I worked at a theater when this came out and so many people told me unprompted that they hadn’t been to the theaters in years but wanted to watch this.
everyone basically summed up its success and I would add what this anon mentioned . it was a long time since Ive been to the theaters cause most movies were just lackluster and uninteresting. this was a breath of fresh air compared to everything else trying to prove something. maverick was the type of movie that came out at the right time and had a bit of everything for everyone and didnt piss anybody off. it was one of those movies you had to have seen in theaters, it was really fun to watch with the whole family.
>this was a breath of fresh air
Literally a maudlin Hollywood sequel full of military propaganda. Admittedly we haven't had a good 'bomb the enemies of the ZOG into submission" movie in far too long.
Not sure, I personally didnt care for it. They shouldve made Maverick an old jaded loser who had turned nihilistic and gave up on his dreams of flying a bunch, and show him getting outclassed by the new generation of young diverse pilots.
Yeah that’s what we need…another classic film character portrayed as miserable and grumpy in their later years..glad you didn’t write the script..homosexual.
Nah, the real stars of the first Top Gun were the fighter jets. The dialogue was 80s Hollywood nonsense at its worst, and as a result no one cared about the characters.
>The dialogue was 80s Hollywood nonsense at its worst
That's precisely what makes it charming 80s sovl >Nah, the real stars of the first Top Gun were the fighter jets
Iceman, Goose, and Maverick are some of the most iconic characters in film, with longstanding cultural influence in everything from anime and manga to direct foreign ripoffs that were sharted out routinely in the 80s and 90s, and are now been being produced routinely again by China, the UK, India, and elsewhere even more so than they were in the 80s/90s due to how huge Maverick was.
It's more a knock on anime fans if you ask me
Jojo fans for instance think their special snowflake anime invented <things>
Also still relevant given japans past obsession with jconn
4 days ago
Anonymous
Gunbuster is very kino. Definitely the best foreign Top Gun ripoff.
Dang, now I have to watch this again.
4 days ago
Anonymous
What about Macross Plus? Literally has the pilot competition in 2 prototypes, plus an awesome soundtrack.
4 days ago
Anonymous
Both are kino, but Gunbuster has aged better.
4 days ago
Anonymous
>Gunbuster >Top Gun ripoff
Here's your (You) homosexual, don't spend it all in one place.
Slop begets slop after all, no matter how kino said slop is or the slop it begets. But the point still stands.
We're obviously not talking about Annie Hall or 8 1/2 here, moron. It's a silly, fun 80s action movie, and one of the best ones there was.
4 days ago
Anonymous
It's only slop in the hands of people with poor vision, skill, and talent
4 days ago
Anonymous
Precisely.
It's this distinction that precisely seperates TGM from Independence Day: Resurgence.
4 days ago
Anonymous
The decision to kill off will smith rather than sign him and Jaden on is definitely a courageous and hilarious decision
4 days ago
Anonymous
slop means low quality though.
blockbusters aren't exactly challenging movies, but they are not slop.
Terminator 2? not slop.
Rocky IV? slop, but charming.
Top Gun? not slop.
Rambo 3? slop.
4 days ago
Anonymous
I've always thought slop referred to unsophisticated movies for mass audiences, regardless of quality; with some being kino and others being not.
4 days ago
Anonymous
>unsophisticated movies for mass audiences
yes, but without any care put into it.
slop means product that's meant to be shoved to people to mindlessly eat up. in the case of movie slop, I'd say it's the difference between enjoying the action/plot and enjoying the act of consuming a movie itself.
so for example, in a good blockbuster, you finish the movie and immediately after leaving the cinema you can't stop talking with your buddies about how cool scene X was, or when the main character did Y and said Z.
slop would be when after leaving the cinema you're happy because you could hang out with your friends, and the movie didn't ruin it.
I still remember leaving the cinema after the new SW trilogy, holy fricking shit was I disgusted each time.
4 days ago
Anonymous
Makes sense.
Thanks for enlightening my dumb zoomer brain.
>the real stars of the first Top Gun were the fighter jets
agreed, I saw Top Gun as a kid and fell in love with the tomcat.
if i didnt play DCS world and wasnt intimately familiar with the f18, i probably wouldnt even know what it was after seeing top gun maverick. The planes got no love at all.
>show him getting outclassed by the new generation of young diverse pilots.
But that's not his it works, at all, in real life. The guys with more flight hours are going to win almost guaranteed every time
>boomer thread >attracts boomers
Many such cases. I had a similar case last night on the Woody Allen thread.
Why is Cinemaphile like this? Everyone's so fricking angry all the time. This isn't even a political thing: I liked the flying sequences in Maverick, so I'm "a dumb piece of shit zoomer"? You don't seem like a reasonable sort, but I'll mention again that - according to them at least - they shot over 800 hours of aerial footage. This... >The entirety of the F-14 Su-37 fight, the entire last half of the movie really, is cgi
...is just not true. Yeah, there's CGI. No, it's not *all* CGI. And no, I don't think it looked bad.
He's shitting on you for not liking the original, which as a zoomer who deeply loves the original, I agree with; even if he's going about it in a really boomer way.
But I *did* like the original. God damn, the lack of IDs is annoying sometimes. I was slightly coming to the defence of that guy who didn't like the original on that one point alone. The aerial scenes were great for 1986, but there were some limitations, and I'm pretty sure they didn't have the budget to shoot nearly as much footage.
>The aerial scenes were great for 1986, but there were some limitations
The only limitations that were there was that they didnt get to actually blow up real F-5s, and everytime one got hit by a missile and was destroyed you were seeing a scale model blow up. That's it. Every single frame of every flying scene was real.
Now let's compare that with what goes on in Top Gun 2, oh lol
4 days ago
Anonymous
>Every single frame of every flying scene was real
https://screenrant.com/top-gun-1986-flying-scenes-shot-how/ >While the inside-wienerpit shots were granted finishing touches on studio sets, scenes that involved the planes blowing up or spinning out of control were achieved with the aid of scale models >finishing touches on studio sets >scale models
4 days ago
Anonymous
CLAIM: >Every single frame of every flying scene [in the original Top Gun] was real
https://www.key.aero/article/how-they-made-film-top-gun >Paramount arranged for most of the actors to take a flight in an F-14 rear wienerpit and mounted a camera to record them in the air. Unfortunately, almost all of them got airsick, which is understandable, and the footage was unusable. >As a result, a high-quality, movable wienerpit mock-up was built that facilitated better control of lighting and camera position
FACT CHECK: FALSE.
4 days ago
Anonymous
>CLAIM >ALL THE FLYING SCENES IN TOP GUN 86 WERE REAL
>YES, ITS TRUE, THOSE WERE ACTUAL F-14s, A-4s and F-5s WITH AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY CAPTURED BY A CHASE PLANE
4 days ago
Anonymous
"All the flying scenes in Top Gun 86 were real" =/= "They used real planes [combined with footage of the actors in a mock-up wienerpit, plus use of models for spinning and explosions]"
4 days ago
Anonymous
>All the flying scenes in Top Gun 86 were real
Yep, except when you see one blow up, then its a kino practical effects model. Much better looking than cgi, dont you think?
4 days ago
Anonymous
>All the flying scenes in Top Gun 86 were real ... except when you see one blow up
https://screenrant.com/top-gun-1986-flying-scenes-shot-how/ >scenes that involved the planes blowing up or spinning out of control were achieved with the aid of scale models >blowing up or spinning out of control >or spinning out of control
https://www.key.aero/article/how-they-made-film-top-gun >a high-quality, movable wienerpit mock-up was built
4 days ago
Anonymous
>post he responded to already stated what was fake
>still scrambles to try and say the flying scenes were fake even though they were real
Lol, this guy really is ass blasted.
Ah, sorry.
That being said, I definitely agree that the action in the 80s one definitely shows its age; but at the same time it's all part of the sovl of movies from back then. Seeing them fly real planes and do stunts and manuevers with them, while the actors are either on soundstages or in the planes, is goofy fun. It helps you suspend disbelief, and not take the movie super seriously.
Personally, I love the original for it's overriding aesthetic and cinematography more than anything. It really perfectly captures the spirit of the 80s.
Basically it's implied the enemy is Iran building a nuclear reactor underground. The US is flying a proxy mission for Israel to destroy it.
The enemy is a composite of Iran, China, NK, and Russia. They're basically Cobra from G.I Joe.
4 days ago
Anonymous
Only seen it once, but immediately thought it was meant to be Iran at the time. Israel has bombed Iranian underground reactors before and US always fight their battles. Perhaps Russia is supplying them with air defense and hardware or running the reactor. Plus Russia is supposedly le bad now and the movie is propaganda.
4 days ago
Anonymous
The plot and mission is based off Operation Opera(which was done by Israelis against Saddam), but the enemy was also using Su-57s and had a double-headed eagle as it's symbol instead of the red star in the original, implying it's a post-communist regime. It's also set in an area similar to North Korea or Siberia. >the movie is propaganda.
Indeed, but that's besides the point. Nobody who watches Top Gun doesn't go into it not knowing it's unrealisitc military propaganda. They all treat them as masculine techno-fantasies similar to mecha stuff.
4 days ago
Anonymous
>That being said, I definitely agree that the action in the 80s one definitely shows its age
Huh? It's straight up real air footage. How can it show its age?
4 days ago
Anonymous
>How can it show its age?
The editing and jump cuts, as well as the shots of the wienerpit which are clearly on a soundstage.
4 days ago
Anonymous
>editing
Its edited footage of straight up raw aerial photography, lmao
You'd have to have some sort of zoomer brain rot mental illness to say real life footage 'aged poorly'. When you watch Top Gun you're straight up watching A-4s, F-5s, and F-14s fly around. It's never going to age. That's like saying some video you took from an airshow you went to "aged poorly".
Now, let's look at Top Gun 2...
4 days ago
Anonymous
I'm not talking about the footage itself, oldgay.
I'm talking about the editing and filming techniques used in the original. The original had a ton of jump cuts and almost all the scenes in the wienerpits were done on sound stages.
I agree that the original's PFX were sovlfvl, and cutting-edge for the time, but you can definitely tell it's an 80s movie.
4 days ago
Anonymous
>I'm not talking about the footage itself
You clearly went off the rails when people pointed out TG2 is almost entirely cgi from beginning to end, dumb zoomer. Entire fricking planes are cgi, lmao
4 days ago
Anonymous
Whatever.
4 days ago
Anonymous
CLAIM: >TG2 is almost entirely cgi from beginning to end
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/top-gun-maverick-vfx-stunts-1235319795/ >2,400 VFX shots in total >"Hopefully, most of those visual effects shots, if not all of them, are completely hidden,” Tudhope says, emphasizing that Kosinski aimed to shoot as much practically as possible, including filming the actors in the wienerpits while in flight. “We really wanted the shot design of these sequences to be based on real aerial photography, because that gave us this organic plate photography, something that you can’t create digitally very easily. [That gave us] a really amazing foundation for the shots that just feels real and visceral.” >There were numerous aerial scenes in which it was impossible to capture the actors in the correct aircraft; the jets in these filmed shots were digitally augmented or fully replaced with CG jets in post. This includes shots involving the fictional prototype Darkstar aircraft in the opening sequence, as well as ones featuring the Grumman F-14 Tomcat, a model that was retired by the Navy in 2006. >Instead, actors were filmed in the air in McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornets, the jets that the Top Gun pilots fly in the story, as well as an Aero L-39 Albatros jet trainer, which was used as a stand-in for other aircrafts when filming in areas where military aircraft were not permitted. “We would remove the jet digitally, but we would use it as motion capture, so to speak, and also lighting reference for what the real aircraft was doing >If it wasn’t possible to capture an actor in flight, they were filmed on a stage in a rotating wienerpit
So, there's a fair bit of CGI, but it was used to augment real-world footage, which the director wanted to use wherever possible, and they clearly took a lot of care over it. (Plus, of course, many scenes take place on the ground.)
FACT CHECK: FALSE.
4 days ago
Anonymous
4 days ago
Anonymous
lmao, here's your augmentation bro
4 days ago
Anonymous
Yep. Kino.
4 days ago
Anonymous
Claim: this isn't cool.
Fact: this is cool.
4 days ago
Anonymous
4 days ago
Anonymous
The FX teams did a phenomenal job. Now we get overworked artists at Disney cranking out substandard crap.
4 days ago
Anonymous
>overworked artists
They're all outsourced Jeets.
I'm not even joking. Look at the credits of any FX team for any Disney movie made in the past decade or so.
4 days ago
Anonymous
oh yeah, i believe it's outsourced. i think the credits for TGM had a bunch of Indian names too. But in the case for Disney/Marvel, they don't have a coherent roadmap to give the effect houses enough time to produce the shots since they don't seem to know where the story is going in the first place.
It's how Godzilla Minus One was made so cheaply. I believe it's said that the whole of the effects shots were already planned out with very little changes.
4 days ago
Anonymous
>I believe it's said that the whole of the effects shots were already planned out with very little changes.
Yeah. They also had super tight deadlines and a lack of extra budget, so the crunch time managed to pay off huge dividends for the quality of the film, while in the U.S and the West it would often be the opposite case. Merely a difference in work culture. >ut in the case for Disney/Marvel, they don't have a coherent roadmap to give the effect houses enough time to produce the shots since they don't seem to know where the story is going in the first place.
Exactly, they have no real filmmakers there anymore because they make everything there by committee, thus destroying their quality.
4 days ago
Anonymous
What you're seeing is the difference between a movie with a functional pre-production phase, where things are planned, practiced and executed and changes are avoided unless absolutely necessary, and one doesn't and instead runs a "pass the baton" movie by committee approach in which nothing is nailed down until the end of post production and they end up spending a fortune doing every single effects shot 5 separate times as they slowly find their way to a barely coherent compromise of a movie. When you have a farm of SEAsians and you take the "fix it in post" mentality to its logical conclusion that's what you get.
4 days ago
Anonymous
Exactly.
It's also how TGM, a movie that was in development hell for 30+ years, had a star-studded cast, and used actual F18s that the actors had to be trained on, cost roughly 170-180 million for its production budget; while a generic marvel turd like The Marvels cost over 270 mil at least.
4 days ago
Anonymous
I don't understand what's going on in that webm. I'm assuming it's supposed to show that Top Gun 2 is completely CGI. That's fine by me. I'm all about the acting. For reference, Star Wars episode 1 was also completely CGI and had terrible acting. Top Gun 2 had fantastic acting. If the acting is great I don't even care about bad CGI.
4 days ago
Anonymous
>For reference, Star Wars episode 1 was also completely CGI and had terrible acting.
Sorry anon, revisionist newbie zoomers have decided that the prequels are actually masterpieces which were universally loved upon release until ~~*Mr. Plinkett*~~ tricked people into thinking they were bad.
4 days ago
Anonymous
Zoomers like the prequels due to nostalgia, as well as the fact that the seuqels were dogshit.
But yes, Top Gun: Maverick as a film is far superior to any of those movies on nearly every level.
4 days ago
Anonymous
>When you watch Top Gun you're straight up watching A-4s, F-5s, and F-14s fly around.
The movie isn't just about "flying around". The finale is supposed to be a large air battle involving something like 8 fighters. Instead what do we get? >shot of F-14 firing a missile >another shot of missile flying >another shot of target exploding
Rinse and repeat. This might have been fine in 1986, but you have to be a turbo boomer to claim that this is superior to CGI.
>show him getting outclassed by the new generation of young diverse pilots.
But that's not his it works, at all, in real life. The guys with more flight hours are going to win almost guaranteed every time
The world has changed grandpa. Studies show that pilots with African, gay or female ancestry are better at navigating the complex environment of the modern battlefield which includes social media.
I mean you ""white"" guys seem intent on staying out of the ZOG military and protecting your virginity from your bunker, so they have to fill in somehow til the robots all come online.
>but didn’t spend too much time reminiscing about it either
Come the frick on now. >beach volleyball scene >iceman's gay cancer plot >goose' son
Iirc they even brought that baldie officer back. It's nostalgia shlock through and through.
>beach volleyball scene
It was much different than the original (and not as good), because it wasn't as uncomfortably sexual as the original, nor did it have PLAAAAAYING, with the BOOOYYYS. >iceman
This movie is likely the last time we ever see Val Kilmer on screen lol, he's got his foot in the grave from actual cancer. That's why he didn't speak in the movie, it was supposed to be a tribute to both him and the character. And it was done very tastefully, giving the movie some much-needed emotional heft.
If it were REALLY gauche and going for shameless nostalgia, he'd have died in an accident flying with Maverick, like Goose did. >goose's son
That's a goofy 80s trope, calling back to the original when Mav and his CO had issues related to the death of Maverick's Dad. And it was hilariously perfect seeing Teller do a dead-perfect Goose impersonation, even down to the mustache and glasses.
Chinese sponsor jumped ship so us military propaganda financed it.
moronic npcs ate it up because... I don't even know why. The media told them it's good I guess (yes media includes youtubers and influencers telling you what to think)
I should have clarified, didn't say it was a bad thing, what I meant was it was just a back to basics, simple movie, without being bogged down by too much going on. It was enjoyable, miss those F14's from the original though, and the music!
They wanted to recruit more whites into the military, so they set aside the typical anti-white/male/straight messaging of recent years and focused on entertaining. Even then, it sounds like the Hangman actor had to fight to make his character more heroic.
>supporting casts include unlikely female and minority squadmates
Who never outshine, demonize, mock or degrade the white lead which is the actual problem non-racist have with the modern diversity push not that the diversity is present at all.
And here I thought it was "replacing" make-believe characters with "actors/actresses of the ~~*wrong*~~ color" or something.
I didn't know it was about humiliation rituals. Which films have humiliated you recently?
And here I thought it was "replacing" make-believe characters with "actors/actresses of the ~~*wrong*~~ color" or something.
I didn't know it was about humiliation rituals. Which films have humiliated you recently?
Race swaps are its own separate issue.
And here I thought it was "replacing" make-believe characters with "actors/actresses of the ~~*wrong*~~ color" or something.
I didn't know it was about humiliation rituals. Which films have humiliated you recently?
>Which films have humiliated you recently?
They don't humiliate ME they humiliate characters I love.
Every single male under Lucasfilm aside from Andor has been ass fricked in someway.
> Indiana Jones - The Greatest hero in the history of cinema is asking to be left to die because he has nothing left to live for 5 minutes before the credits of his final fricking movie after spending the duration of it being shit talked to by a radical feminist caricature.
> Luke Skywalker - Turned into a sarcastic nihilistic hobo jackass who almost murdered his nephew and everything he accomplished after the original Trinity is undone and shit on. His original legacy of creating a new Jedi Order is giving to fricking Rey.
> Han Solo - Gives up raising his son so Luke could do it. Son turns evil and Han abandons his wife to go smuggling again.
> Mandalorian - 3rd season becomes the Bo-Katan (who I otherwise like) show and makes him artificially incompetent so she had to save him 3 times in the first 2 episodes.
> Boba Fett - In his own show he is not half as badass as he was in Mando-S2 and Shand (who I also otherwise like) does heavy lifting for him. Gets covered in slime and thrown around in his underwear.
> Obi-Wan - Half his series is the Reva show and his own half he does almost noticing but be dragged around by a sassy brat.
OK, but do not you not understand that there are degrees of poz ranging from, say, a John Wayne movie to The Acolyte? There was really only one female pilot and (I think) two nog squad members who featured at all, and while, yeah, that's probably bullshit (definitely in the case of the woman), they didn't insist upon themselves. And the tone wasn't vindictive.
You've lost me. Did you mean to reply to someone else? And how can you "humiliate feelings"? Not trying to be a dick: I literally can't understand you.
You seem upset. Perhaps you could articulate the last movie you saw that upset you with their "vindictive tone". I'm not the one asserting that I've been wronged, you are.
4 days ago
Anonymous
Who the frick are you? I was replying to a guy who dismissed the film as yet another woke offering, and here you are jumping in.
You know exactly that it's not about this. You, yourself, know that exactly. You know that woke writing is shoving girlbosses with extremely bad dialog lines down our throats. It is not, and never was about a film not being racially homogenous like a Klan meeting.
I will repeat: You know that yourself.
All you want to do is bait.
>shoving girlbosses with extremely bad dialog lines
I've seen girlboss movies with bad dialogue longer than you've been on this Earth. It's practically a sub-genre of action movies, it's not an Evil Plot to emasculate you.
Goddamn, was your generation just not beaten enough by parents?
>Knows exactly what it's about >Hell-bent, post after post, eager to act as if he didn't know exactly
Yes, your bait is very good. Over nine thousand points of five points. Please let your mother know that you deserve an extra large portion of tendies.
SERIOUS ANSWER > Cherishing respect for the original film, it's characters and it's fans instead of evil woke subversive hostility. > Cruise's star power prevented them from assfricking Mav even if they had the inclination to do so. > Cruise & the director's previous film Oblivion was good and so they have a solid working relationship. > Dropped the rumored nihilistic message about drones taking over. > Not naming the villains as being Iran while cowardly neutered far left critics ability to demonize the film as racist or imperialist. > Good cast. > Diverse without it ever being called attention to within the film or in the premotion and none of the diverse characters are hostile to Mav or need to take him down a peg as is typical in recent years. > Great music.
cruise looked like 60 year old boomer whos way past his prime, nobody is buying he would be some top tier pilot,
entire plot with grandma Connelly was like straight from YA novel. Action was boring and there was 0 suspense.
Rooster helped a lot with the "Characters hostile to Mav" bit. You get the "Call out the old man" part, but it's actually earned instead of just telling the audience it was earned in exposition
It was also refreshing to see them actually succeed at their main mission, first time, with minor hiccups, showed the pilots for having the skill they apparently do...instead of having the bomb drop fail and then some bullshit to pad the film out for action sake etc.
>enough throw backs to the classic >tom kino >white male led, minimal dei esg pandering >positive message >released in a total swamp of woke garbage (better in comparison)
The fact that dei isn't recognized as a violation of fiduciary responsibility tells you everything you need to know about the legitimacy of our system
It was just a film. No politics, no self-inserting writers, just people coming together, checking their egos at the door (except for maybe Tom Cruise lol) and honestly and earnestly trying to make a good action film.
And that hasn't happened in decades. That's all people asked for, which is why this film is universally acclaimed.
>It was just a film. No politics
It was typical American "They hate our freedumbs for no reason" propaganda slop. Of course it was eaten up domestically.
I saw it with my dad, since he told me we watched Top Gun together on VHS when I was a baby in 1993. It was good, but it was no Top Gun. Wouldn't watch it again.
Generally Id say that it wasn't compromising with showing off how dominant US military power over the rest of the world. The morals of the mission are never questioned or subverted. The entire opening is just the US Navy flopping its wiener on the table.
I recently watched the original, and besides the soundtrack and some of the shots, I found it boring and generic. The air scenes didn't age well either.
>Soundtrack didnt age
maybe, my main problem with the original soundtrack is that it literally only has 2 songs it reuses over and over
Danger Zone, and take my breath away. Its kinda comical how often they are reused during action/romance scenes.
He, uh, didn't say that. I've got the soundtrack and it's pretty decent (though maybe some of the songs are only featured v briefly in the film - haven't seen the original in a while).
Why did I misread >Soundtrack didnt age
as >Soundtrack didnt age well
?
I dunno. Going senile maybe?
4 days ago
Anonymous
Nevermind the whole posting chain confused me for a sec, I kinda blurred together 'the flight scenes didnt age well' to you saying the soundtrack didnt either, doesnt matter really, my point was made.
4 days ago
Anonymous
Yeah, no worries. I'm still confused from that guy (obviously a butthurt leftist) butting in on me earlier with >Again...
like I'd been replying to him.
4 days ago
Anonymous
(And it wasn't me who said the aerial scenes didn't age well. Wish to frick this board had IDs.)
>The air scenes didn't age well either.
They were literal real scenes of actual Top Gun pilots in mock dogfights.
They cannot "not age well". When you watch the original Top Gun you are literally watching fricking footage of Top Gun training. You dumb fricking moron zoomer
Not him, but that footage is interspersed with the actors in the wienerpit on a soundstage, and IIRC there's a bit of repetition. It was great for 1986 (compare the flying shots from those in Firefox, say), but for the new one they apparently shot over 800 hours of aerial footage, and that combined with CGI made a difference.
Real aerial footage with fake wienerpits > fake cgi nonsense with Cruise in the back of an F-18F.
The entirety of the F-14 Su-37 fight, the entire last half of the movie really, is cgi, but I bet you loved every second of it because you're a dumb piece of shit zoomer. TG2 is cgi trash
Why is Cinemaphile like this? Everyone's so fricking angry all the time. This isn't even a political thing: I liked the flying sequences in Maverick, so I'm "a dumb piece of shit zoomer"? You don't seem like a reasonable sort, but I'll mention again that - according to them at least - they shot over 800 hours of aerial footage. This... >The entirety of the F-14 Su-37 fight, the entire last half of the movie really, is cgi
...is just not true. Yeah, there's CGI. No, it's not *all* CGI. And no, I don't think it looked bad.
>...is just not true.
Well, lets look at the fact that they obviously didn't have real Su-37s for the movie....and they didn't have a real Hind, and they didn't have a real flying F-14.....
Hmm... hmm.....
4 days ago
Anonymous
Why do I even bother? Yeah, clearly they CGI'd things like the Su-57s (I believe, not 37s). And they combined the CGI with footage of the actors actually in the air undergoing various manoeuvres (of which they had quite a lot, evidently). Here's some article about it I found in about 0.5 seconds:
https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/top-gun-maverick-making-of-wienerpit-1234729694/
Tired of coming here and encountering angry bores. Frick this board, seriously.
The guy clearly has issues. He acts like the use of CGI in a Top Gun film is sacrilege for some reason, and as if it stands out like, I don't know, Wolverine's claws in whichever film that was, or CGI Peter Cushing, instead of being done really well. And he makes easily disprovable false claims/exaggerations: >Every single frame of every flying scene [in the original, aside from the explosions] was real >Nothing in this pic [a screenshot from Maverick] is real except for Cruise >TG2 is almost entirely cgi from beginning to end
And he seems to equate noting some (entirely forgivable) not-quite-realistic-looking elements of the flying scenes in the original (which don't detract from the enjoyment at all) with hating the film. Sad.
4 days ago
Anonymous
>not-quite-realistic-looking elements of the flying scenes in the original
? They're real. They can only look the way are.
As far TG2, I agree the over use of CG kills the movie. Might as well not have strapped cruise into a real plane at all
4 days ago
Anonymous
>? They're real
Why be like this? You (I'm assuming it's still you?) said that "every single frame of every flying scene" in the '86 film was real. Unless you pretend that the moments where you see Maverick, Goose etc in a wienerpit aren't part of those scenes - which is absurd (are you attempting to redefine what a "scene" is?) - that's not true. It just isn't. Acknowledging this doesn't mean you hate the original Top Gun, or that you hate its flying scenes. It's great, and they're still great. >As far TG2, I agree the over use of CG kills the movie
See, that's fine. Why not just say that instead of saying absurd shit like "the entire last half of the movie really, is cgi" and calling anyone who disagrees "a dumb piece of shit"?
4 days ago
Anonymous
>the entire last half of the movie really, is cgi
You mean this?
Yep, thats all cgi. The entire ending sequence is cgi, anon, so is the opening Darkstar sequence, (obviously). Are you the same guy who thought they got real Su57s from Russia?
4 days ago
Anonymous
Yeah, because by "the entire last half of the movie" I clearly meant "the Su-57s shown when they're flying the mission". Because those are the same thing, right? Entire last half of the movie? Planes added in some scenes? Words have no meaning, I guess! You can say anything you want! WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>Are you the same guy who thought they got real Su57s from Russia?
No, but I am the guy who would *happily* take a baseball bat to your head.
4 days ago
Anonymous
Nta, but nothing in the Not-iran ending action sequence is real, and I don't even know what to say about your refusal to even acknowledge that the Spy plane, Russian Jets, Russian helicopters, Russian SAM sites, and the F-14 all being fake.
like wtf is your deal?
You having a bad, guy?
4 days ago
Anonymous
That's right, NOTHING is real. All the actors? CGI. Those 800 hours of aerial footage they shot? They didn't use any of it. Or it was a lie. That Hollywood Reporter piece in which the VFX supervisor said they aimed to shoot as much real stuff as possible? Lies. It's LITERALLY ALL FAKE, and the use of CGI in a Top Gun film is UNFORGIVABLE, so it's a TOTAL MYSTERY why the film proved so overwhelmingly popular and made something like a billion dollars. No, wait: it's because there are so many ZOOMER moronS, right? We're all morons - everyone except you, the honest man, who says EVERY SINGLE FRAME in the flying scenes in Top Gun is 100% REAL and THE ENTIRE LAST HALF OF TOP GUN: MAVERICK IS 100% FAKE.
>You having a bad, guy?
Aw, projecting emotions! The ever-popular Cinemaphile tactic. Oh, I can assure you I'd wear a beatific smile as I applied the aforementioned bat to your face repeatedly and energetically. >*THWACK* stop >*THWACK* fricking >*THWACK* lying >*THWACK* stop >*THWACK* fricking >*THWACK* lying
Ahhhhh.
I agree. It had a massive marketing campaign from social media and influencers. People were basically psyoped into thinking it was good and that's the only acceptable opinion. Also, since so many movies have been extremely bad it stands out as being less bad. Also, how is it not completely apparent that the raid on the reactor and dropping the bomb in the exhaust port after going through trenches is a direct copy of the death star raid?
people keep getting let down when studios try to reboot everything and inject gay shit to appeal to newer audiences
Top Gun Maverick is everything you'd expect from fricking Top Gun, no bullshit, and that's why people loved it
>movie promises to show you cool planes going brrrrrrrrt >cool planes go brrrrrrrrrt
It’s not too complicated. The plot is very similar to the original but nobody buying a ticket actually cares about that so it’s fine
>Make Top Gun sequel that's been in production hell for 30+ years >Original is now widely considered a classic and decade-defining 80s movie with immense and generation-spanning pop culture influence >Have all the best parts of the original cast come back, and have them all play the same characters we know and love straight >Replace McGillis with JCon(frick yes) >Tone down the homoerotic undertones >Have the best action sequences of the decade so far, effortlessly combining CG and practical effects; and also have them take up twice as much of the movie as the original(because that's what people wanted anyway) >Doesn't try to be edgy or subversive, it's just a straight-up innocent 80s action movie with updated visuals >Is the only major film released all year that isn't slop or loaded full of propaganda >makes billions of dollars, opening number 1 on memorial day weekend and then making number 1 on labor day weekend >Even gets zoomers into Top Gun, they love the shit out of it seeing it's the precursor to and major influence on all their animes
It's a 9.5/10 movie. It's only not a ten because the OST was dogshit compared to the original, which has one of the best OSTs of the 80s and of all time. It also wasn't as sexy as the original.
>Is the only major film released all year that isn't slop or loaded full of propaganda
Anon, this is literally multi-generational Goyslop: the Movie. And it's FINE that you loved it, you were brought up on it.
I'd consider it to be the best example of slopkino Hollywood used to make, much like the original: it's an unsophisticated but exceptionally well-made blockbuster with a great ensemble cast performing on all cylinders, an immersive blend of CG and practical effects that work in tandem with each other to make really dynamic well-choreographed action scenes, a generic romance built off the excellent chemistry of the two leads, and of course a generational trauma/bad blood storyline in there for good measure, all in service of a good old fashioned IT CAN'T BE DONE blow-up-the-bad-guys plot.
It's sincere, and doesn't try to be anything else. And we like that.
Why do I even bother? Yeah, clearly they CGI'd things like the Su-57s (I believe, not 37s). And they combined the CGI with footage of the actors actually in the air undergoing various manoeuvres (of which they had quite a lot, evidently). Here's some article about it I found in about 0.5 seconds:
https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/top-gun-maverick-making-of-wienerpit-1234729694/
Tired of coming here and encountering angry bores. Frick this board, seriously.
agreed but i just ignore the shit-talking, it's everywhere on Cinemaphile and it's just noise
It was a simple movie that didn't have the completely moronic shit we see in other movies today. Any other director/writer would have had Hangman try to kill Rooster in that fight towards the end because kind of being a dickhead=murderous lunatic.
I attended the midnight premiere and was surrounded by women. Women love Tom Cruise. They were chatting and gossiping about him right up until the intro sequence.
There was that cute latina pilot, a black admiral, and a Black NCO. But it was pretty naturally included like you would see in real life and in the military. Not like drinking from a DEI firehose like most films.
I thought Top Gun Maverick was pretty shit. >bad casting >actors had no charisma >cant even remember their names apart from maverick >didnt show enough technical stuff about being an aviator, just boring drama >the story was just dumb, dont even mention what country theyre fighting >the one dogfight scene was kind of boring and you already saw the cool manoeuvre in the trailer so it was no surprise >lame love story, they just chucked it in because the first top gun had one too, wasnt really justified and whole movie im wondering who this b***h even is or why her daughter is on screen so much
just a shit, shit movie overall, didnt enjoy it
I was extremely skeptic going in but I really liked TG: Maverick. As someone who's soon to be over the hill, it resounded with me with seeing gay ass AI and dumber generations behind me. I only wish the military was as honest and competent as the actual movie, Cruise portrayed.
Also Hamm was good as the antagonist superior, he fit the bill.
Same experience here anon. It was as close to capturing the 80's as Ive seen in a long time. Thats what stuck out to me. I liked goose, hated most of the kids except bob, and liked the drone plot that didnt really go anywhere
There was that cute latina pilot, a black admiral, and a Black NCO. But it was pretty naturally included like you would see in real life and in the military. Not like drinking from a DEI firehose like most films.
Indeed.
If it were a generic Top Gun movie from another studio, every other pilot would be some shade of black or brown, half of them would be overweight or small women, and there'd be a 3 minute scene of Phoenix pegging Maverick, while telling him to check his White male privilege, before being briefed on the mission of attacking the enemy due to their blatant disregard for LGBT rights and oppression of ethnic minorities.
Indeed, it's very interesting seeing some of the ways the movie's long production showed in the film. I definitely think that's the reason the OST had Lady Gaga and OneRepublic on it, when it really should have mined the endless amounts of synthwave inspired by the original produced in the mid-2010s.
>Put Tom Cruise in the back of an actual F-18
Go on, I'm listening
>completely CGI everything around him including the other planes and the environment, and ultimately CGI the F-18 itself and morph it into an F-14 completely defeating the purpose of putting Tom Cruise into a real plane in the first place
And now you've lost me
>CGI slop is ok If I like it!
How about just not writing scenes that require everything to be CGI in the first place? There's entire scenes that unnecessarily have CGI on them for no real reason in the fricking training scenes. God, what an absolute dumpster fire of a movie.
>For no real reason
It's literally forbidden to fly recklessly like Maverick does >Buzzing your teammates formation >Doing deathspirals below the allowed operating altitude >Flying unbelievably close in cinematic fashion
You're fricking nuts if you think those were unecessary
And the OG scene limitations were oof anyways
There's a time and place for CGI in everything, it's literally just another tool in the toolbox of a filmmaker.
TGM undeniably has some of the best incorporation CGI with PFX in film history.
You're the type of moron that would've gotten angry at Buster Keaton films back in the day for not showing him getting brutally injured.
In addition to all the commonly repeated points, pheonix was one of my favorite female characters in years. >Competent without being a c**t >Story doesn't warp itself to make her look better >Gets outshined by some male counterparts, is fine with it >Hot and in shape >Smiles (big risk doing this in 2022) >Seems like the kind of girl who could actually hang >Takes a joke at her expense and spits it back
It's almost like she's an actual human being.
You forgot something very important.
She didn't shit on her male copilots just because she thought was better than them.
In fact, the only person I can remember her fricking with was Hangman, because he was a wienery bastard out for himself.
I'm pretty sure she was also the first one to make a move to break up Rooster and Hangman's fight.
I also may be misremembering it, but I believe the actress was also one of them that Tom Cruise assisted in tutoring to get their pilot's license.
Need more like her in movies.
Great film and sequel! Even though Maverick himself hadn't really progressed careerwise, his mindset is in an entirely different place as if the character lived the decades between the 2 films. The father/son relationship between Maverick and Rooster is very relatable to the audience. The flying visuals are outstanding compared to any other fighter film before.
Best part of the movie for me is Maverick's test run.
I worked at a theater when this came out and so many people told me unprompted that they hadn’t been to the theaters in years but wanted to watch this.
everyone basically summed up its success and I would add what this anon mentioned . it was a long time since Ive been to the theaters cause most movies were just lackluster and uninteresting. this was a breath of fresh air compared to everything else trying to prove something. maverick was the type of movie that came out at the right time and had a bit of everything for everyone and didnt piss anybody off. it was one of those movies you had to have seen in theaters, it was really fun to watch with the whole family.
>this was a breath of fresh air
Literally a maudlin Hollywood sequel full of military propaganda. Admittedly we haven't had a good 'bomb the enemies of the ZOG into submission" movie in far too long.
People who are not into movies are really proud of it for some reason.
Literally me (except for the talking to strangers part)
Every theater movie i've seen in the decade of 202
>Top Gun Mav
>Avatar 2
>Mission Impossible in 2023
Nothing else has caught my interest
>no furiosa
ngmi
Not sure, I personally didnt care for it. They shouldve made Maverick an old jaded loser who had turned nihilistic and gave up on his dreams of flying a bunch, and show him getting outclassed by the new generation of young diverse pilots.
Yeah that’s what we need…another classic film character portrayed as miserable and grumpy in their later years..glad you didn’t write the script..homosexual.
Nice screencap you dumb homosexual phone poster.
>classic film character
Nah, the real stars of the first Top Gun were the fighter jets. The dialogue was 80s Hollywood nonsense at its worst, and as a result no one cared about the characters.
>80s action classics are bad, akshually
frick off you snobbish, contrarian, fun-hating loser
>The dialogue was 80s Hollywood nonsense at its worst
That's precisely what makes it charming 80s sovl
>Nah, the real stars of the first Top Gun were the fighter jets
Iceman, Goose, and Maverick are some of the most iconic characters in film, with longstanding cultural influence in everything from anime and manga to direct foreign ripoffs that were sharted out routinely in the 80s and 90s, and are now been being produced routinely again by China, the UK, India, and elsewhere even more so than they were in the 80s/90s due to how huge Maverick was.
But yes, the F-14s are incredibly sexo.
>everything from anime and manga to direct foreign ripoffs
Such an important, powerful legacy, Top Gun really changed the world
It's more a knock on anime fans if you ask me
Jojo fans for instance think their special snowflake anime invented <things>
Also still relevant given japans past obsession with jconn
Gunbuster is very kino. Definitely the best foreign Top Gun ripoff.
Dang, now I have to watch this again.
What about Macross Plus? Literally has the pilot competition in 2 prototypes, plus an awesome soundtrack.
Both are kino, but Gunbuster has aged better.
>Gunbuster
>Top Gun ripoff
Here's your (You) homosexual, don't spend it all in one place.
Slop begets slop after all, no matter how kino said slop is or the slop it begets. But the point still stands.
We're obviously not talking about Annie Hall or 8 1/2 here, moron. It's a silly, fun 80s action movie, and one of the best ones there was.
It's only slop in the hands of people with poor vision, skill, and talent
Precisely.
It's this distinction that precisely seperates TGM from Independence Day: Resurgence.
The decision to kill off will smith rather than sign him and Jaden on is definitely a courageous and hilarious decision
slop means low quality though.
blockbusters aren't exactly challenging movies, but they are not slop.
Terminator 2? not slop.
Rocky IV? slop, but charming.
Top Gun? not slop.
Rambo 3? slop.
I've always thought slop referred to unsophisticated movies for mass audiences, regardless of quality; with some being kino and others being not.
>unsophisticated movies for mass audiences
yes, but without any care put into it.
slop means product that's meant to be shoved to people to mindlessly eat up. in the case of movie slop, I'd say it's the difference between enjoying the action/plot and enjoying the act of consuming a movie itself.
so for example, in a good blockbuster, you finish the movie and immediately after leaving the cinema you can't stop talking with your buddies about how cool scene X was, or when the main character did Y and said Z.
slop would be when after leaving the cinema you're happy because you could hang out with your friends, and the movie didn't ruin it.
I still remember leaving the cinema after the new SW trilogy, holy fricking shit was I disgusted each time.
Makes sense.
Thanks for enlightening my dumb zoomer brain.
>the real stars of the first Top Gun were the fighter jets
agreed, I saw Top Gun as a kid and fell in love with the tomcat.
if i didnt play DCS world and wasnt intimately familiar with the f18, i probably wouldnt even know what it was after seeing top gun maverick. The planes got no love at all.
Man, nothing gets by you, huh bud?
How are you guys this stupid
>boomer thread
>attracts boomers
Many such cases. I had a similar case last night on the Woody Allen thread.
He's shitting on you for not liking the original, which as a zoomer who deeply loves the original, I agree with; even if he's going about it in a really boomer way.
But I *did* like the original. God damn, the lack of IDs is annoying sometimes. I was slightly coming to the defence of that guy who didn't like the original on that one point alone. The aerial scenes were great for 1986, but there were some limitations, and I'm pretty sure they didn't have the budget to shoot nearly as much footage.
>The aerial scenes were great for 1986, but there were some limitations
The only limitations that were there was that they didnt get to actually blow up real F-5s, and everytime one got hit by a missile and was destroyed you were seeing a scale model blow up. That's it. Every single frame of every flying scene was real.
Now let's compare that with what goes on in Top Gun 2, oh lol
>Every single frame of every flying scene was real
https://screenrant.com/top-gun-1986-flying-scenes-shot-how/
>While the inside-wienerpit shots were granted finishing touches on studio sets, scenes that involved the planes blowing up or spinning out of control were achieved with the aid of scale models
>finishing touches on studio sets
>scale models
CLAIM:
>Every single frame of every flying scene [in the original Top Gun] was real
https://www.key.aero/article/how-they-made-film-top-gun
>Paramount arranged for most of the actors to take a flight in an F-14 rear wienerpit and mounted a camera to record them in the air. Unfortunately, almost all of them got airsick, which is understandable, and the footage was unusable.
>As a result, a high-quality, movable wienerpit mock-up was built that facilitated better control of lighting and camera position
FACT CHECK: FALSE.
>CLAIM
>ALL THE FLYING SCENES IN TOP GUN 86 WERE REAL
>YES, ITS TRUE, THOSE WERE ACTUAL F-14s, A-4s and F-5s WITH AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY CAPTURED BY A CHASE PLANE
"All the flying scenes in Top Gun 86 were real" =/= "They used real planes [combined with footage of the actors in a mock-up wienerpit, plus use of models for spinning and explosions]"
>All the flying scenes in Top Gun 86 were real
Yep, except when you see one blow up, then its a kino practical effects model. Much better looking than cgi, dont you think?
>All the flying scenes in Top Gun 86 were real ... except when you see one blow up
https://screenrant.com/top-gun-1986-flying-scenes-shot-how/
>scenes that involved the planes blowing up or spinning out of control were achieved with the aid of scale models
>blowing up or spinning out of control
>or spinning out of control
https://www.key.aero/article/how-they-made-film-top-gun
>a high-quality, movable wienerpit mock-up was built
>post he responded to already stated what was fake
>still scrambles to try and say the flying scenes were fake even though they were real
Lol, this guy really is ass blasted.
Meanwhile, in Top Gun Maverick...
Just like my ace combat video gems!
Ah, sorry.
That being said, I definitely agree that the action in the 80s one definitely shows its age; but at the same time it's all part of the sovl of movies from back then. Seeing them fly real planes and do stunts and manuevers with them, while the actors are either on soundstages or in the planes, is goofy fun. It helps you suspend disbelief, and not take the movie super seriously.
Personally, I love the original for it's overriding aesthetic and cinematography more than anything. It really perfectly captures the spirit of the 80s.
The enemy is a composite of Iran, China, NK, and Russia. They're basically Cobra from G.I Joe.
Only seen it once, but immediately thought it was meant to be Iran at the time. Israel has bombed Iranian underground reactors before and US always fight their battles. Perhaps Russia is supplying them with air defense and hardware or running the reactor. Plus Russia is supposedly le bad now and the movie is propaganda.
The plot and mission is based off Operation Opera(which was done by Israelis against Saddam), but the enemy was also using Su-57s and had a double-headed eagle as it's symbol instead of the red star in the original, implying it's a post-communist regime. It's also set in an area similar to North Korea or Siberia.
>the movie is propaganda.
Indeed, but that's besides the point. Nobody who watches Top Gun doesn't go into it not knowing it's unrealisitc military propaganda. They all treat them as masculine techno-fantasies similar to mecha stuff.
>That being said, I definitely agree that the action in the 80s one definitely shows its age
Huh? It's straight up real air footage. How can it show its age?
>How can it show its age?
The editing and jump cuts, as well as the shots of the wienerpit which are clearly on a soundstage.
>editing
Its edited footage of straight up raw aerial photography, lmao
You'd have to have some sort of zoomer brain rot mental illness to say real life footage 'aged poorly'. When you watch Top Gun you're straight up watching A-4s, F-5s, and F-14s fly around. It's never going to age. That's like saying some video you took from an airshow you went to "aged poorly".
Now, let's look at Top Gun 2...
I'm not talking about the footage itself, oldgay.
I'm talking about the editing and filming techniques used in the original. The original had a ton of jump cuts and almost all the scenes in the wienerpits were done on sound stages.
I agree that the original's PFX were sovlfvl, and cutting-edge for the time, but you can definitely tell it's an 80s movie.
>I'm not talking about the footage itself
You clearly went off the rails when people pointed out TG2 is almost entirely cgi from beginning to end, dumb zoomer. Entire fricking planes are cgi, lmao
Whatever.
CLAIM:
>TG2 is almost entirely cgi from beginning to end
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/top-gun-maverick-vfx-stunts-1235319795/
>2,400 VFX shots in total
>"Hopefully, most of those visual effects shots, if not all of them, are completely hidden,” Tudhope says, emphasizing that Kosinski aimed to shoot as much practically as possible, including filming the actors in the wienerpits while in flight. “We really wanted the shot design of these sequences to be based on real aerial photography, because that gave us this organic plate photography, something that you can’t create digitally very easily. [That gave us] a really amazing foundation for the shots that just feels real and visceral.”
>There were numerous aerial scenes in which it was impossible to capture the actors in the correct aircraft; the jets in these filmed shots were digitally augmented or fully replaced with CG jets in post. This includes shots involving the fictional prototype Darkstar aircraft in the opening sequence, as well as ones featuring the Grumman F-14 Tomcat, a model that was retired by the Navy in 2006.
>Instead, actors were filmed in the air in McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornets, the jets that the Top Gun pilots fly in the story, as well as an Aero L-39 Albatros jet trainer, which was used as a stand-in for other aircrafts when filming in areas where military aircraft were not permitted. “We would remove the jet digitally, but we would use it as motion capture, so to speak, and also lighting reference for what the real aircraft was doing
>If it wasn’t possible to capture an actor in flight, they were filmed on a stage in a rotating wienerpit
So, there's a fair bit of CGI, but it was used to augment real-world footage, which the director wanted to use wherever possible, and they clearly took a lot of care over it. (Plus, of course, many scenes take place on the ground.)
FACT CHECK: FALSE.
lmao, here's your augmentation bro
Yep. Kino.
Claim: this isn't cool.
Fact: this is cool.
The FX teams did a phenomenal job. Now we get overworked artists at Disney cranking out substandard crap.
>overworked artists
They're all outsourced Jeets.
I'm not even joking. Look at the credits of any FX team for any Disney movie made in the past decade or so.
oh yeah, i believe it's outsourced. i think the credits for TGM had a bunch of Indian names too. But in the case for Disney/Marvel, they don't have a coherent roadmap to give the effect houses enough time to produce the shots since they don't seem to know where the story is going in the first place.
It's how Godzilla Minus One was made so cheaply. I believe it's said that the whole of the effects shots were already planned out with very little changes.
>I believe it's said that the whole of the effects shots were already planned out with very little changes.
Yeah. They also had super tight deadlines and a lack of extra budget, so the crunch time managed to pay off huge dividends for the quality of the film, while in the U.S and the West it would often be the opposite case. Merely a difference in work culture.
>ut in the case for Disney/Marvel, they don't have a coherent roadmap to give the effect houses enough time to produce the shots since they don't seem to know where the story is going in the first place.
Exactly, they have no real filmmakers there anymore because they make everything there by committee, thus destroying their quality.
What you're seeing is the difference between a movie with a functional pre-production phase, where things are planned, practiced and executed and changes are avoided unless absolutely necessary, and one doesn't and instead runs a "pass the baton" movie by committee approach in which nothing is nailed down until the end of post production and they end up spending a fortune doing every single effects shot 5 separate times as they slowly find their way to a barely coherent compromise of a movie. When you have a farm of SEAsians and you take the "fix it in post" mentality to its logical conclusion that's what you get.
Exactly.
It's also how TGM, a movie that was in development hell for 30+ years, had a star-studded cast, and used actual F18s that the actors had to be trained on, cost roughly 170-180 million for its production budget; while a generic marvel turd like The Marvels cost over 270 mil at least.
I don't understand what's going on in that webm. I'm assuming it's supposed to show that Top Gun 2 is completely CGI. That's fine by me. I'm all about the acting. For reference, Star Wars episode 1 was also completely CGI and had terrible acting. Top Gun 2 had fantastic acting. If the acting is great I don't even care about bad CGI.
>For reference, Star Wars episode 1 was also completely CGI and had terrible acting.
Sorry anon, revisionist newbie zoomers have decided that the prequels are actually masterpieces which were universally loved upon release until ~~*Mr. Plinkett*~~ tricked people into thinking they were bad.
Zoomers like the prequels due to nostalgia, as well as the fact that the seuqels were dogshit.
But yes, Top Gun: Maverick as a film is far superior to any of those movies on nearly every level.
>When you watch Top Gun you're straight up watching A-4s, F-5s, and F-14s fly around.
The movie isn't just about "flying around". The finale is supposed to be a large air battle involving something like 8 fighters. Instead what do we get?
>shot of F-14 firing a missile
>another shot of missile flying
>another shot of target exploding
Rinse and repeat. This might have been fine in 1986, but you have to be a turbo boomer to claim that this is superior to CGI.
Relax Tom
>show him getting outclassed by the new generation of young diverse pilots.
But that's not his it works, at all, in real life. The guys with more flight hours are going to win almost guaranteed every time
The world has changed grandpa. Studies show that pilots with African, gay or female ancestry are better at navigating the complex environment of the modern battlefield which includes social media.
I mean you ""white"" guys seem intent on staying out of the ZOG military and protecting your virginity from your bunker, so they have to fill in somehow til the robots all come online.
Good actors, good story, it didn’t shit on the original but didn’t spend too much time reminiscing about it either.
>but didn’t spend too much time reminiscing about it either
Come the frick on now.
>beach volleyball scene
>iceman's gay cancer plot
>goose' son
Iirc they even brought that baldie officer back. It's nostalgia shlock through and through.
I have never seen the original and I loved it
this. It was nothing but a nostalgia bait cash grab.
>iceman's gay cancer plot
Val Kilmer unironically had cancer and is about to die. Kinda have to get there before he does.
>beach volleyball scene
It was much different than the original (and not as good), because it wasn't as uncomfortably sexual as the original, nor did it have PLAAAAAYING, with the BOOOYYYS.
>iceman
This movie is likely the last time we ever see Val Kilmer on screen lol, he's got his foot in the grave from actual cancer. That's why he didn't speak in the movie, it was supposed to be a tribute to both him and the character. And it was done very tastefully, giving the movie some much-needed emotional heft.
If it were REALLY gauche and going for shameless nostalgia, he'd have died in an accident flying with Maverick, like Goose did.
>goose's son
That's a goofy 80s trope, calling back to the original when Mav and his CO had issues related to the death of Maverick's Dad. And it was hilariously perfect seeing Teller do a dead-perfect Goose impersonation, even down to the mustache and glasses.
Chinese sponsor jumped ship so us military propaganda financed it.
moronic npcs ate it up because... I don't even know why. The media told them it's good I guess (yes media includes youtubers and influencers telling you what to think)
It is a good action film, regardless if it glorifies the military or not.
I can accept that but that doesn't explain why gays like op pretend it's some grand cultural victory over... themselves by the MIC?
>moronic npcs ate it up because... I don't even know why.
Npcs LOVE Military industrial complex propaganda.
Military shit is cool regardless of where it's coming from t b h
See what I mean.
It's a cool, fun action film. I don't see anything wrong with enjoying it as long as it doesn't inspire you to join the military and fight for Israel.
I still cant figure out if the enemy is suppose to be China, Russia or Iran because it has elements of all three
They did a good job then
I know they did it on purpose, but a clearly identifiable enemy would be better. They didnt even name the country, it was just the enemy
Basically it's implied the enemy is Iran building a nuclear reactor underground. The US is flying a proxy mission for Israel to destroy it.
It was Canada
edgy 2nd year undergrad take, complete with fake info and things that never happened lol holy shit
>Chinese sponsor jumped ship
That was precisely the reason I watched it, fricking Chinks tried to get rid of his jacket.
It wasn't preachy and people were actually enjoying life.
Safest retread in cinema next to the Force Awakens, it was the death star trench run all over again.
Who cares it was entertaining
I enjoyed it 100% more on rewatch by hitting ffwd through all the Jen Con scenes
I should have clarified, didn't say it was a bad thing, what I meant was it was just a back to basics, simple movie, without being bogged down by too much going on. It was enjoyable, miss those F14's from the original though, and the music!
Nostalgia, Jet Fighters, No woke bullshit. Yeah, I can see why it was successful
nothing, it was embarrassing derivative slop and i cant believe it was critically acclaimed
They wanted to recruit more whites into the military, so they set aside the typical anti-white/male/straight messaging of recent years and focused on entertaining. Even then, it sounds like the Hangman actor had to fight to make his character more heroic.
>so they set aside the typical anti-white/male/straight messaging of recent years
>Lead is a gay actor, supporting casts include unlikely female and minority squadmates
Ok.
>supporting casts include unlikely female and minority squadmates
Who never outshine, demonize, mock or degrade the white lead which is the actual problem non-racist have with the modern diversity push not that the diversity is present at all.
>not that the diversity is present at all.
Speak for yourself American.
And here I thought it was "replacing" make-believe characters with "actors/actresses of the ~~*wrong*~~ color" or something.
I didn't know it was about humiliation rituals. Which films have humiliated you recently?
Race swaps are its own separate issue.
>Which films have humiliated you recently?
They don't humiliate ME they humiliate characters I love.
Every single male under Lucasfilm aside from Andor has been ass fricked in someway.
> Indiana Jones - The Greatest hero in the history of cinema is asking to be left to die because he has nothing left to live for 5 minutes before the credits of his final fricking movie after spending the duration of it being shit talked to by a radical feminist caricature.
> Luke Skywalker - Turned into a sarcastic nihilistic hobo jackass who almost murdered his nephew and everything he accomplished after the original Trinity is undone and shit on. His original legacy of creating a new Jedi Order is giving to fricking Rey.
> Han Solo - Gives up raising his son so Luke could do it. Son turns evil and Han abandons his wife to go smuggling again.
> Mandalorian - 3rd season becomes the Bo-Katan (who I otherwise like) show and makes him artificially incompetent so she had to save him 3 times in the first 2 episodes.
> Boba Fett - In his own show he is not half as badass as he was in Mando-S2 and Shand (who I also otherwise like) does heavy lifting for him. Gets covered in slime and thrown around in his underwear.
> Obi-Wan - Half his series is the Reva show and his own half he does almost noticing but be dragged around by a sassy brat.
OK, but do not you not understand that there are degrees of poz ranging from, say, a John Wayne movie to The Acolyte? There was really only one female pilot and (I think) two nog squad members who featured at all, and while, yeah, that's probably bullshit (definitely in the case of the woman), they didn't insist upon themselves. And the tone wasn't vindictive.
Again name some recent movies that have humiliated your tender feelings.
You've lost me. Did you mean to reply to someone else? And how can you "humiliate feelings"? Not trying to be a dick: I literally can't understand you.
You seem upset. Perhaps you could articulate the last movie you saw that upset you with their "vindictive tone". I'm not the one asserting that I've been wronged, you are.
Who the frick are you? I was replying to a guy who dismissed the film as yet another woke offering, and here you are jumping in.
You know exactly that it's not about this. You, yourself, know that exactly. You know that woke writing is shoving girlbosses with extremely bad dialog lines down our throats. It is not, and never was about a film not being racially homogenous like a Klan meeting.
I will repeat: You know that yourself.
All you want to do is bait.
>shoving girlbosses with extremely bad dialog lines
I've seen girlboss movies with bad dialogue longer than you've been on this Earth. It's practically a sub-genre of action movies, it's not an Evil Plot to emasculate you.
Goddamn, was your generation just not beaten enough by parents?
>Knows exactly what it's about
>Hell-bent, post after post, eager to act as if he didn't know exactly
Yes, your bait is very good. Over nine thousand points of five points. Please let your mother know that you deserve an extra large portion of tendies.
SERIOUS ANSWER
> Cherishing respect for the original film, it's characters and it's fans instead of evil woke subversive hostility.
> Cruise's star power prevented them from assfricking Mav even if they had the inclination to do so.
> Cruise & the director's previous film Oblivion was good and so they have a solid working relationship.
> Dropped the rumored nihilistic message about drones taking over.
> Not naming the villains as being Iran while cowardly neutered far left critics ability to demonize the film as racist or imperialist.
> Good cast.
> Diverse without it ever being called attention to within the film or in the premotion and none of the diverse characters are hostile to Mav or need to take him down a peg as is typical in recent years.
> Great music.
cruise looked like 60 year old boomer whos way past his prime, nobody is buying he would be some top tier pilot,
entire plot with grandma Connelly was like straight from YA novel. Action was boring and there was 0 suspense.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/19/australia/australia-oldest-fighter-pilot-intl/index.html
one second in google
Anon, he said top-tier, not some Aussie crop-duster.
Odd cope but okay.
anon, you fricking moron
He aged better than you will ever be, fricking moronic
you have to be at least 12 years old to post on this board.
Rooster helped a lot with the "Characters hostile to Mav" bit. You get the "Call out the old man" part, but it's actually earned instead of just telling the audience it was earned in exposition
It was a wholesome optimistic and uplifting heroic adventure movie about competent white people and traditional gender roles.
It was amazing.
It was also refreshing to see them actually succeed at their main mission, first time, with minor hiccups, showed the pilots for having the skill they apparently do...instead of having the bomb drop fail and then some bullshit to pad the film out for action sake etc.
>enough throw backs to the classic
>tom kino
>white male led, minimal dei esg pandering
>positive message
>released in a total swamp of woke garbage (better in comparison)
The fact that dei isn't recognized as a violation of fiduciary responsibility tells you everything you need to know about the legitimacy of our system
It was just a film. No politics, no self-inserting writers, just people coming together, checking their egos at the door (except for maybe Tom Cruise lol) and honestly and earnestly trying to make a good action film.
And that hasn't happened in decades. That's all people asked for, which is why this film is universally acclaimed.
>It was just a film. No politics
It was typical American "They hate our freedumbs for no reason" propaganda slop. Of course it was eaten up domestically.
Holy Michael Moore tier NPC autoresponder
I mean you're basically that stereotype of a bitter jealous weirdo mad at Americans for no reason. So I guess its not really propaganda lol
I saw it with my dad, since he told me we watched Top Gun together on VHS when I was a baby in 1993. It was good, but it was no Top Gun. Wouldn't watch it again.
Generally Id say that it wasn't compromising with showing off how dominant US military power over the rest of the world. The morals of the mission are never questioned or subverted. The entire opening is just the US Navy flopping its wiener on the table.
I recently watched the original, and besides the soundtrack and some of the shots, I found it boring and generic. The air scenes didn't age well either.
I guess you aren't American enough.
I'd probably feel the same sitting through Chinese propaganda slop.
>Soundtrack didnt age
maybe, my main problem with the original soundtrack is that it literally only has 2 songs it reuses over and over
Danger Zone, and take my breath away. Its kinda comical how often they are reused during action/romance scenes.
He, uh, didn't say that. I've got the soundtrack and it's pretty decent (though maybe some of the songs are only featured v briefly in the film - haven't seen the original in a while).
Ah, frick, I read that as "Soundtrack didn't age well". Anyway.
Why did you do that?
Why did I misread
>Soundtrack didnt age
as
>Soundtrack didnt age well
?
I dunno. Going senile maybe?
Nevermind the whole posting chain confused me for a sec, I kinda blurred together 'the flight scenes didnt age well' to you saying the soundtrack didnt either, doesnt matter really, my point was made.
Yeah, no worries. I'm still confused from that guy (obviously a butthurt leftist) butting in on me earlier with
>Again...
like I'd been replying to him.
(And it wasn't me who said the aerial scenes didn't age well. Wish to frick this board had IDs.)
>The air scenes didn't age well either.
They were literal real scenes of actual Top Gun pilots in mock dogfights.
They cannot "not age well". When you watch the original Top Gun you are literally watching fricking footage of Top Gun training. You dumb fricking moron zoomer
Not him, but that footage is interspersed with the actors in the wienerpit on a soundstage, and IIRC there's a bit of repetition. It was great for 1986 (compare the flying shots from those in Firefox, say), but for the new one they apparently shot over 800 hours of aerial footage, and that combined with CGI made a difference.
Real aerial footage with fake wienerpits > fake cgi nonsense with Cruise in the back of an F-18F.
The entirety of the F-14 Su-37 fight, the entire last half of the movie really, is cgi, but I bet you loved every second of it because you're a dumb piece of shit zoomer. TG2 is cgi trash
Why is Cinemaphile like this? Everyone's so fricking angry all the time. This isn't even a political thing: I liked the flying sequences in Maverick, so I'm "a dumb piece of shit zoomer"? You don't seem like a reasonable sort, but I'll mention again that - according to them at least - they shot over 800 hours of aerial footage. This...
>The entirety of the F-14 Su-37 fight, the entire last half of the movie really, is cgi
...is just not true. Yeah, there's CGI. No, it's not *all* CGI. And no, I don't think it looked bad.
>...is just not true.
Well, lets look at the fact that they obviously didn't have real Su-37s for the movie....and they didn't have a real Hind, and they didn't have a real flying F-14.....
Hmm... hmm.....
Why do I even bother? Yeah, clearly they CGI'd things like the Su-57s (I believe, not 37s). And they combined the CGI with footage of the actors actually in the air undergoing various manoeuvres (of which they had quite a lot, evidently). Here's some article about it I found in about 0.5 seconds:
https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/top-gun-maverick-making-of-wienerpit-1234729694/
Tired of coming here and encountering angry bores. Frick this board, seriously.
You thought these were real? In the movie?
And you really thought Tom Cruise was really flying a real F-14?
Nothing in this screenshot is real btw, except for Tom Cruise himself
Nothing in this pic is real either except for Cruise
Lolololololol
Top Gun 2, more like Top TRASH
looks real enough.
Lighten up, Francis.
The guy clearly has issues. He acts like the use of CGI in a Top Gun film is sacrilege for some reason, and as if it stands out like, I don't know, Wolverine's claws in whichever film that was, or CGI Peter Cushing, instead of being done really well. And he makes easily disprovable false claims/exaggerations:
>Every single frame of every flying scene [in the original, aside from the explosions] was real
>Nothing in this pic [a screenshot from Maverick] is real except for Cruise
>TG2 is almost entirely cgi from beginning to end
And he seems to equate noting some (entirely forgivable) not-quite-realistic-looking elements of the flying scenes in the original (which don't detract from the enjoyment at all) with hating the film. Sad.
>not-quite-realistic-looking elements of the flying scenes in the original
? They're real. They can only look the way are.
As far TG2, I agree the over use of CG kills the movie. Might as well not have strapped cruise into a real plane at all
>? They're real
Why be like this? You (I'm assuming it's still you?) said that "every single frame of every flying scene" in the '86 film was real. Unless you pretend that the moments where you see Maverick, Goose etc in a wienerpit aren't part of those scenes - which is absurd (are you attempting to redefine what a "scene" is?) - that's not true. It just isn't. Acknowledging this doesn't mean you hate the original Top Gun, or that you hate its flying scenes. It's great, and they're still great.
>As far TG2, I agree the over use of CG kills the movie
See, that's fine. Why not just say that instead of saying absurd shit like "the entire last half of the movie really, is cgi" and calling anyone who disagrees "a dumb piece of shit"?
>the entire last half of the movie really, is cgi
You mean this?
Yep, thats all cgi. The entire ending sequence is cgi, anon, so is the opening Darkstar sequence, (obviously). Are you the same guy who thought they got real Su57s from Russia?
Yeah, because by "the entire last half of the movie" I clearly meant "the Su-57s shown when they're flying the mission". Because those are the same thing, right? Entire last half of the movie? Planes added in some scenes? Words have no meaning, I guess! You can say anything you want! WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>Are you the same guy who thought they got real Su57s from Russia?
No, but I am the guy who would *happily* take a baseball bat to your head.
Nta, but nothing in the Not-iran ending action sequence is real, and I don't even know what to say about your refusal to even acknowledge that the Spy plane, Russian Jets, Russian helicopters, Russian SAM sites, and the F-14 all being fake.
like wtf is your deal?
You having a bad, guy?
That's right, NOTHING is real. All the actors? CGI. Those 800 hours of aerial footage they shot? They didn't use any of it. Or it was a lie. That Hollywood Reporter piece in which the VFX supervisor said they aimed to shoot as much real stuff as possible? Lies. It's LITERALLY ALL FAKE, and the use of CGI in a Top Gun film is UNFORGIVABLE, so it's a TOTAL MYSTERY why the film proved so overwhelmingly popular and made something like a billion dollars. No, wait: it's because there are so many ZOOMER moronS, right? We're all morons - everyone except you, the honest man, who says EVERY SINGLE FRAME in the flying scenes in Top Gun is 100% REAL and THE ENTIRE LAST HALF OF TOP GUN: MAVERICK IS 100% FAKE.
>You having a bad, guy?
Aw, projecting emotions! The ever-popular Cinemaphile tactic. Oh, I can assure you I'd wear a beatific smile as I applied the aforementioned bat to your face repeatedly and energetically.
>*THWACK* stop
>*THWACK* fricking
>*THWACK* lying
>*THWACK* stop
>*THWACK* fricking
>*THWACK* lying
Ahhhhh.
I'm finished!
What's next, you're gonna say Battle of Britain didn't 'age well' either because they used real planes too?!
You dumb c**t
>The air scenes didn't age well either.
Too real for you? Not enough cgi?
>copy star wars death star raid
>shitty AI script
>nostalgia bait
>profit
Nothing really. Completely useless soulless muttified commercial product with none of the charm of the original.
it was surreal to me how simplistic and basic this movie was. Borderline parody level. I dropped it after like half an hour
I agree. It had a massive marketing campaign from social media and influencers. People were basically psyoped into thinking it was good and that's the only acceptable opinion. Also, since so many movies have been extremely bad it stands out as being less bad. Also, how is it not completely apparent that the raid on the reactor and dropping the bomb in the exhaust port after going through trenches is a direct copy of the death star raid?
>zoomers don't like a fun action movie with cool footage of fighter jets
What went wrong with their generation?
>cool footage of fighter jets
Predator or Total Recall (OG one) was a fun action movie, this was derivative boring slop with predictable story.
It's a great exemple of fan service done right in (current year).
people keep getting let down when studios try to reboot everything and inject gay shit to appeal to newer audiences
Top Gun Maverick is everything you'd expect from fricking Top Gun, no bullshit, and that's why people loved it
>movie promises to show you cool planes going brrrrrrrrt
>cool planes go brrrrrrrrrt
It’s not too complicated. The plot is very similar to the original but nobody buying a ticket actually cares about that so it’s fine
>Make Top Gun sequel that's been in production hell for 30+ years
>Original is now widely considered a classic and decade-defining 80s movie with immense and generation-spanning pop culture influence
>Have all the best parts of the original cast come back, and have them all play the same characters we know and love straight
>Replace McGillis with JCon(frick yes)
>Tone down the homoerotic undertones
>Have the best action sequences of the decade so far, effortlessly combining CG and practical effects; and also have them take up twice as much of the movie as the original(because that's what people wanted anyway)
>Doesn't try to be edgy or subversive, it's just a straight-up innocent 80s action movie with updated visuals
>Is the only major film released all year that isn't slop or loaded full of propaganda
>makes billions of dollars, opening number 1 on memorial day weekend and then making number 1 on labor day weekend
>Even gets zoomers into Top Gun, they love the shit out of it seeing it's the precursor to and major influence on all their animes
It's a 9.5/10 movie. It's only not a ten because the OST was dogshit compared to the original, which has one of the best OSTs of the 80s and of all time. It also wasn't as sexy as the original.
>Is the only major film released all year that isn't slop or loaded full of propaganda
Anon, this is literally multi-generational Goyslop: the Movie. And it's FINE that you loved it, you were brought up on it.
I'd consider it to be the best example of slopkino Hollywood used to make, much like the original: it's an unsophisticated but exceptionally well-made blockbuster with a great ensemble cast performing on all cylinders, an immersive blend of CG and practical effects that work in tandem with each other to make really dynamic well-choreographed action scenes, a generic romance built off the excellent chemistry of the two leads, and of course a generational trauma/bad blood storyline in there for good measure, all in service of a good old fashioned IT CAN'T BE DONE blow-up-the-bad-guys plot.
It's sincere, and doesn't try to be anything else. And we like that.
good post
agreed but i just ignore the shit-talking, it's everywhere on Cinemaphile and it's just noise
It was a simple movie that didn't have the completely moronic shit we see in other movies today. Any other director/writer would have had Hangman try to kill Rooster in that fight towards the end because kind of being a dickhead=murderous lunatic.
I attended the midnight premiere and was surrounded by women. Women love Tom Cruise. They were chatting and gossiping about him right up until the intro sequence.
all white cast and that's it.
There was that cute latina pilot, a black admiral, and a Black NCO. But it was pretty naturally included like you would see in real life and in the military. Not like drinking from a DEI firehose like most films.
I thought Top Gun Maverick was pretty shit.
>bad casting
>actors had no charisma
>cant even remember their names apart from maverick
>didnt show enough technical stuff about being an aviator, just boring drama
>the story was just dumb, dont even mention what country theyre fighting
>the one dogfight scene was kind of boring and you already saw the cool manoeuvre in the trailer so it was no surprise
>lame love story, they just chucked it in because the first top gun had one too, wasnt really justified and whole movie im wondering who this b***h even is or why her daughter is on screen so much
just a shit, shit movie overall, didnt enjoy it
I was extremely skeptic going in but I really liked TG: Maverick. As someone who's soon to be over the hill, it resounded with me with seeing gay ass AI and dumber generations behind me. I only wish the military was as honest and competent as the actual movie, Cruise portrayed.
Also Hamm was good as the antagonist superior, he fit the bill.
Same experience here anon. It was as close to capturing the 80's as Ive seen in a long time. Thats what stuck out to me. I liked goose, hated most of the kids except bob, and liked the drone plot that didnt really go anywhere
Why didn't they just shoot a missile from the boats into the thermal exhaust port instead of doing the whole trench run with the F-14's?
Jamming most likely.
Indeed.
If it were a generic Top Gun movie from another studio, every other pilot would be some shade of black or brown, half of them would be overweight or small women, and there'd be a 3 minute scene of Phoenix pegging Maverick, while telling him to check his White male privilege, before being briefed on the mission of attacking the enemy due to their blatant disregard for LGBT rights and oppression of ethnic minorities.
You are mentally ill. Please seek help.
He's completely reasonable and you're completely insane. I know you.
you will never be a woman
>3 minute scene of Phoenix pegging Maverick, while telling him to check his White male privilege
It's a 2022 movie originally intended to release in 2012. it reminded the public of better times and a healthier culture
Indeed, it's very interesting seeing some of the ways the movie's long production showed in the film. I definitely think that's the reason the OST had Lady Gaga and OneRepublic on it, when it really should have mined the endless amounts of synthwave inspired by the original produced in the mid-2010s.
?si=cWAgBMbW7EsFIlLg
i didnt care for original Top Gun either
>Put Tom Cruise in the back of an actual F-18
Go on, I'm listening
>completely CGI everything around him including the other planes and the environment, and ultimately CGI the F-18 itself and morph it into an F-14 completely defeating the purpose of putting Tom Cruise into a real plane in the first place
And now you've lost me
>G forces are real
>Most planes will have similar wienerpits
>No way in hell is there an airworthy f14
>CGI slop is ok If I like it!
How about just not writing scenes that require everything to be CGI in the first place? There's entire scenes that unnecessarily have CGI on them for no real reason in the fricking training scenes. God, what an absolute dumpster fire of a movie.
>For no real reason
It's literally forbidden to fly recklessly like Maverick does
>Buzzing your teammates formation
>Doing deathspirals below the allowed operating altitude
>Flying unbelievably close in cinematic fashion
You're fricking nuts if you think those were unecessary
And the OG scene limitations were oof anyways
There's a time and place for CGI in everything, it's literally just another tool in the toolbox of a filmmaker.
TGM undeniably has some of the best incorporation CGI with PFX in film history.
You're the type of moron that would've gotten angry at Buster Keaton films back in the day for not showing him getting brutally injured.
In addition to all the commonly repeated points, pheonix was one of my favorite female characters in years.
>Competent without being a c**t
>Story doesn't warp itself to make her look better
>Gets outshined by some male counterparts, is fine with it
>Hot and in shape
>Smiles (big risk doing this in 2022)
>Seems like the kind of girl who could actually hang
>Takes a joke at her expense and spits it back
It's almost like she's an actual human being.
You forgot something very important.
She didn't shit on her male copilots just because she thought was better than them.
In fact, the only person I can remember her fricking with was Hangman, because he was a wienery bastard out for himself.
I'm pretty sure she was also the first one to make a move to break up Rooster and Hangman's fight.
I also may be misremembering it, but I believe the actress was also one of them that Tom Cruise assisted in tutoring to get their pilot's license.
Need more like her in movies.
After looking up her credits it turns out I saw her on YT years before.
?si=Kz5SCU5Oduk6M-3s
Great film and sequel! Even though Maverick himself hadn't really progressed careerwise, his mindset is in an entirely different place as if the character lived the decades between the 2 films. The father/son relationship between Maverick and Rooster is very relatable to the audience. The flying visuals are outstanding compared to any other fighter film before.
Best part of the movie for me is Maverick's test run.
I feel the need
The need for
CLAIM
TOM CRUISE REALLY FLEW A FAKE SPY PLANE TO MACH 10
STRAW-MAN CLAIM NO ONE'S MAKING:
Unsurprisingly, false.
yeah, I saw him do it in IMAX.
twice.
CLAIM: TOM CRUISE ACTUALLY FRICKED JCON BEFORE FILIMING THEIR SCENE IN BED
FACT CHECK: TRUE
Cgi slopfest/10
Here you go, lil zoomy zooms, I got you a new toy, momma said you were good today!
Thanks Uncle Adam, you're the best!
Can we go see the next Ghiblifest release? I heard Shelley from my class wants to go with me.
implicit racism and masculine militarism
For me? It's the fact that all the flying scenes in the original were real
Based
I'll go with real footage any day of the week
https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=b8OdyAq7sfk&si=IfBX587Bxl78kUmI
For me its penix
Bomb the hamas.