Maverick (Top Gun 2)

Maybe they're just dallying because it's such a dinosaur of a plot line. Battle of Britain-syled dogfights have been frowned upon since way before the Top Gun first movie, and there probably hasn't been one anywhere in reality in a long time. I'm thinking that, maybe they decided to revise the costumes to armor, revise the aircraft to horses and have a medieval joust. The original in the movie worked because it seemed to resonate with that Reagan-era jingoism, but it was an anachronism even then, something done more often in computer games. I recall being charged up with zeal to have my own Tomcat, did some reading, however, and found out that the military had moved away from all that dogfight stuff long ago since aircraft got so expensive. They'd really prefer to have expendable missiles do the work, especially since missiles don't get drunk or have cheesy romances.

I can't really imagine a Cruise movie going straight to streaming or anything - between his status as one of the last movie stars and his recent emphasis on doing his own increasingly elaborate stunts, his movies do tend to end up being ones that are enough of a spectacle to warrant being seen in theatres. Aside from that, there's the question of the difference between the money that can be made from theatre tickets and from streaming services (whether it's an individual purchase or part of a monthly subscription), to say nothing of how one on-demand purchase can be viewed by multiple people at once versus each of those people having to buy one ticket each.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Yeah. Tricky stuff. Here, it seems to be a consistent $20 rental fee for new releases that are bypassing theaters. I haven't checked recently though, so that may not be the same anymore. That was just a streaming rental fee when all this started. My guess is they're using that rate to compensate for a family view that would have otherwise bought tickets. I'd consider a purchase of a new release, especially something that's as iconic as a Top Gun sequel, but I'm not paying that much for a one off rental.

Personally, I'd go to the theater after all this winds down to watch it if they re-release at a later date. Or even if the rental prices drop or if I end up purchasing a copy. You're right. It is a spectacle enough for a big screen. Whenever that happens.

__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear

The whole idea seems irrelevant now. Half of the reason the old one worked seemed to be the movie-star good looks of the cast, coupled with a sort of MTV musical soundtrack. Add in macho guys hooting and hollering when they did an overhead loop coupled with "sweet love" back on the ground and the menace of the Soviet Union, and you had a plot fit for a 10 year old.

Since then, military tactics and hardware have changed, the Soviet Union is gone, MTV doesn't matter, Tom Cruise and Kelly McGillis have aged and no military wants to waste hundred million dollar aircraft on airborne turkey shoots. It would have to be some sort of last cowboy story in a time where everybody else bought pickups. Tom Cruise, however, still insists that horses are the way to go. It's sad to note that, back in 2013, Tom Cruise was pitching a Top Gun do-over to director Tony Scott, who committed suicide a few days later.

They really should just let it rest, but no chance of that since it's already in progress.

Seeing this trailer in IMAX gives enough credence to why these movies work. All things aside, it is a massive spectacle.

I always think of seeing “not an IMAX movie” John Wick and how the airstrip scene made it a worthwhile experience.

Plus nostalgia doesn’t have to make sense.

Yeah, it's not like the original audience and fans of Top Gun are dead. We're still kicking, I think? There's money to be made still.

I guess it will be part of that larger issue about all movies, which is, when we go back to the theater. If a new Top Gun movie is a visual spectacle or an Imax, it's probably going to be on the shelf for a while. Some movies just scream for a big screen and this seems like it would be one of those. If I do see it, I want to get dizzy in the turns and nauseous when negative G starts, as well as full of adrenalin when the shooting happens and that's never happened for me with a TV screen.

I was so disappointed. I had redeemed several movie theatre gift cards from my credit card, just for a chance to see a movie like this, with little cgi. I got excited when they announced last June, then it was all taken away. I'm still waiting.

__________________
"I may be rancid butter, but I'm on your side of the bread."
E. K. Hornbeck

hope its going to be a good movie, i always loved first top gun

Wondering if this sequel might actually have a plot, Can anyone remember what topgun 1 was actually about? What was the story?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gun

The original top gun was mostly romance without a lot of plot. I don't necessarily mind that though as I still found it kind of entertaining on that level.

especially when it has good music aswell

true, I was being kind of sarcastic and admit to having enjoyed watching it. Impressive what little plot they could get away with and still call it a movie.

Remains to be seen if it s gonna have those track hits running along with the scenes otherwise it won t feel like it s top gun, i trust joseph kosinski to shoot the film like tony scott did, razor quick cutting, love it

hope they will use danger zone song in the movie like the original song not like a reamke song u know what i mean

I have to say, I am not a fan or reboots, but this movie looks good actually, and looks better than the original possibly. I always found the original to be overrated, but this one looks better.

__________________
Letterboxd
Entertainment log

Kind of hilarious how good this movie is relative to the "franchise" it's coming from.

I'd never seen Top Gun until a few days ago, but I'd picked up so much of it through cultural osmosis (and watching Hot Shots a dozen times) that I knew pretty much how it all went. It was amusing enough but there obviously wasn't a ton of depth there. But the reviews for Top Gun: Maverick were good, and buy, were there some serious writers involved. McQuarrie's just good, flat-out, and I'll watch anything he's involved in at this point.

It's really, genuinely funny, in a way, to see premier cinematic talent elevate such a kinda throwaway 80s film into something actually...good. It reminds me of all these restaurants you see now that offer really high-quality comfort food. Those restaurants, and the people who made this film, aren't trying to convince you to just like better stuff, they're just taking the junk food you like and making a really fancy version of it instead.

Also funny to see how McQuarrie basically smuggles in some Mission: Impossible style stuff into the task the pilots are given.

But yeah, very well-written (lotta great lines), very well-shot, genuinely thrilling even having seen it on the small screen. Having seen the original just days before, the contrast was faintly ridiculous, in a good way.

Al Nelson breaks down the Mach 10 sequence.