Must add, was disappointed in the ending. Kind of a let down, but that is all I will say to not spoil it.

I was a kid when the original came out. Top Gun is deeply ingrained in my childhood. I wore out VHS after VHS. There was no internet. That movie was my access to Naval aviation, the F-14 and aircraft carrier ops. It all fascinated me, I couldn’t get enough. If I was lucky the nightly news might show some file footage while reporting on the Gulf War but other than that Top Gun was it. Sure as an adult I understand it’s flaws. It’s not a great movie. The writing is pretty cringe at times. But it still hits the same every time I watch it. Still my favorite movie.

Top Gun: Maverick hit deeply for me. I teared up multiple times starting with that first gong hit and the opening credits. Fantastic movie, loved every minute of it. I’m so glad it was delayed until we were allowed to see it as intended on the big screen. Well worth the wait!

It’s pretty remarkable they managed to successfully turn what was a pretty on the surface story of the first one and produce a rather deep, layered story for the sequel. To see this much buzz, to hear everyone talk about it. I haven’t been this excited for a movie going experience in years.

And one final thought. Like I said above when I was a kid I didn’t have the internet to look up endless content like I do now. I’ve watched enough aircraft carrier deck footage to know how it all works now. But every time I go back and watch the original Top Gun intro I’m always fascinated how Tony Scott shot it and presented it. Truly epic.

Since this is an aviation website, one might find this interesting regarding "Dark Star"

https://lockheedmartin.com/topgun#topgundarkstar

This was Fun to watch !!!

Tom Cruise Terrifies James in 'Top Gun' Fighter Jet!
https://youtu.be/v1iZtBM23bY

DIRECTFLT wrote:

This was Fun to watch !!!

Tom Cruise Terrifies James in 'Top Gun' Fighter Jet!
https://youtu.be/v1iZtBM23bY

I have watched this several times since it first appeared on YT. Just hilarious stuff - almost as good as the bit where Cruise drives around London with Conan O'Brien.

It's a shame Cruise didn't really let on he had comedy chops until 'Tropic Thunder'...he's actually very funny.

In the opening credits, they retained the same Don Simpson / Jerry Bruckheimer Production, which I found very appropriate for a sequel.

Aaron747 wrote:

It's a shame Cruise didn't really let on he had comedy chops until 'Tropic Thunder'...he's actually very funny.

Les Grossman may be his best character ever.

Enjoyably mindlessly entertaining

is my review. See it! Thumbs up!

889091 wrote:

In the opening credits, they retained the same Don Simpson / Jerry Bruckheimer Production, which I found very appropriate for a sequel.

Indeed, it serves a dual purpose - as a callback to the first movie, and a quiet tribute to Don Simpson.

Just watched it a second time and it was interesting to note that this time, Tom didn't personally greet the viewers on screen and thanking them for coming to watch the movie. Perhaps they only do that during the first week?

889091 wrote:

Just watched it a second time and it was interesting to note that this time, Tom didn't personally greet the viewers on screen and thanking them for coming to watch the movie. Perhaps they only do that during the first week?

I saw the greeting last week, the 2nd week it was playing.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

889091 wrote:

Just watched it a second time and it was interesting to note that this time, Tom didn't personally greet the viewers on screen and thanking them for coming to watch the movie. Perhaps they only do that during the first week?

I saw the greeting last week, the 2nd week it was playing.

Same here, saw the movie last Wednesday and it was still there.

Due to an unfortunate meeting with Mr. Banhammer of the A.net Discussion and Debate Corporation it is only now that I can comment on this matter.

I watched the film on May 27th, and I've seen "Hot Shot!", the inofficial sequel, about ten times. (It was the first non-animated film I've seen in a theatre.) "Top Gun" from the eighties only twice - the first time in the late 2010s. What surprised me most were the much more coherently told flight scenes. The film also toned down on the male bravado.

The scenario at the end is, of course, very contrived. Anybody who knows one or two things about bunkers and surface-air missiles will have a long-lasting smirk on his face. It just does not make a lot of sense.

"Maverick" essentially borrowed about 45.78% of the plot from "Star Wars: A New Hope", but who am I to complain. In the end it's a highly entertaining film. It banks on the previous film, and improves on it.

flyingturtle wrote:

"Maverick" essentially borrowed about 45.78% of the plot from "Star Wars: A New Hope", but who am I to complain. In the end it's a highly entertaining film. It banks on the previous film, and improves on it.

My description is it is a Hybrid of Star Wars, Top Gun, and Mission Impossible. Jon Hamm's character was essentially Alec Baldwin and Jeremy Renner's characters in the MI movies trying to clamp down on Ethan Hunt but actually support him and the craziness of the final mission is similar to what you would see in a Mission Impossible movie but with Jets and not scaling the Burj Khalifa.

The Star Wars link is obvious.

Look at this one!

https://youtu.be/6nSTLYBCW0E

Quite impressive to have the skunk works involved in the production!

Is the scene where the F18s fly sideways under a tall bridge real or computer generated?

dfwjim1 wrote:

Is the scene where the F18s fly sideways under a tall bridge real or computer generated?

Pretty sure CGI, supposedly that location is in Washington state and the military do that maneuver in the valleys there all the time.

777 wrote:

Look at this one!

https://youtu.be/6nSTLYBCW0E

Quite impressive to have the skunk works involved in the production!

During the movie I did like seeing the skunk on the prototype. Nice Easter Egg of sorts.

In real life would an airstrike even be feasible against such a heavily defended target surrounded by high mountains?

Seems to me that a barrage of submarine and/or land based missles would do the job.

dfwjim1 wrote:

In real life would an airstrike even be feasible against such a heavily defended target surrounded by high mountains?

Seems to me that a barrage of submarine and/or land based missles would do the job.

That "defended target" did not have even one access road... go, figure... what do you want to do there? Transport everything by helicopter? Over these mountains?

It would have been much better to build the nuclear production site in a mountain, with several similarly-looking entrances. Without human intelligence it's perhaps impossible to know which entrance leads to the critical area, and which are just material storage, sleeping facilities and so...

If the target was so well defined, all it needed was perhaps a high kinetic energy warhead. Like, one ton of aerodynamic concrete. Launched with an ICBM. GPS and optical guidance (thanks to satellite imagery) would do it.

Cruise missiles would have too shallow a trajectory to get over the mountains.

flyingturtle wrote:

dfwjim1 wrote:

In real life would an airstrike even be feasible against such a heavily defended target surrounded by high mountains?

Seems to me that a barrage of submarine and/or land based missles would do the job.

That "defended target" did not have even one access road... go, figure... what do you want to do there? Transport everything by helicopter? Over these mountains?

It would have been much better to build the nuclear production site in a mountain, with several similarly-looking entrances. Without human intelligence it's perhaps impossible to know which entrance leads to the critical area, and which are just material storage, sleeping facilities and so...

If the target was so well defined, all it needed was perhaps a high kinetic energy warhead. Like, one ton of aerodynamic concrete. Launched with an ICBM. GPS and optical guidance (thanks to satellite imagery) would do it.

Cruise missiles would have too shallow a trajectory to get over the mountains.

Send this to CinemaSins

flyingturtle wrote:

dfwjim1 wrote:

In real life would an airstrike even be feasible against such a heavily defended target surrounded by high mountains?

Seems to me that a barrage of submarine and/or land based missles would do the job.

That "defended target" did not have even one access road... go, figure... what do you want to do there? Transport everything by helicopter? Over these mountains?

It would have been much better to build the nuclear production site in a mountain, with several similarly-looking entrances. Without human intelligence it's perhaps impossible to know which entrance leads to the critical area, and which are just material storage, sleeping facilities and so...

If the target was so well defined, all it needed was perhaps a high kinetic energy warhead. Like, one ton of aerodynamic concrete. Launched with an ICBM. GPS and optical guidance (thanks to satellite imagery) would do it.

Cruise missiles would have too shallow a trajectory to get over the mountains.

That was one off my "suspension of disbelief" moments too....just use a B-52!!

ObadiahPlainman wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

dfwjim1 wrote:

In real life would an airstrike even be feasible against such a heavily defended target surrounded by high mountains?

Seems to me that a barrage of submarine and/or land based missles would do the job.

That "defended target" did not have even one access road... go, figure... what do you want to do there? Transport everything by helicopter? Over these mountains?

It would have been much better to build the nuclear production site in a mountain, with several similarly-looking entrances. Without human intelligence it's perhaps impossible to know which entrance leads to the critical area, and which are just material storage, sleeping facilities and so...

If the target was so well defined, all it needed was perhaps a high kinetic energy warhead. Like, one ton of aerodynamic concrete. Launched with an ICBM. GPS and optical guidance (thanks to satellite imagery) would do it.

Cruise missiles would have too shallow a trajectory to get over the mountains.

That was one off my "suspension of disbelief" moments too....just use a B-52!!

Yep, there you go. And of course there was no mention has to whether or not the U.S. strike started a major war.

dfwjim1 wrote:

ObadiahPlainman wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

That "defended target" did not have even one access road... go, figure... what do you want to do there? Transport everything by helicopter? Over these mountains?

It would have been much better to build the nuclear production site in a mountain, with several similarly-looking entrances. Without human intelligence it's perhaps impossible to know which entrance leads to the critical area, and which are just material storage, sleeping facilities and so...

If the target was so well defined, all it needed was perhaps a high kinetic energy warhead. Like, one ton of aerodynamic concrete. Launched with an ICBM. GPS and optical guidance (thanks to satellite imagery) would do it.

Cruise missiles would have too shallow a trajectory to get over the mountains.

That was one off my "suspension of disbelief" moments too....just use a B-52!!

Yep, there you go. And of course there was no mention has to whether or not the U.S. strike started a major war.

The plans for the strike was intended to do it so that the enemy didn't know that it was US forces behind it, flying below radar and being out of there before . At least that was my interpretation, the one thing I didn't like about this movie was the ending. I thought it should have ended with Maverick making the ultimate sacrifice to protect Rooster and not the hijacking of the enemy F-14.

I am presuming everyone who posts in here has seen the movie or doesn't care about spoilers.

Saw it last night and loved it. It is what going to the movies is all about - great visuals, loud noises, explosions, good music and a far fetched ending.

I thought they did a great job of referencing the original movie, and weaving it in, without it being over the top.

skyservice_330 wrote:

Saw it last night and loved it. It is what going to the movies is all about - great visuals, loud noises, explosions, good music and a far fetched ending.

I thought they did a great job of referencing the original movie, and weaving it in, without it being over the top.

That’s what I enjoyed about it. It was clearly a sequel, but not one that required you saw the first one recently to understand. It was just simply a good, stand-alone film. One of my favorites in years.

I was initially worried they’d turn Top Gun into a whole series (as they have with pretty much every movie franchise) but I really get the impression that Top Gun(s) are Tom Cruise’s favorites and that there won’t be a top Gun 3, 4, 5 etc.

Finally saw it this afternoon with Mrs. ER757 (even though I'd have rather stayed home to watch the US Open). I must say it was very entertaining even though it was both entirely predictable and the plot had more holes than a metric ton of Swiss cheese. As long as you go in not expecting realism, you should have a fun experience. And as many others have noted, the aerial scenes were fantastic and in the theater where we saw it they had the sound cranked up to 11 which I loved (she was not so thrilled). I'll give it a thumbs up

skyservice_330 wrote:

I thought they did a great job of referencing the original movie, and weaving it in, without it being over the top.

Funny you should say that. Of course, everyone’s perceptions will differ so I’m certainly not saying you’re wrong, but to me it was way over the top.

My friend and I watched the original several days before we went to see the new one, so it was very fresh in my mind. And I thought that the first half or so of Maverick was virtually a remake of the original. There were scenes that were almost shot for shot repeats from the original.

Setting that aside however, I feel Maverick is a better movie overall. Not necessarily great, but better. The aerial combat sequences are awesome.

QF7

dfwjim1 wrote:

In real life would an airstrike even be feasible against such a heavily defended target surrounded by high mountains?

Seems to me that a barrage of submarine and/or land based missles would do the job.

Why wouldn't the US deliver a MOAB to the site instead??

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Why wouldn't the US deliver a MOAB to the site instead??

The MC-130 isn't that sexy to most.

It was great. All the references to the original one, same music, same credits font, its a feel good movie for the fans of the original. Final scene is a bit Fast and Furiousy (when they stopped being car movies and went to international hero team bullshit) but it doesnt detract from how great it is. Not as good as the original but damn close

I found it interesting the theory of tom cruise dyind when his sr-72 disintegrated at mach 10 and the rest of the movie is his dying wish

First movie in 2 years,

I have missed the big screen and seeing this on it was no brainier. I had to google who the bartender was, or I should have just watched the first one and it would have come to me. The references from the first movie were great to see and the action was top notch. The comedy was great and the story was plausible.

Overall I thoroughly enjoyed it and it was great that Iceman made it in for an appearance, it was well deserved.

C.

r6russian wrote:

I found it interesting the theory of tom cruise dyind when his sr-72 disintegrated at mach 10 and the rest of the movie is his dying wish

On one hand, I shouldn't be surprised that someone thought this up (I know it's not you; you're just relaying this).

On the other hand... come on, really? This is a Hollywood action movie we're talking about here.

TriJets wrote:

Saw it earlier this evening. I didn't think it could top the first one but I was pleasantly surprised. I'd put them neck and neck. My palms were sweating towards the end. Absolutely incredible air-to-air footage....beats the hell out of the CGI'd crap that we're used to.

Good to read about the air-to-air footage because in the trailer they look unrealistic compared to the original Top Gun or to any proper video of an aerial display. I don't care about the story but clearly the trailer has convinced me to not go watch this movie.

I'm happy with this sort of realistic footage genuinely showing aircraft in flight:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ethbiHFdmOg

tomcat wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Saw it earlier this evening. I didn't think it could top the first one but I was pleasantly surprised. I'd put them neck and neck. My palms were sweating towards the end. Absolutely incredible air-to-air footage....beats the hell out of the CGI'd crap that we're used to.

Good to read about the air-to-air footage because in the trailer they look unrealistic compared to the original Top Gun or to any proper video of an aerial display. I don't care about the story but clearly the trailer has convinced me to not go watch this movie.

I'm happy with this sort of realistic footage genuinely showing aircraft in flight:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ethbiHFdmOg

Slightly confused here…you’re aware that is how they filmed Maverick, right? I believe trijets is saying it beats the CGI we’re used to because it’s real flying…not just better CGI

FGITD wrote:

tomcat wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Saw it earlier this evening. I didn't think it could top the first one but I was pleasantly surprised. I'd put them neck and neck. My palms were sweating towards the end. Absolutely incredible air-to-air footage....beats the hell out of the CGI'd crap that we're used to.

Good to read about the air-to-air footage because in the trailer they look unrealistic compared to the original Top Gun or to any proper video of an aerial display. I don't care about the story but clearly the trailer has convinced me to not go watch this movie.

I'm happy with this sort of realistic footage genuinely showing aircraft in flight:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ethbiHFdmOg

Slightly confused here…you’re aware that is how they filmed Maverick, right? I believe trijets is saying it beats the CGI we’re used to because it’s real flying…not just better CGI

I get that. It's just that in the trailer the jets don't seem to make realistic maneuvers. It's like something is overdone (flying between the pillars of a bridge, come on). It actually reminded me Firefox (by Clint Eastwood). So the feedback of TriJets and other members might convince me to give it a chance.

cjg225 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Why wouldn't the US deliver a MOAB to the site instead??

The MC-130 isn't that sexy to most.

The MOAB isn't really a ground-penetrating weapon, too.

Classa64 wrote:

I had to google who the bartender was

I thought everybody knew who Jennifer Connelly is... I admire that actress from "Once upon a Time in America", "Requiem for a Dream" (a real gut-punch film) and "A Beautiful Mind".

Just saw it. Let me just say, I can't remember the last time I went to a movie theater. This movie was one that got me to go. It was a great movie.

Finally booked a ticket for tonight.

Last time I was in a movie theatre (not including drive ins) was going to see "The Goonies", but that was back in 2020 when the theatres just brought back a bunch of old movies because of the pandemic, now that was freaking awesome, "Indiana Jones", "Superman", "Jaws", "Back to the Future" back on the big screen - best summer ever

Think "Jo Jo Rabbit" was the last movie I went to see before the pandemic, either that or "Rise of Skywalker".

On a side note, $25 a ticket - geezus. Glad I'm not going on a date, for the price of a movie and dinner these days, you'd better get laid. Yeesh.

flyingturtle wrote:

I thought everybody knew who Jennifer Connelly is... I admire that actress from "Once upon a Time in America", "Requiem for a Dream" (a real gut-punch film) and "A Beautiful Mind".

Ahem, "Career Opportunities" was most guys "introduction" to Jennifer back in the day:

tomcat wrote:

FGITD wrote:

tomcat wrote:

Good to read about the air-to-air footage because in the trailer they look unrealistic compared to the original Top Gun or to any proper video of an aerial display. I don't care about the story but clearly the trailer has convinced me to not go watch this movie.

I'm happy with this sort of realistic footage genuinely showing aircraft in flight:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ethbiHFdmOg

Slightly confused here…you’re aware that is how they filmed Maverick, right? I believe trijets is saying it beats the CGI we’re used to because it’s real flying…not just better CGI

I get that. It's just that in the trailer the jets don't seem to make realistic maneuvers. It's like something is overdone (flying between the pillars of a bridge, come on). It actually reminded me Firefox (by Clint Eastwood). So the feedback of TriJets and other members might convince me to give it a chance.

I'd say the flight scenes in the new Top Gun are 95% genuine with 5% (like the bridge scene) augmented by CGI. Obviously the Navy is not going to let them shoot down an F-18 with a missile so that they can make a movie, for example. The flight scenes are absolutely well-done though. I thought they were of a much higher quality than the ones in the original Top Gun.

TriJets wrote:

tomcat wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Slightly confused here…you’re aware that is how they filmed Maverick, right? I believe trijets is saying it beats the CGI we’re used to because it’s real flying…not just better CGI

I get that. It's just that in the trailer the jets don't seem to make realistic maneuvers. It's like something is overdone (flying between the pillars of a bridge, come on). It actually reminded me Firefox (by Clint Eastwood). So the feedback of TriJets and other members might convince me to give it a chance.

I'd say the flight scenes in the new Top Gun are 95% genuine with 5% (like the bridge scene) augmented by CGI. Obviously the Navy is not going to let them shoot down an F-18 with a missile so that they can make a movie, for example. The flight scenes are absolutely well-done though. I thought they were of a much higher quality than the ones in the original Top Gun.

True, that was always a slight beef with me and the original - just a couple too many scenes where what was on the instruments made no sense and some shots of the crews were a little too obviously through mock up canopies.

flyingturtle wrote:

cjg225 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Why wouldn't the US deliver a MOAB to the site instead??

The MC-130 isn't that sexy to most.

The MOAB isn't really a ground-penetrating weapon, too.

Classa64 wrote:

I had to google who the bartender was

I thought everybody knew who Jennifer Connelly is... I admire that actress from "Once upon a Time in America", "Requiem for a Dream" (a real gut-punch film) and "A Beautiful Mind".

Funny, I recognized her but could not place her or her name.

But my biggest reason why I googled her ( Like, who is this Penny woman ) Only to figure out she was named in the first movie as the Admirals daughter, that's was great reference from the first flick.

ACDC8 wrote:

Finally booked a ticket for tonight.

Last time I was in a movie theatre (not including drive ins) was going to see "The Goonies", but that was back in 2020 when the theatres just brought back a bunch of old movies because of the pandemic, now that was freaking awesome, "Indiana Jones", "Superman", "Jaws", "Back to the Future" back on the big screen - best summer ever

Think "Jo Jo Rabbit" was the last movie I went to see before the pandemic, either that or "Rise of Skywalker".

On a side note, $25 a ticket - geezus. Glad I'm not going on a date, for the price of a movie and dinner these days, you'd better get laid. Yeesh.

How did you enjoy the movie?

TriJets wrote:

tomcat wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Slightly confused here…you’re aware that is how they filmed Maverick, right? I believe trijets is saying it beats the CGI we’re used to because it’s real flying…not just better CGI

I get that. It's just that in the trailer the jets don't seem to make realistic maneuvers. It's like something is overdone (flying between the pillars of a bridge, come on). It actually reminded me Firefox (by Clint Eastwood). So the feedback of TriJets and other members might convince me to give it a chance.

I'd say the flight scenes in the new Top Gun are 95% genuine with 5% (like the bridge scene) augmented by CGI. Obviously the Navy is not going to let them shoot down an F-18 with a missile so that they can make a movie, for example. The flight scenes are absolutely well-done though. I thought they were of a much higher quality than the ones in the original Top Gun.

C.W. Lemoine ( AKA Mover) on YouTube had an interview with one of the Visual Effects artists that did a lot of the cockpit scenes and some exterior shot scenes, sadly it was pulled due to some conflict with the Artists bosses. You would be surprised how much was CG. BUT the fact that it does not take away from the movie in anyway was just how good these guys were at there job in making it look real. There were scenes that even Mover ( Being a former F-18-16 Pilot ) was convinced it was real, but I don't know how many times he said "REALLY"! "NO WAY" ! Was a great insight into the work those men and women do.

TriJets wrote:

How did you enjoy the movie?

Had to postpone it, had to make a sporadic trip to the Island to visit someone in the hospital. All is good though, just a false alarm - whew.