Taken 3 sees Neeson's ex-CIA agent Bryan Mills framed for the murder of a loved one
BBC News
The firearms company that provided the guns for Liam Neeson's Hollywood movie Taken 3 has criticised the star for his comments about US gun laws.
PARA USA said it "regrets" working with Neeson after he said the proliferation of guns in the US was a "disgrace".
The company added that it would cut ties with the Taken franchise and urged other companies to do the same.
"There's just too many... guns out there," Neeson told Dubai's Gulf News last week. "Especially in America."
He continued: "I think the population is like, 320 million? There's over 300 million guns. Privately owned, in America.
"I think it's a disgrace. Every week now we're picking up a newspaper and seeing, 'Yet another few kids have been killed in schools.'"
Neeson made his comments in reply to a question about the Charlie Hebdo shootings in Paris earlier in the month.
The star, who took on the role of ex-CIA operative Bryan Mills in all three Taken films, said the gun problem was not connected to Hollywood's action movies.
If he feels that way, why is he making movies that are loaded with guns, shooting, and killing?
ReplyDeleteHe's not just making movies loaded with guns--when he plays a cop, soldier, or government agent, he can arguably be playing a role that doesn't conflict with his rant here--after all, he doesn't seem to want the government disarmed. However, he said this while promoting the latest Taken movie--movies where he illegally carries his privately owned guns to Europe and uses them for his own private ends--oh, and privately owned grenades in the second film. Frankly, this hypocrisy is the most obnoxious part of his comments.
DeleteConfusing movies with real life makes you sound foolish.
DeleteSnide non sequitur remarks show your foolishness. There was no confusion of movies with reality; just comments on how he's preaching one message while promoting a film that does the opposite . . . you know--doing what Jim Carey didn't want to be accused of when he stopped promoting Kick Ass 2.
DeleteNo, I don't know. Are gun owners so susceptible to what they watch on the big screen?
DeleteYou're not suggesting censorship, I hope?
Mike,
DeleteYou've gone so far down a rabbit trail I'm not even sure enough about how you got where you are to tell you the way back. Sammy and I were commenting on the hypocrisy of Neeson making the type of movies he makes while also speaking against private ownership of guns.
Where you got off on susceptibility to what is watched on the screen (whatever you mean by that) and censorship, I have no idea.
I'll help you. The hypocrisy claim is based on the theory that movies like this influence the public and do harm. I say they don't and therefore there's no problem with making violent gun movies and being for gun control. They're movies, and every normal person can differentiate between reality and fantasy. The gun owners who can't shouldn't have guns in the first place.
DeleteSo, basically your argument is based on insisting that our charges of hypocrisy are based on a different basis than the one we have stated--namely that he makes movies in which the protagonists do things he calls sick and wants to be illegal.
DeleteBy totally ignoring our argument and assigning us different arguments and motives, and stupid ones at that, you purposefully missed the point and ran off into your own little world.
I can't agree that gun loons aren't effected by gun and violent movies. From what I've read on your blog gun loons don't think like normal people.
DeleteI’d think these movies influence people into buying guns by making them look cool. That doesn’t mean those people can’t differentiate fantasy from reality any more than someone who buys a tuned Nissan 350Z because they like the “Fast and Furious” movies. That doesn’t mean they are going to run drifting races downtown at 3am any more than it makes a new gun owner run down the street shooting people while doing summersaults. But it does increase the popularity of these items resulting in increased gun ownership. Of course I don’t think more guns ownership does any harm to society- but you do.
DeleteI’d think these movies influence people into buying guns by making them look cool. That doesn’t mean those people can’t differentiate fantasy from reality any more than someone who buys a tuned Nissan 350Z because they like the “Fast and Furious” movies.
DeleteExactly right, TS. Dalmatians become more popular every time a new version of "101 Dalmatians" comes out. Collies became more popular after "Lassie Come Home" came out, and "The Shaggy Dog" prompted a 9,900% increase in the popularity of Old English Sheepdogs.
It's not because the "101 Dalmatians" viewers think their new dogs will have a big litter of puppies that will then be stolen by some evil woman who wants to make fur coats out of them, prompting the parent dogs to search the puppies down over a great distance, and rescue them, along with scores of others, humorously humiliating the bad guys along the way. Nor were many of the Collie buyers inspired by the belief that the dog would save the day every time someone fell down the well.
It's simply that things that are portrayed as cool in the movies are going to be perceived as cool. There's not a doubt in my mind that some gun ownership is inspired by the big screen heroics fictionally accomplished with guns. That's why anti-gun blowhard Harvey Weinstein vowed to stop "glorifying" guns in his movies.
Harvey should have said what I said, that movies are movies and reality is reality. Normal people can tell the difference. Therefore there's no conflict or hypocrisy in being for gun control while making or starring in movies that supposedly glorify violence.
DeleteAgain, I'm not talking about glorifying violence- I'm talking about glorifying guns. Maybe because you see these words as synonymous is why your not getting what I am saying. They're not. Do you think that people would be more inclined to get into gun ownership, or add a particular gun to their collection because of influence from movies? And I'll remind you that what Liam finds so disgraceful is the amount of guns that US citizens own.
Delete. . . movies are movies and reality is reality. Normal people can tell the difference.
DeleteThat, coming from the guy who was once persuaded that torture might occasionally be morally justifiable, based on what he "learned" from watching a silly Kiefer Sutherland show.
Pure comedy gold.
"I'll help you. The hypocrisy claim is based on the theory that movies like this influence the public and do harm"..............No its not Mike its based on Liam's and other anti gun actors making a great living for their family's from the use of firearms while saying you should not be able to defend your family with a firearm because they are scared
DeleteWhat about the killers who have told police they took their shooting/killing plan right from a movie, or game?
DeleteI think its outstanding that Para-USA is removing itself from any future potential moral philosophical conflict that Mr. Neeson might encounter on the job by having to use their product.
ReplyDeleteAs I told Kurt offline, I've been looking at purchasing one of their fine pistols with a very non-politically correct magazine size and reading this only makes me feel better about doing business with them.
This also sort of ties in with Barrett's refusal to do business with governments that restrict the possession of their product by civilians. Not only did Barrett stop selling and selling and servicing .50BMG firearms to those governments, they developed a whole new caliber with better ballistics to comply with the law.
Yep--makes me proud to own two of them, and I'm more tempted than ever to add a third.
DeleteLiam is the living definition of hypocrite ..makes millions from firearms and thinks you should not have them
ReplyDelete"makes millions from firearms"? That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it. In some of his movies, he didn't use guns at all.
DeleteSalary in Taken: 1 million.
DeleteTaken 2: 10 million.
Taken 3: 20 million.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/liam-neesons-taken-2-paycheck-377723
http://deadline.com/2013/06/liam-neeson-to-get-paid-try-20-million-for-his-particular-set-of-skills-in-taken-3-528587/
George isn't exaggerating--Neeson has made millions on this franchise alone.
"makes millions from firearms"? That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it."......No Mike it is not with the salary's he has received just on the Taken franchise plus what ever backend he is getting it is a very accurate statement....see SJ's comment for salary details
DeleteMikeb, you often accuse gun owners, or at least gun rights advocates, of living in a "fantasy world," in which we heroically use guns to kill the bad guys and save the day. Do you deny that for anyone susceptible to such fantasies, Neeson's movies, portraying him . . . heroically using guns to kill the bad guys and save the day are feeding those very same fantasies, thus encouraging more gun ownership--the very thing that Neeson is so shrilly upset about (but not so upset, clearly, to forego the millions he makes by feeding those fantasies)?
DeleteGun owners who are susceptible to being influenced by films they watch should not have guns in the first place.
DeleteSJ and GJ, the "bit of a stretch" part is that he's makes millions from firearms." I know you're all obsessed with your fetish items but there's a bit more to the films than just firearms.
Hey hey! Check it out! An Ad Hominem to cover the thinnest attempt at spin ever.
DeleteGun owners who are susceptible to being influenced by films they watch should not have guns in the first place.
DeleteSo how do you intend to test for that?
SJ and GJ, the "bit of a stretch" part is that he's makes millions from firearms." I know you're all [puerile insults, Mikeb-style] but there's a bit more to the films than just firearms.
So do you think the movies would bring in nearly as much if they showed him mowing down bad guys by the dozen with a katana?
Mike: "Gun owners who are susceptible to being influenced by films they watch should not have guns in the first place."
DeleteWow, you're going to have to add that one to you're "proper gun control" list.
"SJ and GJ, the "bit of a stretch" part is that he's makes millions from firearms."..Mike if actors are not making a living from firearms in their films then neither are the companies who supply firearms to the production would you agree?
DeleteWell some of the worst cases might be picked up in my psyche exam. Others will have to be weeded out gradually by the other one-strike-you're-out rules.
DeleteAnd let me add, I don't think it's a problem. I don't think gun owners are very affected by action movies one way or the other. That's why the hypocrisy claims are bullshit.
DeleteI just came across this and it gave me a chuckle. I wonder what his opening box office levels will be looking like.
ReplyDelete"Politically motivated street artists have plastered "redesigned" movie posters at various Los Angeles bus stops mocking Liam Neeson for his recent pro-gun control comments amid the release of his new action movie, Run All Night.
The studio marketing poster for the film features Neeson holding a handgun in a menacing pose. The artists altered the movie title to read "Gun All Right" with the tagline "One Hypocrite Laughing All the Way to the Bank."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/liam-neeson-mocked-gun-control-780974
I say no effect on the box office.
DeletePossibly, I just know he won't be getting any of my money. And he won't be using Para Ordinance firearms in the future.
DeleteNeeson's movie "Taken" grossed $24 million on its opening weekend and his newest seems to be coming in a little below that at about $11 million.
DeleteThat's show biz.....
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/?view=bymovie&yr=2015&p=.htm
That drop could be due to many other factors (you know how I love other factors).
DeleteSequels get tired after a while, especially the third or fourth, whichever this one is. Other films may have been opening at the same time. And whatever else.
I know Mike. But this movie isn't a sequel. That's why I compared it to the first of the three movies in the "Taken" series. He has also been demanding a bigger chunk of change as his career has progressed.
DeleteI think it's pretty ballsy to make derogatory comments about a demographic niche of your audience. Shows he's willing to pay the price, literally for his beliefs.
Yep, it's bombing like the Enola Gay, as is Neeson's fellow Hollywood freakish anti-gun hypocrite Sean Penn's "The Gunman."
DeleteI know it's too much to ask that they both die starving in a filthy alley, but man, would that bring joy to the people of good conscience.
It's typically self-centered of you guys to think the gun owning movie-goers make all the difference.
DeleteIt's typically self-centered of you guys to think the gun owning movie-goers make all the difference.
DeleteI don't think anyone said anything about "all the difference." I would think that the intersection of gun owners and action movie fans is considerable, though.
As you said earlier Mike, and in this case, I agree, that there are many factors that play into the popularity of a movie. However, the pre-opening reviews were all raving about what a great movie it is, but for some reason it even fell behind "Balls of Fury" and "Marmaduke" for opening weekend earnings.
Deletehttp://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/worstopenings.htm?page=WRSTOPN30&p=.htm
Considering that he is an established commodity in the action film genre, one has to wonder why this sudden downturn. Maybe it was because they were competing with "Cinderella", which also opened the same weekend.
Or perhaps this is just a good example of the wisdom of a performer feeling so full of himself and so secure in his position in life that he has no qualms about insulting a portion of his audience.
As for the effect gun owning movie goers have, I'm normally pretty limited in what I can see in theatres since I normally have little ones with me. My most recent viewing was, unfortunately the SpongeBob movie.
However, I can control him not getting my eight bucks. I've even seen comments on various forums saying they would just go to a multiscreen movie buy a ticket for a different movie and then watch Neeson. The ultimate in entertainment monkey-wrenching.
Attributing the poor box office results on the fact that gun owners are staying home to me sounds like self-aggrandizing nonsense ("self" intending the gun rights movement, obviously).
DeleteI agree with actor remarks, gun should be controlled and gun company is only interested in running their business.
ReplyDelete