Talk:Mr. Brooks

reverting summary by 64.59.16.100

I am reverting to the earlier plot outline that does not read like an advert or original research. If you want to tuck in new info, good, but don't rewrite the whole section-stop inserting it, it's not a personal essay. I am going to put in any new information your version has, but yours is not written encyclopedically. Chris 08:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

The version of the plot summary section originally added by 64.59.16.100 [1] is substantially the same as found on Fandango. I am reverting the plot outline to the prior version by User:Roland Kaufmann.

Maybe 64.59.16.100 was trying to remove the copyright violation, but did not indicate this. TPM2006 00:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, 64.59.16.100's later edits were also copyvios, from the official MGM site, no less. TPM2006 00:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the Wikipedia policy "Official Synopses" anyway? TPM2006 00:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Synopsis

The synopsis does not seem to be a good description of the film. It fails to mention at all Mr. Brooks being blackmailed by Mr. Smith, which I personally think is the central part of the story. Mr. Brooks and Atwood never come in contact with each other, and while their stories are somewhat parallel, I think the description of their "relationship" is irrelevant in terms of a movie synopsis. MJB12 03:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if the synopsis should include the last line, ('Why do you fight it, Earl?'). I believe this throws a different emphasis on the dream, and the film. I realise this is not the place for original thought, but take using the word 'id.' Is Marshall really the 'sadistic alter ego'? I think it's more devious than that. Unless one thinks the daughter actually is a killer. Whatever. Too hairsplitty for a synopsis? Pitht (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Freudian angle is a stretch. It's not clear what "Marshall" is meant to represent, or why he's dramatically presented as someone who Costner can have a conversation with (and turn around to talk to, with others watching) without their realizing it (or at least asking him who he's talking to). In addition, there are scenes in which Marshall clearly knows things that Earl doesn't. However powerful Freud might have thought the Id was, I don't think he attributed knowledge to it.

to me, not a stretch. Its just a device whereby the viewer can hear his thoughts; The viewer of the movie reads his mind thru these conversations with the William Hurt character. Concentrate more on what Marshall is meant to figuratively represent, not what he literally represents. Marc S., Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

On a minor detail note, the synposis says
"Soon afterwards, Earl’s daughter Jane (Danielle Panabaker) returns home, having abruptly dropped out of Stanford."
I'm not sure that we are ever told that Stanford is the Univ. in question. The parents only mention "School" or "College" when discussing the daughter's dropping out. Admittedly, we are meant to infer Stanford from the dramatic use of the "Palo Alto" highway exit sign, but I didn't think that was ever made explicit in the dialogue. C d h (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a minor thing. I saw this movie around when it came out and only once, the synopsis mentions meek's out of the blue I can't remember if this character is introduced beforehand, but if he is which i believe he is, some mention needs to be made before the reference of his hideout.Jjkayes (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The present synopsis reads, "With Meeks' license plate number, he looks up his address and arranges to have Baffert's furniture moved to the same building while Baffert was away from home. Earl planted a moving company invoice with the destination address in Baffert's apartment expecting Atwood to eventually find it." This is pure speculation on the part of the editor who wrote it. In the film there is no explanation as to who moved the furniture; in fact, it's a major hole in the plot. MovieMadness (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a hole on the plot. Mr. Brooks is seen earlier in the movie in the alley behind the motel confirming his research that the bald criminal's car is parked there. Also, at the end of the movie, when brooks is speaking on the stolen cell phone to the cop (she thinks it's Dane Cook), Brooks (posing as "Mr. Smith") says he "gave" that criminal to the cop. It's clear, but not spelled out that Brooks is behind the moving van. As it stand, this article is ncomplete - it doesn't touch on the bald killer (dies in shootout with Demi). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.153.214.92 (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible Sequels?

I remembered Kevin Costner saying something about this film being conceived as the first of a trilogy...just found it, in this interview here. Think that deserves a mention somewhere in the article? 65.102.162.124 20:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This fact should be added to the main article. Jstohler (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody add that as a citation? --MwNNrules (talk) 05:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Five years later, there's no discussion of a sequel. A sequel might get a lot of bad publicity and controversy. After the BTK killer in the midwest, a sequel to "Mr. Brooks" would be viewed by many as trivializing and glorifying the BTK killer. Mr. Brooks was an interesting movie. I liked the movie. An interesting Character study of the mind of a serial killer. But a sequel needs to avoid a potential controversy of serial killer glorification, by giving us the more formulaic movie-screenplay of the police pursuit. The public would accept a sequel that works as a study of police methods and forensic sciences. One "Mr. Brooks" movie was interesting. A sequel done the same as the first would be serial-killer overkill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.192.35.125 (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Should it be labelled as Posible Sequel? or should it be Cancelled Sequel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.166.154.228 (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Factual Error?

I've only seen the trailer to this film, so I don't know if the scene in question is in the final film, but Portland has no Chamber of Commerce (it's called the Portland Business Alliance) and in a scene in the trailer, Mr. Brooks is being given an award by the "Portland Chamber of Commerce." Might make a good "Trivia" entry... Cranialsodomy 05:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Faux pas?

As far as I know, in english, the term "faux pas" implies that it goes against etiquette, which does not seem that relevant when shooting people in the face. 62.194.186.169 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed it into "mistake".--Patrick 21:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Office building used in Mr Brooks

Does anyone know what Office building was used in the movie Mr Brooks? Anyone got a name or a location? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.222.247 (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

+

I added more about Atwood and Brooks conversation but it keeps being reverted. My version makes more sense. For example in . In the original version he calls her and she answers his question about her carreer by explaining she wanted to prove her father wrong. One it does not say what she was trying to prove him wrong about. Two it does not explain why she even agreed to answer his question. Three it does not show how after the conversation she realizes he wasnt smith. I have add these details, but they keep getting deleted. If more information was my own research or a lie (like when the end of the article use to say that the ending of the movie heavily implies Brooks kills his daughter) I would understand. But all it is is adding more detail about what happened. If your going to revert it at least give me a reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Largoss (talk • contribs)

Because plot summaries are not written to talk about "in the deleted scenes", that would go elsewhere in the article. The bit about why Demi Moore is a cop is not important, to the plot, it is a character beat. That he is on the roof us also not important, he calls, he hangs up. That is all that is needed. I cut this plot down severely, it does not need bloating back up. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does because all it says is she wants to prove her father wrong. Wrong for what? That should at the least be kept and the she knows its not Smith who called her. Both of which are important because they were set ups for a possible sequel, but also explain the characters. You can at least keep some of what I say. Considering a good chunck, Im not saying all, Ive had to edit myself, as alot of people here have, Im going to keep tryingLargoss (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? The phone call is inconsequential to the plot, it tells you nothing and the "chunck" that you have added does nothing but talk about the deleted scene (which is not what a plot summary is for). The plot summary is for summarizing what happens during the film, not speculating about a sequel not diverting to talk about a deleted scene. In your struggle to keep this you have also rolled through 4 edits, so read this while you're at it. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The only part that has do with the delted scene is where i mentioned which building it was (which I struck from the description), but the entire scene happened in the movie. It explains why through out the movie Atwood shurks from mention of her dad and why shes rich but doesnt work in the family business. It was only four lines. Im going to keep adding it so let it go.Largoss (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The plot is too long, it needs to be shorter, not longer. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The are no rules for length. Seesh. First you say its over being about a deleted scene. Then its about length. Largoss (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually there 'are rules on length. You should read them, 400-700 words. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine there was a length, you were right. Well it fits the length. And considering the terrible grammer and incomplete plot the description tells before I edit again, then both your reasons for changing it have little merit. Largoss (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The word is grammar. And the plot is fully described at the shorter length. Plus your expansion contained spelling mistakes, parentheses and broken wikilinks. Darrenhusted (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You mention next to nothing about Atwood who is the only character besides Brook to have any majore screen time or character developement, you drop about Meeks. Meeks escaping and the threat of him coming after her was a major part of the movie. You dont mention Brooks arranging for Atwood and Meeks's confrontation. You dont even mention him talking to her anymore or how she realizes she wasnt talking to Bafford or why he wants Smith to kill him. Granted I can be too long with descriptions but yours cuts out a lot of stuff.Largoss (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is how short I can get this plot summary: Mr Brooks is a serial killer who kills a couple and is spotted by Mr Smith. Mr Smith asks him to take him on a kill and he takes him to kill the investigating detective's husband and lawyer. Mr Brooks frames Mr Smith and returns to his life, vowing not to kill again, but worried that his daughter may have inherited his desires. 63 words. The whole Atwood subplot with Meeks has very little to do with the plot other than showing how clever Mr Brooks is, it is all a character beat, not a plot point. He uses her to frame Mr Smith, that is the only connection needed. There is no real reason to mention Marshall, other than he is played by William Hurt. Look at the plot for The Simpsons Movie, it has no mention of the townspeople or wedding video subplots, and it is a featured article. If you want to talk about the sub-plot then the best place to add it would be in the cast section. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)