Talk:The Prestige

Plot point

The insubstantial of the two Angier forms after Borden inadvertently seperates them has does not use the corporeal form to fake his own death as the article suggests. Instead, by the time the two meet, the corporeal form is already seriously, perhaps terminally, ill. Shane Lin 20:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The account of the film is incorrect. In the film, as stated by Angier, it is a random matter if the transported Angier is a clone or the original. Hence, he has a 50% chance in each performance of drowning or surviving.

He doesn't state that, or at least not so plainly and in those words. You might easily infer that from his words, but that is not the only possible interpretation. It is possible he is merely putting into words the philosophical question the device provokes. The whole question of clones, souls and teleportation is not a new one. 172.141.16.109 16:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I understood this a little differently. Since the Tesla device makes a complete replica of the original, even down to the memories and personality, both the original and "copy" Angier would think they're the original. They'll both remember stepping into the device, and the next thing they know there's another Angier there, who must be the copy. (Alternatively, perhaps Angier does realize this, and simply can't be sure whether he is the original or copy each time he survives.) One Angier will be several feet away and bowing, relieved that it worked and he survived; the other will be drowning and under the impression that the device didn't work correctly. It really doesn't matter which one is the "original" (i.e., which one's body has been around longer). Plus, it doesn't make any sense to think that the device would randomly change between creating and teleporting a copy, and leaving the original in place, or creating a copy and placing it where the original was, and then teleporting the original. Personally, I think the first option is simpler and so makes the most sense (so in that case it would be the copy that survived every time), but as I said above it simply doesn't matter. I think Angier must have realized this, at least at a subconscious level.

Reconstructed Angier:

"It is discovered in the final chapter that the reconstructed Angier has continued to survive to the present day."

I'm not sure that this is the case. I understood from the book that the Angier present at the end was the noncorporeal version due to the description of his appearance his whisper-like voice. There is definitely ambiguity here so perhpas this sentence should be rewritten in some way to reflect this. - Bill 11:34am 07/03/07 (GMT)

Agreed. Maybe reword as 'some form of Angier has continued to survive' or similar? Johno000 10:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Good choice of words, I think, John. I have altered the text using them.

- Bill 16:11, 27/04/07 (GMT) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.143.134.123 (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Borden's twin

While it does seem that there are two Borden twins, Angier notes in his diary that he searched the birth records and could only find one birth certificate. Are we to believe that Borden had the other destroyed? 72.72.17.94 06:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you have to remember that the whole deception is Borden's Life, just like the Chinese guy pretended he couldn't walk all his life, Borden pretends that he isn't a twin, all his life. Mbatman72 05:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair Warning of Film Section Culling

As a wiki courtesy, I'm laying out my intention to cut most of this section. It is outta hand. This shouldn't be more than a passing mention; a few sentences at most. See The Godfather (novel), Pride and Prejudice, and The Hunt for Red October for a better idea of how a film adaptation should be described inside the entry for the book. I'll take care of this in a few weeks if there is no argument and no one else has done the deed in my place. JGray 22:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that the film section contains a comparision between the book and film, and the film main article doesn't contain these comparisions. Perhaps a move the comparisons to the film page?

Agreed. I have moved it to the film's page. --Deon Steyn 12:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand the desire to do this, but moving that section over to the film article wholesale without significant editing causes some context and referential issues (i.e. there are items discussed in the moved section that are not discussed or referenced in the article), as well as style consistency problems. Please look at the Talk:The Prestige (film) page for specific concerns. Maybe someone here will want to address them further. Thanks.

—  Jim Dunning  talk  : 00:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Tesla, Area-51, and the Sphinx

The junk-science Bermuda Triangle for the ignorant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.176.5.79 (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Sorry? Gravitor 08:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Connect Savannah

I'm trying to locate the ISSN for the publication Connect Savannah. I notice it is cited in this article, but I don't see how this link has anything to do with Connect Savannah. Please explain.

• http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/christopherpriest/pres_qa.htm

Keesiewonder ^talk 22:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it was an accidental error. Thank you for alerting us to it.

—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  23:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh...

When was it written? cyclosarin 18:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the beginning?

If I remember correctly, the beginning and end of the book has that lady/descendant of Angier and the last surviving member of the Bordens... Although it isn't really significant and was left out in the movie. (can't remember the names) Istillcandream 02:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, never mind Istillcandream 02:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The stages of a trick

The movie has a very different version of trick stages than the one cited here: The Pledge (showing an object); The Turn (doing something to the object); and the Prestige (undoing what was done). Don't know if the account here of the novel is correct, but Setup and Performance sound a little too boring to proceed Prestige :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.125.129.146 (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The film adaptation has a slightly different structure for the trick.
Jim Dunning | talk

Infobox

I added the infobox, but I have no idea what genre this book is, among other things, like 1st edition information required... see notes in the edit window. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What does the book postulate about the Tesla "Invention"?

It should be mentioned in the plot section that the Tesla invention is not just electrical "fireworks" in order to make the performance spectacular, with dolls and look-alikes acting as a person and his clone (as would be the case in a theatrical magic show, of course).

If I got it right the premises of the story is that actually clones were made by "The Tesla Machine". This classifies the story as not about "real humans", real performers, prestidigitateurs, but about a fantasy-univers. It appears that the author got prizes for writing fantasy, which corroborates this perception of the category of the novel.

The setup as a epistolary story (diary / letter - based) is a way to make things more plausible, therefore it is much more relevant to point out in the introduction that it is a "fantasy" category story. However, I don't know the correct words for that, so I have only added // fantasy-novel // in parenthesis to the introduction.d-axel (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Film: Who is the clone

"The clone has to be murdered every night by plunging it into a water-tank below the stage and leaving it to drown." I believe it is the original that is drown -- the clone appears offstage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmatxx (talk • contribs) 07:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)