Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

[Michael24]

It seems like common belief is that a Top Gun 3 would likely focus on Rooster, which I'd be down for, but he already had a good character arc in Maverick, so I'm not sure what the story could be. Unless it's a prequel that follows him when he was at Top Gun the first time.

But speaking of prequels, awhile back I was reading an article detailing the early years of Top Gun when it was first founded in the early-70s, with former WWII pilots training Vietnam War pilots, and it was really fascinating. I'd love to see a Top Gun film covering that era.

[LordoftheRings]

Because we love good movies and real-life good true stories ...
▪︎https://www.cinemablend.com/intervie...mans-chemistry

This one's for you Penton

[kylor]

Glad they changed that. Bob didn't really seem like a bad guy so that's good, plus it kept the focus more on the rivalry/tension between Bradley and Hangman.

[Just_Discovered_3D]

Originally Posted by kylor

Glad they changed that. Bob didn't really seem like a bad guy so that's good, plus it kept the focus more on the rivalry/tension between Bradley and Hangman.

"Bob: Baby on Board" definitely would not have worked as a rival to Phoenix, his spinelessness was what kept that angle to the film copacetic. A plotline involving him losing his manhood or an improbable romance between the two of them (ie: the original intent), would have caused the film to have crashed like Phoenix at the box office.

Frankly, the film needed more of Hangman. It also could have done with a bit more for the other pilots, as they were scarcely in the film, essentially just there to make the briefing room look full for Maverick's speeches

[Michael24]

I think the director did say in an interview there was quite a bit more footage fleshing out the other characters (one scene even had Cyclone visiting Phoenix and Bob in the infirmary after their crash), but it just all ended up on the cutting room floor while tightening up the film.

[Just_Discovered_3D]

Originally Posted by Michael24

I think the director did say in an interview there was quite a bit more footage fleshing out the other characters (one scene even had Cyclone visiting Phoenix and Bob in the infirmary after their crash), but it just all ended up on the cutting room floor while tightening up the film.

I can support that, while it could have been cool to have development for the other pilots, it easily could've dragged if not done with just the right amount of balance.

Although, I'll admit that I had forgotten Cyclone's name, while Hangman, Rooster, Baby-on-Board, & Phoenix stuck with me all these months later.

[Mephariel]

Originally Posted by Michael24

It seems like common belief is that a Top Gun 3 would likely focus on Rooster, which I'd be down for, but he already had a good character arc in Maverick, so I'm not sure what the story could be. Unless it's a prequel that follows him when he was at Top Gun the first time.

But speaking of prequels, awhile back I was reading an article detailing the early years of Top Gun when it was first founded in the early-70s, with former WWII pilots training Vietnam War pilots, and it was really fascinating. I'd love to see a Top Gun film covering that era.

Maybe it is just me, but I don't find Rooster to be an interesting character. Maybe he could be one, but the Rooster in TGM didn't convince me to care about him enough to watch him lead a film. Without Cruise, all the other characters could be in an ensemble tv series called Top Gun. But an entire film dedicated to one of them? Nothing a good script can't solve I guess.

[LordoftheRings]

▪︎https://screenrant.com/movie-box-off...over-pandemic/

[fredman]

Originally Posted by Mephariel

Maybe it is just me, but I don't find Rooster to be an interesting character. Maybe he could be one, but the Rooster in TGM didn't convince me to care about him enough to watch him lead a film. Without Cruise, all the other characters could be in an ensemble tv series called Top Gun. But an entire film dedicated to one of them? Nothing a good script can't solve I guess.

^This. Quite frankly, I'd not want another sequel - they should quit while they're ahead, but it being Hollywood and all I know that they'll just have to try. The story was quite a stretch to get Maverick back into the cockpit at his age, so Cruise will not really be viable for another go. Centering on Rooster & company reduces it to direct-to-video status. I hope it's another 36 years before they attempt it; I'll be gone by then and won't care.

[Just_Discovered_3D]

Originally Posted by Mephariel

Maybe it is just me, but I don't find Rooster to be an interesting character. Maybe he could be one, but the Rooster in TGM didn't convince me to care about him enough to watch him lead a film. Without Cruise, all the other characters could be in an ensemble tv series called Top Gun. But an entire film dedicated to one of them? Nothing a good script can't solve I guess.

Yeah, Rooster was weird. Miles Teller's acting was as hokey as his mustache IMO.

Since he was so hesitant and timid in the cockpit, was Rooster an ironic nickname? Frankly I was left wondering how he got through TOPGUN as all of his fellow pilots knew his reputation for being a risk-averse slowpoke.

I'm glad they dropped the subplot about his relationship with Phoenix, just the bit of it that was left in the film was awkward.

[drb999]

Considering the box office a sequel is almost a sure thing.

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by drb999

Considering the box office a sequel is almost a sure thing.

That's right; in Hollywood money talks. Maverick ain't dead; he's on a mission.

[Just_Discovered_3D]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

That's right; in Hollywood money talks. Maverick ain't dead; he's on a mission.

Area 88 meets Flying Tigers as Maverick is put into a disavowed paramilitary mercenary unit on a nondescript Asian island to defend it from liberation by its equally nondescript neighbor while once again trying to prove the viability of jets to a US military brass who are bent on replacing pilots with drone rangers?

Maverick somehow switches to a harrier and we get a soft reboot of Airwolf?

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by Just_Discovered_3D

Area 88 meets Flying Tigers as Maverick is put into a disavowed paramilitary mercenary unit on a nondescript Asian island to defend it from liberation by its equally nondescript neighbor while once again trying to prove the viability of jets to a US military brass who are bent on replacing pilots with drone rangers?

Maverick somehow switches to a harrier and we get a soft reboot of Airwolf?

You could become a scriptwriter, you have the skill.
Ever thought of it?

[filmbuffTX]

Premiering on Paramount+ December 22

[-JKR-]

Originally Posted by filmbuffTX

Premiering on Paramount+ December 22

See?

Now that's what I call a solid run for a movie, in 2022.

The windows are not too far apart (as they would've been years/decades ago), yet they allow the movie to have a solid life in theaters first, and then on digital and physical media, before premiering on a streaming platform.

This way, the Paramount+ will also be more of an event for the people who haven't seen it yet or were waiting for the premiere to rewatch it, as it led to some anticipation being created for the premiere (which there wouldn't have been, had they dumped the movie on streaming after 45 or 90 days).

We likely have Tom Cruise to thank for this, but Top Gun: Maverick has been a masterclass in how to roll out a movie in 2022.

[LordoftheRings]

Yup ...
▪︎https://www.comingsoon.net/movies/ne...treaming-debut

[Pieter V]

The Sound of Top Gun: Maverick | The #DolbyInstitute Podcast - YouTube

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by -JKR-

See?

Now that's what I call a solid run for a movie, in 2022.

The windows are not too far apart (as they would've been years/decades ago), yet they allow the movie to have a solid life in theaters first, and then on digital and physical media, before premiering on a streaming platform.

This way, the Paramount+ will also be more of an event for the people who haven't seen it yet or were waiting for the premiere to rewatch it, as it led to some anticipation being created for the premiere (which there wouldn't have been, had they dumped the movie on streaming after 45 or 90 days).

We likely have Tom Cruise to thank for this, but Top Gun: Maverick has been a masterclass in how to roll out a movie in 2022.

TGM was an anomaly. 90% of all movies shown in theaters make 90% of their total BO take in the first 45 days. That's why they picked that date. You can't make a blanket statement about TGM ignoring the facts about all the other movies shown in theaters. It doesn't fit.

[Just_Discovered_3D]

Originally Posted by -JKR-

See?

Now that's what I call a solid run for a movie, in 2022.

The windows are not too far apart (as they would've been years/decades ago), yet they allow the movie to have a solid life in theaters first, and then on digital and physical media, before premiering on a streaming platform.

This way, the Paramount+ will also be more of an event for the people who haven't seen it yet or were waiting for the premiere to rewatch it, as it led to some anticipation being created for the premiere (which there wouldn't have been, had they dumped the movie on streaming after 45 or 90 days).

We likely have Tom Cruise to thank for this, but Top Gun: Maverick has been a masterclass in how to roll out a movie in 2022.

Maybe all movies should take 6 months or so to make it to streaming, even if they crater at the box office?

Im wondering if putting them on streaming too soon not only removes the incentive to see them theatrically but also brings back the name when people still remember that the film was supposed to suck. Clearly that last part doesn't apply to TGM, but I'm thinking if a film gets 6 months to "cool off" before going to streaming then it might get something close to a second chance to make a first impression.

But if Maverick hadn't been the one movie that "middle America" had been waiting for then it would have been on streaming much sooner, no matter what Tommy C had to say about it.