Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

[-JKR-]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

And here he is! It’s Trolls 2 all over again!

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

It's OK to say you just can't handle a discussion about the thematic issues in the film

Says the guy who just posts a glib screencap every time someone wants to 'discuss' it. Gah, done it again! Must stop feeding, it's had its fill today.

[Farerb]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Says the guy who just posts a glib screencap every time someone wants to 'discuss' it. Gah, done it again! Must stop feeding, it's had its fill today.

Is he a guy though? I keep seeing people referring to him as a he, yet it's Alice Blue Bonnet...

[moreorless]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

I mean, first of all, I guess I should thank you for the first actual thoughtful response I've gotten so far in this thread, I'm glad you're actually able and willing to engage in a more analytical frame of discussion. That's always appreciated.

In regards to the character of Maverick, I would say that the biggest hurdle to overcome with the sequel is the fact that it just feels like he has majorly squandered so much of his potential. He's gotten away with a lot more than probably any pilot ever would IRL because he can feel confident he's got Iceman to back him up. So, right there that's kind of problematic as well, it makes one wonder whether the two of them didn't end up learning the wrong lessons from what happens in the first movie.

To be honest, I was never a big fan of the first movie, but I thought the trite story was at least somewhat redeemed by the acknowledgement that it wasn't a very good thing to be some kind of "hot shot" who doesn't care about how his actions might affect others. Which would, I guess, make it a slightly less objectionable movie in so many ways.

However, the Maverick we meet in the sequel clearly couldn't care less about how his actions might hurt other people. We never get to learn where exactly that hypersonic plane from the beginning of the movie actually crashed... but for all we know, he could have come close to crashing in a populated area. A suburban neighborhood, a crowded mall, who knows. We all know how much damage a crashing plane can do when it hits a place where people live or work. And clearly to Maverick, it didn't make any difference if he crashed the plane onto a populated area. He just *had* to see how far past Mach 10 he could push the plane. (It might have been less objectionable if he'd been testing the plane over the ocean).

To be honest though that kind of analysis seems like searching a little too hard for plotholes to me rather than judging the film by its actual intensions. If I was doing that I would be far more inclined to judge it via the unquestioned nature of the strike on "Not mentioned but obviously Iran".

The way the film shows it the test crash was not putting others in danger, it was putting himself in danger and the plane. Thats obviously very different to the way it showed the crash in the original film were he takes a risk and it ends up killing Goose.

It is ultimately a relatively simple romanticized action film character painted in quite broad strokes and I think that does necessitate going over the same ground somewhat but I don't think the character is simply regressed to his state at the start of the original film. By the end of that film I'm not sure we see Maverick clearly ready to settle down with Kelly Mcginnis and potentially act as an engaged surrogate father to Gooses son.

[Farerb]

Why do people think it was Iran and not Russia or China?

[LordoftheRings]

Just remember the three rules, unless you have money burning in your pocket ...

The infamous I Bar on Naval Air Station North Island featured in Top Gun Maverick - YouTube

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by moreorless

To be honest though that kind of analysis seems like searching a little too hard for plotholes to me rather than judging the film by its actual intensions. If I was doing that I would be far more inclined to judge it via the unquestioned nature of the strike on "Not mentioned but obviously Iran".

The way the film shows it the test crash was not putting others in danger, it was putting himself in danger and the plane. Thats obviously very different to the way it showed the crash in the original film were he takes a risk and it ends up killing Goose.

It is ultimately a relatively simple romanticized action film character painted in quite broad strokes and I think that does necessitate going over the same ground somewhat but I don't think the character is simply regressed to his state at the start of the original film. By the end of that film I'm not sure we see Maverick clearly ready to settle down with Kelly Mcginnis and potentially act as an engaged surrogate father to Gooses son.

Yep, test flights are done over deserts, dry lake beds etc to reduce the risk to the local population, the only person Mav is realistically endangering is himself. Unless we're gonna go down the route of "everyone at Top Gun is an immoral evil-doer for flying jet planes and practising dog-fighting that could end up crashing"? Thought not. (As an aside, I really don't get this hand-wringing "but what about collateral damage???" critique that's sprung up in recent years to beat otherwise decent characters with. Call it the Man of Steel effect.)

As I literally done said already, Mav doesn't want the heartache in either his personal or professional life any longer. He takes one of the most dangerous jobs there is for a pilot, he keeps Rooster at arm's length and then some, and the interesting thing about Charlie in the first film is that she's not some airheaded simp who's after Mav for his volleyball skills, she REALLY wants to get that information on the MiG and makes it quite clear that she'll be moving on to the new job in Washington. Mav ultimately got his heart broke too many times so he decided that was that and cut himself off from his previous life. Only when he's drafted back in does he realise he'll have to make amends with both himself and the people he's hurt over the years.

Hell, I'm not even sure he changes a great deal by the end of the second film either but that's the thing here, does there HAVE to be some deeply involving "message" regarding his journey as a character? Is there some sort of moral imperative at work here to keep Maverick away from the impressionable youth of today? I'm reminded of the old quote about looking for the secrets of the universe on a gum wrapper.

[Geoff D]

Military Discipline: Not Very Maverick At All doesn't have quite the same ring to it. It's almost like this is meant to be a movie and is not wholly indicative of real life.

[Farerb]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Military Discipline: Not Very Maverick At All doesn't have quite the same ring to it. It's almost like this is meant to be a movie and is not wholly indicative of real life.

At least it's not the argument of "if you like this film it means you support the wasting of US tax dollars".

[StarWarsIsAwesome123]

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

One doesn't expect movies to be indicative of real life. But even a fictional movie can't help but show the protagonist's values.

But you're upset that a protagonist from a film you don't even like hasn't moved on in thirty+ years. (Internet in a nutshell, folks!) The sequel, as belated as it is, had to come up with a way of getting Mav back in the planes, for if he'd been a good boy for all this time then he'd have been moved upstairs just like Iceman was. The very existence of the sequel is predicated on Mav flying again and Top Gun: Desk Jockey was never the way they were going to go about it. No message? No problem.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by kylor

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...s#post19663013
something you won’t see very often and commemorating the moment ^ –



P.S.
Kudos to Dolby for giving a private screening of Top Gun: Maverick to investors at the Dolby Cinema inside Dolby HQ several days ago.

[-JKR-]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

"Upset" is a ridiculously loaded word to use when "mildly amused" would be so much more appropriate to seeing a movie that is apparently successful because it goes with the opposite message of what made the first one somewhat appealing.

You sure enjoy twisting shit around as you see fit and jerking off to your takes, don't you?

[moreorless]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

No, I'm not talking about "plot holes" at all, not in any way whatsoever. I'm simply talking about the themes that are explored in the movie. You have to, at the end of the day, come to some sort of conclusion about what the "big lesson" is that the characters learn - or even if there is no "big lesson" they've learned. Those may all be equally honest readings of the movie - it is a perfectly normal thing for folks to interpret things in somewhat different ways, to some extent, I guess.

The comments about the test crash seem pretty much that way to me, I don't really see how you can say the film presents the test crash as him putting others in danger when to me it seems pretty clear it doesnt. Your argument seems to be based on the idea the films presentation of events was wrong and perhaps it was(although the film does seem to point towards it happening in a very isolated area) but really is realism that important in such a situation in such a film?

Also, at the end of the first movie Goose's wife was still alive, so I doubt that Maverick would have seen himself necessarily as being a potential surrogate father because, for all he knew, maybe she would have found another guy and married him. In which case Goose's son wouldn't have grown up entirely without a father figure.

Thats my point, there's not even really the setup were he could have been shown to have developed in that fashion in the original film thus the sequel isnt merely going over the same ground.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

"Upset" is a ridiculously loaded word to use when "mildly amused" would be so much more appropriate to seeing a movie that is apparently successful because it goes with the opposite message of what made the first one somewhat appealing.

Opposite message? Or just the same message part deux? It's why I called it a remake as much as it is a sequel. You seem to be more than "mildly annoyed" that it's doing so well otherwise you wouldn't keep calling our attention to how morally bankrupt it is. I didn't want to do something as crass as mention the numbers but now you've referenced its success then $800M and counting would seem to suggest that whatever the message is it's being heard loud and clear by the audience, even if its not the message you wanted to hear.

[moreorless]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Opposite message? Or just the same message part deux? It's why I called it a remake as much as it is a sequel. You seem to be more than "mildly annoyed" that it's doing so well otherwise you wouldn't keep calling our attention to how morally bankrupt it is. I didn't want to do something as crass as mention the numbers but now you've referenced its success then $800M and counting would seem to suggest that whatever the message is it's being heard loud and clear by the audience, even if its not the message you wanted to hear.

Really I think Top Guns militarism is mostly just in the background and more reflective of pretty standard attitudes. I actually find a lot of alien invasion/disaster kind of films to be more questionable there even if there less realistic as they tend to glory in the US military, nationalism and "family values" much more overtly were as Top Gun tends to focus more on personal drama.

It does help obviously that Cruise is a good actor by action film standards and I think that the Maverick character does not undergo some cliched moral transfiguration is in the films favour, they are able to sell rather more subtle shifts in character than is typical of such films.

I do think there is a significant difference in the character as well, the character is ageless in some respects in that he's still living a similar kind of life but it does feel like the story of a middle aged man rather than just replaying the story of a brash arrogant young man.

[CreasyBear]

Someone needs a nap.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by Jay H.

This has been a public service announcement by the Grammar Police.

[Synchg]

im so tempted to read the last 2-3 pages but im sure its just a waste of time. maybe if i get bored one day *bookmarks*

[LordoftheRings]

"Throwing an extra monkey wrench into the Father’s Day weekend box office against the competition is the holdover power of Paramount’s Top Gun: Maverick, the ultimate movie to take your dad to. The movie is eyeing a glorious 4th weekend of $40M, -23%, for a running total of $462.1M; just $37.9M from a half billion stateside." - By Anthony D'Alessandro (Deadline)

So far, revenues:
• Domestic: 53%
• Foreign: 47%

▪︎ https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/96...ick-promotions

* 'Top Gun: Maverick' will begin screening at theaters on June 22nd in Korea (Wednesday, next week). Cruise landed in Seoul yesterday to promote the flick.

Worldwide: $800M+ (200 to go)



P.S. For the last five pages or so I thought I was on another social platform.