|
Post by ilikecorn on Jul 19, 2019 21:20:44 GMT -5
but makes for a wonderful Christmas dinner for Bob Cratchet and Tiny Tim I prefer Miss Piggy.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Jul 19, 2019 21:24:32 GMT -5
As the trailer hinted, as a fighter pilot, Maverick would be a geezer at his age. Many retired in the mid to late 30's (or early 40's top), but Cruise is now 56, really old to be a fighter jock. In most cases, if they choose to remain in the Navy, Maverick would have long ago been promoted to a desk job. So how are they going to explain Maverick still flying like he did 30+ years ago? And Goose's son is going to be in it? As well as Iceman? Last time I heard Val Kilmer is really out of shape and pretty obese, I guess he is going to shape up for the moive...or will he play the "look what age has done to me" routine. Haven’t seen the trailer, but in the first movie Tom Skerritt (aka Viper) was old as well and was flying the aggressors in mock combat. Even offered to fly with Maverick if he couldn’t pair up with another. Fair point, although Viper I suppose wasn't really a front-line naval aviator in the movie, whereas Maverick in the trailer seem to be still going "full throttle", so-to-speak. Another thing, I remember the Northrop F-5 was used as a stand-in for the fictional "Mig-28" in the first Top Gun movie. What enemy aircraft will they be using for the sequel? With CGI these days I guess they could generate any real enemy plane, like the Mig-29, Su-27/30 and so on. And who will be "bad guys"? The original Top Gun was in some ways a product of it's time, displaying a deeply patriotic "America-F*ck-Yeah" attitude of the Reagan-era Cold War. I guess with the current geopolitical climate, the Chinese could be the bad guys, or possibly the Russians, North Koreans or Iranians. Or maybe some no name terrorist group or fictional rogue state, that would be safest option without offending other nationalities, although it would be a stretch to imagine some terrorist group or tin-pot dictatorship having the capability to fly advanced fighter aircraft.
|
|
|
Post by ilikecorn on Jul 19, 2019 21:28:03 GMT -5
Haven’t seen the trailer, but in the first movie Tom Skerritt (aka Viper) was old as well and was flying the aggressors in mock combat. Even offered to fly with Maverick if he couldn’t pair up with another. Fair point, although Viper I suppose wasn't really a front-line naval aviator in the movie, whereas Maverick in the trailer seem to be still going "full throttle", so-to-speak. Another thing, I remember the Northrop F-5 was used as a stand-in for the fictional "Mig-28" in the first Top Gun movie. What enemy aircraft will they be using for the sequel? With CGI these days I guess they could generate any real enemy plane, like the Mig-29, Su-27/30 and so on. And who will be "bad guys"? The original Top Gun was in some ways a product of it's time, displaying a deeply patriotic "America-F*ck-Yeah" attitude of the Reagan-era Cold War. I guess with the current geopolitical climate, the Chinese could be the bad guys, or possibly the Russians, North Koreans or Iranians. Or maybe some no name terrorist group or fictional rogue state, that would be safest option without offending other nationalities, although it would be a stretch to imagine some terrorist group or tin-pot dictatorship having the capability to fly advanced fighter aircraft. I hope its aliens.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jul 20, 2019 0:45:08 GMT -5
It was never stated in the first movie who the "Migs" belonged to. The pilots had a single red star on their helmets. I think the carrier was supposedly somewhere in the Indian Ocean.
In early drafts the enemy was supposed to be Cuba.
|
|
|
Post by XAsstCoach on Jul 20, 2019 1:12:47 GMT -5
And who will be "bad guys"? The original Top Gun was in some ways a product of it's time, displaying a deeply patriotic "America-F*ck-Yeah" attitude of the Reagan-era Cold War. I guess with the current geopolitical climate, the Chinese could be the bad guys, or possibly the Russians, North Koreans or Iranians. Or maybe some no name terrorist group or fictional rogue state, that would be safest option without offending other nationalities, although it would be a stretch to imagine some terrorist group or tin-pot dictatorship having the capability to fly advanced fighter aircraft. Oh, Chinese cannot be the bad guys. Studio needs the Chinese market and if the Chinese are the bad guys then the gov't will block its entry. Besides, they probably got Tencent or Alibaba to co-sign the production and they will not betray the motherland. ;o) Funny thing is a couple of years ago the Chinese media tried to instill some patriotic pride by showing one of their own planes shooting down an "enemy" plane in a drill. Unfortunately a lot of netizens pointed out the footage was taken from Top Gun. "Crash and Burn, CCTV!" Chinese 'used Top Gun footage' in broadcast on real air force exerciselink
|
|
|
Post by akbar on Jul 20, 2019 8:35:04 GMT -5
Waiting for the sequel to Risky Business. Tangerine Dream could use the work. Joel's son is applying to college, but first his friends try to set him up with a call-girl, who turns out to work for madame Rebecca De Mornay. She recognizes him as Joel's son. So she arranges to meet Joel, whose wife has recently died, and they decide to go into business together -- Joel's son is allowed to think he's setting up the same kind of party as his dad did, but really Joel and Lana are pulling all the strings. Hijinx and hilarity ensue. There is a subway ride in there somewhere, right?
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Jul 20, 2019 10:32:23 GMT -5
And Tom Cruise was like 5'8" and hitting straight down ... yeah right
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Jul 20, 2019 10:35:38 GMT -5
Waiting for the sequel to Risky Business. Tangerine Dream could use the work. And in other news, Generalisomo Francisco Franco is still dead ...
|
|
|
Post by Mocha on Jul 20, 2019 12:29:40 GMT -5
Miles Teller will play Goose's son. Interestingly, Bill Pullman's son is also in the cast.
|
|
|
Post by XAsstCoach on Jul 22, 2019 2:21:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jul 22, 2019 15:34:47 GMT -5
Huh. Maybe you have a pop-up blocker getting in the way. Notice I just deleted the post you replied to.
|
|
|
Post by ilikecorn on Jul 22, 2019 19:18:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Jul 22, 2019 19:31:06 GMT -5
Haven’t seen the trailer, but in the first movie Tom Skerritt (aka Viper) was old as well and was flying the aggressors in mock combat. Even offered to fly with Maverick if he couldn’t pair up with another. Fair point, although Viper I suppose wasn't really a front-line naval aviator in the movie, whereas Maverick in the trailer seem to be still going "full throttle", so-to-speak. Another thing, I remember the Northrop F-5 was used as a stand-in for the fictional "Mig-28" in the first Top Gun movie. What enemy aircraft will they be using for the sequel? With CGI these days I guess they could generate any real enemy plane, like the Mig-29, Su-27/30 and so on. And who will be "bad guys"? The original Top Gun was in some ways a product of it's time, displaying a deeply patriotic "America-F*ck-Yeah" attitude of the Reagan-era Cold War. I guess with the current geopolitical climate, the Chinese could be the bad guys, or possibly the Russians, North Koreans or Iranians. Or maybe some no name terrorist group or fictional rogue state, that would be safest option without offending other nationalities, although it would be a stretch to imagine some terrorist group or tin-pot dictatorship having the capability to fly advanced fighter aircraft. They don't really have to. The original Top Gun was about the original F-14, which was a pure fighter with only air to air missiles and an aircraft cannon. The US Navy no longer has a pure fighter any more since they shifted to the Super Hornet while retiring the F-14. And later on they added ground attack capabilities to the F-14 - given the nickname "Bombcat". Still - there have been some oddball flying scenes such as the F-14s in The Final Countdown. I heard that when they even got close to any of the propeller driven planes, those smaller planes nearly went out of control due to the jet wash. However, the movie portrayed the planes as being downed by a missile and then by aircraft cannon fire. In reality they could have probably just done a close pass at high speed and they would have lost control. Also, Top Gun (at NAS Fallon) is no longer "Fighter Weapons School" but the "Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor" program where Hornet pilots learn both fighter and ground attack skills. I guess the middle of the high desert in Nevada isn't quite as photogenic as San Diego. Neither is Lemoore, which is a quiet farm town where the Navy decided would be a good spot for a master jet base. Maybe a Super Hornet would easily outclass any basic aircraft that a poorly outfitted terrorist organization can procure, but it could still bomb a terrorist cell holed up in a bunker. I remember seeing some piece on the trailer where they noted that the planes were loaded with AIM-9X air to air missiles and "bunker buster" air to ground missiles. In the trailer they show what looks like a training scene where he's flying way too close to the ground and there's an estimated countdown for closing time to a target. I don't think that would adequately describe an air target that moves, but more a ground target. Also it's going to be different since I don't believe they have the rear seaters any more. I know there are some two-seat variants of the Super Hornet, but for the most part I thought they were only for training. Technology has replaced the back seat radar operator for the most part. However, I wonder how they're going to address the issue of age. He was a LT when he filmed at the age of 22/23. Now he's 56 and was probably at the mandatory retirement age when he was passed over for Rear Admiral. Granted they've never really been that accurate about age. You see movies like Under Siege or The Final Countdown where they have commanding officers who are Captains in their 60s, although I'm not sure if the latter was before the mandatory up or out rules. And there was Pensacola: Wings of Gold where James Brolin played a white-haired Marine Lt Colonel when he was 60.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Jul 23, 2019 4:44:04 GMT -5
Fair point, although Viper I suppose wasn't really a front-line naval aviator in the movie, whereas Maverick in the trailer seem to be still going "full throttle", so-to-speak. Another thing, I remember the Northrop F-5 was used as a stand-in for the fictional "Mig-28" in the first Top Gun movie. What enemy aircraft will they be using for the sequel? With CGI these days I guess they could generate any real enemy plane, like the Mig-29, Su-27/30 and so on. And who will be "bad guys"? The original Top Gun was in some ways a product of it's time, displaying a deeply patriotic "America-F*ck-Yeah" attitude of the Reagan-era Cold War. I guess with the current geopolitical climate, the Chinese could be the bad guys, or possibly the Russians, North Koreans or Iranians. Or maybe some no name terrorist group or fictional rogue state, that would be safest option without offending other nationalities, although it would be a stretch to imagine some terrorist group or tin-pot dictatorship having the capability to fly advanced fighter aircraft. They don't really have to. The original Top Gun was about the original F-14, which was a pure fighter with only air to air missiles and an aircraft cannon. The US Navy no longer has a pure fighter any more since they shifted to the Super Hornet while retiring the F-14. And later on they added ground attack capabilities to the F-14 - given the nickname "Bombcat". Still - there have been some oddball flying scenes such as the F-14s in The Final Countdown. I heard that when they even got close to any of the propeller driven planes, those smaller planes nearly went out of control due to the jet wash. However, the movie portrayed the planes as being downed by a missile and then by aircraft cannon fire. In reality they could have probably just done a close pass at high speed and they would have lost control. Also, Top Gun (at NAS Fallon) is no longer "Fighter Weapons School" but the "Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor" program where Hornet pilots learn both fighter and ground attack skills. I guess the middle of the high desert in Nevada isn't quite as photogenic as San Diego. Neither is Lemoore, which is a quiet farm town where the Navy decided would be a good spot for a master jet base. Maybe a Super Hornet would easily outclass any basic aircraft that a poorly outfitted terrorist organization can procure, but it could still bomb a terrorist cell holed up in a bunker. I remember seeing some piece on the trailer where they noted that the planes were loaded with AIM-9X air to air missiles and "bunker buster" air to ground missiles. In the trailer they show what looks like a training scene where he's flying way too close to the ground and there's an estimated countdown for closing time to a target. I don't think that would adequately describe an air target that moves, but more a ground target. Also it's going to be different since I don't believe they have the rear seaters any more. I know there are some two-seat variants of the Super Hornet, but for the most part I thought they were only for training. Technology has replaced the back seat radar operator for the most part. However, I wonder how they're going to address the issue of age. He was a LT when he filmed at the age of 22/23. Now he's 56 and was probably at the mandatory retirement age when he was passed over for Rear Admiral. Granted they've never really been that accurate about age. You see movies like Under Siege or The Final Countdown where they have commanding officers who are Captains in their 60s, although I'm not sure if the latter was before the mandatory up or out rules. And there was Pensacola: Wings of Gold where James Brolin played a white-haired Marine Lt Colonel when he was 60. Actually I think the F-14 was designed with a ground attack capability, but it was not used for most of the aircraft's service career, as the A-6, A-7 and later the (non-Super) F/A-18 Hornet fulfilled the ground attack missions. However, the replacement for the A-6, the A-12, was cancelled by then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney for running over-budget and not meeting performance standards. That left the Navy without sufficient bombers, thus forcing the Navy to use the Tomcat as a interdictor/strike aircraft and to develop the Hornet into the Super Hornet, basically a larger version of the Hornet with more range, ability to carry more payload and be less maintenance-heavy than the Tomcat, which towards the end of it's career, was becoming a maintenance hog. As for two-seaters, you are right, the Super Hornet has both single-seater (the E version) and the twin-seater version (the F version), but both are in front-line service on board carriers, the F version is not just a trainer but a fully combat-ready aircraft like the E version. As for age, well it's Hollywood, I suppose they can invent all kind of reasons for Maverick to still be in the service. The only thing is that if the enemy is some no-name terrorist outfit or rogue state, there won't be as much of a challenge to the Hornets as a fully-equipped enemy with access to more advanced hardware, so it simply won't appear as dramatic on screen as Hollywood may like. In any case, the trailer shows Maverick's Hornet carrying a laser-guided bomb, so looks like ground attack missions will be in the film. As for the bomb, most likely the Paveway series, GBU-10, 12 or 16? I'm not sure, since I am no expert in bombs.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Aug 1, 2019 12:56:55 GMT -5
A Super Hornet just crashed in Dealth Valley National Park. This is apparently a pretty common place for the Navy/Marines to train and there are often people coming to these locations just to get a look at the planes. Apparently 7 visitors on the ground were injured. No word about the pilot.
Not sure what the cause was, but for the most part I thought that pilots got in serious trouble for hot dogging.
|
|