• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Top Gun 2

wink said:
So, the target audience are people who don't mind seeing the same story, even scenes, replayed in a big budget highly hyped movie? It isn't like most folks haven't seen TG1 and recognize the lack of creativity.. The youngsters have streamed it or watched it on their parents old DVDs.
Click to expand...
You’re probably right. But that doesn’t square with the reviews now, does it?

At a guess, I’d say it’s different “growing up” with TG1 as “your generation’s” movie, and watching your parents’s old DVD copy.
 
Swanee said:
I liked the "Pull the UHF 1 circuit breaker."
"Which one is that, there are a ton back here?!"
"I don't know kid, that was kinda your dad's job!"
Click to expand...
Probably got some weird looks cracking up at that in the theater. Sorry, flew Grumman, can't help it . . .

Also enjoyed the whole "we have to get the hell out of here, but first we have to dick around with this stupid fucking huffer" situation.
 
Last edited:
wink said:
Or fight one? In keeping with your antique assessment and my interest in something different, the scene should have been Mav in Rhino shooting the lead of a section of enemy F-14s from 30+ miles leaving the wingman's RIO franticly looking at the radar for the bogie. Two turns after the merge Mav guns the Turkey without breaking a sweat while signing "You've lost that loving feeling." Fitting end, metaphorically and otherwise, to the Tomcat and the unrealistic nostalgic fanboys.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that’s where I would have taken it, but my name isn’t Bruckheimer. I think Mav using his knowledges of Tomcat performance in a fight against one, morally conflicted… does he pull the trigger or doesn’t he… “Talk to me Goose!” ?
nittany03 said:
This isn't Reddit. Substantiate your arguments or don't make them. Don't hide behind stupid "boomer" memes when you're talking to someone who wasn't born in the 60s.
Click to expand...
It's at least funny that different factions of millennials are calling each other Boomers as a pejorative.
 
wink said:
Stipulating it is all a matter individual taste, there is a huge gap between "art" and plebeian entertainment where most cinema resides. For my taste, TG2 barely met the base entertainment standard. Not because it wasn't accurate or realistic enough for me, but because seeing the story line, multiple scenes and characters simply lifted from the original was not entertaining to me. TG1 was more entertaining to me because it was new material. You can name dozens of sequels that were not carbon copies of the previous film, but simply carried on the original story into new territory. Why not for TG2?
Click to expand...
To me it suffered from the same phenomenon as Creed in that the main character who we should be caring about (Adonis Creed in Creed and Rooster in Top Gun: Maverick) wasn't the star. Not only that, they were cast as no-name, relatively bad actors. Maverick's story is already told and there's really nowhere else to go for his character development as someone over 50 years old in the twilight of his career, thus focusing on him in the sequel leads to bland writing. His role should have been similar in scope to Viper's in the original.

So then after that we're left with lots of pew pew and swish swish, without the 'it's so bad it's good' bar scenes with cheesy pickup lines and homoerotic locker room scenes. And the 80s/90s were generally better at building tension and story arcs with action scenes than movies in the 21st century that just focus on sensory overload.
 
Last edited:
Spekkio said:
To me it suffered from the same phenomenon as Creed in that the main character who we should be caring about (Adonis Creed in Creed and Rooster in Top Gun: Maverick) wasn't the star
Click to expand...

Spekkio said:
Maverick's story is already told and there's really nowhere else to go for his character development as someone over 50 years old in the twilight of his career, thus focusing on him in the sequel leads to bland writing. His role should have been similar in scope to Viper's in the original.
Click to expand...

Forgetting (and forgiving) the ridiculousness of the overall plot for a moment, it seems the weakest part of the script was actually pointed out by Jon Hamm. Maverick spent 2 weeks (and a lot of screen time) showing his students that they couldn't do the mission. Yes, the scene where Maverick then goes out and shows everyone it can be done is meant to address his weakness as an instructor, but that was lazy writing and in the end, he didn't actually have them go do it as a team until the actual mission. It was kind of a "what was the point of that?" moment for me.

Spekkio said:
Not only that, they were cast as no-name, relatively bad actors.
Click to expand...

I'll give the actors some slack when trying to portray military bravado when they have no experience or foundation to understand how it actually happens in a room with peers. To me, it seemed a big reason Cruise can pull it off now is a lot of life experience and realization of self-worth. Hollywood in general excels at getting this wrong (especially for aviators) Generation Kill seemed to do it pretty well and is an exception.

And don't be talking bad about sweet little Monica Barbaro.
 
Gatordev said:
I'll give the actors some slack when trying to portray military bravado when they have no experience or foundation to understand how it actually happens in a room with peers. To me, it seemed a big reason Cruise can pull it off now is a lot of life experience and realization of self-worth.
Click to expand...
Cruise and Val pulled it off just fine in 1986.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top