Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

[kylor]

Originally Posted by StarWarsIsAwesome123

[Show spoiler]

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

How many times have I explained it already?

I just read the last four pages and you haven't explained your assertion TG:M undermines Top Gun. Which is why I asked. I don't know what you're on about.

[StarWarsIsAwesome123]

This'll never end if we keep quoting them.

[NVllyRnnr]

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

[Show spoiler]I just read the last four pages and you haven't explained your assertion TG:M undermines Top Gun. Which is why I asked. I don't know what you're on about.

[Show spoiler]
OK, I don't want to be rude by completely ignoring your question. So, what I'll do, is to put this in spoiler mode so people won't have to see it UNLESS they click on it.

The first movie was all about Maverick becoming a better person than he was at the start of the movie. The new movie shows that he didn't really become the better person we saw at the end of the first movie, that he was just pretending to be a better person but apparently underneath it all, he was still conceited, arrogant, and fully believing that the Navy should just let him do whatever the heck he wants.

That's it, essentially... Does that ruin the movie for anyone?

Evidently not, it's doing very well. So you can't say that pointing out this thematic incongruity is somehow trying to "convince" anybody of anything. If you don't think it changes your enjoyment of the movie (and really, why should it?), then it makes absolutely zero difference if the thematic development between the two movies is clearly a mess.

Does that sufficiently answer your question? If not, let me know and I will elaborate.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

[Show spoiler]
OK, I don't want to be rude by completely ignoring your question. So, what I'll do, is to put this in spoiler mode so people won't have to see it UNLESS they click on it.

The first movie was all about Maverick becoming a better person than he was at the start of the movie. The new movie shows that he didn't really become the better person we saw at the end of the first movie, that he was just pretending to be a better person but apparently underneath it all, he was still conceited, arrogant, and fully believing that the Navy should just let him do whatever the heck he wants.

That's it, essentially... Does that ruin the movie for anyone?

Evidently not, it's doing very well. So you can't say that pointing out this thematic incongruity is somehow trying to "convince" anybody of anything. If you don't think it changes your enjoyment of the movie (and really, why should it?), then it makes absolutely zero difference if the thematic development between the two movies is clearly a mess.

Does that sufficiently answer your question? If not, let me know and I will elaborate.

[Show spoiler]Maverick did mature some in Top Gun 1, but he hardly became some humble yeoman. I also dont see him bettering as a person at all in top gun 1, just maturing a bit.

The takeaway from Top Gun 2 is sometimes the status quo isn't necessarily the best answer, and unusual missions might require unusual people. I also dont see his character in top gun 2 contradicting the end of top gun 1 in any way whatsoever.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by Ruined

[Show spoiler]Maverick did mature some in Top Gun 1, but he hardly became some humble yeoman. I also dont see him bettering as a person at all in top gun 1, just maturing a bit.

The takeaway from Top Gun 2 is sometimes the status quo isn't necessarily the best answer, and unusual missions might require unusual people.

[Show spoiler]I mean, fair enough if that's your take, but the movie that I saw presented him as being more of a team player at the end of the first movie and less obsessed with always being the #1 pilot (classic showoff personality). It looked like he might have learned to play by the rules and do as he's told.

That's completely reversed in the new movie. He has grown comfortable in the knowledge that Iceman will back him up and so he apparently feels untouchable. Why or how the Navy approved a cooperation deal with Paramount when the movie goes out of its way to show favoritism as a way of life in the Navy is, honestly, beyond me. It is essentially saying, "if you've got friends high up the chain of command, you can break all the rules you want and willfully destroy government property".

Is that a huge deal? In the bigger scheme of things, maybe not. This observation was never meant to be a big deal (in my mind at least) but yesterday for some reason everyone became obsessed with quote-replying to my post. Like, if you don't think it's a big deal and it doesn't affect your enjoyment of the movie, then, why would you even want to discuss it any further?

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

[Show spoiler]I mean, fair enough if that's your take, but the movie that I saw presented him as being more of a team player at the end of the first movie and less obsessed with always being the #1 pilot (classic showoff personality). It looked like he might have learned to play by the rules and do as he's told.

That's completely reversed in the new movie. He has grown comfortable in the knowledge that Iceman will back him up and so he apparently feels untouchable. Why or how the Navy approved a cooperation deal with Paramount when the movie goes out of its way to show favoritism as a way of life in the Navy is, honestly, beyond me. It is essentially saying, "if you've got friends high up the chain of command, you can break all the rules you want and willfully destroy government property".

Is that a huge deal? In the bigger scheme of things, maybe not. This observation was never meant to be a big deal (in my mind at least) but yesterday for some reason everyone became obsessed with quote-replying to my post. Like, if you don't think it's a big deal and it doesn't affect your enjoyment of the movie, then, why would you even want to discuss it any further?

[Show spoiler]Well honestly, how many legendary fighter pilots would have an equally legendary admiral granting them carte blanche to fly by the seat if their pants? Guessing zero in the real world. It's a movie, not real life.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by Batman1980

[Show spoiler]Well honestly, how many legendary fighter pilots would have an equally legendary admiral granting them carte blanche to fly by the seat if their pants? Guessing zero in the real world. It's a movie, not real life.

[Show spoiler]I mean, I'm sure not expecting "real life" in a Hollywood movie, never have and never will.

What I was getting at wasn't so much whether or not it felt like "real life," just the extent to which character development and the thematic importance of it seems inconsistent from the first movie to the new one.

I was never a huge fan of the first one - but I could at least get behind the message that he'd learned to be a better member of the armed forces, one who would toe the line and obey superiors, follow orders, etc. Even in the context of a Hollywood movie, they have to learn to do what's best for the country.

You don't have to tell me that a lot of people like him just fine being disobedient and stuff - that's clearly beyond obvious.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

[Show spoiler]I mean, I'm sure not expecting "real life" in a Hollywood movie, never have and never will.

What I was getting at wasn't so much whether or not it felt like "real life," just the extent to which character development and the thematic importance of it seems inconsistent from the first movie to the new one.

I was never a huge fan of the first one - but I could at least get behind the message that he'd learned to be a better member of the armed forces, one who would toe the line and obey superiors, follow orders, etc. Even in the context of a Hollywood movie, they have to learn to do what's best for the country.

You don't have to tell me that a lot of people like him just fine being disobedient and stuff - that's clearly beyond obvious.

I think Maverick needs to grow up, especially since he's in his 60s now and clearly being pointed to as a role model for young fighter pilots. However, these films are clearly meant to be dramedies so who knows if they'll ever have the character grow beyond the man child he is right now.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

[Show spoiler]I mean, fair enough if that's your take, but the movie that I saw presented him as being more of a team player at the end of the first movie and less obsessed with always being the #1 pilot (classic showoff personality). It looked like he might have learned to play by the rules and do as he's told.

That's completely reversed in the new movie. He has grown comfortable in the knowledge that Iceman will back him up and so he apparently feels untouchable. Why or how the Navy approved a cooperation deal with Paramount when the movie goes out of its way to show favoritism as a way of life in the Navy is, honestly, beyond me. It is essentially saying, "if you've got friends high up the chain of command, you can break all the rules you want and willfully destroy government property".

Is that a huge deal? In the bigger scheme of things, maybe not. This observation was never meant to be a big deal (in my mind at least) but yesterday for some reason everyone became obsessed with quote-replying to my post. Like, if you don't think it's a big deal and it doesn't affect your enjoyment of the movie, then, why would you even want to discuss it any further?

Doesn't maverick buzz the tower near the end of top gun 1?

[Ernest Rister]

Why are we spoiler-tagging this?

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

The first movie was all about Maverick becoming a better person than he was at the start of the movie.

It was? I thought it was about a reckless pilot who flew like he always had something to prove, suffered a crisis of confidence when his REO is killed in an accident, and then regains his confidence and saves the day and gets the girl. Roll credits. Not exactly Ordinary People-level drama.

[Show spoiler]

The new movie shows that he didn't really become the better person we saw at the end of the first movie, that he was just pretending to be a better person but apparently underneath it all, he was still conceited, arrogant, and fully believing that the Navy should just let him do whatever the heck he wants.

What better person? He was never a bad person. Maverick is still Maverick? Is that the gripe?

[Show spoiler]

So you can't say that pointing out this thematic incongruity is somehow trying to "convince" anybody of anything. If you don't think it changes your enjoyment of the movie (and really, why should it?), then it makes absolutely zero difference if the thematic development between the two movies is clearly a mess.

What incongruity?

[Show spoiler]
Does that sufficiently answer your question? If not, let me know and I will elaborate.

Naah, never mind. The Top Gun films are mass-market crowd-pleasers with appealing actors and produced with skill. If one were to go after Top Gun: Maverick, I suppose a point could be raised that he's practically indestructible, but even that misses the point. The audience wants a hero, and like Indiana Jones and James Bond and Rocky Balboa, they've got one.

[Batman1980]

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

What better person? He was never a bad person.

First, I didn't call him "a bad person". But, more importantly, whether he was good or bad for the Navy would depend on who you asked. Remember how Stinger told him his ego was "writing checks you body can't cash"? So, clearly he struck some of his commanding officers as being a bit of a bad apple, perhaps even unfit for service if he didn't start acting differently. He needed to be taught to do things differently, and when we learn to do things a better way, sometimes that makes us a better person.

So, yeah, maybe he wasn't the best person he could be at the start of the movie. Doesn't make him a "bad" person and I never said he was one.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Sure, but only after he has done his part in the mission and shown he can be a good team member. In the movie, he comes to the rescue of his comrades roughly 95 minutes into the film, and roughly 5 minutes later, he does another flyby. But that's only after he's saved the day by doing the right thing, followed the orders, obeyed the mission commander (James Tolkan again)

[Show spoiler]...but in this case unlike the first movie it is clear in top gun 2 the mission commander is the "bad guy" with his less demanding but also suicidal mission plan - perhaps jaded and willing to treat the pilots as expendable for the greater good of the mission. Maverick remains the rebellious good guy who doesn't always follow the book. Ice man is a force of good that calls on Maverick because he thinks Mavericks unusual and extreme flying is the one and only way to complete the mission without sacrificing a number of talented pilots, and he is clearly frustrated with life being treated as expendable when there may be another option.

The movie is less about nepotism and not following orders; instead it's more about checks and balances on power, finding better ways to accomplish a goal, respecting your elders, embracing exceptionalism, and remembering that all human life is sacred (except the guys flying the 5th gen fighters )

[Flash3000]

There's always one person who completely ruins a thread to the extent others hesitate visiting the thread anymore because when they do there's several more pages of constant, repetitive, damn annoying posts by that same person going on and on and on.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by Ruined

[Show spoiler]...but in this case unlike the first movie it is clear in top gun 2 the mission commander is the "bad guy" with his less demanding but also suicidal mission plan - perhaps jaded and willing to treat the pilots as expendable for the greater good of the mission. Maverick remains the rebellious good guy who doesn't always follow the book. Ice man is a force of good that calls on Maverick because he thinks Mavericks unusual and extreme flying is the one and only way to complete the mission without sacrificing a number of talented pilots, and he is clearly frustrated with life being treated as expendable when there may be another option.

The movie is less about nepotism and not following orders; instead it's more about checks and balances on power, finding better ways to accomplish a goal, respecting your elders, embracing exceptionalism, and remembering that all human life is sacred (except the guys flying the 5th gen fighters )

[Show spoiler]Well, I mean, I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but doesn't the Hamm character himself get orders from higher up? I mean, for a mission of this importance one would think the DefSec would have to at least be kept abridged of what's happening. And yes, there is definitely a subtext that some of the officers maybe don't care too much if some human sacrifice takes place. Then again, if they could use drones to take out the mission target, they would have done that already.

I'm glad we're able to compare and contrast different takes on the movie. This is good!

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

[Show spoiler]Well, I mean, I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but doesn't the Hamm character himself get orders from higher up? I mean, for a mission of this importance one would think the DefSec would have to at least be kept abridged of what's happening. And yes, there is definitely a subtext that some of the officers maybe don't care too much if some human sacrifice takes place. Then again, if they could use drones to take out the mission target, they would have done that already.

I'm glad we're able to compare and contrast different takes on the movie. This is good!

You’re not comparing and contrasting anything, you’re trolling, page after page.

[Zivouhr]

Top Gun 2
Domestic (52.7%)
$466,168,000
International (47.3%)
$419,000,000
Worldwide
$885,168,000

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

First, I didn't call him "a bad person". But, more importantly, whether he was good or bad for the Navy would depend on who you asked.

Who cares? How many police chiefs have there been barking at the Callahans, Riggs, McClanes of the movies? Add Mitchell to the list of hot dogs in a chain of command who defy their superior officers and break the rules.

So, clearly he struck some of his commanding officers as being a bit of a bad apple, perhaps even unfit for service if he didn't start acting differently. He needed to be taught to do things differently, and when we learn to do things a better way, sometimes that makes us a better person.

Viper taught Maverick to never leave his wingman because Maverick could get killed. So he doesn't. And then overcomes his crisis of confidence, shoots down some planes, buzzes the tower in defiance of orders and tells Iceman to be his wingman, goes back to Miramar and gets the girl. Cue the guitar and the Top Gun theme.