Maverick Top Gun

[Theowl32]

Went to see it. I liked for a few reasons. First I assumed I was going to be dealing with a gay pilot shoved in our faces, a woman jedi type who is was more skilled than anyone ever, etc etc etc.

But.....

They didn't do that, mainly cause it wasn't a disney movie.

I was entertained. A few tear jerking moments with the pics and Val making his cameo suffering through his ailment.

Tom Cruise is a confirmed weirdo but I like his movies. Thanked God it was not some PC shit log they try to shove down our throats.

They didn't insult us fans of the original from 1986. So, I recommend it.

 

[fncceo]

Original ... Good

• Better music
• Less contrived plot.
• Volleyball scene.

Original ... Bad

• Kelly McGillis. The only girl in the world that makes Meg Ryan look hot.

Maverick ... Good

• Minimal use of CGI and that which was used was pretty seamless (Unlike the other Navy blockbuster from two years ago, "Midway")
• Tom Cruise has non-CGI abs at 60-years-old. I went straight home after and did situps.

Maverick ... Bad

• Very contrived plot about a vital mission that, despite the existence of cruise missiles, and guided ordinance, can only be accomplished by specially trained F-18 pilots recreating the finale from "A New Hope"

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Tom Cruise is one of those people that just knows. He knows what audiences like, he knows how to make a movie and he is a perfectionist. Top Gun Maverick was extremely good. Cruise does all of his own stunts. He better have abs of steel.

Did anyone not know that the unnamed country was China?

 

[Stryder50]

Tom Cruise is one of those people that just knows. He knows what audiences like, he knows how to make a movie and he is a perfectionist. Top Gun Maverick was extremely good. Cruise does all of his own stunts. He better have abs of steel.

Did anyone not know that the unnamed country was China?

What ??? !!!
People's Republic and Workers Paradise China already has nuclear weapons. Building a new uranium enrichment plant there isn't a world crisis in need of immediate fix/solution.

Iran is the more logical and probable nation with the target. (or North Korea ...)

One of many glitches is why the Russians (or CCP China) would provide their "fifth generation" fighter to a "loose canon" second world, Islamic fundi extremists nation. ???

BTW, I also finally watched it today. My fuller review later, but it is substantially better than the original.

 

[Stryder50]

Original ... Good

• Better music
• Less contrived plot.
• Volleyball scene.

Original ... Bad

• Kelly McGillis. The only girl in the world that makes Meg Ryan look hot.

Maverick ... Good

• Minimal use of CGI and that which was used was pretty seamless (Unlike the other Navy blockbuster from two years ago, "Midway")
• Tom Cruise has non-CGI abs at 60-years-old. I went straight home after and did situps.

Maverick ... Bad

• Very contrived plot about a vital mission that, despite the existence of cruise missiles, and guided ordinance, can only be accomplished by specially trained F-18 pilots recreating the finale from "A New Hope"

That last ref, back to "A New Hope" is perhaps the major flaw of the movie's plot.

For one, underground facilities still need ways to get fresh air in and "bad" air out, or filtered.

Second, such facilities will also have needs for fresh water to get in and/or waste water (sewage) to get out and/or treated.

Third, people/staff need to get in and out for their work shifts, same with "raw materials", food, supplies, toilet paper, light bulbs, etc. ... so there will be a couple of doors allowing such in and out along with roadways to those doors and the real, outside world.

Bottom line is functional and real world underground facilities, from headquarters to weapons systems to "production facilities" will usually have a few weak points connecting to the surface.

Destroy and/or seal those channels of access to the outer real world and you can seal off and neutralize any underground facility. Turn such into a tomb.

While "Top Gun-Maverick" has a sorta valid point of a weak link to get a big bomb down and inside to blow the whole works, there would have been other ways and methods to achieve the objective and other aircraft and weapons that could have also been used.

B-52s doing Arc Light, or dropping some MOABs might also have worked.

The many cruise missile strikes to take out the runways and ground the enemies fighter interceptors, could have also been used to take out the known SAM sites which orbital recce satellites would have pinpointed for targeting.

Admittedly I'm employing my "glitch gripe mode", and that aside, I still enjoyed the movie and it was one of the better written and produced products of such a sort that we get out of HollyWierd lately.

 

[fncceo]

While "Top Gun-Maverick" has a sorta valid point of a weak link to get a big bomb down and inside to blow the whole works

Well, if they don't want to use the same vertical trajectory Tomahawks that we saw take out a runway complex five minutes before...

...use a four-man fire Recon Team to laser designate the target and drop guided munitions from 50,000 feet while an entire squadron of F-35's ride shotgun?

How about a unit of Recon Marines hump in a few hundred pounds of C-4?

I'd hate to think that an airplane that was first built when Tom Cruise was in middle school is America's Last Hope.

 

[fncceo]

Oh... and for the record ... you "Pull G's" when you're changing vectors ...

You don't pull significant G's in a vertical climb ... I don't care how much thrust the F-18 has.

 

[Stryder50]

Well, if they don't want to use the same vertical trajectory Tomahawks that we saw take out a runway complex five minutes before...

...use a four-man fire Recon Team to laser designate the target and drop guided munitions from 50,000 feet while an entire squadron of F-35's ride shotgun?

How about a unit of Recon Marines hump in a few hundred pounds of C-4?

I'd hate to think that an airplane that was first built when Tom Cruise was in middle school is America's Last Hope.

It's not USA's "Last Hope" Tech Wise, but is our Best Option/Selection, for utilitarian applications of Areal Power~Projection at this time when balancing costs versus capabilities.

"
The McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet is a twin-engine, supersonic, all-weather, carrier-capable, multirole combat jet, designed as both a fighter and attack aircraft (hence the F/A designation). Designed by McDonnell Douglas (now part of Boeing) and Northrop (now part of Northrop Grumman), the F/A-18 was derived from the latter's YF-17 in the 1970s for use by the United States Navy and Marine Corps. The Hornet is also used by the air forces of several other nations, and formerly, by the U.S. Navy's Flight Demonstration Squadron, the Blue Angels.

The F/A-18 was designed to be a highly versatile aircraft due to its avionics, cockpit displays, and excellent aerodynamic characteristics, with the ability to carry a wide variety of weapons. The aircraft can perform fighter escort, fleet air defense, suppression of enemy air defenses, air interdiction, close air support, and aerial reconnaissance. Its versatility and reliability have proven it to be a valuable carrier asset, though it has been criticized for its lack of range and payload compared to its earlier contemporaries, such as the Grumman F-14 Tomcat in the fighter and strike fighter role, and the Grumman A-6 Intruder and LTV A-7 Corsair II in the attack role.

The Hornet first saw combat action during the 1986 United States bombing of Libya and subsequently participated in the 1991 Gulf War and 2003 Iraq War. The F/A-18 Hornet served as the baseline for the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, its larger, evolutionary redesign. "
...

McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stryder50]

While looking at an aircraft design with 40+ years background in design and initial manufacture, we remain with a design that endures as a classic of basic principles and devices of application to get a variety of missions(jobs) done. And which endures nearly a half century later as a basic, workable, and affordable design.

For what it costs, what it can do, and how many ways it can be used, the F/A-18 Hornet remains one of those universal aircraft, such as the Grumman F6F Hellcat of nearly half a century prior. :
...
The Grumman F6F Hellcat is an American carrier-based fighter aircraft of World War II. Designed to replace the earlier F4F Wildcat and to counter the Japanese Mitsubishi A6M Zero, it was the United States Navy's dominant fighter in the second half of the Pacific War. In gaining that role, it prevailed over its faster competitor, the Vought F4U Corsair, which had problems with visibility and carrier landings.

Powered by a 2,000 hp (1,500 kW) Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp, the same powerplant used for both the Corsair and the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) Republic P-47 Thunderbolt fighters, the F6F was an entirely new design, but it still resembled the Wildcat in many ways.[3] Some military observers tagged the Hellcat as the "Wildcat's big brother".[4]

The F6F made its combat debut in September 1943, and was best known for its role as a rugged, well-designed carrier fighter, which was able to outperform the A6M Zero and help secure air superiority over the Pacific theater. In total, 12,275 were built in just over two years.[5]

Hellcats were credited with destroying a total of 5,223 enemy aircraft while in service with the U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, and Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm (FAA).[6][Note 2] This was more than any other Allied naval aircraft.[8] After the war, Hellcats were phased out of front-line service in the US, but radar-equipped F6F-5Ns remained in service as late as 1954 as night fighters.[9][10]
...

Grumman F6F Hellcat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stryder50]

Point being there are times in aircraft designs and productions where certain "Ones" are those that have a long lifespan and range of uses as to endure as classics to use and keep.

USA~USN has seen a few in the past 50-80+ years that make such a mark.

 

[whitehall]

Critics admitted that they gave bad reviews to the first T.G. even though they knew it was a top notch movie. Today the political climate towards the military is different and leftie critics are allowed to give good reviews to movies that glorify the military.

 

[Stryder50]

Tom Cruise is one of those people that just knows. He knows what audiences like, he knows how to make a movie and he is a perfectionist. Top Gun Maverick was extremely good. Cruise does all of his own stunts. He better have abs of steel.

Did anyone not know that the unnamed country was China?

Considering that "unnamed country" had F-14 Tomcats at the airbase that was hit with cruise missiles and that Iran is the only nation the USA ever sold F-14s to, and such were at that air base, pretty much nails the targets as in Iran.

Grumman F-14 Tomcat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stryder50]

A post from "The Lounge" ~ thread "Hanger Tails(Tales)":
...

Welcome to Tom Cruise’s Flight School for ‘Top Gun: Maverick’​

If there was to be a sequel to the ’80s classic ‘Top Gun,’ it was going to need to be even better than the original—and way more realistic. Before the movie hits theaters, the cast of ‘Maverick’ explains what it took to become on-screen pilots.
...
In the middle of shooting Top Gun, producer Jerry Bruckheimer realized he had a huge problem: With the exception of Tom Cruise, all the actors playing Navy pilots kept vomiting in the cockpit. “Their heads were down, and when they got their heads up, their eyes were rolling back,” Bruckheimer says. “It was terrible. They were all sick.”

On a scrappy budget with clunky 1980s technology, an untrained cast, and new studio leadership, filming eventually moved to an L.A. soundstage, where those actors could settle their stomachs while pretending to fly on a gimbal instead. The disrupted, piecemealed experience stuck with Cruise long after—despite the movie’s eventual massive box office success and canonization as a modern classic, the A-list actor had little desire to revive Pete “Maverick” Mitchell. “Originally, I wasn’t interested in doing a sequel,” he told Total Film magazine, at least not until technology—and his castmates—could “put the audience inside that F-18.”

Three decades later, Bruckheimer and director Joseph Kosinski flew to Paris to convince him they could. During a 20-minute break on the set of Mission: Impossible—Fallout, Kosinski pitched a sequel centered on Cruise’s aging fighter pilot and his strained relationship with his best friend Goose’s son. “I wanted it to be a rite-of-passage story for Maverick,” says Kosinski, who tried appealing to his star’s extremist sensibilities by promising to shoot everything practically. The director had seen Navy pilots use GoPros on their flights, documenting a first-person experience above the clouds that was “better than any aerial footage I’d seen from any movie,” he says. “I showed that to [Tom] and said this is available for free on the internet. If we can’t beat this, there’s no point in making this movie—and he agreed.”

Over the next 15 months, Kosinski collaborated with naval advisers and aerospace corporations, building six specialized IMAX cameras for an F-18 cockpit, mapping out highwire action sequences through tight canyons, and developing a specialized “CineJet” with aerial coordinator Kevin LaRosa II to capture it all from the air. “A lot of what we did was cutting-edge,” LaRosa says. “That technology came to fruition as the story came to fruition, and Top Gun: Maverick became a real thing.” At the same time, Cruise started his own preparations, vetting a cast of young pilots—Miles Teller, Glen Powell, Jay Ellis, Monica Barbaro, Greg Tarzan Davis, Lewis Pullman, and Danny Ramirez—before developing a specialized flight training gauntlet so that everyone could conquer the sky. “He knew the goal was to not only get his footage in the plane, but to get them all in the planes,” Kosinski says. “He just wanted them to be prepared, and he knew exactly what it was going to take.”

Leaning on years of his own piloting experience, Cruise put together a detailed aviation curriculum, connecting actors with trusted flight instructors, building up their G-force tolerance to unthinkable levels, and readying their transition into the F-18 cockpit. The result is breathtaking, a collage of immersive, madcap flying sequences and high-octane performances—a testament to Cruise’s unrelenting drive to pack as much thrill-seeking euphoria into Top Gun: Maverick as humanly possible. “He will do whatever it takes to give audiences the ride of a lifetime,” Powell says. “It’s so infectious to be a part of.”
...

Welcome to Tom Cruise’s Flight School for ‘Top Gun: Maverick’ ​

If there was to be a sequel to the ’80s classic ‘Top Gun,’ it was going to need to be even better than the original—and way more realistic. Before the movie hits theaters, the cast of ‘Maverick’ explains what it took to become on-screen pilots.

www.theringer.com

 

[fncceo]

it was going to need to be even better than the original—and way more realistic

It wasn't.

Still, a very watchable movie.

 

[Flopper]

Critics admitted that they gave bad reviews to the first T.G. even though they knew it was a top notch movie. Today the political climate towards the military is different and leftie critics are allowed to give good reviews to movies that glorify the military.

Not sure which reviews you're talking about but most critics I have read have neither given Top Gun (1986), an excellent or very poor review. As I remember the movie, it seemed a bit tiresome to watch and rather bland and corny. I give it 3 stars.

With exception of political extremists on the left and right people tend to hang up their politics at door when it comes to entertaining movies. Hollywood is actually not that liberal if you include all the movie industry. It simply provides movies that people are willing pay for

 

[Brick Gold]

I rated this movie 6/10.

 

[Stryder50]

Tom Cruise's 'Top Gun: Maverick' Salary Is Even More Ridiculously High That We All Thought​

...
Tom Cruise has been famous for pretty much our entire lives, so yeah: the dude is rich. And not just normal ~celebrity millionaire~ rich. Tom is worth over half a billion dollars thanks to his lengthy career as a permanent A-lister. This man has been in some of the highest grossing films quite simply ever, which is his main source of income since obviously he's not out here doing spon-con. Let's break it down movie by movie and vaguely spiral about his wealth, shall we?
...

Tom Cruise's 'Top Gun: Maverick' Salary Is Even More Ridiculously High That We All Thought

~~~~~~~~
Throw in some savvy real estate investments/flips and the dude has managed his money well.

 

[Stryder50]

FWIW, FYI, there is another thread for this film, here;
Top Gun Maverick

 

[Stryder50]

Another interesting factoid;
The P-51 Mustang in the film is Tom's personal, owned ride.
The scene near the end of him flying it is real. He is a licensed pilot, but the Navy wasn't letting him or anyone else other than their own fly their Hornets.

As pointed to in an earlier post, the actors did actually fly in the jets, and it was some creative camera placement that made it look like they were actually piloting those birds.

 

[Vastator]

Dog fighting an Su-57 in an F14, or F18 and not getting smoked pretty much at the will of the 5th Gen pilots..? Riiiight. Like many fantasy films, it was entertaining. But could they not have come up with something a little more original, than recreating the the Star Wars, Death Star, trench run? Seriously?