|
Post by BearClause on May 22, 2022 20:05:16 GMT -5
Even a decade later digital effects were usually the way aerial combat was created, and a lot of times it looks so bad. Well, some parts were good enough for the CCP to use when they tried to pass it off as one of their Air Force drill 🤣 Quite familiar with the promotional footage. I do remember seeing some really crappy movies made with the participation of the PLA Air Force. They definitely made veiled references to Top Gun when someone waved a PRC flag. They didn't identify the other aircraft though, but it looked US.
|
|
|
Post by XAsstCoach on May 22, 2022 20:16:40 GMT -5
Well, some parts were good enough for the CCP to use when they tried to pass it off as one of their Air Force drill 🤣 Quite familiar with the promotional footage. I do remember seeing some really crappy movies made with the participation of the PLA Air Force. They definitely made veiled references to Top Gun when someone waved a PRC flag. They didn't identify the other aircraft though, but it looked US. Oh, lots of propaganda clips now on their TikTok. Images (computer generated) of their MIG-29 flying loops around B2 and Navy surveillance aircraft like the one involved in an accident near Hainan in earl 2000’s. Even has the MIG cut through the B2 with the MIG’s tail while flying inverted. Crazy stuff here.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 22, 2022 20:42:04 GMT -5
Top Gun...at one point I knew the movie so well I could recite almost all the lines from the movie. But then I just realized, I haven't watched the movie in...well over 20 years. The other day I decided to watch it for the first time in 2+ decades. But anyway, watching it again, the movie struck me as being so "80s". You know how some movies have this timeless quality and then other movies are so very much a product of its time. Top Gun falls into the latter category. Maverick's romance with Kelly McGillis' character "Charlie" Blackwood felt soapy and melodramatic. I personally didn't buy the relationship. It kinda reminded me of a sort of boy fantasy, but quite unbeliveable if you consider it in a realistic scenario. The whole movie had that slick "MTV" feel, at times it felt like an extended version of those early music videos from the 80's. Not a surprise if you consider director Tony Scott (the younger brother of director Ridley Scott btw) started his career making TV commercials. And the dialogue was so cheesy at times it felt like it was written by a teenager. I mean I can't help but roll my eyes at some of the lines like "I feel the need...for speed" or when Iceman tells Maverick that he can be his "wingman anytime" and Maverick replies with "Bullsh*t...you can be mine". Oh geez, who wrote those lines??? But you know what, despite all those faults...I still love the movie. The aerial dogfight scenes look good to this day. It has this thrilling energy to it that you can't help but go along with it. And when you hear "Danger Zone" being belted out by Kenny Loggins, you just gotta smile and say "Alright...YEAH!!!". Stop over analyzing the film. Was a good movie…just as Side Out was. 😂 My college roommate said he asked a buddy of his who was in the Navy whether the carrier deck scenes were real with the hand signals, posturing, etc and was told it pretty much is. Yeah, well the actual carrier ops shown in the film were real. The Navy gave a lot of cooperation to both the first movie and the new one.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 22, 2022 20:45:46 GMT -5
Navy surveillance aircraft like the one involved in an accident near Hainan in earl 2000’s Not sure I would call that an accident so much as criminal recklessness, except that since it happened between two different militaries in international airspace (although China claims it is their domestic airspace), there isn't really anyone who has any agreed legal jurisdiction.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on May 22, 2022 21:04:43 GMT -5
Top Gun...at one point I knew the movie so well I could recite almost all the lines from the movie. But then I just realized, I haven't watched the movie in...well over 20 years. The other day I decided to watch it for the first time in 2+ decades. But anyway, watching it again, the movie struck me as being so "80s". You know how some movies have this timeless quality and then other movies are so very much a product of its time. Top Gun falls into the latter category. Maverick's romance with Kelly McGillis' character "Charlie" Blackwood felt soapy and melodramatic. I personally didn't buy the relationship. It kinda reminded me of a sort of boy fantasy, but quite unbeliveable if you consider it in a realistic scenario. The whole movie had that slick "MTV" feel, at times it felt like an extended version of those early music videos from the 80's. Not a surprise if you consider director Tony Scott (the younger brother of director Ridley Scott btw) started his career making TV commercials. And the dialogue was so cheesy at times it felt like it was written by a teenager. I mean I can't help but roll my eyes at some of the lines like "I feel the need...for speed" or when Iceman tells Maverick that he can be his "wingman anytime" and Maverick replies with "Bullsh*t...you can be mine". Oh geez, who wrote those lines??? But you know what, despite all those faults...I still love the movie. The aerial dogfight scenes look good to this day. It has this thrilling energy to it that you can't help but go along with it. And when you hear "Danger Zone" being belted out by Kenny Loggins, you just gotta smile and say "Alright...YEAH!!!". Stop over analyzing the film. Was a good movie…just as Side Out was. 😂 My college roommate said he asked a buddy of his who was in the Navy whether the carrier deck scenes were real with the hand signals, posturing, etc and was told it pretty much is. I can't help but to analyze some of it now...but I love the movie all the same despite all its flaws. It was the reason why the F-14 was my favorite fighter jet growing up. And I wasn't surprised the hand signals are correct, I mean they did film it at an actual carrier with real F-14s taking off and landing.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on May 26, 2022 7:23:46 GMT -5
So... I went to an early screening of Top Gun: Maverick and here are my non-spoiler thoughts on it (maybe I should make another Top Gun thread with spoilers): Is it better than the original? In a word, yes. Outside of the aerial combat and non-flying scenes related to Maverick's mission, the 1986 original Top Gun had that unconvincing romance that I can't help but roll my eyes on. The only thing that made the drama scenes watchable was Maverick's chemistry and "best bud" relations with Goose. Maverick in the sequel by contrast benefit from much better lines for a start. Cruise also portrayed him in a bit more complex manner, Maverick is now more than just that one-dimensional arrogant and cocksure fighter jock in the original. In the sequel, Maverick still retains that "disregard-for-superiors'-orders" personality and a self-confidence in his flying ability. But Cruise plays Maverick with more depth in the sequel, you see how...events in the first movie still haunts him in the sequel. He reveals real vulnerabilities and doubts, this made Maverick a more rounded character than the first movie. Instead of bragging out loud of his flying skills, he instead have a little more reserved and quiet yet dignified persona that reflect his growth as a character over the years and decades since the original. Another thing I think the sequel is superior in is how the stakes are raised and how you have a clearer idea of what that final mission entails. In the original, you only get a very vague description of some ship straying into hostile waters and how the US Navy must provide air cover for it against enemy fighters. You don't really get an idea of why they are there. In contrast, you get a much clearer picture of the high stakes in the sequel's mission, what the pilots need to do to accomplish it and how incredibly difficult it will be. And the flight scenes...YEAH. Not that the aerial scenes in the 1986 original were bad in anyway, but the sequel gives you a much more immersive experience. There are shots where you feel like you are in the plane with Maverick. So all-in-all, I enjoyed the sequel very much. Is it perfect? No of course not. Despite being reasonably accurate, there are still some areas where Hollywood sensibilities prevail over actual reality, due to the needs of the story. No doubt some F-18 pilots will cringe watching those...Hollywood liberties. But those are relatively minor complaints. And one last thing, this is not a spoiler I think, since he was mentioned in the trailer, but Val Kilmer does return as Iceman. What role he plays in the sequel I won't divulge. But it was nice to see Tom Cruise and Val Kilmer, both of whom became Hollywood movie stars thanks to the 1986 original, together again in the sequel. And speaking of Iceman, here is an interesting article that makes a convincing case that Iceman wasn't actually the villain in the original, he should actually be seen as a hero: collider.com/top-gun-iceman-real-hero/
|
|
|
Post by Mocha on May 26, 2022 14:18:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on May 26, 2022 15:15:08 GMT -5
So... I went to an early screening of Top Gun: Maverick and here are my non-spoiler thoughts on it (maybe I should make another Top Gun thread with spoilers): Is it better than the original? In a word, yes. Outside of the aerial combat and non-flying scenes related to Maverick's mission, the 1986 original Top Gun had that unconvincing romance that I can't help but roll my eyes on. The only thing that made the drama scenes watchable was Maverick's chemistry and "best bud" relations with Goose. Maverick in the sequel by contrast benefit from much better lines for a start. Cruise also portrayed him in a bit more complex manner, Maverick is now more than just that one-dimensional arrogant and cocksure fighter jock in the original. In the sequel, Maverick still retains that "disregard-for-superiors'-orders" personality and a self-confidence in his flying ability. But Cruise plays Maverick with more depth in the sequel, you see how...events in the first movie still haunts him in the sequel. He reveals real vulnerabilities and doubts, this made Maverick a more rounded character than the first movie. Instead of bragging out loud of his flying skills, he instead have a little more reserved and quiet yet dignified persona that reflect his growth as a character over the years and decades since the original. Another thing I think the sequel is superior in is how the stakes are raised and how you have a clearer idea of what that final mission entails. In the original, you only get a very vague description of some ship straying into hostile waters and how the US Navy must provide air cover for it against enemy fighters. You don't really get an idea of why they are there. In contrast, you get a much clearer picture of the high stakes in the sequel's mission, what the pilots need to do to accomplish it and how incredibly difficult it will be. And the flight scenes...YEAH. Not that the aerial scenes in the 1986 original were bad in anyway, but the sequel gives you a much more immersive experience. There are shots where you feel like you are in the plane with Maverick. So all-in-all, I enjoyed the sequel very much. Is it perfect? No of course not. Despite being reasonably accurate, there are still some areas where Hollywood sensibilities prevail over actual reality, due to the needs of the story. No doubt some F-18 pilots will cringe watching those...Hollywood liberties. But those are relatively minor complaints. And one last thing, this is not a spoiler I think, since he was mentioned in the trailer, but Val Kilmer does return as Iceman. What role he plays in the sequel I won't divulge. But it was nice to see Tom Cruise and Val Kilmer, both of whom became Hollywood movie stars thanks to the 1986 original, together again in the sequel. And speaking of Iceman, here is an interesting article that makes a convincing case that Iceman wasn't actually the villain in the original, he should actually be seen as a hero: collider.com/top-gun-iceman-real-hero/There were a ton of plot holes in the original Top Gun. One was certainly that there is not any kind of competition, no points per se for "kills", and certainly no Top Gun Trophy. They be killing themselves trying to get it. It's supposed to be solely about learning state of the art combat techniques and then hopefully bringing them back to their squadrons where they teach their fellow pilots. Another would be that there would be no need to get "the best of the best" for some mission halfway around the world. If there was a carrier along the way, there would be no way they wouldn't just use the pilots that they had available, because they're all very capable. Maverick would have been drummed out for any stunts that he pulled. Buzzing the tower would be grounds for a court martial. I read about how they did that at Miramar, where the pilot who did it said he was doing it for all the guys who wished they could pull off a stunt like that an get away with it. Plus he did it several times and the neighbors called in asking if there was someone who just went bat%*$# crazy. I've certain seen Miramar, but after the Navy left. I was working one day in San Diego and I could see the field from the window and hear all the noise. The other thing is that how they manage to avoid helmet hair.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on May 26, 2022 18:58:15 GMT -5
So... I went to an early screening of Top Gun: Maverick and here are my non-spoiler thoughts on it (maybe I should make another Top Gun thread with spoilers): Is it better than the original? In a word, yes. Outside of the aerial combat and non-flying scenes related to Maverick's mission, the 1986 original Top Gun had that unconvincing romance that I can't help but roll my eyes on. The only thing that made the drama scenes watchable was Maverick's chemistry and "best bud" relations with Goose. Maverick in the sequel by contrast benefit from much better lines for a start. Cruise also portrayed him in a bit more complex manner, Maverick is now more than just that one-dimensional arrogant and cocksure fighter jock in the original. In the sequel, Maverick still retains that "disregard-for-superiors'-orders" personality and a self-confidence in his flying ability. But Cruise plays Maverick with more depth in the sequel, you see how...events in the first movie still haunts him in the sequel. He reveals real vulnerabilities and doubts, this made Maverick a more rounded character than the first movie. Instead of bragging out loud of his flying skills, he instead have a little more reserved and quiet yet dignified persona that reflect his growth as a character over the years and decades since the original. Another thing I think the sequel is superior in is how the stakes are raised and how you have a clearer idea of what that final mission entails. In the original, you only get a very vague description of some ship straying into hostile waters and how the US Navy must provide air cover for it against enemy fighters. You don't really get an idea of why they are there. In contrast, you get a much clearer picture of the high stakes in the sequel's mission, what the pilots need to do to accomplish it and how incredibly difficult it will be. And the flight scenes...YEAH. Not that the aerial scenes in the 1986 original were bad in anyway, but the sequel gives you a much more immersive experience. There are shots where you feel like you are in the plane with Maverick. So all-in-all, I enjoyed the sequel very much. Is it perfect? No of course not. Despite being reasonably accurate, there are still some areas where Hollywood sensibilities prevail over actual reality, due to the needs of the story. No doubt some F-18 pilots will cringe watching those...Hollywood liberties. But those are relatively minor complaints. And one last thing, this is not a spoiler I think, since he was mentioned in the trailer, but Val Kilmer does return as Iceman. What role he plays in the sequel I won't divulge. But it was nice to see Tom Cruise and Val Kilmer, both of whom became Hollywood movie stars thanks to the 1986 original, together again in the sequel. And speaking of Iceman, here is an interesting article that makes a convincing case that Iceman wasn't actually the villain in the original, he should actually be seen as a hero: collider.com/top-gun-iceman-real-hero/There were a ton of plot holes in the original Top Gun. One was certainly that there is not any kind of competition, no points per se for "kills", and certainly no Top Gun Trophy. They be killing themselves trying to get it. It's supposed to be solely about learning state of the art combat techniques and then hopefully bringing them back to their squadrons where they teach their fellow pilots. Another would be that there would be no need to get "the best of the best" for some mission halfway around the world. If there was a carrier along the way, there would be no way they wouldn't just use the pilots that they had available, because they're all very capable. Maverick would have been drummed out for any stunts that he pulled. Buzzing the tower would be grounds for a court martial. I read about how they did that at Miramar, where the pilot who did it said he was doing it for all the guys who wished they could pull off a stunt like that an get away with it. Plus he did it several times and the neighbors called in asking if there was someone who just went bat%*$# crazy. I've certain seen Miramar, but after the Navy left. I was working one day in San Diego and I could see the field from the window and hear all the noise. The other thing is that how they manage to avoid helmet hair. Yup, anyone who is remotely familiar with real naval aviation knows that a Maverick-like character would not last 2 seconds in the real Navy. But Hollywood is Hollywood, haha.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 26, 2022 19:07:16 GMT -5
And one last thing, this is not a spoiler I think, since he was mentioned in the trailer, but Val Kilmer does return as Iceman. What role he plays in the sequel I won't divulge. But it was nice to see Tom Cruise and Val Kilmer, both of whom became Hollywood movie stars thanks to the 1986 original, together again in the sequel. And speaking of Iceman, here is an interesting article that makes a convincing case that Iceman wasn't actually the villain in the original, he should actually be seen as a hero: collider.com/top-gun-iceman-real-hero/Minor point: Tom Cruise and Val Kilmer were already Hollywood stars in 1986. Kilmer had already been the lead in two movies and Tom Cruise in three movies. Top Gun did further help both of them, though.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on May 26, 2022 19:11:42 GMT -5
There were a ton of plot holes in the original Top Gun. One was certainly that there is not any kind of competition, no points per se for "kills", and certainly no Top Gun Trophy. They be killing themselves trying to get it. It's supposed to be solely about learning state of the art combat techniques and then hopefully bringing them back to their squadrons where they teach their fellow pilots. Another would be that there would be no need to get "the best of the best" for some mission halfway around the world. If there was a carrier along the way, there would be no way they wouldn't just use the pilots that they had available, because they're all very capable. Maverick would have been drummed out for any stunts that he pulled. Buzzing the tower would be grounds for a court martial. I read about how they did that at Miramar, where the pilot who did it said he was doing it for all the guys who wished they could pull off a stunt like that an get away with it. Plus he did it several times and the neighbors called in asking if there was someone who just went bat%*$# crazy. I've certain seen Miramar, but after the Navy left. I was working one day in San Diego and I could see the field from the window and hear all the noise. The other thing is that how they manage to avoid helmet hair. Yup, anyone who is remotely familiar with real naval aviation knows that a Maverick-like character would not last 2 seconds in the real Navy. But Hollywood is Hollywood, haha. a Movie about a Pilot titled "Conformist' about a straight-laced Navy pilot that followed the rules, & didn't fly upside down, or buzz towers wouldn't have been any fun. Maverick should have been a 15 minute short movie, where he tries to help a fellow pilot, but in doing so runs out of gas, ejects, and then dies.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on May 26, 2022 19:36:24 GMT -5
And one last thing, this is not a spoiler I think, since he was mentioned in the trailer, but Val Kilmer does return as Iceman. What role he plays in the sequel I won't divulge. But it was nice to see Tom Cruise and Val Kilmer, both of whom became Hollywood movie stars thanks to the 1986 original, together again in the sequel. And speaking of Iceman, here is an interesting article that makes a convincing case that Iceman wasn't actually the villain in the original, he should actually be seen as a hero: collider.com/top-gun-iceman-real-hero/Minor point: Tom Cruise and Val Kilmer were already Hollywood stars in 1986. Kilmer had already been the lead in two movies and Tom Cruise in three movies. Top Gun did further help both of them, though. Yeah they already had movies under their belt when they made Top Gun, but it was Top Gun who made both mega stars. I should have said mega stars in that post, haha.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on May 26, 2022 19:39:39 GMT -5
Yup, anyone who is remotely familiar with real naval aviation knows that a Maverick-like character would not last 2 seconds in the real Navy. But Hollywood is Hollywood, haha. a Movie about a Pilot titled "Conformist' about a straight-laced Navy pilot that followed the rules, & didn't fly upside down, or buzz towers wouldn't have been any fun.Maverick should have been a 15 minute short movie, where he tries to help a fellow pilot, but in doing so runs out of gas, ejects, and then dies. It all depends on how the script portrays the character. I for one would like to watch a "Top Gun" movie in its early inception period during the Vietnam War. When navy pilots have to re-learn dogfighting in the F-4 Phantom II against the more nimble Mig-21s and Mig-19s of North Vietnam. They were dealing with a serious situation where the kill ratio of Navy pilots against Vietnamese Migs drop to somewhere around 2 to 1, but thanks to Top Gun, by the time Operation Linebacker commenced, the kill ratio had return to something like 12 to 1. And they did it in the F-4, which was designed originally without a gun, an interceptor firing beyond visual range sparrow missiles rather than close-in dogfighter like the F-8 Crusader, that would have made for an interesting movie without the need for any sort of hardcore Maverick-like character.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on May 26, 2022 20:32:11 GMT -5
Yup, anyone who is remotely familiar with real naval aviation knows that a Maverick-like character would not last 2 seconds in the real Navy. But Hollywood is Hollywood, haha. a Movie about a Pilot titled "Conformist' about a straight-laced Navy pilot that followed the rules, & didn't fly upside down, or buzz towers wouldn't have been any fun. Maverick should have been a 15 minute short movie, where he tries to help a fellow pilot, but in doing so runs out of gas, ejects, and then dies. The Chinese made fighter jet movies where all the pilots are more or less by the book. They're patriotic with almost no character flaws. You know - robots. And yeah they were boring as hell.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on May 26, 2022 20:35:43 GMT -5
a Movie about a Pilot titled "Conformist' about a straight-laced Navy pilot that followed the rules, & didn't fly upside down, or buzz towers wouldn't have been any fun. Maverick should have been a 15 minute short movie, where he tries to help a fellow pilot, but in doing so runs out of gas, ejects, and then dies. The Chinese made fighter jet movies where all the pilots are more or less by the book. They're patriotic with almost no character flaws. You know - robots. And yeah they were boring as hell. Well, you wouldn't expect anything else from Chinese Top Gun ripoffs, right? And it would be against the CCP culture for some Maverick character to butt heads against his superiors. What superior say is law in China.
|
|