Why did they take a 30 year old woman to play a 17 year old?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Taken 2
amar-d90 — 11 years ago(September 07, 2014 12:13 PM)
Or 18 year old.whatever the case may be in this movie. I have nothing against Maggie Grace. She is a beautiful woman. But the keyword being woman. I just think it's weird to see a woman her age skipping around like a 12 year old girl. There are like a million actresses in the US who would sell their mothers for this role so I just think it's weird that they couldn't find someone more age appropriate and better suited to play Liam Neesons daughter.
-
someenchantedeve — 11 years ago(September 08, 2014 05:28 AM)
Well, remember, nobody thought that the first Taken movie would be such a huge hit. Liam Neeson was NOT an action star when that came out (that's what launched him as a late-in-life action star). Liam Neeson even thought it would be a direct-to-DVD movie. He did it for some fun/he wanted to spend some time in Paris so he figured he might as well get paid for it. So no, the casting probably wasn't as on point as it could have been, although honestly, I thought Maggie passed for 17 in the first movie. She was only 24 at the time of filming it and they kept her very fresh faced, although she way overacted with the bouncing around, etc.
But yes, in the second movie I think she was 27 or 28 while filming it, they glammed her up more, and she definitely doesn't pass as a teen. But I don't think anyone ever expected there to be a second movie. What I wonder about is why they didn't just set the second movie a little further in the future - 4 or 5 years, when Kim is 22 or 23. -
schumithecat — 11 years ago(March 02, 2015 01:54 PM)
one of many silly things was Maggie who took "world oldest teenager" title from dick clark. but setting it too far in the future would call into question why the Albanian mob took so long to seek revenge. I guess you could say they waited for mills to return to Europe but that would seem lazy for a revenge crazed gang.
-
CromeRose — 10 years ago(May 02, 2015 07:49 PM)
Maggie's gorgeous - soft features, big deep eyes that one could lose oneself in for ages, absolutely amazing figure and long, slender, shapely legs. But yes, she was terrible in this role, well, not the entire role but with the silly, teenage girl bouncing around with excitement stuff, it simply did not fit her at all. And (and this is not Maggie's fault but that of Luc Besson and his writing cohorts), the daughter's falling back into her old ways after being rescued in the first movie, and her being so against her dad's protectiveness at the start of the sequel, is so unbelievable as to be just plain impossible to accept. After her ordeal in the first movie, she'd be traumatized for ages, if not the rest of her life. She probably would not want to step outside the house for years, and. if she did, a teenage girl who had been through what she went through would probably most certainly not want to go anywhere without her dad by her side. I always shut off the movie right after Brian shoots the guy on the yacht in the final scene, as in my opinion that's where it ends.
-
FirstAmendMental — 10 years ago(May 21, 2015 08:27 AM)
the more I looked at her the cuter I decided she was
http://www.imdb.com/board/20006718/
in
http://www.imdb.com/board/13408708/ -
clark_gillies — 10 years ago(June 29, 2015 04:30 AM)
One of the first things I noticed when she popped up on screen first movie she looks young enough to pass for her teens, yet in 4 years she looked to be closer to her real age in this movie.
Also found the time lines between the first and second movie to be far to confusing.. intro implies it is only months afterwards, yet movie tries to imply that much longer has passed.
