Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

[bmudRB]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

*sigh*

Yes, I know you were referring to the character.... I'm just pointing out that the actor playing the character is in that ballpark, agewise.

Which basically means I'm agreeing with you.

But do they share the same dob, we’re there born in the same hospital and popped out of the same muffin? If not I don’t buy the whole age ballpark thing…

[jess1581]

This movie can't be stopped. 12 million on its 3rd monday.

[Zillamon51]

Originally Posted by weberrygt

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

It was filmed in Imax. That's what I picked. But my Imax has standard seats, and it was crowded. Dolby would have been more comfortable.

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

They could always go the Godfather, Part II route. Make a new movie that shows him as a much older man sitting behind a desk while having flashbacks that take you back to when he was just a recently enrolled cadet. Obviously they would need a younger actor for the young Maverick part, or else the de-aging bill would probably cost like $500 million

Shit, it would cost more to age up Tom Cruise, than the other way around.

[Freezeup]

Although I would have appreciated and missed a reference or flashback to Charlie, I can't give this film any anything less than a perfect star rating. It was fantastic.

They do not make enough movies like this anymore.

[Mr. Chaverria]

This movie had no right to be as good as it was in being a sequel to a film from the 1980s.

Like this movie gave a damn on the work they were doing here. It has beats to reflect on the original but it doesn't romanticize him to the point of nostalgia ad nauseum. These characters had some depth to them that made them of value to some degree. Very impressed on what they did w/ the characters.

The story is solid. There are some moments we've seen before but they really do them well and make it their own. I liked the growth of Maverick. Very much the same man but his maturity and responsibility also hovers around him. It's very well done.

Visuals are awesome w/ those jets. My only issue w/ the imagery is that it's a bit too heavy on blue and the darks go dark as hell. Like almost unnecessarily so. Some shots it looks good in but then there are parts where the darks don't make sense to me. Wish when it was on the blue scale it wasn't so dark.

I almost want to say it's as good, if not better than the original Top Gun.

[Youre My Boy Blu!]

Originally Posted by 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.

Haha, that is a bit $t££p of a price for just one person.

There's a new Cinépolis Luxury cinema near my home that runs half price tickets on on Tuesday so I was able to get in for just under $7. I had no intention of ordering any food or drinks this go-round, but if I had, then yeah the cost would easily climb into $30-$40 territory.

I'm happy for fans of the original, especially those of us who grew up watching it and finally got a chance to see this sequel in the theater. It is an amazing experience, and I'm considering going to check it out one more time, but in IMAX, which will surely cost me more than my last visit

Originally Posted by Mr. Chaverria

[Show spoiler]This movie had no right to be as good as it was in being a sequel to a film from the 1980s.

Like this movie gave a damn on the work they were doing here. It has beats to reflect on the original but it doesn't romanticize him to the point of nostalgia ad nauseum. These characters had some depth to them that made them of value to some degree. Very impressed on what they did w/ the characters.

The story is solid. There are some moments we've seen before but they really do them well and make it their own. I liked the growth of Maverick. Very much the same man but his maturity and responsibility also hovers around him. It's very well done.

Visuals are awesome w/ those jets. My only issue w/ the imagery is that it's a bit too heavy on blue and the darks go dark as hell. Like almost unnecessarily so. Some shots it looks good in but then there are parts where the darks don't make sense to me. Wish when it was on the blue scale it wasn't so dark.

...
I almost want to say it's as good, if not better than the original Top Gun.

As for Top Gun vs Top Gun Maverick, I honestly don't know if I could say which one is better. IMO, the strength of this sequel really depended of the bonds of those characters with ties to the original, i.e. Rooster, Ice Man, and Maverick (obviously) which gave it more emotional depth and made it resonate on a level that went above and beyond what the first one could achieve. Tom Cruise knew that, which is why he fought so hard to keep Val Kilmer on board as an integral part of the story.
Never the less, Top Gun Maverick is exceptional, and I suspect the success of this one could lead to more Top Gun installments down the road.

[Youre My Boy Blu!]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Even better, it could lead to more Hot Shots! movies, which are even better

If only they could have convinced Jennifer Connelly to perform a scene like Valeria Golino's The Food of Love scene from Hot Shots!

Charlie Sheen - Hot shots (The Food of Love) - YouTube

[Youre My Boy Blu!]

I don't know if it's quite 5 stars, but it's really close, like 4.8 or 4.9.

It's a Pretty powerful experience and great performances all around.

For Tom Cruise to pick up and play the role of Maverick 36 years later without feeling like he missed a beat is God Mode acting and just pure professionalism and being a Master of one's craft.

Jennifer Connelly is gorgeous and it felt like she was perfect for her part as Maverick's on-off-on again love interest that could keep him in check and hold him accountable.

The band of young pilots were a fun bunch, but I think I was too emotionally invested in Maverick and Rooster's relationship, leaving little for me to make any signficant connection with those characters, although it seemed like they missed an opportunity to share whatever deeper connection Phoenix had with Rooster, it was just subtly suggested they might've dated in the past, but not much more explored.

Val's appearance was one of a few moments that started triggering some deeper emotions for me.
I'm really happy he was able to stay on as Ice Man and it's just good to see Val Kilmer still involved in films.

Among the new cast of characters that I really think did a good job with what little screen time they had were Cyclone, Hondo, Warlock, Bob and Hangman.

Besides Ice Man, Warlock seemed to be the only high ranking Admiral who was in Maverick's corner the whole time and was there to reassure/encourage him in a pivotal moment just as they were about to deploy on the mission. Hangman was very similar to 80's Ice Man, in that he didn't really care what others thought of him because he already knew he was the best, but unlike Ice Man who was more reserved, Hangman played more mind games and didn't seem to care about personal boundaries, it wasn't until the end that he had his moment of redemption, which they foreshadowed when I saw him hanging back on the carrier, ready to take to flight if needed.

All in all, it packs all the thrills and intensity one would expect from Top Gun, but adding even more emotional depth with character development that ties into the original, which in turn meant I had to bolt to the bathroom for a minute to fetch some paper towels to sop up the fountains pouring from my eyes.

So for anybody who isn't already aware of those emotional tear jerker scenes, consider this your warning and have some tissues on standby.

[MazeRunner]

It's a shame that Jurassic World will be taking all of my theatre's big screens this weekend away from this.

I'm glad I was able to see it on my theatre's biggest screen with Dolby Atmos sound though. The opening credits literally shook my soul out of my body.

[Gieferg]

Now that was FUN!
Much better than the original (except music), and great movie overall.

9/10

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Mr. Chaverria

This movie had no right to be as good as it was in being a sequel to a film from the 1980s.

Like this movie gave a damn on the work they were doing here. It has beats to reflect on the original but it doesn't romanticize him to the point of nostalgia ad nauseum. These characters had some depth to them that made them of value to some degree. Very impressed on what they did w/ the characters.

The story is solid. There are some moments we've seen before but they really do them well and make it their own. I liked the growth of Maverick. Very much the same man but his maturity and responsibility also hovers around him. It's very well done.

Visuals are awesome w/ those jets. My only issue w/ the imagery is that it's a bit too heavy on blue and the darks go dark as hell. Like almost unnecessarily so. Some shots it looks good in but then there are parts where the darks don't make sense to me. Wish when it was on the blue scale it wasn't so dark.

I almost want to say it's as good, if not better than the original Top Gun.

I enjoyed it more, think it was the action sequences which looked incredible.

[moreorless]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I enjoyed it more, think it was the action sequences which looked incredible.

Again really I think the original is more a drama/romance with some action scenes in it, this film was definitely more aimed at action.

I wonder actually whether Cruise might switch over to Top Gun from MI as his main franchise now? big advantage is that air combat doesnt demand as much physical stunt work from him so he could probably carry on for awhile yet.

[morris_schaffer]

We have one of the biggest Imax screens in Europe in Brussels, but that screen is fully reserved for Jurassic World Dominion. Le bad.

[weberrygt]

I went with IMAX. I was in same predicament Zillamon51. It was pretty awesome!

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by moreorless

Again really I think the original is more a drama/romance with some action scenes in it, this film was definitely more aimed at action.

I wonder actually whether Cruise might switch over to Top Gun from MI as his main franchise now? big advantage is that air combat doesnt demand as much physical stunt work from him so he could probably carry on for awhile yet.

I’m not sure how I feel about that. I feel the last film was so strong, it would be a struggle to match it. I’m happy with the original and new version.

[Dr. Freakenstein]

Man the producers really messed up with the China thing. Otherwise they would be close to 1.5 billion in revenue easy. A huge mistake considering Tom is big in China.

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

See, this is what happens when you comment on a lawsuit without even having bothered to read the lawsuit. First of all, this isn't a case of "contract breach," it's about copyright infringement. The lawsuit contends Paramount released a film without making sure they had a newly secured license to exploit the underlying story that the first movie was based on, as required by US copyright laws.

Then you say they could have filed "over two years ago". But the lawsuit clearly states that the plaintiffs served Paramount with a statutory notice of termination on January 23rd, 2018. That's over 4 years ago. They also served Paramount with a cease-and-desist letter in May of this year. So it seems to me they made every reasonable effort to work something out with the studio without resorting to legal action.

Do you really think that Paramount is going to "cease and desist" on this movie because of some alleged copyright to an article that was written over 30 years ago that may have been the basis of one movie? MAY HAVE being the keyword. If that were truly the case, then why didn't Tom Clancy sue Disney over the obvious copyright infringement with their movie Crimson Tide. Which clearly stole from The Hunt For Red October. This case has literally ZERO merits. This family owns no rights to the Top Gun story. It just bogus bull---t.

[Youre My Boy Blu!]

Originally Posted by moreorless

....I wonder actually whether Cruise might switch over to Top Gun from MI as his main franchise now? big advantage is that air combat doesnt demand as much physical stunt work from him so he could probably carry on for awhile yet.

That's what I was hoping for as well, lots of possibilities with this franchise now, that lawsuit tho.....

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

Do you really think that Paramount is going to "cease and desist" on this movie because of some alleged copyright to an article that was written over 30 years ago that may have been the basis of one movie? MAY HAVE being the keyword. If that were truly the case, then why didn't Tom Clancy sue Disney over the obvious copyright infringement with their movie Crimson Tide. Which clearly stole from The Hunt For Red October. This case has literally ZERO merits. This family owns no rights to the Top Gun story. It just bogus bull---t.

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

[Show spoiler]Again, this is what happens when you comment on a lawsuit without even having bothered to read the lawsuit. Paramount DID secure exclusive motion picture rights to Yonay's copyrighted story immediately after its publication, and it duly acknowledged that the 1986 film was based on his story. That much isn't even being contested, it is a known fact.

....They do have the rights to the story that the original movie was based on. As stated in the lawsuit, Yonay's story was originally published on April 21, 1983, in the May issue of California magazine. It was registered in the US Copyright Office on October 3, 1983. Paramount acquired exclusive motion picture rights to the story on May 18, 1983 - it is a well-established fact that even Paramount isn't disputing.

This is a real bummer and I wonder if the possibility of copyright infringement was addressed at some point in production, thus altering certain aspects of the film in an attempt to bypass it somehow. None the less, with everything that's riding on this, I hope both parties are able to resolve this ASAP, and the franchise can continue.

[kingdoxie]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

Do you really think that Paramount is going to "cease and desist" on this movie because of some alleged copyright to an article that was written over 30 years ago that may have been the basis of one movie? MAY HAVE being the keyword. If that were truly the case, then why didn't Tom Clancy sue Disney over the obvious copyright infringement with their movie Crimson Tide. Which clearly stole from The Hunt For Red October. This case has literally ZERO merits. This family owns no rights to the Top Gun story. It just bogus bull---t.

Tell me without telling me you have no idea how copyright laws work

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

The real sad part is that it probably wouldn't have cost a great deal to secure a copyright renewal, considering the budget was $170m or so, it probably would have been but a tiny part of the total budget for the movie.

They went with the it is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. Warner is cutting Village Roadshow out of their film rights. Now this, while Copyrights and creator rights are a hot topic.