This is honestly one of the few books I regret reading. Of course, I had never heard of it until the film, and since it's one of my favorites, I figured I would check out the book. I'd have to agree with many people in this thread in saying it's a rare occasion where the movie is better than the source material. What I remember of the book was just being confused most of the time because of the author's writing style. It felt VERY convoluted. I feel like Nolan made a pretty loose adaptation of the novel for a reason. It was such a wild idea to begin with, but staying anywhere over 75% faithful to the novel would have made for a shitty film.
I tried to not read The Prestige before I saw the film, but I had a twelve hour plane ride to China so I picked up a copy of the novel. Now, having read both the book and seen the film, I must say this is one of the rare times when I believe the movie supersedes the book. First of all, the film is far more than just a simple adaptation of the book. I did tremendously enjoy the book, but the movie was able to remain complex and twisting while eliminating a great deal of the extra content I felt was packed into the book. Also, I better enjoyed the way in which the film was framed, i.e. the trial of Borden, as opposed to the modern setting used in the book. Any thoughts from those of you have have read the book and seen the film?
I haven't read the book or seen the movie yet. I should reserve both of them from the library at the same time.
Read the first paragraph of the plot on Wikipedia. Judging by what i read from that paragraph it should be something like the book 'Temple' by Matthew Reilly. And i loved that book. Nolan should adapt this book next, which i posted on the 'future project' section.
I'm surprised at those that think the book isn't good. I think it's one of Priest's best works, and he's a fine author. The similarity ends in the name, honestly, and that the characters are fundamentally named the same. OH.. and that the two main characters are competing magicians, of course.
I don't get calling one better than the other. If the movie had been made too faithfully to the book, it probably would have to be a mini series. Either way, it wouldn't have been very cinematic, in my opinion. They both work perfectly for their respective mediums, and it's probably best to say the movie is inspired by the book. But this is one of, if not THE, finest adaptations of a book put to film. How many movies made out of books really capture the aspects of the book that you love? Here you don't even worry about that because it's a pretty different, and more focused, take on the source material.... and the movie is better for it.
I thought the book was brilliant. Then again, I read and fell in love with the book before it was even made to a film so that might cloud my judgement a bit. I prefer Nolan's take as well but I like both equally if that even makes sense.