it's an illusion
m. and I recently watched The Illusionist and The Prestige, about a day apart from each other. I enjoyed both, and was pleasantly surprised that they are only similar insofar as they feature 1. old timeyness 2. magicians 3. their adapted nature (Steven Millhauser and Christopher Priest, respectively). Otherwise, they are about different things. The Illusionist is more of a simple love story, while The Prestige is a story about obsession and love and fame and etc. etc.
I could take my time here talking about how Hugh Jackman can look like 3 different people seemingly without prosthetic makeup, how Christian Bale reminded me of Eric Bana in Chopper, or how Edward Norton's goatee was the strangest I'd ever seen. However, I would like instead to put a question to you all: does it bother you or does it please you when historical figures are used in fiction/fantasy? I think that both sides are legitimate. When it happens, I tend to like the story more--as long as the historical figures are portrayed as real characters and not as foils to point out that This Is History (see: Forrest Gump). But it annoys m. because (and I'm paraphrasing) it takes him out of the story. I ask this because Nikola Tesla is a character in The Prestige.
I could take my time here talking about how Hugh Jackman can look like 3 different people seemingly without prosthetic makeup, how Christian Bale reminded me of Eric Bana in Chopper, or how Edward Norton's goatee was the strangest I'd ever seen. However, I would like instead to put a question to you all: does it bother you or does it please you when historical figures are used in fiction/fantasy? I think that both sides are legitimate. When it happens, I tend to like the story more--as long as the historical figures are portrayed as real characters and not as foils to point out that This Is History (see: Forrest Gump). But it annoys m. because (and I'm paraphrasing) it takes him out of the story. I ask this because Nikola Tesla is a character in The Prestige.