Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

[Zivouhr]

So when Tom Cruise introduces the film before it starts, he looks about 10 years older than he was in the film. Maybe it was his hairstyle, but no big deal, people get older the longer they live understandably.

There was mention of the older F14s, F18s and then 5th generation fighter jets having the advantage.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Penny, Mav's past girlfriend, was not in any trace of the first Top Gun film from what I saw. And of course Jennifer Connelly wasn't in the first film either.

While I'm not a fan of scenes with lots of talking in bars in movies, this film thankfully progresses the story partly forward aside from that scheme

[Show spoiler] where just because he has his cell phone out,

he

[Show spoiler] has to pay for the whole club's drinks on him.

When he looks back into the bar from outside, he's reminded of his past, which was a good link to the first film's major conflict and how it connects to the present story. Nicely done there.

The film did an excellent job with these actors seemingly flying the jets, hiding the real pilots very well. So when you see the actor's face against the Gravity forces G-Forces, that's actually them in the jet, suffering the pressure of it. That was cool.

[BluBonnet]

If the majority of movies didn't appeal to modern audiences, theaters would already have gone out of business.

Not saying that business is thriving, across the industry, but theaters haven't disappeared yet.

[Zivouhr]

In the film, I was thinking they could've had a satellite station

[Show spoiler] aim missiles at the volcano shaped mountain to destroy the deposits, but it was never addressed in the film, so maybe it wasn't possible or likely to succeed in time without them getting shot down before impact. Which would explain why they needed these jets to fly in low below the enemy stationed missiles. The use of flares was great to lure the guided missiles to the closest heat source.

[Pieter V]

Domestic Box Office $700,329,744

[DrWally]

Originally Posted by RossyG

Solo had the SJW robot and a pansexual Lando and probably also reaped a bit of the Last Jedi backlash.

This is a spectacular reach, as those particular elements of Solo amount to two spoken lines and ten seconds of screentime. If you're the kind of person who lets something this trivial colour, let alone define your opinion on any movie, then that says more about the person than it does about the movie. And The Last Jedi's 'backlash' was confined to social media and pearl-clutching online circles, NOT to the moviegoing public themselves, as any even cursory investigation into the movie's analytics will confirm, with above-mean Cinemascore ratings and multipliers, which are the vectors of audience engagement that movie studios ACTUALLY PAY ATTENTION TO.

But even the main trilogy was on a downwards trend financially. They were going to do at least one film a year, maybe even more. There hasn't been one in four years and won't be one for a few years to come.

And that 'downward trend' is still one that the Harry Potter / Fantastic Beasts franchise would love to have. That the Fast and the Furious franchise would love to have. That the Transfomers franchise would love to have. That the DCEU would love to have. That the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise would love to have. That Pixar would love to have. That even the Jurassic Park franchise would love to have. Context might mean nothing to you, but it means something to the industry, and Star Wars is still in the penthouse suite of movie properties. So trying to construct a narrative of audience rejection leading to everything being cancelled is total fallacy.

As is your assertion that 'They were going to do at least one film a year, maybe even more'. Sorry, but where on Earth are you getting this from? Because it certainly isn't from Disney or from Lucasfilm themselves. If you can show me a press release announcing a Star Wars film a year every year in perpetuity then please do feel free to produce it, but failing that, I'd say that the ultimate arbiter of Disney's release strategy for Star Wars would be the chairman and CEO of The Walt Disney Company themselves. So let's ask him, shall we?

Here's an extract from Bob Iger's autobiography, page 178, in which he confirms the extent of Disney's production and release strategy for Star Wars following the purchase of Lucasfilm :

' We guessed we could produce and release a Star Wars film every other year in the first six years after acquiring (them), but it would take us time to get started, since we didn't detect that anything was in development. This analysis took place in early 2012, so we estimated our first Star Wars release would be in May 2015, if we could acquire them quickly. Other films would follow in 2017 and 2019'.

So there you have it, direct from the horse's mouth. A movie every other year in the first six years (he ultimately got five). No mention of a movie a year. Certainly no mention of more than one a year. And most certainly no mention of a movie a year in perpetuity. Anything else is.just ether and noise.

[MichaelR]

This thread will be reopened after a suitable lapse of time.

From here on in, the thread will be limited to discussion of “Top Gun: Maverick”. Culture war debates about issues such as “wokeness” will result in removal of both the post(s) and the poster(s).

Thanks for your cooperation.

[Zivouhr]

Top Gun 2 was better than I was expecting from the trailers. The film really delivers on the jet action, and to know that was really them in the jets, that makes it even better, more realistic. The jets looked awesome, and they got some awesome shots of the jets going in formation, flying through, doing fancy moves. But was it all real and no CGI computer alterations at all?

[trevrox]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Top Gun 2 was better than I was expecting from the trailers. The film really delivers on the jet action, and to know that was really them in the jets, that makes it even better, more realistic. The jets looked awesome, and they got some awesome shots of the jets going in formation, flying through, doing fancy moves. But was it all real and no CGI computer alterations at all?

Of course there was CGI. Probably more VFX than most people think, but still much more done practically than other films of this size would have attempted.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by trevrox

Of course there was CGI. Probably more VFX than most people think, but still much more done practically than other films of this size would have attempted.

Thanks. I'm guessing that cool shot when the enemy jet slowly spins down was probably one in CGI, as that looked like a highly tough maneuver to pull off. But yeah, good point that even though they use real jets and Cruise himself said it's real, doesn't mean it's all real.

[trevrox]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Thanks. I'm guessing that cool shot when the enemy jet slowly spins down was probably one in CGI, as that looked like a highly tough maneuver to pull off. But yeah, good point that even though they use real jets and Cruise himself said it's real, doesn't mean it's all real.

Every shot from inside the jets has to have some VFX, considering none of the actors were the ones actually flying them. Darkstar isn't real, so that's mostly CG. Missiles being shot at them, all CG.

There's plenty of visual effects throughout the movie, all extremely well done.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by trevrox

Every shot from inside the jets has to have some VFX, considering none of the actors were the ones actually flying them. Darkstar isn't real, so that's mostly CG. Missiles being shot at them, all CG.

There's plenty of visual effects throughout the movie, all extremely well done.

For the jets I was mostly wondering, but yes, the missiles would be blanks or CGI, though not sure how they did missiles back in the days of Top Gun 1 or Iron Eagle. Probably just blank cases launched into the air, or miniatures.

Yes, the CGI was convincing, no moments where I wasn't sure it wasn't real for the live action shots. Not counting the charts and graphs of the mountain target paths.

[BudBaxter]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

For the jets I was mostly wondering, but yes, the missiles would be blanks or CGI, though not sure how they did missiles back in the days of Top Gun 1 or Iron Eagle. Probably just blank cases launched into the air, or miniatures.

No idea about Iron Eagle, but for the original Top Gun, the Navy let them film one real missile being fired. The shot was then reused a lot, sometimes flipping the image to make it look different. Anything else would have been miniatures.

Most of it still holds up 35 years later IMHO.

[Britbuffguy]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

So when Tom Cruise introduces the film before it starts, he looks about 10 years older than he was in the film. Maybe it was his hairstyle, but no big deal, people get older the longer they live understandably.

There was mention of the older F14s, F18s and then 5th generation fighter jets having the advantage.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Penny, Mav's past girlfriend, was not in any trace of the first Top Gun film from what I saw. And of course Jennifer Connelly wasn't in the first film either.

While I'm not a fan of scenes with lots of talking in bars in movies, this film thankfully progresses the story partly forward aside from that scheme

[Show spoiler] where just because he has his cell phone out,

he

[Show spoiler] has to pay for the whole club's drinks on him.

When he looks back into the bar from outside, he's reminded of his past, which was a good link to the first film's major conflict and how it connects to the present story. Nicely done there.

The film did an excellent job with these actors seemingly flying the jets, hiding the real pilots very well. So when you see the actor's face against the Gravity forces G-Forces, that's actually them in the jet, suffering the pressure of it. That was cool.

She is mentioned TWICE in the original film. I think Goose brings her up before they both get chewed out by SKeritt, and then I know for sure Meg Ryan brings her up during the piano scene.

She is, like you said, never seen.

[Joeker]

Saw this yesterday and it’s awesome. My favorite film of the year so far.

[StarWarsIsAwesome123]

Ah this thread is a breath of fresh air now. Still the best movie of 2022, so excited to get this on 4K UHD

[Jonathan McLeod]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

For the jets I was mostly wondering.

All the actors are in the backseats. Once you know, it spoils the illusion a little bit. Not something I noticed on my first visit though, only picked up on it 2nd and 3rd time round once I'd read about it.

[unberechenbar]

Originally Posted by Jonathan McLeod

All the actors are in the backseats. Once you know, it spoils the illusion a little bit. Not something I noticed on my first visit though, only picked up on it 2nd and 3rd time round once I'd read about it.

Even Tom Cruise?

[Grey2Grey]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Yes, the CGI was convincing, no moments where I wasn't sure it wasn't real for the live action shots.

Mmmmm, there were a few.

But otherwise, I thought they did a great job of mixing up the 100% real shots with the CG-enhanced and 100% CG effects shots, so as to keep you guessing. Doing this helps make you think a lot more of the movie's flying and effects shots were actually real, when in reality, they actually weren't.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by unberechenbar

Even Tom Cruise?

Yep, even Crooze. The Navy wouldn't let any of them fly a multi-million dollar fighter jet, and with good reason!

One little touch I liked was that they didn't erase the reflections of the cockpit cameras in the pilots' helmets, the cinematographer said they had to work so hard to get that stuff in there that they kept the reflections as an acknowledgement of that work.

[Zivouhr]

Thanks.

This movie definitely leaves the door open for a Top Gun 3 sooner than later I'd bet.