Editorials
Director Bruce A. Evans Details the Two ‘Mr. Brooks’ Sequels That Never Happened [Phantom Limbs]
phantom limb /ˈfan(t)əm’lim/ n. an often painful sensation of the presence of a limb that has been amputated.
Welcome to Phantom Limbs, a recurring feature which will take a look at intended yet unproduced horror sequels and remakes – extensions to genre films we love, appendages to horror franchises that we adore – that were sadly lopped off before making it beyond the planning stages. Here, we will be chatting with the creators of these unmade extremities to gain their unique insight into these follow-ups that never were, with the discussions standing as hopefully illuminating but undoubtedly painful reminders of what might have been.
“The hunger has returned to Mr. Brooks’ brain. It never really left.”
For this entry, we’ll be taking a look at the sadly unproduced sequels to the 2007 psychological thriller/horror film Mr. Brooks, which starred Kevin Costner, William Hurt, Dane Cook, Demi Moore and Danielle Panabaker. Though that first film was left somewhat open-ended and was intended to be the first installment in a trilogy, it has seen nothing in the way of follow-ups since its release well over a decade ago. In researching these second and third films, this writer was fortunate enough to be able to speak with Mr. Brooks co-writer/director Bruce A. Evans, who provided what information he could on the continuing adventures of one of cinema’s most fascinating serial killers.
For those who haven’t yet seen Mr. Brooks, a recap: wealthy Portland businessman Earl Brooks (Costner) is the very picture of success. He owns a thriving box manufacturing company, he’s well respected in his community (even being named Portland’s “Man of the Year”), and is a loving husband and doting father to his daughter Jane (Panabaker). But beneath his facade of normality, Mr. Brooks is hiding a dark secret: he is the serial slayer known as “The Thumbprint Killer”, a methodical and wicked murderer guided through his crimes by Marshall (Hurt), a sardonic extension of Brooks’ id. Strangely, Brooks doesn’t delight in his bloody transgressions, but is tortured by them. He wrestles with his psychopathy as though it were an addiction that can be curbed, attending AA meetings, reciting various prayers like mantras, and doing his very best at all times to keep his dark side at bay, all while displaying a set of moral principles that push him to try and be a better person.

Marg Helgenberger as Emma Brooks, Kevin Costner as Earl Brooks and Danielle Panabaker as Jane Brooks
After two years without a single murder, Brooks falls off the wagon and kills a young couple in their home while they’re in bed. Unfortunately for him, this act is caught on camera by Graves Baffert (Cook), a sleazy amateur photographer using the alias “Mr. Smith”, who uses the pictures he took to blackmail Brooks – not for money, but for the opportunity to accompany the Thumbprint Killer during his next murder. Brooks reluctantly takes Smith under his wing, showing him the ropes of hunting victims and preparing for their murder. Running parallel to Brooks’ story is a subplot involving Tracy Atwood (Moore), a driven detective hot on the Thumbprint Killer’s trail, who is currently being stalked by an escaped serial killer called “The Hangman” that she’d previously put behind bars. Brooks takes an interest in Atwood, using his skills to aid the detective while also dealing with the shocking revelation that his own daughter Jane has begun displaying her own telltale signs of being a vicious murderer.
As written by the Starman/Stand By Me writing team of Evans and Raynold Gideon, Mr. Brooks tells a tale which is at turns engrossing, pulpy, frightening, and genuinely exciting, all while presenting a fascinating character study of its titular, self-medicating serial killer with a conscience. Though the film’s ending hinted at more to come and interviews teased the possibility of a trilogy of films, Mr. Brooks currently exists solely as a standalone feature. In agreeing to chat with us about the sequels that never were, Mr. Evans did caution that there were never any treatments or screenplays penned for the potential follow-ups, so the following, minimal descriptions of what the second and third films would have entailed is sadly all that exists of them. Nevertheless, Mr. Evans was gracious with his time, and was happy to detail what he could when it came to Mr. Brooks 2 and 3.
“One of the initial ideas that we weren’t able to fully incorporate into the first film [was that] Mr. Brooks was fascinated by [Detective Atwood],” Evans says. Though Demi Moore was cast as Atwood in the final film, her part was initially written for someone a bit younger, allowing Brooks to begin feeling oddly paternal toward her. “He was impressed with her. It wasn’t a love story. He saw her as the daughter that he’d always wanted. He’s tortured by his relationship with his own daughter [who ultimately reveals herself to be as murderous as her father], whereas [Atwood] represents who he had always wanted as a daughter. And that engagement would have continued on with the second film.”
As described by Mr. Evans, the plot that he and Mr. Gideon had concocted for the second film would have found Brooks working with Detective Atwood to find his wife and daughter, who would have been abducted. “Someone would have kidnapped his family, having no idea who they were dealing with,” Evans notes, pointing out that the kidnappers would not only be contending with the murderous Brooks, but his burgeoning psychopath of a daughter as well. It’s a fun and fascinating setup for a sequel, which no doubt would have deftly juggled the type of psychological thriller elements, grisly horror and jet black humor found in the first film.
Also returning to the fray would have been Marshall, Willam Hurt’s snarky, scene-stealing manifestation of Brooks’ id. Named after actor Marshall Bell (A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge, Total Recall), a friend of Evans and Gideon, the enigmatic and darkly humorous character would have figured prominently in the sequels. However, Mr. Evans revealed that Brooks would have decided at some point that he needed to do away with Marshall, shoving down and killing this part of his psyche. “There would have been a visualization of this death,” Evans says. “And Marshall would have eventually been resurrected, and that would have been visualized as well.” Evans says that there may have even been several deaths and resurrections for Marshall, with the character coming back “angrier and more perverse” with every go.
Sadly, even less information is available for what would have been the third film, as only the basic idea had been discussed in broad strokes. However, the plot did spring from one crystalline image, provided by Mr. Brooks himself, Kevin Costner. “Kevin’s idea was for Mr. Brooks to drive himself and his daughter off of a pier.” The bulk of the third film would have found Brooks’ daughter Jane turning against her father and framing him for murder, setting up a battle of wills between the two as the younger Brooks tries to “get back at Daddy”. In realizing that there would be no hope for his daughter, he drives them both off into the water, ending his daughter’s reign of terror and his own tortured life.
So why weren’t these sequels made? Well, sadly, it all comes down to money. While the first film initially had only one financier, the interest in the movie was ultimately sold off to numerous investors, creating a muddy quagmire of rights issues when it comes to who exactly owns the film. Couple that with the fact that the movie’s initial spring release date (when the movie was pegged as being a likely hit) was bumped to a crowded summer blockbuster slate, hindering the film’s chances at a larger success than it wound up having, and you have an utterly pedestrian end to what should have been a captivating and enduring franchise.
Nevertheless, Evans and Gideon were at one point keen to continue Brooks’ story, and all of the cast members were willing to come back. So is there any chance that we might yet see these Mr. Brooks sequels some day? Well, according to Mr. Evans, it isn’t likely. “About ninety-nine percent not a chance. The rights are a mess.”
And so, ultimately, it appears as though Mr. Brooks has indeed met an untimely end. “It’s a tragedy to us. As a writer and director, you sit in a room and write something down and you anticipate it being one thing, and you give it to somebody like Kevin and Bill Hurt and Danielle and Demi … I guess the tragedy would be not seeing the words that you’d write [being placed] in the mouths of those actors again. [They] surprised Ray and myself with their interpretations of our work. They were all delightful to work with. Kevin couldn’t have been more supportive, and Hurt is a genius. And Dane Cook was a huge find. Always very inventive. It’s sad that we didn’t get to continue the story of those people.”
Very special thanks to Bruce A. Evans for his time and insights.
Editorials
Taking a Closer Look at the ‘Christmas Carol’ Ghosts of Ti West’s ‘Ebenezer’
The trailer for Ti West’s upcoming adaptation of A Christmas Carol raised a lot of eyebrows when it dropped earlier this week. While plenty of folks initially dismissed Ebenezer as a derivative project meant to cash in on the recent wave of unnecessary prequels that expand the backstory of beloved characters (such as 2023’s Wonka), Charles Dickens’ original novel already made a point of exploring Ebenezer Scrooge’s origins in detail – meaning that this new film is likely just a particularly faithful adaptation of the source material under a different name.
Couple that with the fact that the movie is being helmed by a genuine horror auteur and I think it’s safe to say that the latest iteration of the first modern ghost story is in good hands.
That being said, one detail that immediately jumped out at me during the brief teaser (other than a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it nod to Johnny Depp’s iconic bedroom death scene from the original A Nightmare on Elm Street) is the fact that many of Ebenezer’s ghosts appear to have been directly lifted from the iconic John Leech illustrations that accompanied the first edition of Dickens’ novel.
Here are a couple of stills from the trailer compared to the original artwork:

The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come in ‘Ebenezer’ and ‘A Christmas Carol’

The Phantoms in ‘A Christmas Carol’ and ‘Ebenezer’

Marley’s Ghost in ‘Ebenezer’ and ‘A Christmas Carol’
Mainly working with old-school wood and steel engravings that would later be transferred to print, Leech was instrumental in crafting the iconic look of history’s most influential phantoms – especially since Dickens is said to have been deeply involved with the creation of these so-called “comic illustrations.”
And since the novel is commonly said to have popularized spiritualism in Victorian England, much of the ghostly iconography that we still see in genre media to this very day (including some of Ti West’s previous films) can be traced back to the author’s partnership with Leech.
Ebenezer won’t be the first A Christmas Carol adaptation to borrow heavily from these designs, but I can appreciate how Ti West is incorporating an important part of horror history into his latest film.
Ebenezer will be available in theaters starting November 13.




You must be logged in to post a comment.