Talk:The Prestige (film)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for The Prestige (film) (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 > 2 >>

Archived discussions: 2006-12-26 — 2007-03-28

Contents

Reasons for undoing changes to Plot

An anonymous person added more detail to the Colorado section of Plot. I removed most of it today. Earlier versions of Plot were longer, to the point of earning complaints, and some of us donated much time to shortening the section. We left out the part about the multiple hats, along with other things; the main point is what Tesla's machine does, not exactly how it was tested or how Angier discovers its action. Including all this would make Plot too long again.

As for uncertainty about which copy is teleported and which one stays on the platform, we know the answer. Please see an earlier discussion on this page, which established that the original stays where it is and the clone appears a distance away. Anyway, the Plot section needs to confine itself to reporting what the film shows, without commentary on what the audience does or doesn't know as the story unfolds. Cognita 23:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Two weeks later, the length of the Plot section has crept up again as people have added more bits. Some of these additions weren't written in grammatical English. Some duplicated material already present elsewhere on the page. None of them provided essential information. Again I have tried to restore Plot to its former accuracy, brevity, and coherence. Please, people! If you don't have professional writing skills, stop altering Plot. Cognita 02:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Plot rewrite

There is more than one interpretation of the film and that should be reflected by leaving the synopsis open e.g. "it is shown" instead of "it is". As I see it there are two main interpretations: the first of a cloning machine that has created a small mountain of Hugh Jackmans with magical lightning; the second uses clever trickery, misdirection, and the willingness of the viewer to be deceived to show just how many people will miss the point and believe in a magical cloning machine.

"Now you're looking for the secret. But you won't find it because you're not really looking. You don't really want to work it out. You want to be fooled."

The man in the tank at the end of the film is Angier's double. The diary entries that told of Tesla's cloning machine were intended to be read by Borden, to get back at him because he sent Angier on the Tesla wild goose chase. The Tesla machine transportation act simply uses a double, much the same way as Borden uses his brother (but Angier refused to accept this when he was told because he was fooled and too arrogant to reconsider). Angier's double actually drowns when Borden is backstage, which was all part of Angier's masterplan to frame Borden. Al001 03:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If the man in the tank is Angier's double, and the man dead or dying on the floor is Angier, who is the man on the slab in the morgue? That's three Angiers right there. The shot of the rows of water tanks at the end of the film also tells us that the machine works - either they're filled with dead clones, or they will be by the time the hundred shows are done. Fallon also sees the blind stage hands removing a tank from the theatre "every night" - a pointless deception if the tanks are empty. Fivepast 20:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure Wikipedia is the place for fan interpretations: a sci-fi plot twist is many people's perception as it is. Wiki-newbie 16:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A1001, one of the screenwriters said in an interview that he intended that Tesla's machine does create duplicates. This shoots down the interpretation in which the machine does nothing and Angier's double drowns. Posts about this issue are on the archived discussion page. Cognita 09:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Which interview btw? It'd be useful on the article. Wiki-newbie 11:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The interview was posted online; I gave a link to it, and quoted some, in one of those long arguments about this alternative interpretation ("the machine makes duplicates" versus "the machine doesn't do anything"). Sorry, I don't remember the name of the website. Are you sure there's a reasonable place for this in the article? A reference to an interview wouldn't fit naturally in the Plot section. Can't think what would be a suitable home for it. Cognita 00:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Cognita that there's no need to put the interview reference in the Plot section, but how about here for future reference for those doubters: [1]?
Jim Dunning 01:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. I hope finding it wasn't too much trouble for you. These discussion pages got so long that my poor old computer has a hard time loading them. Cognita 02:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Doubts about recent addition to Plot

Someone using an IP address added a sentence to Plot. The section now ends like this:

...for his subsequent success. A fire begins to consume the building, and Borden reunites with his daughter. The final frame shows another Angier, created by the original, alive and well.

I doubt that this is accurate. (1) Frames go by at 24 to the second, so it's hard to say what a frame shows. Maybe the person meant a shot – but doesn't a scene in Borden's workshop follow the scene in the abandoned building? (2) I thought we established in previous discussions that all the Angiers were dead by the end.

Comments? Cognita 06:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That "observation" has been bandied about on message boards for months. People claim they've seen an unhurt Angier behind the flames watching Borden and the dying Angier in their final confrontation. I went to the theatre for a second viewing and had this on my list to check and I didn't see anything like it. However, in less than 3 weeks the DVD comes out and . . . .
—  Jim Dunning  talk  : 22:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

] I Got the film's DVD, there' no one behind the flames. the last shot is of a copy enclosed with water, eyes open and not miving as if dead. YET there's a small bouble in the water as to spark conversations such as this. (the box being closed of course). --Procrastinating@talk2me 10:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've discussed this before in the talk archive. The bubble was very obvious in the theatre, so I'm having trouble believing it was a mistake. —Viriditas | Talk 09:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Gases from decomposition. —  Jim Dunning  talk  :  05:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
In the book, the prestige bodies were in a state of preserved, suspended animation, noting a lack of any decomposition after many decades. —Viriditas | Talk 06:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I just watched the DVD, and the last shot is definately showing a man who is as dead as someone who's been sitting in a box of water for months can be. There's no sign of life at all. What a movie. Caesar 07:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Natural twin VS Tesla Clone

I can't see how this is to be decided, since upon final confrontation he does not confirm he is natural twin, and since he does reveal the secret for the trick as "Tesla", which apparently has this technology. I added a comment about the controversy of this hypothesis, let the reader decide. --Procrastinating@talk2me 11:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If the film doesn't say so, don't write it. Such a thing is speculation and unverifiable fancruft. Wiki-newbie 15:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The article says he's a natural twin, but the film didn't say which he was. We assume he's a natural twin or else Borden would've known how Angier did his trick, but it really is very ambiguous. Mcflytrap 22:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not ambiguous at all. Borden (and his twin) sacrifice for their art/work (hiding existence of twin, amputating finger) is the difference between himself and Angier which takes a short cut by using a cloning machine. More directly: Borden performs the trick before Angier went to Tesla to request the "cloning machine" which Tesla had great difficulty designing/building which shouldn't have been the case had Tesla recently built another for Borden. Also there is a strong bond between the Borden twins (frantically searching for buried brother) which might not be the case if one was a clone that could easily be replaced by the other. Furthermore, one twin would not amputate his finger when he could simply kill the fingerless clone and generate a new one with all their fingers. --Deon Steyn 06:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I see what you are saying...it makes sense to me after I've thought about the film a little more. The film is confusing and ambiguous in some places, IMO. Mcflytrap 20:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I think this might be actually be, dare a say it, a plot hole. While it is true that Borden should have known how Angier teleported himself if Borden's clone came from the same device, and also true that Tesla would have already known about his invention prior to Angiers arrival, why would Borden specifically send Angier on a wild goose chase to the very man who made his clone, ultimately divulging his true origins? Further more, since the Borden twins obviously interacted with each other's families back and forth, I would suspect the subtle differences even among twins would still have been noticeable. A wife knows her own husband, and a child knows her own father. Most identical twins still maintain a few slight physical differences to each other. But if Borden used a preliminary version of Tesla's machine, the two of them would be completely identical. The only room for confusion now is that either Tesla was unaware of what his machine was capable of at a time when Borden somehow met him, or he simply did not care about the results and continued his research anyway. In my opinion this is the more likely candidate, considering his forewarnings about using the contraption, almost speaking as if from experience. A man so driven by obsession that even he could not stop its development despite the repercussions. Borden creates a single clone, the two of whom have identical personalities, neither suffering from the delirious mental trauma that Angier has been living in, and thus they are not as sadistic as to kill themselves repeatedly in the name of vengeance.
I base this all on the simple premise that it is too great a coincidence for Borden to send Angeir to Tesla for no particular reason only to have Angier be able to do the unimaginable and clone himself, causing the very demise of Borden himself. Of all the people to send him to, Thomas Eddisons director competitor? What would that have to do with anything at all? On top of that, he also builds (or has built) his own electrical contraption which seems to do nothing, however it is obviously inspired by Tesla, they must have met. User:anonymous 11:24 , 24 February 2007
I'm with Deon on this one, and there's no plot hole (the movie is incredibly watertight, no pun intended). Occam's Razor: Borden says they are twins (and Cutter agrees, as does the bookend demonstration of the bird trick (i.e. "brother")), so they are twins. Sending Angier to Tesla is indeed not a coincidence: Let's see, I'm Borden and I really want to mess with my rival so I think of the furthest place I can send him to, so I pick Colorado Springs (I'm already aware of Tesla from the exhibition at Albert Hall and I may have even obtained a special effects machine from him). A wild goose chase is exactly what Borden wanted — look at how long Angier was in America thus giving Borden free rein in London.
The only family that the Bordens interact with are Jess and Sarah (Fallon does not have a family, although he does appear to develop a relationship with Olivia), and Sarah does notice something's amiss with her husband. In fact, it could be argued that she even figures it out and kills herself when she realizes that she has been sleeping with two men and may not even know which is the father of her child (remember the "secret" she wanted to reveal to Olivia?).
As for Borden having used the machine for duplication before Angier ever did: (1) where would he get the money to finance its development (unlike Angier, he is of modest background); and (2) why did Tesla have such a difficult time developing it if he had already done it once.
—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  07:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I definitely agree with your assertions. I guess it was just Bordens luck that the man whom he intended to have waste Angier's time by enveloping him in a shroud of mystery and confusion (since Borden was probably aware that he was spotted seeing Tesla's public unveiling of the machine) just happened to be of some use to Angier giving rise to a similar trait of trickery, having a 'clone' of yourself, to pull off the deception. User:anonymous 10:15 , 25 February 2007
I think there is a plot hole, but not as big a one as has been suggested. As I see it the problem is this: If Tesla never made a machine for Borden, how is it that he has any idea what type of machine to make for Angier? Angier has only a couple of very brief conversations with Tesla's assistant prior to meeting Tesla, neither detailing what it is that he's after, and Tesla is warning him about the machine and saying he is already building it when they first meet before Angier can get a word in edge-ways! Doctorsticky 19:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the plot summary should include that Angier is sacrificing just as much as Borden is. (his sharing one life with his brother) when he kills himself every night for the performance. He knows when he steps into the Tesla contraption that he is going die a miserable death by drowning in the same tank that his wife died in and he does it for one hundred shows.Toyobronx 3/7/07 208.196.60.32 19:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Recall that Angier had been under that perception that drowning was a peaceful way to go (per Cutter at Julia's funeral) during the whole water-tank-sacrifice phase until Cutter "corrects" that at the end.
—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  23:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It was my understanding that the object that is teleported is the original, while the clone stays in the machine. Note that the cat is mad right before he is teleported, but the cat in the machine immediately afterwards is docile. Later, when Allgier discovers the hats and cat, the cat is mad. Hence, the original cat got transported and its clone was left behind. In this way, the original Angier is teleported during each of the performances, and it is the clone who drowns. So Original Angier never has to drown, but does get his hands dirty by killing a clone for each trick.12.150.85.70 17:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)whc03grady

Which Angier goes where was discussed under the heading "What exactly does the machine do?" in the second archive for this discussion page. The man who steps into the machine falls into the tank. If you look closely, you can see the floor open up below him. Cognita 22:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course I saw the ditty with the trap door. The question is, Who falls through it, Original Angier or Clone Angier? What I was saying above is that it is Clone Angier who drowns, based upon the cat incident (mad cat is replaced in the machine by (clone) docile cat, while mad cat (original) is teleported to the forest). There are other reasons for believing that Original Angier always survives and Clone Angier drowns, not the least of which being that any of the Clone Angiers is not going to be motivated to kill himself just so someone else (that is, Original Angier) can pull off the stunt Original Angier has planned.12.150.85.70 02:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)whc03grady

Both interpretations were advanced in the archived discussion. I do understand that the question is who falls. Of the two alternatives, I find it more plausible that the man who falls through the trap door is the one who's standing on it. (In fact, we see this happen.) That's Original Angier – because he stepped onto the door. For Clone Angier to fall, Original Angier's body would have to be discontinuous in time.
I didn't think the cat looked mad after it went outdoors. The two cats outdoors were chasing each other the way cats do. The cat in the machine looked distressed, perhaps because the electricity disturbed it.
One explanation for the question you raise about motivation is that whenever the duplication occurs, both men are Angier. In performing the trick, Angier arranges that one of him shall die (he thinks it'll be painless) and the other of him shall survive. Cognita 06:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I find it not only plausible, but undeniable that the man who falls through the trap door is the one who's standing on it. That's precisely the question: Who is standing on it? As for the contention above that "[f]or Clone Angier to fall, Original Angier's body would have to be discontinuous in time", this is patently untrue. At time0, Original Angier is in the machine, and at time+1, Original Angier's body is elsewhere (i.e., the balcony). OA would be contiuous in time, though not in space.

The metaphysical impossibility of both Angiers being Original Angier is available to anyone who would care to do some heavy thinking about it.209.137.231.162 00:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)whc03grady

"The metaphysical impossibility of both Angiers being Original Angier is available to anyone who would care to do some heavy thinking about it."
Well, I guess that lets me out. Cognita 00:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Whew! Me, too. —  Jim Dunning  talk  :  01:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

About which one falls through, note what Angier says at the end. He says each time he stepped into the machine he didn't know if he was going to be the man in the balcony ("the prestige") or in the water tank ("the box"). Wouldn't this imply that which one falls into the tank isn't the same each time, that sometimes it's the clone and sometimes it's the "original" Angier (even though, after a few trial runs, there wouldn't be an original Angier, just clones)? Juts a thought. Ours18 15:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

To the people who question about a machine being built for Borden and why it was said it the movie. A machine was built for him by Tesla, it was the electrical prop machine seen shortly after Olivia joins his act and spruces it up. Of course it acts as nothing by special effects, Borden uses his twin brother as always, but it gives a reason behind him using Tesla and it convinces Angier that he secret lies with Tesla. Unbeknown to Borden though, is that due to Angiers extent of funding to Tesla, he is able to create a machine that transports him.````Variable

"Differences to novel" section

The section about novel/film differences has been removed because it needs some work if it is to be included in this article.

  • Rename section to something like "Film/novel differences" — as is, the section title meaning is vague and missing a comparison reference.
  • The whole section frequently omits the original events/themes from the novel to which the "different" film event/theme is being contrasted, thus leaving the reader wondering what happened in the book that was different. For example:
    • "In the movie, Borden does not interrupt the Tesla transportation. There is never more than one Angier for more than a few seconds at a time." This implies that Borden does interrupt the transport (teleportation), but doesn't place it in context and the reference to "never more than one Angier" means nothing, at least to those who have never read the novel.
    • "The film employs the same plot elements as the book, with one crucial exception: Tesla’s device produces a perfectly healthy duplicate of Angier (or any other living organism or object)." We might assume this statement refers to a film event, but it's ambiguous. Even so, what's different in the novel?
  • Also, some of the "differences" border on trivia(l). These, for instance:
    • In the novel, Angier survives the events that have unfolded. In the film, only a single Borden survives.
    • 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.
These could be nothing more than the usual differences arising during film adaptation of a novel that have little to do with the themes and characterizations of each. And again context is often missing, since the plot description in the film article (rightly) leaves out much of this detail.

A section like this could be of value, but it would be more interesting if it compared and contrasted themes and style. Certainly differences in events might be important, but only in the context of their relationships to larger elements. Such an approach would also be more consistent with the well-written Plot and Themes sections of the film article. I suggest someone work on this section offline before returning it to the film article.

—  Jim Dunning  talk  : 00:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from removing sections wholesale, because of minor concerns with the text. This not simple a new section created by one editor, but existing text moved from another article and as such previously subject to normal editorial review. By removing it, the text would effectively be lost. Please familiarise yourself with the editorial process on Wikipedia (incremental improvements) and feel free to correct minor errors you see as opposed to removing the entire text and in so doing denying other editors of this opportunity.
Furthermore I disagree with almost all you criticisms of the text which further raises concerns regarding your blanket deletion.
  1. The section title is more descriptive than your alternate suggestion
  2. I have not read the book and could understand perfectly what were meant by the listed differences you question.

I didn't create the text, but I feel it is quite substantial and very important to the article. Let us all rather have a crack at smoothing the minor problems out. So that other editors get the chance to debate changes as they are made. --Deon Steyn 05:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"Differences to novel" in British English translates exactly as "Differences from novel" in U.S. English.
A real (i.e., print) encyclopedia article wouldn't have such a section. Then again, a real encyclopedia wouldn't have an article about The Prestige. Cognita 07:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not want an edit war here and am looking for a Wiki-style resolution, but I do think there are serious issues – not minor concerns – with the new section that need to be resolved. I have both read the novel and seen the film (twice each) and still have difficulty discerning the references for some of the observations in this section. Also, because the section was lifted with little change from the novel's article there are internal references that are orphaned. For example, the fourth paragraph starts "There are constant hints throughout the film leading the viewer to the twist." This is the first explicit reference to a "twist" in the film's article (other than a reviewer's quote about "twists and turns"). My concern is that there should be some amplification on what the twist is (or maybe even just where it occurs) so the reader has some context in which to place the fourth paragraph. (There are other, similar references in the section as well.)
The section makes more sense when read in the novel's article because it follows immediately the Synopsis section in that article (although there still is a problem with the "twist" reference). Certainly the section's text makes a significant start on an analogous section in the film article, but let's make the appropriate wording adjustments before plopping a huge amount of text and information into an existing, well-developed article.
And I am concerned about incremental improvements — this section was dropped in wholesale, not incrementally. I apologize for not being able to comfortably understand the phrase "differences to novel". It is not a phrase an American would get quickly. Obviously I was able to figure it out, and initially, I thought to translate it to "differences from novel", but realised that wouldn't be fair to our island cousins. That's why I suggested an alternative heading. The article is written mostly in American English, so it's a good idea to continue in that style.
Again, I don't intend to ignite a clone war with my blanket deletion of a blanket insertion. I made the same recommendation as Deon Steyn: that we should work to improve the article, but I disagree that there are only minor issues. The section has not been lost, however, and I certainly saved it offline immediately so I could consider it further and revise it. The editors of the film article have done a yeoman's job in the Plot and Themes sections focusing on the larger, significant elements of the work and not getting mired in smaller issues. Dropping in a section originally written for a different (albeit related) work makes a significant change in the film article's tenor and continuity. That's why I suggested some rewrite before adding it there: refocusing the new section on stylistic and thematic differences (and similarities) would be more valuable.
I do question the appropriateness of such a section in the article. No one take offense here, but it seems to trivialize the film: like it doesn't stand on its own (maybe that's where I have my issue, so I apologize for that offense). The two artworks will always invite comparison because they share a connection, but they are two independent efforts. Also, I agree with Cognita; is an encyclopedia the venue for such a long treatment of the differences (and similarities)? In the Production section of the film article this area is maybe covered enough: "Although the film is thematically faithful to the novel, many plot and structural changes were made, most notably the removal of a subplot involving spiritualism and the replacement of the novel's modern-day frame story with Borden's wait for the gallows."? The Production section, which specifically addresses the film's genesis and evolution, is a more appropriate venue; even expanding this topic borders on literary criticism.
→There was a reason that someone felt the section was inappropriate to the novel's article and removed it — doesn't the same question apply here in the film's article?
I know an editor first raised the question of moving the section from the book's article to the film's article on the book's Talk page (good place and way to raise it); conversely, shouldn't we show the same consideration to the film article?
—  Jim Dunning  talk  : 13:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, the section should be vetted for accuracy before being moved into another article. A quick look at it turns up some problems immediately (and by no means all of them):
  1. Look at the paragraph about Borden's wife. While the explicit events differ between the two works, it is really more a similarity than a difference, since Angier discusses the same issue almost verbatim in his journal in the novel. Also, we have no way of knowing that the twins were "faithful" to the respective women they loved. In fact, if the Bordens truly lived the deception, then they likely kept both beds. This topic has been discussed extensively within the scope of the film article's development, but not so much in the novel's article development.
  2. The paragraph about the Tesla/Edison rivalry leads a reader to believe that the rivalry element is unique to the film. It is not: Priest introduces us to the bitter feud on p. 275 of the TOR paperback edition.
I'm not nitpicking, just demonstrating that just because a section may work in one article, it can't automatically be moved into another article without due consideration and adjustment. If the consensus is to include some kind of "differences" section, then the differences should be handled by editors knowledgeable of both the novel and the film (and contributors to the film article shouldn't assume that just because something was part of another WP article that it's accurate). (This also raises a question about the book's article's accuracy, so we should check that out as well.)
—  Jim Dunning  talk  : Jim Dunning 18:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Jim, the point is that we first move the content, then we improve it. This way we have a history and a collaborative, inclusive process. Cognita pointed out the difference in American and British (from versus to) and since the standard guideline is to stick to the variant the article was started in so what are you waiting for, simple change the heading. Similarly if a sentence isn't clear enough, edit it. As for "blanket insertions" I have never heard of this, I have heard of: WP:BOLD. Your time would be much better spent improving and editing the text instead of these very long contributions on the talk page. That the text belongs to this article is unquestionable, because for from being a standalone work of art, the film's screenplay is an adaptation of the novel and as such it is valuable to know what was changed since these aren't minor changes, if you feel it's of less importance, perhaps we can discuss moving it down the article? So I say again, let's rather spend our time improving the text. --Deon Steyn 06:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Don, I just reread your note above, specifically your suggestion that I should cease with these "very long" discussions on this Talk page and just "improve" the article text. Please don't think I'm being obstructive or more annoying by not taking that advice. If I followed this direction I would immediately eliminate two of the section's differences because they are not comparison/contrast items, they are discussions of the movie's plot; another one would go because it is inaccurate; and two more would disappear because they are repeats or extensions of previously stated items. This would eliminate five of the list's 12 items. Of the remaining seven, one does need some work to ensure plot description consistency, one is very trivial and should go, and two more are sticky wickets because they are oversimplifications of complex plot developments and themes. And since I don't think this list should be in the article in this format, my idea of improvement would be to eliminate the balance completely. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, that's just my opinion. So bear with me as I add my ideas on each item instead of being "bold" again. Thanks.
—  Jim Dunning  talk  : 20:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions regarding inclusion/exclusion/revisions of novel/film "differences"

Deon, I can see including a comparison in this article since it is an adaptation, but I wouldn't want it to be a list of trivia. For example, I see the Olivia suggestion item as trivial – it has no significant impact on the plot development. On the other hand, the fact that the machine creates a "healthy" duplicate is a significant difference that does affect plot and themes. There are three main concerns with the list of differences developed for the novel article: (1) not all of them are true differences, but are discussions or interpretations of events confined to the realm of the film – there's no comparison/contrast being performed; (2) some plot elements alluded to in the "differences" are not discussed in the preceding Plot section, and, in fact, have been intentionally omitted after extensive discussion on the film article's Talk pages (consequently, they should not be re-introduced without review of those discussions and out of consideration for the extensive effort put into the Plot and Themes editing); and (3) an apparent empirical difference between the two works may just be a legitimate adaptation device to ensure that plot development does not, in fact, change, and that themes are successfully transferred from one medium to another (which, in turn, invites a larger discussion of the themes, something potentially unsuitable to an encyclopedia). A smaller, fourth concern is that some "differences" are repeats.

I am not going to be bold and make the changes, but invite discussion based on the notes I've compiled below (a strikethrough indicates that the item should be left out). Let me know what you think. Also, I do think the section should go after Themes, or maybe even Production.

Comments regarding "differences" between novel and film —

"The film employs the same plot elements as the book, with one a crucial exception: Tesla’s device produces a perfectly healthy duplicate of Angier (or any other living organism or object)." — Yes, this is indeed a difference, and one that significantly affects events and themes.

"The first time he uses the device in his workshop alone, one of two things happen. The first interpretation is that the . . . glass tanks, each containing a secretly drowned Angier." — This is related to the difference just described, but this paragraph is an interpretive discussion of events in the film, not a comparison to events in the novel (these specific movie events don't all necessarily occur in the novel, but that's true for many events in the movie). Also, there are plot element interpretations here that have been intentionally eliminated from this article after much discussion (primarily because they are interpretations not limited to describing what actually is seen or known).

"The second Another deviation departure from the book is the manner in which one of the Bordens dies. In the movie Borden again breaks into the backstage area. However this time he sees one of the clones drowning. He is seen watching Angier die, accused of murdering Angier, and sentenced to death by hanging. In the end one of the brothers dies while the other lives on to take revenge on Angier, killing him amid his deceased duplicates." — A possible difference if the fate of the Bordens in the book is included. It also creates the impression that a Borden dies in the novel (which doesn't happen – maybe remove the word "manner"?). And the question of whether there are two Bordens in the novel is disputed by many readers (whereas most film article editors appear to have a consensus that the Bordens are twins. Also, whether it is a clone that is drowning has been open to interpretation and whether Borden actually kills Angier in the end is unknown (since we don't actually see Angier expire).

"There are constant hints throughout the film leading the viewer to the twist. One is an act involving birds in which one bird is vanished . . . . At Julia's funeral, Borden says that he can't remember what kind of knot he tied that lead to her death . . . . Olivia finds a lot of makeup in Borden's study, and we discover later that it wasn't used to improve the appearance of a lookalike . . . . Borden's wife also regards throughout the film that sometimes her husband is in love with her, whereas other days he doesn't seem himself. Looking back we . . . . twin men were after all faithful to the women they each separately loved." — This is just more discussion of events within the film, not a description of differences, and includes interpretations that have been consciously left out of this article since there is not explicit proof (e.g. that the Borden twins are faithful to their respective "lovers").

"A subplot of the film touches upon the real life rivalry between Tesla and Thomas Edison, both brilliant inventors working at harnessing the power of electricity, who developed a bitter feud until the death of Edison." — Not a difference between novel and film: the subplot exists in both (see p. 275 of the TOR paperback edition).

"In the novel Borden disrupted a seance held by Angier, accidentally injuring Julia Angier and causing a miscarriage. In the film, Julia is accidentally killed during an illusion, in part due to the recklessness of one of the Borden twins." — Agree these are differences, but this fails to explicitly state the more obvious difference: that Julia does not die in the novel and plays an important role throughout the story. Also, is it accurate or neutral to say the actions of one of the Bordens is "reckless"? Certainly, Angier thinks so, but one of the Bordens and Julia would disagree.

"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." — Agree, this is a contrast, but could be easily grouped with the one just before it.

"In the movie, Borden does not interrupt the Tesla transportation. There is never more than one Angier for more than a few seconds at a time." — To be a contrast, it should include the difference in the novel. Also, this could be expanded to allow that while Borden doesn't interrupt the machine's operation, he does interrupt the performance with similar plot results. (This is why I am uncomfortable with lists like this – this certainly is an empirical difference, but invites a whole discussion of whether or not is it just a plot device difference (or "adaptation" necessity, if you will) that does not change the story or theme development?)

"In the novel, normal use of the Tesla transportation device on a human results in a rubber-like shell of a body, non-organic and resilient to aging. This shell is not alive and could not be mistaken for a living human. In the film, the transportation device creates completely healthy, living duplicates, apparently even down to duplication of personality and memory (although this point is in some debate)." — Agree, a difference that has significant impact on plot, but this was already mentioned above.

"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 and deliberately write misleading entries." — There are some differences here, but the description of the novel's events is oversimplified. In fact, the question of who is writing and revising what in the novel's journals is arguably the book's most convoluted and important element. There really is no difference here; the Nolans just simplified a major plot device (and theme – the story itself is a magic trick) in the novel to adapt it to film.

"In the novel, Angier survives the events that have unfolded. In the film, only a single Borden survives." — Some kind of Angier survives in the novel, but no Angier lives happily ever after, so does he truly survive? Maybe a difference in degree only. Agree that both Bordens survive in the book (if there are indeed two Bordens).

"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." — Agree this is a difference, but has little impact on the plot development of either the novel or the film.

—  Jim Dunning  talk  : 17:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The journals — If the journal is another magic trick and central to the novel (and film), I would say it's important to note the differences which sound quite substantial (one journal versus two).
  • Angier's survival — If some sort of limp clone of Angier survives I would say that is still notable, but perhaps we could rephrase it as: the true Angier dies in both films, but only in the film does his clone die too
  • Olivia's motive — I would say her motive for going to Borden is important not only to her relationship to Angier, but also to Borden. Angier's (and the readers) could doubt her loyalty to Angier, which is not the case in the film at least initially. Perhaps a note to this effect can be added?
You must remember that it is far more likely for someone to have watched only the film and as such the viewer would be interested in these differences. It is also interesting to see if these changes are substantial and how they effect/change the story. You have trimmed down the section quite nicely and changed the position in the article (which I also agree with) and I think we're progressing along the right lines. --Deon Steyn 06:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dean, you wrote: "That the text belongs to this article is unquestionable, because for from being a standalone work of art, the film's screenplay is an adaptation of the novel and as such it is valuable to know what was changed...." My opinion differs. I think it's highly questionable that the text belongs on Wikipedia at all. Since I haven't read the book, I can't comment on the details of the section you're trying to add. However, I take Jim D.'s original position, that this section isn't needed. The article is already long. For instance, it's longer than the article on Coppola's The Conversation, which, at this point in history, is a more important film than The Prestige.

Just think how many films have been made of Hamlet. Every one was an adaptation, and if viewers want to know what changed, they can go read the play.

A side note: It isn't correct to speak of Angier's "clones." Cloning is a biological process. Cognita 02:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It's Deon, not Dean :-)
Any version of Hamlet with it's own Wikipedia article could/should have a section of differences from the original work (if there are such differences) precisely because a reader might assume they are exactly the same when they are not. Imagine someone who has read the book version of The Prestige, but hasn't seen the movie (or the reverse for that matter)... they would be interested to know what changed or how the two works differ. The section isn't large at all and neither is the article. Finally, I would argue that this section has a greater claim to be encyclopaedic than the Themes section, since it consists of verifiable facts.
As for the term clone, it is not only limited to the biological process and can also mean copy or imitation of something already existing (wiktionary), one that appears to be a copy of an original form (Merriam-Webster's).
--Deon Steyn 06:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Deon, I'll be more careful with your name in the future. I slipped. In my typing window, lower-case a and o look too much alike.
My opinion that the article is disproportionately long remains despite your statement that it isn't. I also believe it's common knowledge that film adaptations of written works differ from the originals – that's why they're called "adaptations" – so that readers would probably not assume that no changes were made. Cognita 19:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Article size, this article is not that long. It is only 27.6kB, less than 3000 words and only 6 printed pages long. Although there aren't any hard and fast rules, this would seem to be far below the 32kB, 6,000–10,000 word or 10 page guidelines.
A film adaptation doesn't necessarily imply serious changes to the story. I just don't understand that you wouldn't find it noteworthy that the film deviates from the original work in several important aspects including Julia Angier not dying, but having a miscarriage, Borden and Angier never injuring each other physically during their rivalry (save for climax), only Borden keeping a journal, Angier dying and differences in the Tesla machine's copies/clones??? What would we achieving by not showing this information??? --Deon Steyn 11:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
We're going to have to archive just this discussion.
Having a "differences" section such as this diminishes the adaptation process, and both of the works. Generally, any "differences" are the result of adaptation, which, if done well, is challenging and complex. Characters and events are combined or split, added or deleted, to meet the needs of the medium. These "differences" are peripheral or tangential to the really important element: how the screenwriter(s) preserve or modify the themes of the original.
With the film, the Nolans intended to remain true to Priest's work. And I think they did an excellent job doing so, but of course surface changes occur as a result. For example, in the novel the journal element is an extremely convoluted device. It is very effective and many consider it one of the most important characteristics of the story (fans have resorted to detailed writing analysis to determine who is writing at any given time) . It is, however, a very difficult device to successfully translate to the screen, so the Nolans essentially removed the physical journal from the story and replaced it with a flashback-within-flashback-within-a-flashback structure. So on a very superficial level the journal "trick" appears to be gone, or significantly changed, and we're tempted to say an important difference between the two works is that "in the novel Angier and Borden and Borden write in each other's journals, presenting to the reader each's own version of what the other wrote; in the film Angier obtains Borden's journal and reads it, and then Borden obtains Angier's journal and reads it" (I think -- I have to look at the movie next week to refresh my memory, but I think what's written in the article is actually incorrect). In reality, however, the effect of the journal device in the novel is ably preserved in the film through the film's narrative structure; the "trick" device is still there. So to focus on the journal just ignores the more important aspect of both works while presenting superficial information. Which is more important: how many journals are there and who's reading what, or the telling of the story itself being a magic trick? Are you watching closely?
It would be more effective and interesting to expand the Production section with some notes on Adaptation (not much, mind you) that identify some of the really cool things the Nolans and Priest did. That's why I hate this list. It trivializes an excellent work of art (no, two of them).
—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  23:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Support merge. —Viriditas | Talk 14:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm late on this discussion, but having the "Differences from novel" section seems to constitute original research. I say this because the only people making connections between the two forms of media are the editors themselves. This is a clear indication of attributing the connection to oneself, and this kind of free reign gives zero limit in determining differences between the two sources. I would highly recommend using reliable sources that make the contrasts between the two. I would imagine that this would be done by film reviewers who are familiar with both the book and the film. I recommend reliable sources not only because it's in line with meeting verifiability standards by the way of citation, but it would also limit the scope of the number of differences that can be made to what has been considered substantial by the reviewers. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself. I am reviewing the Production section to see if we could/should expand it a bit to cover any non-superficial (i.e. significant) differences, but the challenge has been successfully finding reputable sources for those observations. The trivia section that was lifted from the novel's article never had sources to begin with and so was a problem for that article as well. If we were to subject this article to a peer review right now, I'm sure the Differences section would be viewed as "trivia" and a recommendation to remove it made. Erikster's point that the analysis should be done by reviewers familiar with both works just further confirms that this section is a problem. If someone can find verifiable sources for the items then do so, as long as the content doesn't descend into the realm of trivia. Also, I echo Viriditas: merge any significant content into Production.
—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  18:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Plot again

The plot section needs work. —Viriditas | Talk 11:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we all spell "Sisyphus"? Cognita 01:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't it Fallon who was hanged, not Borden like the plot review suggests?Tynedanu 13:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Viewers don't know which one was hanged. In many scenes, we can't tell which twin we're looking at. The plot summary says "Borden" in other places where (with hindsight) the man's identity isn't clear, because we have to call him something, and until the revelation near the end, Borden and Fallon seem to be separate people; that is, the audience doesn't think of them as interchangeable. When he doesn't have a beard, we assume we're seeing Borden. Another example is the scene of an argument with Sarah just before she hangs herself. Cognita 18:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Fallon is simply the alter-ego of whichever twin is in the fat suit, so it's not really clear what you're asking. If you're suggesting that the wrong twin was executed, I am inclined to agree. VanishingUser 11:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've made a few changes to Plot. One question: In the Colorado paragraph, is the statement "but the device fails to work" correct? Later, when Angier returns to Colorado, he finds that the device does work, though not exactly as Tesla intended. It does teleport things. Cognita 06:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The device does begin to work at some point much earlier than Tesla and Alley believe. Note that up to the day of the cat experiment, both Tesla and Alley (and therefore Angier) think that their efforts are unsuccessful despite apparent confidence in the soundness of the machine's design. That day, however, Angier discovers the teleported cat amongst numerous hats, implying that the hats were teleported (and duplicated) many experiment tries before. I don't think Angier ever leaves Colorado, but appears to stay in Colorado Springs, often without contact from Tesla for long periods during the machine's development.
Maybe the para can be modified thus —
Angier travels to Colorado Springs to meet Nikola Tesla and learn the secret of Borden's illusion. Tesla constructs a teleportation machine that resembles a magnifying transmitter, but the device takes weeks to develop and test. While waiting in town for the machine's completion, Angier learns from Borden's notebook that he has been sent on a wild goose chase. Feeling he has wasted his money, he returns to Tesla's lab to learn that the machine has been perfected, but not necessarily as originally intended: it creates and teleports a duplicate of any item placed in it. Tesla's rivalry with Thomas Edison forces him to leave Colorado Springs abruptly, but he leaves Angier the machine. In a letter, however, he warns Angier to destroy it.
—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  11:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Julia

Yes, of course. Julia died because the other twin didn't know about using the safer knot. Good edit, Jim. —Viriditas | Talk 22:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessarily true. How could one twin know the proper knot and not the other twin? Presumably they both attended rehearsals. I think one of the key plot devices in the film is that you don't really know if Julia's death was accidental or not. VanishingUser 04:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

They both attend rehearsals, but the knot discussion takes place at only one of the rehearsals, attended by only one of the twins (so the other doesn't necessarily know about Cutter's admonishment). Julia's death is accidental, a result of recklessness or misjudgment on the part of Julia and one of the Bordens. The importance to the plot is two-fold: (1) it reveals the impetuous nature of one of the twins, and (2) the dual nature of The Professor.
—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  06:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't seem believable to me that the twins, who were so dedicated to the art that they amputated fingers to match, would neglect to share lessons. The "impetuous nature" of the one twin is exactly what makes it questionable as to whether the incident occurred due to neglect or malice. He may have knowingly used a more difficult knot out of contempt for Angier (because of what he perceived as a lack of dedication to the art), or because of jealousy over Julia (which was paralleled by the affair with Olivia). In either case, he could have put her life in danger to spite him. It seems to be an open question and the primary reason why the neutral approach works -- it's difficult for the audience to judge good and evil when they don't know the impetus. If it can be flatly stated that Julia's death was accidental, then Angier is just looking for someone to blame. What makes the audience more sympathetic to Angier is the fact that the film never rules out the possibility that foul play was involved in Julia's death. Of course it could have been an accident too, but the point is that I don't think the film conclusively points to either cause and attempting to state definitively what happened is guiding the viewer based on a single interpretation. VanishingUser 11:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems that foul play could be ruled out just because the "knowing looks" exchanged by Borden-1 and Julia seem to indicate they were both in on it: they were adventurous and wanted to try to accomplish the act a bit differently, make it better(?), although I confess ignorance as to how using a double-langford makes it better. —  Jim Dunning  talk  :  11:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Jim, your implied question, even if it was serious (and I don't know), doesn't have a technical answer, because there is no "Langford double." It's a fictitious knot named for Chris Priest's friend David Langford. I don't recall that anything in the film explained why Julia and a Borden thought this innovative knot would be better. I agree with VanishingUser that the film leaves the nature of Julia's death ambiguous, and this is a good thing for the story. Anyway, I don't see that the article's plot summary takes a position on whether there was foul play or on which twin tied the knot and which one attended the funeral. Cognita 06:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why should we assume that Julia's death was not accidental? It seems highly likely that one twin was warned about the danger of the knot while the other one was not. And, the twin's reaction to Angier's incessant questions about the knot supports this idea. The twin didn't know which knot he tied, because it was tied by the other twin; we don't know if he failed to inform the other twin about the danger of the knot, but it's the simplest explanation. Nor was this the only mistake: the other twin failed to convince their wife that he loved her, and the fingers that refused to heal revealed another error. In the book, the rivalry between Borden and Angier began after Borden accidentally causes Julia to miscarriage; in the film, the rivalry begins after the twins accidentally kill Julia during a rope trick. The price of the Twin's secrecy eventually led to the deaths of two women. It's entirely consistent. —Viriditas | Talk 07:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Viriditas on this one (lol). Subsequent events and the twins' characters point to no malice involved. Recklessness, certainly, but I don't think Borden-A (Fallon, I think) intended to put Julia at any more risk than a magic act would involve (and Julia appears to be in on the planning of the knot switch, too). This is consistent with the book where the tragedy there (i.e. Julia's miscarriage) is an unlooked-for consequence of the Bordens' interference with Angier's seance business (again Angier is copying others' acts, not creating them). This is a difference between events in the novel and film: in the novel Angier and Borden are not friends or coworkers, so their path-crossing results from other means. The twin not knowing what the other is doing issue does arise, however, since there are indications that the reckless disruption of the seance does appear to be the unilateral action of just one twin.
But wording of the article's paragraph is excellent as is. And I'm glad the Nolans did not explicitly answer the knot-culpability question, as the ambiguousness is a good thing for the audience to wonder about. Also, thanks for the info on the Langford knot!
—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  12:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
"The . . . Twin's secrecy eventually led to the deaths of two women." And the deaths of an unknown number of men: one twin and some Angiers. Cognita 08:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The reason that one of the Bordens wanted to use the Langford knot was that there was always an element of danger in the knot being loose enough for Julia to undo because it needed to be tight enough to hold her weight while she dangled above the tank. The Borden thought it would be tighter and better able to hold her weight, and still loose enough for her to get off. I don't quite see how the other twin not being present when Milton nixed the idea as being a factor - Borden and Julia were both up for it and knew the danger; it was just that Milton was being "over-cautious", in their probable opinions. (Personally, I thought that, given Julia and Borden's shared look as he tied her hands, he definitely did the Langford and didn't want to admit it.)--Principessa 01:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you care to watch closely (no pun, really) they talk about the simple knot slipping, so they need a tighter knot (the Double Langford) -- 200.126.153.26 19:34, April 1, 2007 (UTC)

Differences from novel temporary page

The section Differences from novel has been moved to a temporary subpage of this Talk page to address the concerns about original research and trivia (see discussions above). Please take this opportunity to edit content and add citations to reliable and verifiable sources regarding the novel/film differences. This most likely will be from reputable reviewers and critics who are knowledgeable of both the film and the novel. Note that there have been recommendations to address any differences at a high level only in the Production section (adaptation).

Once some additional work has been done we can review it and see if the section can/should be returned to the article.

  • Talk:The Prestige (film)/Differences from novel
This issue has been dormant for well over a month (no edits or comments have been made to the temporary page whatsoever since its creation). Consequently (coupled with the article going to GA since the issue was first raised), I'm assuming the question of whether to include a "differences" section to the article is answered for now.
Unless someone has any objections, I'm going to request that the temporary page be deleted within the next 24 hours. I will archive the content on one of my user pages, however.
—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  11:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The request for page deletion has been made. —  Jim Dunning  talk  :  04:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but this is not the correct way of dealing with content, you don't simply move a section out to a sub page OVER A WEEKEND, then have it deleted. If a citation is missing, it request for one can be added and you are abusing the Wikipedia rules for verifiability when you ask that someone provide a citation for something obvious. Deon Steyn 05:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The temporary page was created and advertised over a month ago, on March 1. Please assume good faith, no one is trying to fool anyone. Editors were informed of the temp page and expressed concerns (all perspectives) at the time and invited to provide references and discuss the appropriateness of the section in that format in the article vis-a-vis WP:TRIVIA. No one is "abusing the Wikipedia rules for verifiability" by asking for sources for "something obvious": others had already pointed out that noting differences between the novel and film could be considered original research, thus discussion of the issue was called for. Focusing all discussion on a temp page seemed a productive and amicable method for reaching consensus. No one objected to it at the time.
Also, in the past month no one contributed to the discussion to re-add the page to the article whatsoever.
—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  11:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Since a key player in the discussion missed the opportunity to address the issues on the temporary page, it was recreated — Differences Discussion temporary page — on April 2, 2007.

Interested parties should use this page to address the following issues:(1) verifiability and original research, and (2) Trivia. Perhaps we can provide two weeks more time for contributors to not only add third-party sources to the "facts", thus addressing the WP:OR concerns expressed by at least one editor, but also add perspectives about the issue of WP:TRIVIA.

If consensus can't be reached in that time, then it might be a good idea to draft an arbiter to help, maybe someone heavily involved in WikiProject Films (volunteers and/or suggestions are welcome).

—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  15:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Jim, can you please refrain from moving content to subpages. This is not standard practice (see Wikipedia:Subpages#Allowed uses) and inhibits the normal editorial process. This section does not constitute original research, it includes several sources that not only mention differences, but discuss it as a serious topic in evaluating the film. It is not unrelated points of trivia either, granted it can do with more prose in the introductory section and perhaps cite one of many source for interviews about the process of adaptation, but the fact remains that the section should stay there to allow editors the opportunity to make these changes. Deon Steyn 06:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
For purely point of clarification: creation of Talk namespace subpages is not only allowed, but specifically recommended for this situation. Under "Allowed Uses" is listed, "Temporary subpages in Talk namespace, usually formatted [[Talk:Example Article/Temp]], . . ." and a bit further on it expressly says that for, "Writing drafts of major article revisions . . . write these in the talk namespace, e.g. [[Talk:Example Article/Temp]]." —  Jim Dunning  talk  :  12:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Correct, but not necessary in this case which only amounts to normal edits of one sub section. Deon Steyn 12:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Angier still lives?

I though I saw him standing in the fire at the end after it shows Borden reuniting with Jess. Well, it showed someone standing in the fire.--24.109.218.172 15:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you watching closely? I was, and there is absolutely no one there. Voila!
—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  04:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That was one of Angier's duplicates, floating in the water tank.Arcayne 21:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination and stability

This article has been nominated for Good Article (GA) status. Understandably, this has generated new interest and editing activity from both veteran contributors to The Prestige article and new-comers. Contributions are welcome, but please consider that one of the GA criteria is stability. In other words, numerous edits can be viewed negatively by a GA reviewer. Of course, if there is a significant issue that is a problem, it should be addressed, but there have been a number of recent edits that focus on adding more detail to sections (especially Plot). Many editors have worked hard since October to make this section informative and accurate, but concise as well. Consequently, there shouldn't be too many issues in need of resolution in this area at this time. Too much detail is not a good thing, and a balance between readability and information quantity is important.

If there is a significant problem that requires fixing, especially relative to criteria used to evaluate GA candidates, then by all means make the change. If, however, it is something that can wait for a few days, then please wait. This will ensure that a GA reviewer evaluates an article that is not changing from minute-to-minute.

—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  19:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

True, but I've simply done a bit of expanding and referencing, as well as copyediting. Nothing too drastic I hope. WikiNew 19:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

I passed the article as I believe it adequately meets all the criteria.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail: [[Image:|15px]]

-- Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The functionality of Tesla's machine

I've had a conversation with User:Wiki-newbie about whether or not to delay an explaination of the machine's functionality until the end of the plot summary. In the plot of the movie, the audience learns what the machine does during the Colorado Springs section, about 2/3's of the way through the movie. During the last third, when Angier performs the his big trick, the audience already knows what the machine does. To delay this revelation until the end of the plot summary effectively rewrites the structure of the movie, and I see no reason for it. Does anyone have any thoughts on this issue? -Captain Crawdad 21:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion about placement of that information. Earlier versions of Plot described the effect of the machine in the Colorado section. People keep messing with Plot. Looking at it just now, I see other places where it has deteriorated since the version that merited a Good Article award. Its grammar has slipped, too. Cognita 22:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
diff —Viriditas | Talk 11:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)