Frankly, the stuff they complained about would make a boring ass movie. Like "they never get that close!", "missiles are almost always out of visual range!", "guns are useless!", etc. If they made a realistic movie, most viewers would have no idea what's going on and it would have to be explained to them.Cinco Ranch Aggie said:I'm curious what the "lack of realism" is you are referring to. I don't recall thinking I was watching miniatures. Or was it that they used F-5's as the MiGs?aTmAg said:
Is it good for people who know a lot about these planes? Or is it eye rolling? My geezer co-workers said that the lack of realism ruined the original for them (they saw it as adults while working at defense contractor).
Ah, yes. Those are valid complaints, but like you said, it would be totally boring without all those Hollywood depictions of aerial combat. Kinda like watching 2001 right after any other science fiction movie - man, those 2001 spaceships make absolutely no sound in space. Boring!aTmAg said:Frankly, the stuff they complained about would make a boring ass movie. Like "they never get that close!", "missiles are almost always out of visual range!", "guns are useless!", etc. If they made a realistic movie, most viewers would have no idea what's going on and it would have to be explained to them.Cinco Ranch Aggie said:I'm curious what the "lack of realism" is you are referring to. I don't recall thinking I was watching miniatures. Or was it that they used F-5's as the MiGs?aTmAg said:
Is it good for people who know a lot about these planes? Or is it eye rolling? My geezer co-workers said that the lack of realism ruined the original for them (they saw it as adults while working at defense contractor).
When this movie was first announced, my idea of how they could make it exciting with modern aircraft is for the foreign enemies to have caught up with the US on stealth technology.. So that now that nobody could see their enemy on radar anymore. And have it go back to WW2 rules with 5th gen aircraft. Then we would have them in close with each other and all of that. (That is still not totally realistic.. but it would probably satisfy the dudes I work with).
TCTTS said:My memory of this (@misterpatches can correct if this isn’t right), a few of us were at a beach themed bar in Hell’s Kitchen after a NYCC party? And the news hit Tony Scott would direct Top Gun 2. I was excited and Matt said he’d eat a shoe if it happened and I said “tweet that”
— Mike Ryan (@mikeryan) May 24, 2022Son, your ego wrote a check and now you’re eating a shoe. #TopGun
— Top Gun (@TopGunMovie) May 24, 2022
In 2010, Matt Patches tweeted, "If Top Gun 2 happens, I will eat a shoe." Now, he's made good on that promise. https://t.co/BH1yq0Gux1
— VANITY FAIR (@VanityFair) May 26, 2022
Saw it. They'll complain about all the same stuff. Because like you said they have to shoot it this way to make it interestingaTmAg said:Frankly, the stuff they complained about would make a boring ass movie. Like "they never get that close!", "missiles are almost always out of visual range!", "guns are useless!", etc. If they made a realistic movie, most viewers would have no idea what's going on and it would have to be explained to them.Cinco Ranch Aggie said:I'm curious what the "lack of realism" is you are referring to. I don't recall thinking I was watching miniatures. Or was it that they used F-5's as the MiGs?aTmAg said:
Is it good for people who know a lot about these planes? Or is it eye rolling? My geezer co-workers said that the lack of realism ruined the original for them (they saw it as adults while working at defense contractor).
When this movie was first announced, my idea of how they could make it exciting with modern aircraft is for the foreign enemies to have caught up with the US on stealth technology.. So that now that nobody could see their enemy on radar anymore. And have it go back to WW2 rules with 5th gen aircraft. Then we would have them in close with each other and all of that. (That is still not totally realistic.. but it would probably satisfy the dudes I work with).
Well technically it should only be 20 something years after the original... not sure how old Gooses son is in the movie, but if he's around 30 years old the movie should be taking place around 2010.BQ78 said:
Do they explain how he managed to stay in the navy for over 30 years, while "avoiding" promotion?
BQ78 said:
Do they explain how he managed to stay in the navy for over 30 years, while "avoiding" promotion?
No year is mentioned but based on the planes shown on the flight deck, it's within the last few years.jr15aggie said:Well technically it should only be 20 something years after the original... not sure how old Gooses son is in the movie, but if he's around 30 years old the movie should be taking place around 2010.BQ78 said:
Do they explain how he managed to stay in the navy for over 30 years, while "avoiding" promotion?
I'll find out in a couple hours if they even mention what year it is or if it's just assumed to be "modern time".
TOP GUN: MAVERICK is magnificent. And it's actually got a lot on its mind, even as it manages to be ruthlessly entertaining. I was not a fan of the original, but I absolutely adored this film. https://t.co/Kx7yowpt0H
— Bilge Ebiri (@BilgeEbiri) May 26, 2022
Though the location count - 4735 - is somewhat irrelevant.
— David Poland (@DavidPoland) May 26, 2022
It is likely to be on as many as 20,000 screens this weekend. https://t.co/epWLIrzDrr
wangus12 said:
New discovery. My wife has never seen Top Gun.
I've already texted my lawyer
wangus12 said:
Wife's takeaways:
Goose is the best
Maverick is a jerk
Lots of sweating
They suck at vball (wife played D1 vball)
JB!98 said:
So a little story from a town of 8000 people. I thought my son and I could sneak into the 10:30 showing of the movie tonight. Nope! They are showing it on all three screens and it was sold out all day. I was able to get tickets to the 4:30 showing tomorrow though! That is 1800 tickets for the showings that they have sold today.