phil Sandifer 14:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good arguments for and against including the headers at this time can be made, so either position could be held.  If someone can elaborate on the boundaries between each act, then we can add the headers back in. —Viriditas | Talk 08:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, it may be possible to discuss the use of three timelines in a separate section, possibly even in the adaptation section.  In one interview, Nolan describes them as the setup (pledge), the disappearances (turn), and the climatic reveal (prestige), which as it turns out, was how this article was previously split up.  However, those headers would only serve the purposes of splitting up the plot summary; it would not be an accurate portrayal of the nonlinear structure.  —Viriditas | Talk 08:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Three-act headers confirmed by Nolan

message: I apologize in advance for stating the obvious, but this new section needs to be developed.  Many reviewers  have criticized the one-dimensional, shallow emotional depth of the characters, but in doing so, they either ignore the purpose of the pledge or forget that they are witnessing an illusion that purposefully manipulates our perception of the characters; most felt closer to Angier, a murderer, than they did to Borden, and the film is responsible for evoking these false responses, duping the viewer in the process.  The pledge sets us up to feel sorry for Angier, and to blame Borden for Julia's death; this is furthered by hearing Borden's accent, seeing him behind bars, assuming he is cheating on his wife, etc.  Meanwhile, Angier's grief blinds us to the force of his vengeance; even when he tries to murder Borden in the bar during the bullet catch, the audience forgives him, never realizing that their emotions are being controlled by the director.  So, we can see that the pledge sets us up to believe that Angier is the protagonist and Borden the antagonist, even though we discover the opposite to be true during the prestige.  Too few critics realize that they are the victims of their own negative criticism; to see Angier as the protagonist, it is in fact the audience, not the actors, who are being one-dimensional, and emotionally shallow. It's a great trick. —Viriditas | Talk 11:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Pledge

message: I need help placing Chung Ling Soo in the correct context.  I think it goes after the description of the vanishing dove act. —Viriditas | Talk 08:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chung Ling Soo

message: If you enjoyed the movie, you may want to read the book. The book is a different (and I believe) better story. my .02 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.68.236.175 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just finished the book, and I enjoyed it.  Aside from the ending in the novel, most of the ambiguity that permeated the film was resolved in the novel (except for whether or not Olivia knew about the twins).  One thing that stood out in the book, was Angier's inabilty to murder, which seems to have been neglected in the film. —Viriditas | Talk 11:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To include the concept of the "spectral Angier" and his hesitation over killing Borden would be to substantially change the whole slew of scenes with Borden discovering the secret of how the transported man works, and indeed then substantially changing the whole concept of Borden being convicted of the death of Angier.  The film takes a different tack, but one that I feel often sits with the novel rather well.
I'm laughing over how many interpretations of various incidents, motives and characters there are in this Discussion compared to the amount of discussion (little) there is for the novel. Given the rampant ambiguity Priest instills in the book, there should be 100 times as much discussion/argument for that article. With no intent to disparage Nolan's art, the movie is almost paint by numbers compared to the questions left open in the book. lol   Jim Dunning 05:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Book

message: I find the two posters on the article quite dull, but I'm curious if anyone would be willing to upload a proper image from these two:   . I'm mostly ok with uploading images, but not multiple ones. Anyone think they can combine the two? Wiki-newbie 20:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Poster suggestion 

message: Should this go in the Trivia section?
In the new Transported Man act, each Angier replicant drowns in a tank whose lid is padlocked shut. How he fell in is not explained. Did he fall into an open tank that was then locked before he could escape? Not likely; who could lock the tank? No one but the other replicant knows how the trick works, and he's at the other end of the theater. 
In answer to a question above, why didn't Angier make just one clone and use him as a partner in every performance, I believe the answer is that he wanted to frame Borden for his murder. Cognita 01:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The clone/original fell in through a trap door.  In the book, the clone is neither "living" nor is it exactly dead; it seems to be a static copy that is in a state of suspended animation, or rather, is merely a shell of the teleported person.    In the film, the clone is a living copy, identical to the original.  The idea for framing Borden is an extension (and adaptation) of a different theme found in the novel, and is unique to the film.  The book is rather consistent, whereas the film introduces a number of problems.  —Viriditas | Talk 02:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, he fell in through a trap door, but the trap door is built into the stage floor. Are you saying there's a second trap door in the tank lid and it closes after he falls in? Cognita 02:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, spring-loaded.  I believe the scene with Julia in the beginning set us up for it.  How else would Angier's clone fall in?  There's actually a scene in the book where Angier changes the teleportation coordinates and reappears inside a tank of water, but I think it's inferred (but not explicitly stated) that the double falls through a trap into a crate beneath the stage.   Strangely enough, there doesn't seem to be any discussion of this in the book, other than Borden noticing a crate back stage.  —Viriditas | Talk 03:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, if you reverse-engineer the apparatus, then it has to have a hole in its lid, and the hole must close when the man falls in. I assumed (naively, like any good magic-show spectator) that Angier used the same kind of tank as in the earlier act with Julia. Its walls look the same. There's even an ax nearby. I thought the lid of Julia's tank was one solid piece, and when she popped the lock, the whole lid would lift (maybe hinged on one side). The presence of a padlock on Angier's tank suggests that removing the whole lid is the way to open the tank. I'm not sure there isn't still a plot hole. The police investigators should notice a trap door in the lid and try to reconstruct the trick. Presumably, they'd think the tank was unique and Borden had put it under the stage: Angier wouldn't have jumped into a death trap deliberately. At some point, however, the police would interview the stagehands, who didn't see what they hauled off every night but could testify to its shape and its weight. The investigation would show that there'd been many tanks. Cognita 05:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's assumed that class distinctions automatically make Borden suspect.  In the book, there is a separate, but similar situation involving a death and the status of the victim. Borden's class makes him guilty, regardless of what evidence they find.  This isn't explained, but it was a sign of the times.  Two competing magicians involved in a public rivalry, one of which has aristocratic roots (he's a Lord) and the other is a son of a carpenter.  A similar subplot was explored in The Illusionist. —Viriditas | Talk 06:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot hole 

message: The film tells of Robert Angier and Alfred Borden, played by Jackman and Bale respectively, magicians in the 19th century and their dangerous rivalry over their livelihoods. The presentation is fractured and involves various twists and turns regarding perspectives, secrets and their tricks, much like real magic.
  
The film is fractured into three storylines. The longest has Angier seeking revenge on Borden for the death of his wife. The second has Angier working with Tesla to create his great magic trick. The third follows the fallout from this trick. Like a Russian doll, the film begins and ends with the fallout from Angier's trick, with Angier's creation of it told via Borden reading his diary, and the lead-up to this with Angier reading Borden's diary. The film continues to jump to and fro.
:Do we have a need for this overview in the article?  I don't see the Film project nor their FA's using it. Also, what source does the author use for splitting the storyline like this?  The writer and director seem to have a different perspective. —Viriditas | Talk 06:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see WikiProject Films recommending the use of overviews in their style guide (did I miss it?), nor do I find featured film articles using it.  We agree that the film is split into three story lines, but wbat they are exactly is a little confusing and subject to debate, which is why a good source should be used to bolster your interpretation.  We can also use the talk page to build it. —Viriditas | Talk 19:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed text

message: After I made minor changes in the Production section, the footnote numbers no longer run consecutively. How can this be fixed? Cognita 19:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's ok.  The numbers repeat themselves when a citation is used by ref name, to refer to the same source multiple times.  Let me look into this to confirm. —Viriditas | Talk 19:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote numbers 

message: I think I should give a note to the Production/Adaptation query. In my view, production is all about how, when and why the film is. Adaptation should be a focus on all the changes made from the book: I point you to The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King as my example. Wiki-newbie 19:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That example is certainly  not representative of most films.  I've been looking at the style guide and featured film articles, and at this point, it's ok for it to be in one section. Your example is far more complex.  This isn't. —Viriditas | Talk 19:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production/Adaptation 

message: I'm not sure if the summary is just meant to say that the events start in 1878, but Bordon is hanged post-1901. There's a reference to the king.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.72.245 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks for proving my point about context, as outlined above.  I've restored it. —Viriditas | Talk 03:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And now its been removed again.  Ah the joy of collaboration.  It's time for a wikibreak, I believe.  —Viriditas | Talk 07:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Nikola Tesla was in Colorado Springs only after 1899 and left in 1900, including the time to create the machine put on the show and have Borden's trial it is reasonable to assume the hanging was post-1901. Peturo 15:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date again 

message: Although I may be misreading the article, the major theme of sacrifice (both of self and others) and the examples in the plot are not mentioned in the theme section. There are two major examples of sacrifice shown in the movie: One is Chung Ling Soo's self-sacrifice of his everyday life in order to exhibit a single impressive trick; The other is the sacrifice of a bird's life each time the disappearing cage illusion is performed. Borden's life more closely matches the former example, since he and his twin sacrifice their own identity in order to perform The Transported Man, however he also sacrifices his wife in the process of keeping that fact a secret. Angier's repeated murder mirrors both examples, since he both decides to murder his clone for every performance of the trick, and knows before each performance of the trick that one of his selves will be murdered. The trick itself mirrors the theme exemplified by the crushed bird, where Angier proves that he's willing to "get his hands dirty". Should this information be put into the "themes" section, is there a better place, or am I missing something? Naerbnic 08:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's a theme, and Borden sacrifices his life, not only his identity. There's also the sacrifice of fingers. However, some of the incidents were left out of the Plot section because there was too much to report. (Apparently plot summaries have a length limit, although no one has said what it is.) If you add these things to Themes, what they are won't be obvious, because they weren't described in Plot. Cognita 18:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sacrifice Theme 

message: Despite a series of explanations and pleas by Viriditas and me, Wiki-newbie's rewrite of Plot returned to the article within the past day without a statement that would justify this move, only that the version it replaced was a "novelisation." Not surprisingly, I disagree; it was a plot summary. Have you ever seen a novel written that way?
Wiki-newbie, I've said these things before. I'll try to be polite as I say them again now. Please observe the principle of consensus. That means stepping back when discussion by several contributors shows dissatisfaction with something you wrote. It also means explaining in the edit summary why your change is an improvement. If a change isn't an improvement, making the change repeatedly shows disrespect for those of us who've explained why it isn't one. In other words, observing consensus means acting like a team player. Insisting on your version of Plot just because you like it better or just because it's yours subverts consensus.
Any changes beyond spelling corrections and such should be proposed on this talk page first, for discussion, not imposed unilaterally without giving other editors a chance to comment. They should certainly not be imposed after other editors have clearly objected.
We're interested in improving the article. It should look professionally written, with good grammar and correct spelling. It should be clear. The way sentences are constructed should not obscure their meaning. Because the plot of The Prestige is complex, an additional concern is keeping Plot as short as is consistent with covering the basic events. One example: In the Colorado subsection, the point about what Tesla's machine does can be made without giving the details about cats and hats. Then more space is available for coverage of other scenes that are equally important.
If you think the Plot section you replaced needed improvement, please post here to say what you found wrong with it. Thank you. Cognita 02:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated reverts of Plot section 

message: Was Fallon Borden's twin brother or clone(from the machine).
210.9.15.116 14:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were real brothers. There's a longer discussion of this question halfway up the page. Cognita 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fallon 

message: I noticed that a recent change added Fallon as a character played by Bale. I'm concerned that this is a plot spoiler and there is no warning of such in the Cast section. Also, Fallon technically is played by both Bale and a double actor depending on the scene. Any ideas on how to resolve this without spoiling the story for someone? Consequently, I reverted.  Jim Dunning 19:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with removing the statement. For many scenes, once we know about the twins and have hindsight, we can't even say whether the character on the screen was Borden or Fallon. Given this slippage, no actor can be identified as playing one of them all the time. Cognita 19:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast spoilers 

message: These questions are for Jim Dunning especially. Jim, you recently revised a sentence in Plot to read: "At the funeral, Angier asks Borden which knot he used, but Borden claims he doesn't know (see below), enraging Angier." The revised sentence suggests that Borden does know. Did you intend this implication?
Another thing I'm unsure about: which part of what's below does "see below" direct the reader to? Does this refer to the existence of a twin, undisclosed at that point in the film? (Maybe the twin at the funeral didn't tie the knot?) My impression was that Fallon didn't enter the story until he came in to help Borden with the Transported Man act. Until then, it was only Borden. Cognita 19:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The backstory from the novel implies that Fallon and Borden were working together by the time of Julia's death (even though that incident was invented for the film), so Borden's statement is consistent with a twin, but it's purely speculation on our part at this time; The audience isn't given this information when it occurs. —Viriditas | Talk 19:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought the "I don't know" is consistent with there being two twins of Borden, one of whom tied the knot and the other not knowing which knot the first one had tied. --Sumple (Talk) 22:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but the question remains; how do we discuss this in the article without sources? —Viriditas | Talk 23:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm changing "claims" to "says".  Jim Dunning 04:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh yeah, that's right, I put in the "see below"; I meant for it to refer to the existence of the "twins", which the reader would understand when they read to the end of the synopsis. But I guess it isn't really necessary. --Sumple (Talk) 05:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "says" is better because it's neutral. It doesn't imply that Borden's hiding anything; maybe he just doesn't remember. The numerous clues to the possibility that Borden and Fallon have already begun taking turns acting as one person, though interesting, wouldn't go in Plot; they're commentary. I have some preference for leaving out "see below" because it too goes beyond a straight description of what the film shows. Cognita 05:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details in 1st paragraph of Plot