Talk:Mr. Brooks

message: 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)
thread_title: reverting summary by 64.59.16.100

message: The version of the plot summary section originally added by 64.59.16.100  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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Problems with Synopsis 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. This fact should be added to the main article. Jstohler (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could somebody add that as a citation? --MwNNrules (talk) 05:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Possible Sequels? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Factual Error? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I changed it into "mistake".--Patrick 21:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faux pas? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Office building used in Mr Brooks 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  +