Episode 223: Taking Taking to the Next Level

The Overthinkers tackle Taken 2.

Peter Fenzel, Mark Lee, and Matthew Wrather overthink Taken 2, and hand some beloved figures in public media their pink slips.


→ Download Episode 223 (MP3)

Want new episodes of the Overthinking It Podcast to download automatically? Subscribe in iTunes! (Or grab the podcast RSS feed directly.)

Tell us what you think! Leave a comment, use the contact formemail us or call (203) 285-6401 to leave a voicemail.

Related Viewing

9 Comments on “Episode 223: Taking Taking to the Next Level”

  1. Chris #

    I don’t know if Huell Howser is on TV outside California, but comedian James Adomian frequently portrays him on podcasts such as Comedy Bang Bang, so a lot of folks are probably at least somewhat familiar with him. People who listen to podcasts, at least, which is admittedly a small portion of the population.

    There was a really weird Axe commercial that came out recently, and may have disappeared that is somewhat impossible to describe beyond calling it “creepy” and perhaps invoking David Cronenberg, but it also used Daniel Johnston’s “True Love Will Find You In The End” which I found jarring because A) A Daniel Johnston song was being used in by a major advertiser and B) The message of that song seems to fly in the face of the entire ethos of Axe, which seems to be “use our product and strangers will throw themselves at you in sexual desire.”


  2. Redem #

    I think you could set Taken in some third world country, most sex trafficking take place there.


    • Redem #

      I meant have it set in the third world and have every protagonist be from that third world country


      • arthur johnston #

        That would make the line “If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don’t have money” more correct


        • Redem #


          “I do have money, but in your currency its worth nothing”


  3. arthur johnston #

    I think you need to add a rule to the drinking game. Anytime Wrather tells an overly long story that’s only tangentially related to the main topic of conversation and then lampshades it by saying “sorry for taking you all down this rabbit hole” or “this is a long setup for a joke that’s not worth it”. Drink


    • Matthew Wrather OTI Staff #

      SOMEBODY has to alert the public to the Smokey the Bear Conspiracy. Those trees aren’t going to burn themselves.


  4. Jason Storck #

    Is anyone else hoping that Taken 3 involves the Albanians somehow getting control of the city government of Las Angeles, declaring Liam Neeson’s home to be in a blighted area, and then “taking” it through eminent domain? Cameo by Richard Epstein, perhaps? Anyone?


  5. Gab #

    The beatnik poet Gary Snyder has a radically different interpretation of Smoky the Bear:


    So the thing with the fact that this is grounded, at least partially, in the revenge for the deaths of the henchmen from the first one- that was something that was fascinating to me in the run-up to it being released. Admittedly, I haven’t seen it (yet), but I can’t help but applaud the makers of this movie for turning such a usual, taken-for-granted trope and making it less trope-ee. What makes Liam Neeson bad with respect to killing them like he doesn’t care (in reference to Fenzel’s discription of him) is precisely taken (hah!) for granted in virtually all shoot-em-up action movies such as this. We expect action heroes to mow down bad guys and henchmen like it means nothing, and we’d be disappointed if they didn’t. And we don’t hear about it later, either within that particular film, or later in a franchise if it’s part of a series. The closest exception I can think of from an iconic action figure is Geremy Irons in the third Die Hard movie, seeking vengeance for his brother’s death (to an extent- McClaine is a secondary pursuit to the gold in the Federal Reserve).

    So my question for you gentlemen, since you saw it, is how deeply after that opening scene do they continue the “revenge” thing? Do they bring it up more than once? My wonder when seeing the trailers was whether that funeral scene would be the end of the references to the dead guys from the first movie. And I can’t quite tell from your commentary and discussion. Because from my perspective, even if they didn’t go further and take (hah!) it beyond the funeral scene, that’s still an original premise; continuing it and carrying it through the whole movie would be even more exceptional. I’m guessing yes, they do, given Fenzel’s description of the ending, but is that bit of revenge tied directly or loosely to the beginning?

    When is the next listener panel? Or I bet that’s a question better left to the forums… ;)


Add a Comment