The Prestige... The Machine Didn't work.

(Warning: spoilers and very long post ahead)

The Prestige is a beautifully intricate movie with a very disappointing end. Or at least that was what I thought as I watched, somewhat mystified, the

I kind of like that concept. It explains alot about human beings in general. the simplest answer sometimes isn't the most sufficient

Let's say take a guy that sees me about gaining weight. He asks the questions and tells me his expectaitions. He wants to hear things like creatine, test boosters, glam products etc....

Then I reply "eat more"

There's always a look of confusion, then disgust as if the answer was supposed to be more complicated.

Was this your review? Or did you grab it from RT?

In any event, this is one of my favorite movies of all-time. I've read the book twice and it's a bit different, but that's why I'm such of a fan of Christopher Nolan. He seems to pick the best actors to play these intricate roles.

I've seen this movie various number of times and the one thing about Nolan films is that he doesn't hold back any secrets. He made it clearly evident in the beginning of the movie when he showed shots of the multiple top hats and the two cats.

I think the lingering question throughout the movie was how did Borden perform his trick. We clearly knew what Angier was shooting for and how he did it, but Borden's secret is not revealed until the end. I think the last part about being fooled was just thrown in there to try and confuse us again, but to no avail.

The Machine didn't work, and the USA never tortures it's prisoners, right?:facepalm

[I]Warning: spoilers[/I]

Thanks but the thread title is a pretty big spoiler.

But what about the water tanks where did you see a bunch of Angiers bodies in water tanks where the blind man can't see them?

Damn, I am going to watch this movie tonight again.

[QUOTE=Fatal9][I]Warning: spoilers[/I]

Thanks but the thread title is a pretty big spoiler.[/QUOTE]
:roll: :roll: :roll: Only reason I clicked the thread.

[QUOTE=Patrick Chewing]Was this your review? Or did you grab it from RT?[/QUOTE]
He didn't write this. He has recently started noticing that movies can have more than one meaning it seems. Based on this thread and the one about Inception.

I don't believe this interpretation in the slightest.

no thanks. why does everyone look so hard for 'deeper' explanations to chris nolan movies (well, i guess just inception and this one)? he may leave "cryptic" clues that are purposely there to make you think too hard about what you're seeing on the surface, but the plots are very straightforward and neatly explained throughout the course of the movies.

LOL, thread title reminded me of a complete different thing.

I read his analysis and I don't agree with it. However, kudos for thinking outside the box.

It was so blatantly obvious that it did work. There's no reason to believe otherwise.

I thought it would be that the viewer is seeing what Bale is reading in a diary...a diary that he is being lied to in...

the movie is being shown from the perspective of that diary isn't it?


been a few yeas since I have seen it...

[quote=brooks_thompson]no thanks. why does everyone look so hard for 'deeper' explanations to chris nolan movies (well, i guess just inception and this one)? he may leave "cryptic" clues that are purposely there to make you think too hard about what you're seeing on the surface, but the plots are very straightforward and neatly explained throughout the course of the movies.[/quote]

Not to defend the OP or analysis, but Memento had a few different explanations. There's the easy one, that he really did lose his memory and that he really was searching for the killer, or the alternative: that he was the killer all along.

okay to summarize the explanation:

the machine did not work. Tesla lied to him to get his money and the hat and cats were all planted there just to make the machine look believable. He realizes that the machine does not work but uses his double from the previous tricks to make it seem it actually works? so in the end he just kills his double and gets revenge?

then how do u explain when we see the machine working and he shoots the 'clone'?

[QUOTE=bada bing]okay to summarize the explanation:

the machine did not work. Tesla lied to him to get his money and the hat and cats were all planted there just to make the machine look believable. He realizes that the machine does not work but uses his double from the previous tricks to make it seem it actually works? so in the end he just kills his double and gets revenge?

then how do u explain when we see the machine working and he shoots the 'clone'?[/QUOTE]


does anyone think the "clone" shoot the real Angier? and the clone killed a bunch of "Angier Clones"....look at the water tanks where you see a bunch of Angier Clones in those water tanks.

[QUOTE=Gundress]does anyone think the "clone" shoot the real Angier? and the clone killed a bunch of "Angier Clones"....look at the water tanks where you see a bunch of Angier Clones in those water tanks.[/QUOTE]

No, Angier shoots the first clone. However, Angier officially dies the first time he does the trick with the water tank underneath the stage. Every Angier we see from there forth is a clone of a clone.

The best part about that storyline was that he really wasn't Angier, but a Lord Cudlow all along, just disguised as a poor up and coming magician.

[QUOTE=pete's montreux]Not to defend the OP or analysis, but Memento had a few different explanations. There's the easy one, that he really did lose his memory and that he really was searching for the killer, or the alternative: that he was the killer all along.[/QUOTE]

umm. I have never heard of this interpretation. It's not explicated by anything in the actual film. What makes you think that? I don't really understand why people make analysis of film that's unsupported by what's actually presented by the director.

There was an official website for the movie which stated that his wife did NOT die the night of the attack but 9 months later just like Teddy says. so he couldn't be the killer or else his wife would have fingered him...

I think it's more plausible that Teddy was actually the killer.

[quote=heyhey]umm. I have never heard of this interpretation. It's not explicated by anything in the actual film. What makes you think that? I don't really understand why people make analysis of film that's unsupported by what's actually presented by the director.

There was an official website for the movie which stated that his wife did NOT die the night of the attack but 9 months later just like Teddy says. so he couldn't be the killer or else his wife would have fingered him...

I think it's more plausible that Teddy was actually the killer.[/quote]

Holy shit, do you have any idea how f*cking annoying you are? When did I say I believed any of what I said? I simply offered an alternate explanation I once heard, on this site, from a poster that you ridiculed the other day for almost the exact same reason.

You're the new ukplayer from last year/me from two years ago. An elitist ass with an attitude problem. Grow the f*ck up.

[QUOTE=pete's montreux]Holy shit, do you have any idea how f*cking annoying you are? When did I say I believed any of what I said? I simply offered an alternate explanation I once heard, on this site, from a poster that you ridiculed the other day for almost the exact same reason.

You're the new ukplayer from last year/me from two years ago. An elitist ass with an attitude problem. Grow the f*ck up.[/QUOTE]

lol come on man, I was just trying to incite discussion. not trying to be disrespectful.

I'm not elitist at all. I consider myself an everyman.

But i'll take what you said into consideration maybe I do come off more abrasive than I imagine. I'm just on here to discuss things not trying to ridicule ppl.

You probably don't notice it, but you're incredibly abrasive and elitist.

There was a long discussion on the possibility that he was the killer all along with legit references from scenes and a genuine believable breakdown of the time-line. I'll try to find it.

attention ridonks: do you have the link i'm referring to? does anyone? long discussion on Memento

[QUOTE=Riddler]
[B]

Yeah, the two issues that really depic that the machine did work was the initial "test" in which the clone was killed (without an audience), and the ending dialogue where he expressed his true worry about the fear he faced if he would awake as the man in the box (and thus a dying one), or the man in the prestige.

your explanation never accounts for the scene where Hugh Jackman clones himself, sees his clone and then shoots him in the chest.

[QUOTE=blondie]your explanation never accounts for the scene where Hugh Jackman clones himself, sees his clone and then shoots him in the chest.[/QUOTE]

I highly doubt its his explanation. Dooms appears to be incapable of an original thought or action.

Opinions like this kind of annoy me, why do people always look for some alternate meaning when it's not meant to be there? Same thing with shutter island.

The clone scenes in this movie clearly show that the machine works. No point in trying to find clues to prove otherwise.

[QUOTE=pete's montreux]Not to defend the OP or analysis, but Memento had a few different explanations. There's the easy one, that he really did lose his memory and that he really was searching for the killer, or the alternative: that he was the killer all along.[/QUOTE]

I thought it was quite obvious that him and his wife were attacked and both survived, though his memory problems began at that moment. His wife then tried to snap him out of it by having him give her medicine over and over, and it ended up killing her. Since she was no longer around and his last memory was her appearing to die (though she didn't), he believed she was dead. He actually did get his revenge on the attackers (even though they didn't kill anybody) and Teddy helped set up a puzzle that would keep him motivated throughout life to find the "killers."

Like this thread about the Prestige, there are other possible interpretations, but I think they are bogus in the sense that Nolan and the writers didn't intend for other interpretations to exist.

[QUOTE=Hibachi!]
The clone scenes in this movie clearly show that the machine works. No point in trying to find clues to prove otherwise.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, might as well say Peter Parker never became Spider-Man. He got bit by a spider, and had a reaction. He went to his room and was obviously ill and was about to pass out. It could be interpreted that he did pass out and the whole thing about getting super powers was all a dream. Of course, that interpretation would be bogus because that was not at all what was intended by the creators.

[QUOTE=DeuceWallaces]I highly doubt its his explanation. Dooms appears to be incapable of an original thought or action.[/QUOTE]
half his stuff is TOO original, it is in left feild, and how come EVERY SINGLE THREAD he makes has YOU in it?

I mean really what the f*ck? did he kill your mom or something?...you've been trolling his threads for literally YEARS now...and your over 30 years old Deuce...seriously I am baffled that you are just incapable of letting it go...whatever "IT" is...LET IT GO...move on!!!



there are 100 posters here that I think make dumb threads...do you see me in them 24/7 telling them they are dumb?...no cause I don't give a shit...

I bet you are the single most amazingly arrogant little f@ggy douche in real life...you probably walk around thinking you are a genius compared to everyone when the reality is you are the most bitter unhappy ugly MFer there is...

[QUOTE=Myth]Yeah, might as well say Peter Parker never became Spider-Man. He got bit by a spider, and had a reaction. He went to his room and was obviously ill and was about to pass out. It could be interpreted that he did pass out and the whole thing about getting super powers was all a dream. Of course, that interpretation would be bogus because that was not at all what was intended by the creators.[/QUOTE]

exactly. Why not just enjoy the movie the way it was intended to be viewed. smh

I really don't buy this explanation at all. Reading into things that aren't there.

[QUOTE=DeuceWallaces]I highly doubt its his explanation. Dooms appears to be incapable of an original thought or action.[/QUOTE]

that's why he has a link to rotten tomatoes in the OP, he never tried to pass it off as his own

[QUOTE=gts]that's why he has a link to rotten tomatoes in the OP, he never tried to pass it off as his own[/QUOTE]

Then I was right. Thanks for your time.

Eh, because of the whole Dawkin's retardation some kids can't even enjoy anything non-hyper rational even in fictional settings.

But yeah, unless what they show us are fabrications this can't be the explanation. We see too much that goes against this theory.

[QUOTE=hateraid]I kind of like that concept. It explains alot about human beings in general. the simplest answer sometimes isn't the most sufficient

Let's say take a guy that sees me about gaining weight. He asks the questions and tells me his expectaitions. He wants to hear things like creatine, test boosters, glam products etc....

Then I reply "eat more"

There's always a look of confusion, then disgust as if the answer was supposed to be more complicated.[/QUOTE]
Beautiful and poetic.

Jesus Christ.... 24,000 views.

[QUOTE=Doomsday Dallas]Jesus Christ.... 24,000 views.[/QUOTE]
Yes,

It's because it is the first thing that pops up on google when 'The Prestige Machine didn't work' is typed

I was surprised Insidehoops popped up...