Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

[Eye Candy]

Originally Posted by bmudRB

I got it for $3. Early bird ticket at Century for $8 something. Used T-Mobile/Atom $5 off coupon. I rounded down. Probably what you paid back in the day as a youngin

I can remember concert ticket prices for Led Zeppelin in 1970, but I don't remember the movie prices.

[Eye Candy]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Doesn't seem like any of those things should even be taken into consideration, imho



Once the underlying copyright reverted to the plaintiffs, they should be protected by the provisions of copyright laws; the Copyright Act of 1976 clearly provides authors with an inalienable right to recapture the copyright to the author's creative material under the abovementioned stipulations.

Paramount shouldn't have tried to cheat anyone out of royalties for the material, especially given their insistence that it was a movie that really deserved a theatrical release.

May the Best Lawyer win...

I hear that Daniel Kaffee is a good lawyer.

[jess1581]

Originally Posted by mwynn

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bu...4c9ce9541f3e30

Paramount Hit With ‘Top Gun’ Copyright Lawsuit From Original Article Author’s Heirs
The heirs to the magazine story the movie is based off of claims the studio knew it didn't have the rights to 'Top Gun' when it made and released the sequel.

If Maverick bombed, this wouldn't be an article.

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Doesn't seem like any of those things should even be taken into consideration, imho



Once the underlying copyright reverted to the plaintiffs, they should be protected by the provisions of copyright laws; the Copyright Act of 1976 clearly provides authors with an inalienable right to recapture the copyright to the author's creative material under the abovementioned stipulations.

Paramount shouldn't have tried to cheat anyone out of royalties for the material, especially given their insistence that it was a movie that really deserved a theatrical release.

Exactly if it was another studio that did this, it would be a big deal.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by StarWarsIsAwesome123

Likely will be settled out of court, like these types of disputes usually are.

Or maybe they don’t get a dime if this is a frivolous lawsuit solely trying to exploit the film’s success (after all, it began production in 2018 way before any alleged rights reversion, and clearly the last two years of delays were due to the pandemic). I think often with these rights issues, studios fight them because they don’t want to set the precedent of someone suing for an easy payday.

I remember there was a lawsuit claiming the Shape of Water stole its story from some obscure play back when that was the leading Oscar contender, and it got tossed out fast, as well as the Disturbia ripping off Rear Window lawsuit (but that took longer to resolve). Now the Watchmen movie rights lawsuit was settled, and cost WB a lot, but indeed sounded like a case where they were in the wrong.

[BudBaxter]

Good to see The Asylum is keeping up its stellar work. Do you think they'll get sued as well?

TOP GUNNER: DANGER ZONE Trailer | Exclusive (2022) Asylum - YouTube

Where can is see THIS in IMAX / 4DX / ScreenX?

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Absolutely!



LOL, that's not how the law works. Look at the complaint:


When the production began and what caused the delays are both completely irrelevant. The copyright reverted on January 24th 2020, according to the suit filed. Had the movie been released before then, then the plaintiffs wouldn't have a case. But the movie failed to make that release date even before the pandemic.

Copyright law is like that. There are no mitigating circumstances once a copyright has reverted, the studio should have cleared this ideally before going into production. It probably wouldn't even have cost them very much considering the film's already hefty budget.

Obviously different contracts may be different, but I thought typically it means the film must either begin or finish filming before the rights date, and not the release date (I know this was the deadline related to Marvel character rights loaned to other studios). And the timing of this lawsuit seems very suspicious to me, they could’ve filed it over two years ago since it wasn’t like the production and release wasn’t well known (plus asking for an injunction to pull the release feels like a pure shakedown scare tactic).

If there really was a contract breach, I’m sure it will be found out in the legal process and Paramount will award them properly, but I’m gonna assume it’s another frivolous lawsuit until evidence proves otherwise.

[wonderer99]

Going to see this tomorrow. How much, if at all, is the original soundtrack used in the new movie?

[filmbuffTX]

Originally Posted by wonderer99

Going to see this tomorrow. How much, if at all, is the original soundtrack used in the new movie?

There are callbacks to both the original score and some of the pop songs used in the original. Especially in the opening title sequence. I think they used just the right amount.

[Gretiem]

Isn’t this the same lawyer who is trying to get the marvel character copyrights restored as well?

[MazeRunner]

I re-watched this again in Dolby Atmos yesterday and I just thought of something, how old was Rooster supposed to be? If he was a kid in 1986 then he’s at least 40?

[MazeRunner]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

How on earth would that make a difference?



Miles Teller is 35

I’m talking about the character not the actor.

[filmbuffTX]

Originally Posted by MazeRunner

I re-watched this again in Dolby Atmos yesterday and I just thought of something, how old was Rooster supposed to be? If he was a kid in 1986 then he’s at least 40?

He was a toddler in the ‘86 film so he’d be around 38 or 39 years old now. Remember that Maverick pulled his application which set his Navy career back four years. So it would make sense for him to be several years older than the other pilots.

[Markgway]

First of all, I enjoyed the film. It was a good sequel, probably a better film than the original.

I went to an afternoon screening hoping it would be cheaper. Boy, was I wrong. £15 for a single ticket! (That's $19 for my American chums).

I was peckish so a hot dog and small Coke combo cost me a further £10 ($13).

£25 ($32) for one film.

That's just one (major) reason why I go to the cinema once a year.

They showed the very advanced teaser for Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning, Part 1.

That'll be my trip for 2023 sorted, then.

[cardiac161]

May be better than Top Gun Maverick, hence the title: Top Gunner. Sequel coming up soon: Top Gunnest!

From Asylum production...they like to release direct to video that have titles sounding similar to upcoming multi-million dollars blockbuster before it sees a theatrical release.

They already tried it once for Top Gun: Maverick when they released this title in 2020
but Top Gun: Maverick was postponed several times due to the Covid-19 Pandemic until its final release date of 2022.

Asylum decided to try again to see if twice means a gold mine.

[weberrygt]

Should I see this in Dolby Digital or Imax, or both? But if I could only choose 1... which do you suggest?

[Jb162009]

Pleasantly surprised at how good this was. I rewatched Top Gun 4k last week and liked it but didn't feel special. Now Maverick, wow, this film felt special and one of those rare movies in that it was better than 1st film and I'm actually hoping they now do a 3rd with the new recruits.

Story was great, 2hrs flew by and loved that they included much more action.

[craigbarr2003]

Originally Posted by MazeRunner

I’m talking about the character not the actor.

It's not as far off as people think. They don't actually mention the date this film takes place in, but Maverick says the incident was 30 years ago and they started production in 2018 (and 30 years would be 2016). If he was 4 in '86, then he'd be 36 in the film. They're maybe only off a couple of years with his character. It only looks worse because the film has been held an extra few years by the pandemic.

[Tony208]

Don't think this one needs a sequel, at least not for Maverick.

[moreorless]

Really I'd say the difference was the original was more drama with some action added in were as the sequel was more action with some drama added in.