Quote:
Oh, they've nominated some films matching your criteria: Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark are two that stand out to me
Yes, they used to somewhat regularly.
*** TOP GUN: MAVERICK *** (Spoiler Thread)
191,924 Views |
1717 Replies |
Last: 3 mo ago by Marauder Blue 6
Yes, they used to somewhat regularly.
Black Panther was nominated and check all those boxes, except crowd pleaser on TexAgs of course.
MY post breakdown:
33% Star Wars
33% Astros
33% Making myself laugh
33% Star Wars
33% Astros
33% Making myself laugh
ROCKY
Others that might fit this criteria, in addition to the mention of Black Panther:double aught said:Quote:
Oh, they've nominated some films matching your criteria: Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark are two that stand out to me
Yes, they used to somewhat regularly.
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Martian
Inception
Avatar
Up
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King*
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings
Gladiator*
Saving Private Ryan
Titanic*
Braveheart*
Apollo 13
The Fugitive
Unforgiven*
The Silence of the Lambs*
Beauty and the Beast
Dances with Wolves*
Field of Dreams
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
Rocky
Jaws
The Godfather Part II*
The Towering Inferno
American Graffiti
The Godfather*
Patton*
Airport
*won
#FJB
Nice list. Interesting though how the majority of those are in the 20+ year old range now. Not many in recent decades.
They nominated Dune this year.
Pretty sure 80% of the people were watch TG:M at some point over my 11 hour flight
I went and saw it a fourth time last week when they put it back on the IMAX screen.
wangus12 said:
Pretty sure 80% of the people were watch TG:M at some point over my 11 hour flight
MY post breakdown:
33% Star Wars
33% Astros
33% Making myself laugh
33% Star Wars
33% Astros
33% Making myself laugh
Just got out for my 2nd viewing, my son's 3rd viewing and wife's 1st viewing.
Just pure greatness even on repeat watch.
Just pure greatness even on repeat watch.
FaceMask said:
Just got out for my 2nd viewing, my son's 3rd viewing and wife's 1st viewing.
Just pure greatness even on repeat watch.
I swear I had just as big of a stupid grin on my face the second time around. Also, the Iceman scene was way more effective for me the 2nd time around, not sure why. I think I did not know what to expect the 1st time, didn't know where they were going with it. 2nd time I could just observe and not try too much to think ahead.
Noted the same thing on the 9.5 hour flight from Paris to Houston on Sunday.The Porkchop Express said:wangus12 said:
Pretty sure 80% of the people were watch TG:M at some point over my 11 hour flight
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
A little late to the discussion so my apologies if this has been discussed...TCTTS said:
It's because they wanted the movie to feel timeless. Naming a country would instantly date the movie, locking it in to a particular era/conflict. The director said it was a very specific choice, and definitely not one forced by the military.
They specifically mention PACFLEET in the movie, which means that the adversary country is set somewhere in the Indo-Pacific region. Iran is in CENTCOM.
Most likely, the adversary country was north Korea due to the topography, the geographic location in the movie, the nuclear program, and the use of SA-3's (or at least something that looked like SA-3's). Not that it really matters.
Anyways, one of my biggest pet peeves in military movies are when flares are used to defeat RADAR SAM's. The entire reason they choose to fly through that valley was to stay inside the RADAR shadow created by the valley. But, when they finally popped up after the bombing run, their flares easily defeated the missiles.
Also, no idea why the Su-57 pursued the F-18. Should have just dropped back and launched a ton of AA-12's at it. Huge tactical mistake to chase the F-14. Then again, the entire 4-ship of F-18's wouldn't have survived without the ridiculous amount of plot armor they were given. Also, It would have seemed a lot more plausible (to me at least) to just launch a few cruise missiles at the bunker and be done with it (I get it though, not what the movie was actually about).
Finally, he idea of modern aircraft dogfighting with guns blazing just doesn't compute to me. For example, the F-35 only carries 181 bullets and fires 50 rounds per second (just to compare to other 5th gen aircraft), so you are talking 3ish trigger squeezes before you call winchester.
Either way, glad people enjoyed it. I, personally, enjoyed most of the acting scenes but absolutely loathed how the movie executed the mission. I get it, the movie isn't really about that and I am probably being too critical.
Probably?
Hi Debbie!!!
Yea, fair. I am being too critical. It's a popcorn flick, not a documentary.Sea Speed said:
Probably?
Not trying to bring the movie down. Like I said, I'm glad people enjoyed it.maroon barchetta said:
Hi Debbie!!!
I will say, there were probably ways they could have made it more accurate without losing any of the fun. If they do make spin-off's, I would enjoy seeing more realistic combat scenarios.
And to top it all off, the Death Star was camouflaged like mountainous terrain and when he used the force he didn't even mention it!Gaius Rufus said:A little late to the discussion so my apologies if this has been discussed...TCTTS said:
It's because they wanted the movie to feel timeless. Naming a country would instantly date the movie, locking it in to a particular era/conflict. The director said it was a very specific choice, and definitely not one forced by the military.
They specifically mention PACFLEET in the movie, which means that the adversary country is set somewhere in the Indo-Pacific region. Iran is in CENTCOM.
Most likely, the adversary country was north Korea due to the topography, the geographic location in the movie, the nuclear program, and the use of SA-3's (or at least something that looked like SA-3's). Not that it really matters.
Anyways, one of my biggest pet peeves in military movies are when flares are used to defeat RADAR SAM's. The entire reason they choose to fly through that valley was to stay inside the RADAR shadow created by the valley. But, when they finally popped up after the bombing run, their flares easily defeated the missiles.
Also, no idea why the Su-57 pursued the F-18. Should have just dropped back and launched a ton of AA-12's at it. Huge tactical mistake to chase the F-14. Then again, the entire 4-ship of F-18's wouldn't have survived without the ridiculous amount of plot armor they were given. Also, It would have seemed a lot more plausible (to me at least) to just launch a few cruise missiles at the bunker and be done with it (I get it though, not what the movie was actually about).
Finally, he idea of modern aircraft dogfighting with guns blazing just doesn't compute to me. For example, the F-35 only carries 181 bullets and fires 50 rounds per second (just to compare to other 5th gen aircraft), so you are talking 3ish trigger squeezes before you call winchester.
Either way, glad people enjoyed it. I, personally, enjoyed most of the acting scenes but absolutely loathed how the movie executed the mission. I get it, the movie isn't really about that and I am probably being too critical.
Just ribbing. Hope you don't take me seriously.
The death star camouflage in TFA makes total sense to me!
This wasn't a documentary. I appreciate some realism too, but realism doesn't always make for good story-telling. This movie was good enough to make me suspend my disbelief and criticism and appreciate it for what it was.
Yea, I mentioned that.Sweet Kitten Feet said:
This wasn't a documentary. I appreciate some realism too, but realism doesn't always make for good story-telling. This movie was good enough to make me suspend my disbelief and criticism and appreciate it for what it was.
Wish I could say the same about suspending disbelief, but for me (and it's just for me, not making a statement about anybody else), the lack of realism during the execution of the mission completely pulled me out of the story.
Either way, I'm glad you were able to enjoy it and the flying during the mission practice scenes was very impressive.
I think perfect world they would've used Tomahawks to take out the SAM batteries and a squadron of F22s or F35s for the missile drop.
...but then we wouldn't have a movie because neither of those are 2-seater aircraft. They had to shoehorn a reason to use F-18s into the plot, taking a lot of artistic license/plot armor in order to do so.
...but then we wouldn't have a movie because neither of those are 2-seater aircraft. They had to shoehorn a reason to use F-18s into the plot, taking a lot of artistic license/plot armor in order to do so.
That was a rant the likes of something my dad used to do. He got to go on a nuclear submarine owned by Finland like 30 years ago, which would lead to him becoming the expert on every submarine movie we saw at the theater thereafter. First interior shot of any submarine, be it Red October, or U-571, or K-19, my dad was always quick with "That's not what they look like inside."
MY post breakdown:
33% Star Wars
33% Astros
33% Making myself laugh
33% Star Wars
33% Astros
33% Making myself laugh
I have already posted this, as has someone else, but it seems relevant to post again. If Dave Berke can suspend the belief required to enjoy the movie, i'm sure you should be able to, as well. You know... seeing as this guy is about as elite of a fighter pilot as you can be:
I think it's ok if I have a different opinion than you. Note, I'm not telling you to change your opinion (weird that I have to keep repeating this to adults, but, I'm glad you were able to enjoy it), I'm just discussing the movie. Sorry that it bothers you.
Again, not ranting. Just pointing out some things that bothered me. Isn't that the point of this whole thread? To discuss the movie? Not all agree that it was awesome across the board with no faults whatsoever?The Porkchop Express said:
That was a rant the likes of something my dad used to do. He got to go on a nuclear submarine owned by Finland like 30 years ago, which would lead to him becoming the expert on every submarine movie we saw at the theater thereafter. First interior shot of any submarine, be it Red October, or U-571, or K-19, my dad was always quick with "That's not what they look like inside."
Fair point. I believe they did some early handwaving saying that all of the SAMs RADAR fields prevented GPS munitions from being used, so...ok, I guess.bthotugigem05 said:
I think perfect world they would've used Tomahawks to take out the SAM batteries and a squadron of F22s or F35s for the missile drop.
...but then we wouldn't have a movie because neither of those are 2-seater aircraft. They had to shoehorn a reason to use F-18s into the plot, taking a lot of artistic license/plot armor in order to do so.
Honestly, I would have loved to have seen Maverick and crew's mission be to fly against a rogue aircraft carrier for [insert reason] and then have a ton of dogfight scenes with all of the pilots they recruited for the mission. Might have made the scope too big for the movie, or maybe they could make a sequel and create a whole new movie universe!
Top Gun: Maverick: Battle of Midway, Part II
I apologize for saying the word "rant" about your post. You are correct in that the purpose of a message board is to discuss things. As the first person to ever make a joke out of someone else's post, it shames me that I have treated my fellow Aggies this way. I hope you can accept my humble apologies for the way I have behaved today and that in the future, we can perhaps one day share an ice cream cone together at which point, if you assist me in bending down as I have a bad leg, I will do my best to grovel in hopes of winning your acceptance that this is in fact, a sincere apology, by me, The Porkchop Express, to you, Gaius Rufus, on this, the 7th day of September in the year of our lord, 2022.Gaius Rufus said:Again, not ranting. Just pointing out some things that bothered me. Isn't that the point of this whole thread? To discuss the movie? Not all agree that it was awesome across the board with no faults whatsoever?The Porkchop Express said:
That was a rant the likes of something my dad used to do. He got to go on a nuclear submarine owned by Finland like 30 years ago, which would lead to him becoming the expert on every submarine movie we saw at the theater thereafter. First interior shot of any submarine, be it Red October, or U-571, or K-19, my dad was always quick with "That's not what they look like inside."
MY post breakdown:
33% Star Wars
33% Astros
33% Making myself laugh
33% Star Wars
33% Astros
33% Making myself laugh
So it is written, so it shall be done.
This constant stuff on this forum is so childish.Gaius Rufus said:
I think it's ok if I have a different opinion than you. Note, I'm not telling you to change your opinion (weird that I have to keep repeating this to adults, but, I'm glad you were able to enjoy it), I'm just discussing the movie. Sorry that it bothers you.
"I'm just posting my opinion on a public forum. Why does it bother you so much that you have to then post your opinion."
Yeah buddy... I posted my opinion too. Sorry if it bothers you
MooreTrucker said:
So it is written, so it shall be done.
That's not the quote.
Close enoughmaroon barchetta said:MooreTrucker said:
So it is written, so it shall be done.
That's not the quote.
Featured Stories
See All
9:23
18m ago
694
In-Home Visit: Aggies have added to two classes with Norman & Ford
by TexAgs Recruiting
30:17
1d ago
10k
54:23
1d ago
3.5k
FTM, Ep. 61: College baseball topics with Jason Penry of Penry Advisors
by FollowTheMoney