ORDFan From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 232 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 years 7 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1511 times:
Alright guys, I'm sure most of you have heard but I'm surprised no one's brought it up: what do you guys think about the Top Gun sequel that just got greenlighted? Good, bad, indifferent?
Personally, I love Top Gun and I hate this idea. Top Gun worked so well because it captured a moment in time so well: Cold War (albeit its sunset), dogfights, MIGs, the Tomcat, U.S. military might, and 80s rock all rolled into one.
Compare that to today: Terrorism/Taliban (not fun/easy to depict), CAS/ground war/urban warfare, no viable enemy air threats, SuperBug, overburdened/overstretched cost-cutting Pentagon, and a decade of eclectic, varied noise rather than genre-defining music.
I don't know if this day-in-age makes for an equally relevant/fun movie. Sure they will try and make the Super Hornet look cool, but everyone knows that its already outdated and that today's wars are ground-based, and the aerial component consists of reconnaissance and CAS (not nearly as glamorous as air-to-air, when only the "bad" guy dies). Not to mention that much of the flying is increasingly handled by UCAVs and CIA operatives.
I say let the movie alone, as fun reminder of a different era. I'm pretty nostalgic in general, but I don't feel the need for Tony Scott and some billionaire's flunky son to push another retread on us.
Here is a funny take on the whole thing: more true than funny, I think, particularly given Hollywood's offerings these days:
Actually, I think the only way this could work is if it a prequel -- to a 1960s/70s take on the whole Top Gun theme. That era of tactical aviation certainly doesn't get as much attention, though full credit to Flight of the Intruder.
flybaurlax From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 633 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1502 times:
It's funny you bring this up, because my girlfriend put Top Gun on tonight and we just watched it. After the movie was finished I thought about what if they had done a sequel. I feel that it's too late to do so. If they had done a sequel it should have been with Tom Cruise and the F-14 right after, with him as an instructor and new story line following his experiences. I don't see how you can make a sequel to a classic movie 24 years later without it being just a completely new movie.
I'm like you, leave it alone, and don't touch it.
I don't think there are any definitive new releases in music that could be so momentous to the movie like the soundtrack used in the original film.
THEBATMAN From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 829 posts, RR: 10 Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1495 times:
I really, REALLY hope they don't ruin a good thing. TOP GUN was (is) a great movie. Sure...it had its quirks, (I think they should have been sitting around watching half-naked GIRLS playing volleyball) but a great movie nonetheless. I just hope that they take their time writing the script. (Maverick still an instructor at TOP GUN, and Goose's son is part of the next class of hot-shots??) There are so many bad sequels out there. I really hope this won't be one of them.
Pilots without aircraft mechanics are just pedestrians with sunglasses and a leather jacket.
UltimateDelta From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1993 posts, RR: 6 Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1451 times:
Quoting flybaurlax (Reply 1): It's funny you bring this up, because my girlfriend put Top Gun on tonight and we just watched it. After the movie was finished I thought about what if they had done a sequel. I feel that it's too late to do so. If they had done a sequel it should have been with Tom Cruise and the F-14 right after, with him as an instructor and new story line following his experiences. I don't see how you can make a sequel to a classic movie 24 years later without it being just a completely new movie.
Agree. Besides, why exactly does every movie need a sequel? For example, Iron Man would've worked perfectly as a standalone.
Quoting ORDFan (Thread starter): Actually, I think the only way this could work is if it a prequel -- to a 1960s/70s take on the whole Top Gun theme. That era of tactical aviation certainly doesn't get as much attention, though full credit to Flight of the Intruder.
ORDFan From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 232 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1294 times:
Just came across some updates regarding this and must say I'm quite surprised. Tony Scott (original director) has signed on but to his credit, it seems like he is very aware of the new dynamics of military aviation and it looks like he will be doing his homework. Scott says he doesn't want the new film to be a remake, but rather a reinvention, and looks like he will be focusing on the end of the fighter pilot era and the dawn of the drone era.
"I'm not waiting for a script. I'm going to do my homework. I'm going down to I think it's Fallon, Nevada, down near New Mexico and it's a whole different world now," Scott told Hit Fix. "These computer geeks -- these kids play war games in a trailer in Fallon, Nevada, and if we ever went to war or were in the Middle East or the Far East or wherever it is, these guys can actually fly drones. They are unmanned aircraft. They operate them and then they party all night."
So maybe we'll see Maverick leading the X-47B program. Btw, that 60 minutes video is quite telling.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 232 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2010, 8 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
