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 Sure they will try and make the Super Hornet look cool, but everyone knows that its already outdated and that today's wars are ground-based, and the aerial component consists of reconnaissance and CAS (not nearly as glamorous as air-to-air, when only the "bad"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.