Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

[Coryp81]

I was supposed to see this for a 3rd time in IMAX this week but caught the dreaded covid. I would be lying if I wasn't a bit salty that Jurassic World is going to take all of the IMAX screenings starting this weekend. I know I was lucky to catch it twice but just not ready to let go..ha. Will never be the same watching this at home.

[craigbarr2003]

Originally Posted by mwynn

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.

What they're going to argue is they don't need them (and never needed the rights to the original article, despite securing them). When making biopics, most studios insist on securing life rights, but purely legally speaking, you don't actually need them. But they're good to get, because it also means cooperation from the other party that can potentially be of use.

Paramount will argue that Top Gun is an actual thing, a real school that the article's author doesn't own. Nor did he own the name Top Gun. And none of the characters in either film were in the article to begin with, which was about real people and the school. I'm not going to say Paramount would 100% win that case, but it's a decent argument, and I'm sure will be the position they'll take.

[cardiac161]

Originally Posted by 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.

On a purely financial stand-point, it may be but there is no way a movie like Top Gun: Maverick (which shows US winning and reflecting some level of military superiority) would ever get passed their censors.

[BudBaxter]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

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.

Eh? What? Both movies have submarines & a colour in the title. Otherwise?

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by 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.

I 100% disagree. There are things more important than money.

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by craigbarr2003

What they're going to argue is they don't need them (and never needed the rights to the original article, despite securing them). When making biopics, most studios insist on securing life rights, but purely legally speaking, you don't actually need them. But they're good to get, because it also means cooperation from the other party that can potentially be of use.

Paramount will argue that Top Gun is an actual thing, a real school that the article's author doesn't own. Nor did he own the name Top Gun. And none of the characters in either film were in the article to begin with, which was about real people and the school. I'm not going to say Paramount would 100% win that case, but it's a decent argument, and I'm sure will be the position they'll take.

https://screenrant.com/top-gun-2-mav...uit-explained/
However, the celebrations for Top Gun 2’s unexpected success didn’t last long, as the heirs to the author whose story inspired 1986’s Top Gun are now suing Paramount in a game-changing IP lawsuit. In 1983, author Ehud Yonay wrote an article for California Magazine titled “Top Guns,” with the documented stories being licensed by Paramount Pictures quickly thereafter. Now, after nearly four decades, the story’s cult status, and an incredible sequel performance, Paramount could lose big on one of the studio’s greatest assets.


That is all that really needs to be known. They licensed the story, then allowed the license to expire. If that license expires it does not matter when production started. Gun Media had to stop production of DLC for Friday the 13th because they lost the license during development.

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by kingdoxie

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

I took copyright law in college among my many music business classes. So, I do have a fair knowledge of copyright law. Albeit, it has been 24 years since I took that class. Not sure much has changed. As someone else said, the original story may have been an inspiration for the first movie, but none of the people in the story were used in the movie. And the movie is based on a real place too. So, the lawsuit here is rather frivolous. I have been inspired by many songs, movies, and books. But none of the things I have written (lyrics mostly) can be contested as copyright infringement. Even if the song titles are the same as other song titles, books, or movies. No one owns the copyright over words. Just the specific ones they wrote. Meaning there can be two songs called Luka, for example, as long as none of the music or lyrics in either one copies the other verbatim.

I cannot tell you how many times I've come across a song and thought I could write that better. So, I take the title and fashion a whole new song with new words around it. Just using the title as my starting off point. Sometimes. I hear a quote and think that would make for a heck of a lyric. So I change it around enough that it fits my style, is wholly original for the most part, and isn't violating copyright. That's what we have been doing for years. all forms of art are derivative of something. It's just not actual copying or plagiarizing.

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

I took copyright law in college among my many music business classes. So, I do have a fair knowledge of copyright law. Albeit, it has been 24 years since I took that class. Not sure much has changed. As someone else said, the original story may have been an inspiration for the first movie, but none of the people in the story were used in the movie. And the movie is based on a real place too. So, the lawsuit here is rather frivolous. I have been inspired by many songs, movies, and books. But none of the things I have written (lyrics mostly) can be contested as copyright infringement. Even if the song titles are the same as other song titles, books, or movies. No one owns the copyright over words. Just the specific ones they wrote. Meaning there can be two songs called Luka, for example, as long as none of the music or lyrics in either one copies the other verbatim.

I cannot tell you how many times I've come across a song and thought I could write that better. So, I take the title and fashion a whole new song with new words around it. Just using the title as my starting off point. Sometimes. I hear a quote and think that would make for a heck of a lyric. So I change it around enough that it fits my style, is wholly original for the most part, and isn't violating copyright. That's what we have been doing for years. all forms of art are derivative of something. It's just not actual copying or plagiarizing.

In 1983, author Ehud Yonay wrote an article for California Magazine titled “Top Guns,” with the documented stories being licensed by Paramount Pictures quickly thereafter.

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Some folks seem to be having a hard time understanding that what's at issue isn't whether the 1986 movie was inspired by that magazine article - but that isn't even in dispute. Paramount acquired the movie rights to that story and freely adapted many of the core elements. It openly gave credit to the original California magazine story.

Not even Paramount would dispute that fact

Then it has been 35 years and the copyright reverts to the original owner or the next of kin.

[wonderer99]

Just back from this.
How? How did Cruise and Kosinski mananage to nail the tone so well? A sequel 30 years after the cheesy first which manages to feel exactly the same yet serious as well. Cruise remains fearless and incredibly dedicated to his projects and Josinski has jumped up a few rungs on my director ladder.

This was much better than it had any right to be.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

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

Don't think Charlie has aged as well as Tom (despite being a couple of years younger) and with both Lloyd Bridges and Richard Crenna sadly gone I can't see it ever happening.

Originally Posted by Gieferg

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

Yeah, if only they'd have re-used Take My Breath Away instead of Lady Gag.

Glad to hear Danger Zone though. My inner 80s child smiled contently.

[BloodshotUSA]

Just got out of the theater for this. I'm 34 and I was probably the youngest person in the theater by a good 20 years. Still, I loved it. I had to make sure I saw it in IMAX before Jurassic World: Dominion takes all the screens in a couple of days. When this year started I didn't think that after 6 months my two favorite movies would be The Northman and Top Gun: Maverick.

I'm not a huge Top Gun fan. Or a huge Tom Cruise fan. But he delivered on screen. As he usually does. I wonder how close his real life personality is too Maverick. At least in terms of thrill seeking. They even got in a scene of him running at full speed.

I rolled my eyes went he got sent back to Top Gun to become an instructor for a mission. I was like

[Show spoiler]"cmon, we all know Tom Cruise is going to wind up leading the mission so why even bother with this plot point?".

I liked the cast of new pilots and I think Glen Powell as Hangman was my favorite. He managed to play his character as incredibly cocky but without being hated. I feel like he is going to become a big star coming out of this.

I liked Miles Teller as Goose's son Rooster. But I was hoping that they would do more with him. He didn't seem as prominent as I thought he was. You figure going in his character might hate Maverick because his father died while flying with him in the first movie. It seemed like that is where the story would go. Instead he is mad that Maverick pulled his application to the Navy for 4 years? It's so random. Why not just have Rooster blame him for his father dying? It feels like such a random plot point to add in the movie that never really gets resolved between the two men. They should have brought Meg Ryan back as well.

The flight scenes were the absolute highlight of the movie. Props to the air force for doing the actual flying while the actors were in the back seat acting (which is impressive in itself). That was some badass movement. I'm not sure who the villains were supposed to be. I thought it was going to be a middle eastern group since the weapons factory seemed to be out in the middle of nowhere, but then they had their own fighter jets as well. Maybe it was supposed to be the Russians? They don't say I guess so no country gets offended that they are the bad guy.

Jennifer Connelly played Maverick's love interest and the bar owner, was her character in the first movie? But played by someone else? Ed Harris felt kind of wasted as an antagonist who want to get Maverick thrown out of the navy. Jon Hamm is a little bit better, but he has much more of a role in the film.

I loved the way that they handled Val Kilmer's role in the film. They made him head of the pacific fleet, but he had cancer so he couldn't talk (like in real life). It felt good seeing him in a movie even if he could only communicate by typing. It was cool also seeing how close Maverick and Iceman had become after all those years.

[Show spoiler]I actually teared up when he died. His last act before dying was bailing his old friend out one last time. Iceman was totally the better pilot btw.

I enjoyed the final ending. But I thought it could have been better

[Show spoiler] if Tom Cruise died. I knew it wasn't going to happen because Tom Cruise doesn't die in his movies. But I think it would have been a good ending with him sacrificing himself to save Rooster like he did. The part where Maverick and Rooster sneak onto the enemy base and stealing another plane felt unnecessary and too simple to pull off. It felt like he was originally meant to die but they came up with that so Cruise didn't die and he could be in a 3rd film if that happens

I give it a 9 out of 10. Pretty damn close to a perfect movie except for the part I mentioned in the spoiler tag.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Exactly. And the current owners of that copyright notified Paramount in 2018 that the studio's rights had lapsed. Paramount just ignored them.

Unless I'm reading incorrectly - and don't flame me if I did, chaps - didn't Paramount's rights to the article expire in Jan 2020 by which time the film had already been shot?

Also, whilst its acknowledged that the original Top Gun was inspired by this article, I'd imagine it would be very difficult to prove anything from Maverick was taken directly from it and not the 1986 screenplay (the original writers are credited here with "characters based on").

Legalities aside, the owners of the article had their payday. Claiming anything more for a production they had zero to do with is pure greed.

[BloodshotUSA]

Originally Posted by 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.

Poor Michael Pare

[StarWarsIsAwesome123]

Just saw it again, awesome. Glad I was able to see it in Dolby Atmos before JWD takes over the format. The theater was about 70% full, pretty good for a Wednesday afternoon.

[moreorless]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Even more importantly, assuming censorship wasn't an issue, is the fact that the biggest hits in China during the pandemic have been the Battle at Lake Changjin movies, which may have helped local audiences be more interested in war-related movies where the Chinese army are the good guys and everyone else are the bad guys.

So, yeah, even if censorship were not an issue, it's questionable at best whether audiences there would be ready to see a war-related movie that shows anyone but the Chinese as the good guys who can beat everybody else.

To be fair whilst Top Gun isnt that level of propaganda its not too far off, the US bombing an "unnamed" but obviously Irainian nuclear facility and destroying a near by airfield isnt questioned at all in terms of morality.

[Eye Candy]

Went for the full Top Gun: Maverick treatment tonight. Dinner at Applebee's, and AMC full recliner leather seats.

The jet scenes, and there are many, are very intense. There are many heroic actions in this movie. There were emotional moments, and, many belly laughs as well. One scene in particular that was emotional, was the scene at a funeral, where a folded American flag, and a salute with rifles were presented.

The memorable music for me, was the Kenny Loggins song "Danger Zone," David Bowie's "Let's Dance," and The Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again."

"Don't think ... Use The Force Pete!!"

[levcore]

Glen Powell really deserves the lead role in a big franchise. He would have made a great Nathan Drake and dare i say it, Indiana Jones if they ever did recast?

The guy has real leading man chops. I could see him fitting into the MCU as one of their heroes easily. I was really struck by him when i saw him in Hidden Figures as John Glenn, he was so good and effortlessly charming in that.

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by BloodshotUSA

[Show spoiler]Just got out of the theater for this. I'm 34 and I was probably the youngest person in the theater by a good 20 years. Still, I loved it. I had to make sure I saw it in IMAX before Jurassic World: Dominion takes all the screens in a couple of days. When this year started I didn't think that after 6 months my two favorite movies would be The Northman and Top Gun: Maverick.

[Show spoiler]I'm not a huge Top Gun fan. Or a huge Tom Cruise fan. But he delivered on screen. As he usually does. I wonder how close his real life personality is too Maverick. At least in terms of thrill seeking. They even got in a scene of him running at full speed.

I rolled my eyes went he got sent back to Top Gun to become an instructor for a mission. I was like

[Show spoiler]"cmon, we all know Tom Cruise is going to wind up leading the mission so why even bother with this plot point?".

[Show spoiler]I liked the cast of new pilots and I think Glen Powell as Hangman was my favorite. He managed to play his character as incredibly cocky but without being hated. I feel like he is going to become a big star coming out of this.

I liked Miles Teller as Goose's son Rooster. But I was hoping that they would do more with him. He didn't seem as prominent as I thought he was. You figure going in his character might hate Maverick because his father died while flying with him in the first movie. It seemed like that is where the story would go. Instead he is mad that Maverick pulled his application to the Navy for 4 years? It's so random. Why not just have Rooster blame him for his father dying? It feels like such a random plot point to add in the movie that never really gets resolved between the two men. They should have brought Meg Ryan back as well.

The flight scenes were the absolute highlight of the movie. Props to the air force for doing the actual flying while the actors were in the back seat acting (which is impressive in itself). That was some badass movement. I'm not sure who the villains were supposed to be. I thought it was going to be a middle eastern group since the weapons factory seemed to be out in the middle of nowhere, but then they had their own fighter jets as well. Maybe it was supposed to be the Russians? They don't say I guess so no country gets offended that they are the bad guy.

[Show spoiler]Jennifer Connelly played Maverick's love interest and the bar owner, was her character in the first movie? But played by someone else? Ed Harris felt kind of wasted as an antagonist who want to get Maverick thrown out of the navy. Jon Hamm is a little bit better, but he has much more of a role in the film.

[Show spoiler]I loved the way that they handled Val Kilmer's role in the film. They made him head of the pacific fleet, but he had cancer so he couldn't talk (like in real life). It felt good seeing him in a movie even if he could only communicate by typing. It was cool also seeing how close Maverick and Iceman had become after all those years.

[Show spoiler]I actually teared up when he died. His last act before dying was bailing his old friend out one last time. Iceman was totally the better pilot btw.

[Show spoiler]I enjoyed the final ending. But I thought it could have been better

[Show spoiler] if Tom Cruise died. I knew it wasn't going to happen because Tom Cruise doesn't die in his movies. But I think it would have been a good ending with him sacrificing himself to save Rooster like he did. The part where Maverick and Rooster sneak onto the enemy base and stealing another plane felt unnecessary and too simple to pull off. It felt like he was originally meant to die but they came up with that so Cruise didn't die and he could be in a 3rd film if that happens

[Show spoiler]I give it a 9 out of 10. Pretty damn close to a perfect movie except for the part I mentioned in the spoiler tag

The air force didn't fly those plans. They may have helped, but it's all the actors doing it. Tom Cruise is doing his own flying. You can bet that. None of the actors were in the back. At least not that I aware of. It's been heavily touted that actors did a lot of the flying themselves. Though I could be wrong. But knowing Tom Crusie, I'm sure I'm not.

[Zimrann]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

The air force didn't fly those plans. They may have helped, but it's all the actors doing it. Tom Cruise is doing his own flying. You can bet that. None of the actors were in the back. At least not that I aware of. It's been heavily touted that actors did a lot of the flying themselves. Though I could be wrong. But knowing Tom Crusie, I'm sure I'm not.

The U.S. Navy were the ones flying the F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, the producers paid the Navy $11,374 per flight hour for their efforts. The actors of course had to undergo rigorous training beforehand as well as being able to operate the Sony Venice cameras themselves once in flight.

Tom was flying his own P-51 Mustang at the end of the film though, no doubt about that.