I've read the other posts in this thread and all I can say is, OP- who really cares whether or not in real life it is more efficient to kidnap Eastern European girls or Western girls Either way, the movie explained why in fact THESE criminals in THIS movie prefer to kidnap Western girls and the explanation is quite logical and easy to understand.
Are you a human trafficker yourself? If not, then don't act like you 100% know the definitive answer as to the most effective types of women to capture and sell to sex slavery, lol
It's a movie mate, and the explanation as to why they targeted Bryan's daughter and her friend is simple enough to follow.

"Western authorities would have no jurisdiction in France."
France IS a 'Western Authority'.
Or maybe I'm wrong, maybe USA, Canada, and perhaps the UK, are Western, and everything else is Eastern and/or 3rd World?
If to stand pat means to resist evil then, yes, neighbour, we wish to stand pat.

If Western tourists got kidnapped in Europe, their families may have more resources than Eastern families to get them back, but they would still be bound by international laws. For example, in
Taken
, if Mills hadn't taken matters into his own hands, Lenore and Stuart, while wealthy, would still have to rely on Western authorities to use diplomatic channels to get Kim back. Western authorities would have no jurisdiction in France. And the movie has shown that some of the French authorities were corrupt and on the Albanian payroll. As a result, the Albanians know they can kidnap Western tourists with impunity because any efforts by Western authorities to find the victims would be thwarted by Eastern authorities.

This message has been deleted.

How can wealthy families have any impact once their children have essentially disappeared? I understand the point that your getting at. That its riskier to abduct wealthy young women than those from poor backgrounds but it is implied in the film that once the girls are taken they are never seen from again.

The kidnappers don't want any ransom from their families, they kidnap to use them as prostitutes.
Watch the film carefully you f#cking schmuck.
It's not about ransom. My point is that American tourist girls likely come from relatively wealthy parents, these wealthy parents together would have a lot of political influence and would put pressure towards embassies, governments or police agencies in America/Europe/France, which would put the human traffickers under great danger. Eastern Europeans families in comparison are a lot less wealthy and have less influence to crack down these criminals.

The kidnappers don't want any ransom from their families, they kidnap to use them as prostitutes.
Watch the film carefully you f#cking schmuck.

It isn't really a plot hole. It's just something some guy said.
If you look at who the victims of the slavery ring actually are, mostly, they are not Americans.

Its one of its lame points.
Imagine the ruckus when its known that repeatedly European and American tourists disappear in Paris.
Tourists! Not some poor girls from poor families in poor countries.
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!

I don't have a clue what you mean, could you please elaborate mate?

Don't know if this has been asked before, but when Bryan tries to identify the traffickers at the time he's still in America, Bryan's friend/ex-partner whatever says someting like
I want to know how his friend Sam was able to figure out the name of the guy that Bryan talked to on the phone. All they had to go on was a few words from Kim and two words on the phone. I'm sorry, but that's not enough to ID someone.
This is a
THREADED
message board. Please reply to the proper post!

One thing I've learned on IMDB is that people have no clue what the definition of plot hole is.

Not a plot hole. Even if your point is valid, it doesn't in any way affect the plot beyond those few words.
You're so stupid it's almost physically painful. Stop your damn trolling.

And you're saying these groups aren't capable of taking risks because they feel invincible? Besides, they're not the ones who manage these girls who are more "expensive". They're on-sold. Think of them like the middle man, picking up merchandise and selling it on to the consumer. Their supply would be based on demand, and just because these two girls were taken doesn't mean the majority of their time focuses on these kinds of girls.

Despite the "explanation" in the movie, your criticism is valid. Prostitution, like any other business, tries to manage risk.
There is a huge supply of attractive and reasonably educated girls and women from Eastern Europe who are low cost resources for the scum that manage them. Some are convinced to come here with the old tactic of a job promise, and then the standard prostitute- making brutality, but many of the girls that we see here in Europe are tech savvy, city women who know exactly what they are getting into when they come to western Europe.
I can only imagine how hopeless life must be in Romania or Belarus that standing on the street on an Italian ring road waiting for an unwashed truck driver is a better alternative, but life in the former soviet bloc is tough. I feel for these girls.
Here in my part of Italy, it is mostly Romanian gangs that "manage" the girls. They had a little territorial shoot out the other night, and the town fathers cracked down on them and put them out of business for a month.
Adding influential and wealthy fathers to the mix of risks wouldn't make for good business, and this part of the movie, as well as many other parts, didn't ring true.

This message has been deleted.

they had to have american girls for this movie, because people relate less to -more realistic- rumanian girls, care less. I hate that it is this way, but its reality.

They used to bring girls from Europe to America and then turn them into prostitutes. But that was pricey, because of having to pay to transport them from Europe to America. So they started kidnapping vacationing girls IN Europe. And you are right that Western families have more money, but the kidnappers have no intentions of ransoming them. Doing a ransom is tricky and might lead to them getting caught. They strictly deal in taking girls and using them as prostitutes. So that's why its cheaper to kidnap travelers, because you don't have to pay transportation fees.

The way I saw it was that girls travelling from, say, America to France might be more naive/excited/culture shocked. So having a suave foreign guy approach them and call them princess would work wonders to drop their defenses. I'm not saying EU girls are smarter or anything, but they might be less awestruck by, say, a French accent, than an American girl who has never left the States would be. Therefore it would just be easier to get them to go along with you or invite you in or whatever. In other words American girls are easily wooed by foreign guys.

Ready my post again. It still makes no sense and it's still a plot hole IMO.
Even if that was a legitimate problem it's not a plot hole. What exactly are you finding wrong with it?
Again that's not what a plot hole is.
If you pirate media, you do not get to have an opinion on it.

having money does nothing to get you back.
like they said in the movie.
if you don't find the person with in like 78 hours then you will never find them again.

Girls from the East have to be provided with false documentation, passports, travel visa's, work permits all of which cost money.
Actually: NO.
Because they are never actually going to work, they do not need work visa or any kind of special permit. All they need is passports and some form of tourist visa.
If the girl is smart and wants to see a work permit before leaving the country, you could just tell the girl that this is a first visit to get them to know the family they are supposed to work with to see if they like her, a kind of job interview and that therefore going through all the paperwork would be premature.
And tourist visas are cheap. A 5 day visa from the UK to Russia costs 50 pounds, to pick up your Russia example. I doubt it's going to be more from any Eastern European country to France.

You are almost right, only you are confounding the EU with the Schengen Area. There is a big overlap, but still they're two separate things. There are EU countries that aren't members of the Schengen Area, and non-EU countries (e.g. Switzerland)that are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area
That being said, I agree that the American or Western European tourists are less likely to became victims then the Eastern Europeans. Furthermore, I don't see how such a trafficking ring would hold up for an extended period of time. After the first girls reported missing, the State Department and it's foreign counterparts would immediately be all over it, and if a pattern emerges, no internal corruption in the French police would be able to resist that kind of pressure.
To me, it would have made more sense if it was a one-time big operation. American and Western European girls who can afford to travel to Paris certainly make a better "merchandize" than the poor Eastern Europeans (they certainly have better teeth :), are easier to case in an airport and to grab then transporting them there or running around Paris searching for au-pairs.
Regardless of this, I enjoyed the movie. It's one of the few movies where I am able to watch someone being tortured without batting an eye.
Do.Or do not.There is no try.

People are stopped not only at the border these days. That's one of the conditions of the open borders. Vehicles are searched at random.