Talk:The Prestige (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good articles The Prestige (film) (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Prestige (film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale.
Archive

Archives
Archive 1
July 31, 2006 – December 5, 2006
Archive 2
December 26, 2006 – March 28, 2006

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Prestige_%28film%29_0d98.html"