Talk:Taken (film)

Basic

Basic page up. Needs well as poster image. Dave Dubya 20:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

CIA Agent?

Nothing I saw in the film said 'CIA Agent'. I"m changing to 'Gov't Operative until we get a citation from someone in the production saying that he's CIA. ThuranX (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It mentions that he had bosses in Langley which would seem to suggest that he was employed by the CIA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.113.125 (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. They reference their bosses at Langley. The Headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency is in Langley and using the term "Langley" is a common euphemism for the CIA.

He also mentions losing a "Chief in Beruit" to Hezbollah. This is likely a reference to the CIA Chief of Station William F. Buckley, who was kidnapped and killed by Hezbollah in 1985. Buckley was an agent from Special Activities Division.

William F. Buckley did work for the C.I.A., but he was not kidnapped and killed in 1985. You're confusing him with someone else. PNW Raven (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure you're thinking of William Francis Buckley. -Ren —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adlauren (talk • contribs) 01:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

We?

The plot's a little sketchy at points. Mostly with the We parts, but whatever. I don't have the time and resources to change it up, but could someone try a little? Music is life. Live it fun. Listen to Ska! (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Impartiality

Is the reception section unbiased? Comparing the reviewers that are cited in the article with all those on the Rotten Tomatoes site shows that of the well-known critics only those that gave positive reviews have been referenced here. This is especially important when it is considered that two-thirds (out of twelve) of these well-known critics gave negative reviews. (92.230.53.134 (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Actual RS reviews should be cited, not unsourced aggregate numbers of fan/user reviewers. Considering the film was just released, I'm sure the section has much yet to go. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Plot section is atrocious

It's over-detailed, has poor grammar and is not of Wiki quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justamarkoff (talk • contribs) 13:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it needs to be abbreviated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.108.206 (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've got it to a good starting point, small details may need to be added/changed (I've not seen the film) but I imagine what I've done sums the film up pretty well. Regardless, I think it's a million times better than what we had brefore. RaseaC (talk) 05:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I did some additional trimming, and will probably do more reworking as Wikipedia really does not want just a linear retelling of the story.

At present, the plot outline refers to Bryan "executing" Saint-Clair (2nd to last paragraph). While execute can be used as a term for any killing, it is most often used to refer to legal killings. In this case the kill is justified but is not legal. I think it would be more correct to use the more neutral term "kill". I changed it in an anonymous edit but it has been changed back, I will change it again tomorrow if there have not been any objections. Str16star (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I added "execute" to avoid endlessly repeating the word "kill," which creates boring syntax. Sorry, but since execute is not only a "legal" killing, it is legitimate to use it here. Here is Dictionary.com's definition (please note #4):

1. to carry out; accomplish: to execute a plan or order.

2. to perform or do: to execute a maneuver; to execute a gymnastic feat.

3. to inflict capital punishment on; put to death according to law.

4. to murder; assassinate.

5. to produce in accordance with a plan or design: a painting executed by an unknown artist.

6. to perform or play (a piece of music).

7. Law. a. to give effect or force to (a law, decree, judicial sentence, etc.). b. to carry out the terms of (a will). c. to transact or carry through (a contract, mortgage, etc.) in the manner prescribed by law; complete and give validity to (a legal instrument) by fulfilling the legal requirements, as by signing or sealing.

8. Computers. to run (a program or routine) or to carry out (an instruction in a program).

I am going to put it back in, so please do not change it again. PNW Raven (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

-- Changed. "Dispatch" is more efficient, demonstrates brutal efficiency, and gets around the 'difficulty' in one fell sweep.

Bosola —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.122.124 (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I, too, think the plot is too long and detailed. I have managed to shorten it by about 180 words without, I believe, cutting out anything significant. I'll put this up in a couple of minutes - If you don't like it, you can always revert. p.s. I also prefer 'dispatch', though I haven't used it. gramorak (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC).

French-American?

This film is directed by a French director, produced by a French studio, realised in France, so for which American element it can be considered as a French-American film? 194.199.63.85 (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I presume you mean "released" in France. Anyway, you're right. I agree with you. But I think what they were trying to get at is that some of it is set in USA (not very much of it though). ★Ffgamera★ - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the American-born scriptwriter who collaborated on the script, an American distribution company, and some American actors in it, there was nothing to suggest that it is an American-French film. 67.149.192.84 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

Hello, to the one asking "realised in France" means created, filmed and/or directed. Not released! So if it's a French film, how come they talk English??? Last I looked "Taken" is not a French word. It would be "prise" or "emportée" in French, and last I checked, we still don't talk American or English in France... so what gives here?! When was the last time Hollywood made a film where they only talk French!??!76.81.251.162 (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)I signed my post

On TV

"On TV this film is rated TV-14." what does that mean. I presume that is in a specific jurisdiction iwh which case the jurisdiction should be mentioned ed "In the Bulgaria or whatever" -- 09:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the rating probably means that it's been edited for TV and is suitable for people aged 14 years and over to watch. If someone else knows if it means something else, please comment. PNW Raven (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a TV Parental Guidelines rating, used by American broadcast and cable-cast programs to help parents determine whether a program should be seen by their children. 108.246.205.134 (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Algerian Mafia??

Shouldn't it be Albanian mafia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.211.242.163 (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

name of the Sheikh

the name of the Sheikh who was holding the knife over Kim's neck is Sheikh Raman, according to IMDB, and not Mohammed. where did you get the name Mohammed from ? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0936501/fullcredits#cast 216.80.92.69 (talk) 06:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Plot summary

I have significantly edited this synopsis as it was full of errors and uneccessary exposition (Marko being left to die "screaming in agony" for example. It was also inaccurate re: dead prostitues etc.

Give reasons here if you alter my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.225.189.243 (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I gave reasons. If that was your edit it was awful and full of errors. For a start plot synopses are meant to be impartial and factual not give irrelevant details. But if you insist:

1). Bryan Mills is not a an "officer-hitman". While it is made quite clear that he is not the most pleasant of chaps, his previous life is not fully revealed. From dialogue in the movie we can determine that he did deniable stuff for the CIA, hence "black ops agent" is more accurate (and is on the DVD back cover in the UK).

2. "17 year old teenage daughter" is waffly. If you're 17 then you're clearly a teenager.

3. "SUV transport" is too esoteric as not everyone would know what an SUV is.

4. "Pops out of hiding" sounds childish and "Bryan quickly breaks the knife-wielding arm" is grammatically atrocious.

5. "charming young and attractive" is again waffly.

6. Kim didn't know how many men were abducting Amanda. She tells Bryan "three or four" so specifying "three" is innacurate.

7. "cracks several ribs" is your opinion. Bryan punches Peter, who is clearly a wimp, several times and threatens "the next one goes into your lungs" but it is not stated or implied that he breaks his ribs. Also, Peter gets out the cab and runs, kind of hard with busted ribs.

8. Bryan does not "kill" the co-spotter (black guy that drags him out of the cab when he's thumping Peter). He knocks him down/ out.

9. Bryan doesn't kill anyone while looking for Kim in the construction site brothel, he is brutal but not lethal until trying to escape.

10. "He identifies Marko Hoxha, takes him prisoner, and kills the other six gangsters" is cobblers. Highly innacurate and lacking in clarity. He kills the other four who were in the room with Marko, then murders the others that come to try and help. Also, he knocks Marko out by banging his face into the table top. He is not a "prisoner" until he has him tied up.

11. "He finds many dead girls in each room" is woefully innacurate. There are many girls in each room but it is unclear as to their state of health (or lack of). Also, Amanda is not "killed" as that would imply they deliberately did it which is again not made clear. Finally on this point she has one hand tied to the bed.

12."Bryan asks for the address of Saint-Clair which Marko claims he doesn't know", again waffly.

13. Your final summing up is taken from watching the normal cut, not the unrated one. Unrated version has him fire 8 bullets into St-Clair.

--195.225.189.243 (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Repeated superfluous edits

Can I ask that anyone altering the plot synopsis NOT put in lines such as "leaving Marko do die a slow and extremely painful death".

The above line is one example of random and inappropriate edits to this page that are unclear, untrue and misplaced. To dissect the above example, the Albanian slave trader that Bryan tortures is left to die (in an undeniably wonderful piece of universal justice) through electric shocks BUT we don't see him die, nor do we know how long it would take. My edit of "leaving Marko to die" is more accurate as it is an accurate summation of both Bryan's intention in doing it and the way the scene is filmed (he says "it't not going to save you!", throws the switch and walks out while we hear Marko screaming. It then cuts to a new scene).

Please keep Wikipedia factual. While I love this scene and concur that Marko's death was almost certainly slow and painful...that is conjecture and has no place on an objective Wiki plot synopsis. If this is altered again I will refer to 3rd party intervention.

--Cziltang mexico (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm with the above wikipedian -- when editing please don't add extraneous detail for purposes of colour or padding to this plot -- it really is long enough. For instance if the cousins are away, it doesn't matter where they went. Point is the girls are alone. Less flora, more bare bones please or it makes a mockery of the well-justified tag about an overly long piece about a pretty straightforward plot in what is basically an action movie. Aim to improve rather than make a fan reading of the movie. Manytexts (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Latest rather awful plot synopsis.

People, people.

While Taken is a film that many of us LOVE, Wikipedia is NOT a platform for you to erase the work of other editors and leave your own (rather awful) plot synopsis.

I have just edited AGAIN a dire retelling of the plot that left out crucial points as well as adding things that were innacurate(how Bryan finds Kim at the end) and for some reason using the name Bryan at every opportunity when "he" would have been more appropriate.

The last editor really ballsed this up, more so because he/ she did so many edits that I had to manually change everything back due to editing conflict.

Again...as glorious as Taken is, only edit if you can actually contribute to the plot synopsis through trimming or proof reading.

This is highly annoying and an abuse of Wikipedia's "anyone can edit" rule.

--Keepkeepingon (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I have changed this AGAIN!!! Can the cerebrally challenged and A-Level English students please stop mutilating the work of other editors. My main reasons for changing are below. If this continues to happen I will refer to Wiki management for potential account suspension. Do not piddle about with someone else's work unless you can make it better. Wikipedia is based on trust. Don't abuse it.

1. How can Kim be 17 and then celebrate her 17th birthday?

2. "Highly-skilled" and "step-father"….major hyphen abuse!!!

3. Bryan broke into the apartment…this needs to be mentioned.

4. Prudent to mention that Bryan attacked Peter doncha think?!!

5. Mic hiding shenanigans, also what gang for f***’s sake?!!

6. How did he bluff his way in? Grrrr!!!

7. How he identified Marko.

8. Captives were prostitutes.

9. This has been discussed on the Talk Page before. We do not see Marko die so “excruciating pain” is flanneling.

10. He tortures St Clair, he doesn’t just “force” him.

11. St Clair didn’t say it was an Arab Sheikh, he just said “boat by the quay”.

12. “holding a knife to Kim's neck, to no avail. Bryan shoots him.” Yuck! What is this? A-level essay time?!!

13. Relevant that Lenore and Stuart are less imbecilic to Bryan at the end.

14. Also relevant why Kim is taken to Sheerah.

--94.197.127.149 (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated Information

I deleted these lines as they link to a Indian kannada movie which has no relationship with Taken- ==Also See==

For the 2012 film, see Chingari (2012 film).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohanravinder (talk • contribs) 17:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Edits by idiots

I have yet a-bloody-gain changed this.

Can the mentally ill, grammatically challenged and just plain stupid STOP editing the plot of this?!!!

Some of the details on the last one were utterly awful (e.g. Bryan pulling a "hidden gun" on the Sheikh at the end of the movie. Last time I saw Taken the gun was anything but hidden. Also, why waffle on about how the pimps get the girls hooked on heroin? Sight of dead Amanda handcuffed to a bed after being pumped full of heroin made that crystal clear).

Be good chaps and leave editing to those who are capable of doing it. While millions of us love this movie, don't piddle about with the work of more experienced editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.183 (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Changed again!!! There appears to be a trend amongst GCSE English students to pull apart the edits of previous editors on Taken. Leave alone you mongoloid wurzels!!!

As an example. Bryan does not try to revive Amanda as she's blatantly dead! He also doesn't "fight his way out of St Clair's mansion". Last time I saw the movie he just walked out the building. Also, what fornicating relevance does him closing the door at the end of the movie have to do with anything. LEAVE THIS ALONE!!! --92.40.254.136 (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Plot Summary again

Well, the plot section was not nearly as bad as alluded to by some of the editors above, but it still had some major flaws. I corrected obvious grammatical and syntactical errors and cleaned it up a bit. By no means a major improvement, but certainly marginally better. WLight (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

reason for Amanda's death

I recently watched the movie and I think the reason attributed to Amanda's death is inaccurate. The plot says she died of a forced drug overdose. Yes, she was forced to take heroin so she would become addicted, a common MO among sex traffickers, but to deliberately kill her with an overdose would be counterproductive to their main goal of making money off of her as a prostitute. If you look closely at the scene, her head is slightly turned to the left and there is vomit oozing out the left corner of her mouth and more on the bed next to her. It is more likely that while in the stupor caused by a heroin injection, she vomited and aspirated the vomit, causing asphyxiation. This is a common cause of death among heroin addicts, including Jimi Hendrix. John Bonham also died this way, although he was in a drunken stupor after consuming about 40 ounces of liquor when it happened. In the interest of making the plot description more accurate, I suggest Amanda's death be described as due to a forced heroin injection ("overdose" implies they were trying to kill her) or, more accurately, due to asphyxiating on her own vomit resulting from a forced heroin injection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzcatt1 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

sorry, forgot the sig... Jazzcatt1 (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Jazzcatt1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Taken (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120624220329/http://www.variety.com:80/review/VE1117936710 to http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117936710

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 6 May 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved as consensus to not move has been established. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

---

• Taken (film) → Taken
• Taken → Taken (disambiguation)

– A film that was released more than 8 years ago is still dominating the traffic, and its closest competitor is the trilogy. Combined, they make up 85% of pageviews, but the film is nearly 4 times more than the trilogy.[1] Unreal7 (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose whom does such a move benefit? Removing (film) isn't going to make finding Taken (film) easier, without (film) it'll then be less easy to find. And really notifications of this RM should be given to all the articles affected on the dab page below: In ictu oculi (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – disambiguation is good here. No need for a primarytopic grab on such a widely used term. Dicklyon (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose that makes good with to stay the disambig article. ApprenticeFan ^work 01:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support – the relevant guideline is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which has been met. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. SSTflyer 03:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose the first film is not even primary topic over the film series it is part of. The film series has more primarity than the first film in the series. And the TV miniseries is also competitive -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 04:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The current setup allows for easy identification of incorrect incoming links. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. The film is easily the primary topic. Calidum ¤ 21:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, seems like a mislinks nightmare waiting to happen. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Oppose in general allowing commercial things to occupy common word titles. Oppose because without "(film)", the title will be inherently ambiguous. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Taken (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111231083309/http://www.allrovi.com/movies/movie/taken-v391752 to http://www.allrovi.com/movies/movie/taken-v391752
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66GJPDjAs?url=http://thefilmstage.com/news/are-we-going-to-be-taken-again/ to http://thefilmstage.com/2010/06/10/are-we-going-to-be-taken-again/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)