History Headscratchers / Taken

*** He aborted a mission once just to visit his daughter...he got reassigned to Alaska for that. It´s not like he didn´t want to, it´s more like that he would see her LESS if he tried to see her more.

** Same reason someone thought it'd be a good idea to shoot JohnLennon, presumably.

* MST3K all the way, but isn't a tad too [[ContrivedCoincidence convenient]] that the ex-CIA agent happens to get his daughter (out of the millions of tourists to France) kidnapped, thus proving his otherwise excessively paranoid and over-protective father to be totally justified? I mean, in the extremely likely event of his daughter not being kidnapped, this movie would have been about a jerk-ass, loser father who won't let his daughter go. And then that bitchy ex-wife would be the voice of reason. Is this film basically saying that one should be excessively paranoid about foreigners and over protective of your children?

** Okay, this wouldn't necessarily have ''worked'' for more than a few minutes (or however long it takes to kick down a door in movie-land), but it just seems very strange that the thought never occurs to either of them. No, he couldn't see where she was, but asking something like "Where are you? Indoors? They're in a different room, right? Can you lock them out of the room you're in?" seems reasonable enough. Then again, the MST3K manta probably applies here. "Can you lock the door?" "Won't work, they'll just kick it down!" "Okay, go hide under something!" would kind of ruin the drama.

** This Troper absolutely concurs with you (as, in fact, does the entire "Taken" board on IMDb).

** Well, it happens with a lot of [[FanDumb crazy male fans]] who believe ''"if I can't have her, nobody can"'', as the botched attempt on Japanese singer-and-voice actress [[NanaMizuki Mizuki Nana]] shows.

** Except that the authorities already know who he is and what he's doing midway into the movie, as Jean-Claude informs the police about Bryan, and the French cops are shown tailing him.

*** And you're mistaken when you recall that she didn't call him 'pathetic' ever in the movie. Yes. Yes she did. When he refused to sign the paper at the dinner and Kimmy ran out, the mom said with complete disgust that he was pathetic and left. And even if she was not doing all this just to spite Brian, she also has to be completely naive (not just ''a bit'') to think it is safe for her daughter to go chasing a band all over Europe. In fact, I'd call her a moron. This Troper's mother agrees with that assessment. It's not exactly kept on the down low that people in mobs are dangerous, and fans more-so. And even if Brian didn't tell her much about his work, she should have still respected his opinion of the dangers.

** A. No, she didn't do it "just for the sake of being spiteful to Brian," and there's no indication at all in the movie that's the case. The way she was acting was because she had custody of the daughter, so that means she makes decisions about her daughter--asking for Brian's consent/permission was a courtesy in her mind. She'd already decided Kim could go, so she figured getting the ok from Brian was a formality. I don't recall her ever calling Brian "pathetic" throughout the whole movie. In reality, she's just a bit naive about the world, partly because Brian, as a secret agent ''never told her'' all the crap that happens on his job. She sees Brian as being paranoid and overprotective, while she's trying to be the "cool parent". She's misguided, but saying she does all of this ''just'' to spite Brian is just plain not true.

* Is it just me or is it unfortunate for them to come up with a "CIA" job description that describes the cooperative work of thousands of counter-terrorism experts? "I was a preventer." sounds a lot like "I was {{Batman}}."