MovieChat Forums > Lethal Weapon 2 (1989) Discussion > should the title still have been 'lethal...

should the title still have been 'lethal weapon'?

posted 11 years ago by nutsberryfarm
8 replies | jump to latest

in the 1st one, roger says about riggs: 'maybe we should register you as a lethal weapon!!!'

the key word there is maybe.

so riggs wasn't registered yet; and in this one, there was no indication a lethal weapon registration has been granted or even applied for---thus the title doesn't really make sense. not that i'm knocking roger or anything, if the california lethal weapon registrars office is anything like the california dmv...well, i'm sure the process is quite long & very frustrating.

Where there's smoke, there's barbecue!

[–] Epsilon_Pegasi 11 years ago

I think it was supposed to be implied that Riggs was indeed a certified lethal weapon with the great state of California. They would never make such an announcement public. Nobody wants a certified lethal weapon blowing up their streets. It's better PR for a peace officer to be the one wreaking havoc. They can hide a peace lfficer, but not a lethal weapon, though clearly Riggs was one.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nutsberryfarm 11 years ago

yes, i see. but unless he's certified how are we to know for sure?

Where there's smoke, there's barbecue!

[–] MoneyNeverSleeps 9 years ago

Like rush hour, the 2nd had nothing to do with rush hour

[–] BaseBallZombies 9 years ago

You are taking that way too literally...

The feeling we have here — remember it, take it home and do some good with it. Please be kind

[–] rat_eater 9 years ago

the end of the screenplay shane black says riggs and murtaugh will return in... i gorget, something like take down or big risk. i'll have to check.

[–] nutsberryfarm 9 years ago

cool. would like to know.

🎍Season's greetings!🎅🌲

[–] rat_eater 9 years ago

i checked it was to be called body count.