Talk:Motherless Brooklyn

"Libel" of Robert Moses as rapist and murderer - leading the film to miss the point about "Urban Planning". The article also misses this.
I know that, legally, one can not libel the dead - but the film does lie about Robert Moses (changing his name to "Moses Randolph" does not change this - as it is clear who the character is supposed to be). Robert Moses was a big spending urban planner (a massive interventionist), his politics were just about the opposite of my own - but he was not a rapist or a murderer. I think a lot of people did not go to see the film, in part, because it is lazy - rather than dispute the ideas of Robert Moses it makes him a cartoon "bad guy" (a rapist and a murderer). And then the film presents another "urban renewal" plan (this time created by a sympathetic character) as good, thus showing that it does not understand why Robert Moses did such harm. Mr Moses did not do harm because his intentions were bad - he did harm because trying to "plan" everything from above is a bad idea. And another grand "plan" from a "good guy" rather than a "bad guy" does not change this. The article implies the film failed because its ideas were too complex - actually the film failed because its ideas were simplistic. The film assumes that is is the INTENTIONS of a great "Planner" that are what is important, reducing everything to "bad guy" versus "good guy" - not understanding that the very idea of trying to control ("plan") everything, and everyone, from above is what is wrong.2A02:C7D:B41D:C800:B841:2A92:CFF4:54A7 (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Most if not all movies about historical events or "based on a true story" contain made-up stuff. This post is all opinion, and it's primarily opinion about the historical facts (which makes it "general discussion" rather than work on the article); all you really have to say about the movie is that it's not smart enough to agree with you. I just saw the movie, and I don't recall anyone saying that the only problem with Randolph was his intentions---or the opposite. It's not Wikipedia's job to say the article failed, or didn't; personally, I liked the movie a lot, mostly because of Norton's performance, but I thought it was well done in general.

I'm not a New Yorker, and I didn't know about any of this; the impression I got from the film was that BOTH Randolph's intentions and his autocratic control were very bad; and that probably the filmmakers and any reasonable person would think that too, and that's what the filmmakers meant us to think. Also, btw, central planning can certainly have its drawbacks, but it's even worse when only one unelected person has the power to do the planning for everyone else-- and you can't just dismiss the role of racism in the harm that was done (in the movie, at least. I don't know whether Robert Moses was actually racist, but he does seem to have been fine with destroying poor and "minority" communities, and anyway structural racism has something to do with why those communities were vulnerable).

As for the "libel"-- well, if you're a friend or family member or sympathizer of R Moses, and you take this as a statement about him, you're not going to be happy. I don't know if any such allegations of rape or of having illegitimate offspring were made about R Moses. In the movie, as far as I can see, Moses Randolph was NOT a murderer; if he was, the simplest solution would have been to erase Essrog. In fact, Randolph threatens Essrog with "making your life worse than I've already made my brother's", not with death. Some of Randolph's ANTAGONISTS were murderers, yes, and maybe even some of his associates. If he himself was involved in murder, I missed it, which is possible, but even so he didn't kill or threaten to kill Essrog. Bottom line, though, this is a movie. Randolph is a fictional character, even though you've certainly convinced me that he's a fictionalized version of R Moses. The story is a mixture of two stories, one from history and one from a novel, with additional original material. The whole thread about Laura's origins and relationship with the Randolphs makes the story a lot more dramatically interesting.47.33.89.111 (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Glaring Error
I'd fix this myself, but I'd probably just get reverted. I just saw the movie, and at the end, Essrog does NOT "expose Moses Randolph to the press" as the last paragraph states. He exposes LIEBERMAN, which is not a violation of his treaty with Randolph, and in fact probably suits Randolph just fine. Somebody please correct this.47.33.89.111 (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 6 July 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

– Following the article renaming for the novel in early February, it seems clear that the film is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. See pageviews showing a 13:1 ratio. The WP:TWODABS disambiguation page at the base name can just be deleted (and so should the redirect pointing to it at ). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Motherless Brooklyn (film) → Motherless Brooklyn
 * Motherless Brooklyn → Deleted to make way for page move
 * Note: pages with content, such as Motherless Brooklyn, are ineligible to be proposed titles in move requests unless they, too, are formally dispositioned. "Motherless Brooklyn → Deleted to make way for page move" has been added to this request to meet that requirement.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 22:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose The film was directly based on the novel. There is no primary topic here, this is WP:RECENTISM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Your first argument is not applicable and as for your second, recentism doesn't mean what you think it means. The movie is clearly primary now - four years after the release of the movie. If that changes four years from now, you can always propose a change then. But opposing this because traffic flows might change? Nah, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. CapnZapp (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Pageviews are not the sole metric to determine a primary topic. When comparing long-term significance, the book has 20 years on the movie and it was the source of inspiration for the movie. RECENTISM is believing that since the film is popular now, it's primary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So far your arguments amount to 1) we shouldn't reassign a primary topic because one thing came before another and 2) we shouldn't reassign a primary topic because one thing inspired another. Neither is relevant for the purpose of this discussion. Might I suggest using the various tools and statistics suggested over at WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY and then arguing that there's more to it than the nominator's pageview statistics? CapnZapp (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that RECENTISM could be a factor here, but 1) it is not clear that the book is considered hugely significant in a way that will persist as the film fades into history (and it's been four years, not four months, since the film was released), and 2) this is a WP:TWODABS situation, so the threshold for primary topic status may be a bit lower than it otherwise would be. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Motherless Brooklyn should redirect to the movie. No point in having a disambiguation page where there are only two topics, one receiving clearly much more traffic than the other. No harm done if the occasional literature buff lands on the movie page and has to make one extra click. CapnZapp (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)