Top Gun - Maverick

[Zac Yates]

Also, is that Cruise and Connelly in the air in that Mustang?

I don't think so, tho the headset, the hand and shades cover a lot of detail I can't imagine Jennifer would have a G.I. Jane buzzcut. Besides a Lady like Jennifer would never puke in a Mustang without a sick bag.

and Jennifer

screenshot.jpg

The in-cockpit shots of a brunette aren't Jennifer Connelly, it's an actress playing one of the new Navy pilot characters (I'm sorry I don't have her name), but I'm fairly sure that's Jennifer behind Tom Cruise in the Mustang.

I've never had chills of excitement from a behind-the-scenes featurette before! It's amazing how technology has finally caught up and they can film like they wanted to in 1986.

[Lon Moer]

.

updated post.

[p51]

The movie is supposed to come out on commercial video (yes, I know it's streaming, but if I'm gonna pay for it, I don't wanna watch it any time I want without buffering or connection issues) very soon, and I'm for sure going to get a blu-ray disc of it.

From the filming photos I've seen online, here's my take on the plot:
It starts with Maverick is testing some high-altitude aircraft and he decides to take a stab at the record for the "World deepest landing" by lawn-darting it somewhere. We then get the exposition scene with Ed Harris accordingly (hence, the pressure suit and mussed look for Cruise).
Soon, the Navy identifies some unnamed rogue nation and gives a reason why they must be attacked. They can't just use the people they have, so they get Maverick to train a batch of younger crews for this attack with F-18s, including the son of his long-dead RIO and best friend, Goose.
Meanwhile, he falls for a local woman (Jennifer Connelly) with in some well-photographed scenes.
Either somewhere along the way, he encounters Iceman, maybe as the bad guy pilot for said rogue nation as a mercenary, but most likely as a contractor stateside.
With the group now trained, they board a carrier and go on the mission to attack the unnamed nation, going up into mountains.
Maverick and Goose's son both get shot down and manage to find each other, neither badly hurt in the process.
They find an F-14 at the enemy base and with Goose's son unfamiliar with such an 'ancient' plane, Maverick of course gets one final chance to fly a Tomcat with (sort of) "Goose" in the back seat. Coming back to the carrier, confusion ensues and Mav has to land the F-14 under duress. They step down from the FINAL F-14 landing aboard a US Carrier, and Maverick then returns to Connelly stateside in a sunset shot before the credits roll.

Wow, I just went back and looked at this, i got awfully close except for how Iceman factored into it.
But that said, I'm sure most of you would have guessed the same.

[ZRX61]

The movie is supposed to come out on commercial video (yes, I know it's streaming, but if I'm gonna pay for it, I don't wanna watch it any time I want without buffering or connection issues) very soon, and I'm for sure going to get a blu-ray disc of it.

Unfortunately I paid about $20 to have it available for however long I have a television. In hindsight I should have spent the $20 on lottery tickets. It's highly unlikely I'll ever watch it again, what a pile of over-hyped steaming crap.

[RyanShort1]

The movie is supposed to come out on commercial video (yes, I know it's streaming, but if I'm gonna pay for it, I don't wanna watch it any time I want without buffering or connection issues) very soon, and I'm for sure going to get a blu-ray disc of it.

Unfortunately I paid about $20 to have it available for however long I have a television. In hindsight I should have spent the $20 on lottery tickets. It's highly unlikely I'll ever watch it again, what a pile of over-hyped steaming crap.

Tell us how you really feel! OTOH, a group of non-aviation friends of mine liked it so much they went to see it 4-5 times in the theater. That can't be all bad for aviation.

[OD/NG]

The movie is supposed to come out on commercial video (yes, I know it's streaming, but if I'm gonna pay for it, I don't wanna watch it any time I want without buffering or connection issues) very soon, and I'm for sure going to get a blu-ray disc of it.

Unfortunately I paid about $20 to have it available for however long I have a television. In hindsight I should have spent the $20 on lottery tickets. It's highly unlikely I'll ever watch it again, what a pile of over-hyped steaming crap.

Tell us how you really feel! OTOH, a group of non-aviation friends of mine liked it so much they went to see it 4-5 times in the theater. That can't be all bad for aviation.

Wow, I think your perception of what it should be is tainted by your expectation of it being a documentary. It is Hollywood - pure fantasy, pure fiction - it was never intended to be anything other than that. If you expected something different, there are plenty of videos on youtube you can watch which will satisfy your interests. I loved the movie and thought it was the best Hollywood sequel I've ever seen. It was entertaining and accomplished the very things that Cruise had mentioned were his priorities for this movie: 1)to provide an escape from reality with everything going on in the horrible world we're now involved in; 2) to become "a love letter to aviation". To that end, Cruise accomplished his goals, imo.

For whatever it's worth, I have several friends who were involved in the filming of the movie at both Fallon and Miramar. They are former and current F-18/F-5 pilots and Top Gun instructors. All of them, without exception, loved the movie and thought that Cruise did the sequel justice. One of my friends, in particular, was in a leadership role at Fallon and coordinated with the movie production staff. He absolutely loved the movie. He told me that both him and all of his Top Gun friends/associates had nothing but positive accolades for the movie. Since the movie came out, I've talked to about 10-12 current or former F-18 and/or Top Gun instructors about their reactions to the movie. None of them had anything overall negative to say about the movie. Did they think the movie was "hokey" at times and completely unrealistic? Yes. Did they think the movie was a discredit for aviation, the Navy or fighter pilots? No. Did they think the movie was entertaining and worth making? Yes. Did any of them think the movie was a "pile of over-hyped steaming crap"? No. They were all satisfied that Cruise accomplished his goal and brought positivity to the sequel, the U.S. Navy and fighter pilots. Apparently their viewpoint is matched by the general public as TGM has brought in over 1 Billion USD in revenue, worldwide.

I respect your opinion and don't discount that you hated the movie. With that being said, let's look at the positive aspects of it. It has brought a lot of interest to aviation and the U.S. Military in general. Think of the long term implications of this movie. It will motivate future kids to be involved in some aspect of aviation and that is a good thing for all of us. I recently read an interview of a former or current Navy demo F-18? pilot. He was asked what motivated him to join the Navy. He said that he saw the original "Top Gun" movie in the theater as a kid. That movie was the singular spark which encouraged him to pursue a career in aviation, specifically as a U.S. Navy fighter pilot. That is just one anecdotal example of the effect of the original "Top Gun" movie. After "Top Gun Maverick", there will be hundreds, if not thousands of those kinds of repercussions which won't be realized for decades to come. In my mind, that is not a bad thing. That "pile of over-hyped steaming crap" will be a positive thing for all of us involved in aviation. Like it or not, the movie will have a lot more positive effects than negative.

[CAPFlyer]

If you want to see what real Hornet pilots think about it (well, one real Hornet pilot and one Navy Reserve Hornet pilot who came from the USAF so never got the full "Navy" experience - his words), watch C. W. Lemoine's series with his buddy "Gonky".

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... hMw_-zE5Rx

They spend plenty of time roasting and pointing out all the "unrealistic" stuff, but at the same time, you get all the fun moments when they see/hear stuff done right and they are smiling the whole time having fun roasting it while enjoying it at the same time.

It's ENTERTAINMENT. As they say several times - if this was real, they'd have everyone in the air, not just 2x 2-ships, they'd have sent Fat Amy in to do the actual drop (if not Tomahawks) and had plenty of E/A-18G's eliminating those pesky SA-3s beforehand. But it's a movie and let's have fun with it.

[ZRX61]

Wow, I think your perception of what it should be is tainted by your expectation of it being a documentary. It is Hollywood - pure fantasy, pure fiction - it was never intended to be anything other than that.

I wasn't expecting a documentary (why would I?), but neither was I expecting a steaming pile. There are literally dozens of recent Hollywood movies than are far superior to this. It came across like a piss poor Iron Eagle 17. I'm surprised I actually stayed awake.

[JohnB]

I've given up expecting to ever see a perfect aircraft film....
So I've learned to take "good enough"...one that shows aviation or the military in a positive light and is entertaining if not exactly realistic.

The more one knows, the harder it is for a film to please knowledgeable viewers.
As an example, a friend who is a real Cobra and GT-40 expert (he has very nice high value replicas of both...) found more to complain about in the well received "Ford vs. Ferrari" film than I did with my less than encyclopedic, but still good knowledge of the Ford racing program.
I'll guess a lot of you saw the film and thought it was pretty good...well, if you knew a bit more history of the event, you might change your mind.
But as it is, you likely thought it was better than average.

Nonetheless, I arranged to have his GT-40 on display at our neighborhood multiplex the opening weekend of the film.
Customers liked it, the theater manager loved it and we had a good time educating filmgoers.
Also...No one complained that the car in the lobby was only a $150-200,000 replica and not a multi-million dollar "real" car.

So, our nitpicks don't really mean a lot to the general public.
What is a big deal to us, is mindless trivia to them.
So, you take victories where you can.

People saw TC pretend to fly a Hornet, saw some neat flying..even if some was CGI...
and 100 million people worldwide now know what a P-51 looks like.
Some of those will go to a museum or air show to see one in person.
Sounds good to me.

Last edited by JohnB on Fri Sep 30, 2022 4:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.

[OD/NG]

Wow, I think your perception of what it should be is tainted by your expectation of it being a documentary. It is Hollywood - pure fantasy, pure fiction - it was never intended to be anything other than that.

I wasn't expecting a documentary (why would I?), but neither was I expecting a steaming pile. There are literally dozens of recent Hollywood movies than are far superior to this. It came across like a piss poor Iron Eagle 17. I'm surprised I actually stayed awake.

O.K., fair enough. I thought the absolute worst warbird movies ever made were "Pearl Harbor" and all of the "Iron Eagle" movies. PH was perhaps the worst movie ever made - aviation or not! It was truly awful!

[ZRX61]

O.K., fair enough. I thought the absolute worst warbird movies ever made were "Pearl Harbor" and all of the "Iron Eagle" movies. PH was perhaps the worst movie ever made - aviation or not! It was truly awful!

Friend worked on PH on the aircraft side of things. Said he'd be surprised if Affleck is ever allowed near a real aircraft on a movie set ever again. Something about being told repeatedly NOT to touch ANYTHING in a cockpit unless specifically instructed to. Apparently had a real gift for turning the mags & batteries on when unsupervised.
Not sure if Affleck has been near a real aircraft on a set since, I avoid his movies so don't know. In fact I can't think of any movies he's made since PH. I assume he still works.

[Saville]

Wow, I think your perception of what it should be is tainted by your expectation of it being a documentary. It is Hollywood - pure fantasy, pure fiction - it was never intended to be anything other than that.

I wasn't expecting a documentary (why would I?), but neither was I expecting a steaming pile. There are literally dozens of recent Hollywood movies than are far superior to this. It came across like a piss poor Iron Eagle 17. I'm surprised I actually stayed awake.

I'd be interested in knowing what "recent Hollywood" aviation movies you think were superior to TG:M.

(I assume that when you said, ".... dozens of recent Hollywood movies than are far superior to this." that you meant aviation movies. Otherwise your statement is useless: Casablanca and Key Largo are better than TG:M but that would be a silly comparison))

Kindly name your top 5 recent Hollywood aviation movies.

Thanks..

[JohnB]

It would be better to get an experts view of recent Hollywood aviation films.
Getting Steve Hinton's opinions on the top five would be intetesting.I

I would not ask him about the worst, after all he has to work in Hollywood and I would not expect him to burn any bridges.

[OD/NG]

O.K., fair enough. I thought the absolute worst warbird movies ever made were "Pearl Harbor" and all of the "Iron Eagle" movies. PH was perhaps the worst movie ever made - aviation or not! It was truly awful!

Friend worked on PH on the aircraft side of things. Said he'd be surprised if Affleck is ever allowed near a real aircraft on a movie set ever again. Something about being told repeatedly NOT to touch ANYTHING in a cockpit unless specifically instructed to. Apparently had a real gift for turning the mags & batteries on when unsupervised.
Not sure if Affleck has been near a real aircraft on a set since, I avoid his movies so don't know. In fact I can't think of any movies he's made since PH. I assume he still works.

I have an acquaintance as well who worked on PH. He mentioned the same thing to me, that Affleck was atrocious and had absolutely no respect for any of the aircraft. Apparently, he either directly caused damage or was about to, on one of the P-40's. Apparently he likes climbing on the aircraft with no regard for foot placement, or something to that effect. The P-40 owner was livid when he found out and was about ready to pull out of the movie, right then, right there. I guess cooler heads prevailed and the result was that Affleck was permanently banned from touching any of the aircraft for the rest of the movie. I don't know if that ban is still in place, but when I've talked to warbird owners, apparently they all know the story and refuse to work in any movie that features him.

[p51]

As John admirably stated earlier, the more you know about a subject, the less you enjoy a movie about it. I liked "Gladiator" as I didn't know nearly as much about the details of ancient Rome as a good friend of mine who is a well respected historian.
I expected him to hate it, but he actually loved it. He said it best; any truly historically accurate movie would be too boring to watch.
Even movies that people on this forum probably liked are filled with inaccuracies. Take "Blackhawk Down," for example. I knew people in that battle and I'm an Army vey myself (though not from that battle or ever served with SOCOM units) and while I noticed all kinds of errors with procedures, how Army types interact and historical events I have discussed with people who were there, I still loved the film for its overall theme.
"The Longest Day," has a great deal of historical inaccuracies but it's an amazing film about Normandy.
"Firebirds," is a laughable movie about Army chopper jocks. I think it's downright silly for how it's written and acted, but I always loved the fast-paced editing of the final battle scene. It was quite entertaining.
And I could go on and on.
If it entertains me, I'm on board. the original Top Gun bears little reality on its subject matter. Neither does its sequel. But I still love how they look and the 'popcorn flick' quality of the film. Both have aviation scenes that nobody has caught before or since on film.
Nothing I write is going to change anyone's opinion, but as they said in "Stripes" (another silly yet entertaining movie that I love):
"Lighten up, Francis."