Top Gun 2

Lowflynjack said:
Am I the only one who thought the movie would have been better without this made-up jet and the Mach 10 scene? I guess you have to establish the hero is still a rebel...
Click to expand...


Jack, just because you were never read onto the project doesn’t mean it isn’t real.
 
Lindberg said:
She's Penny Benjamin.
Click to expand...
Yes, but what role did she play in the original? I don't see her in the cast list on IMDB.
BTW, there's a humorous entry on the full cast list on IMDB:
upload_2022-6-1_14-47-28.png
I think they missed a bet by NOT having Kelly McGillis's character as Val Kilmer's wife in "Maverick"....

Ron Wanttaja
 

Attachments

  • upload_2022-6-1_14-46-35.png
    upload_2022-6-1_14-46-35.png
    59.4 KB · Views: 13
wanttaja said:
Yes, but what role did she play in the original? I don't see her in the cast list on IMDB.
BTW, there's a humorous entry on the full cast list on IMDB:
View attachment 107387
I think they missed a bet by NOT having Kelly McGillis's character as Val Kilmer's wife in "Maverick"....

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
He meant recognize the character name "Penny Benjamin" from the first movie, not the actress herself.
 
wanttaja said:
Yes, but what role did she play in the original? I don't see her in the cast list on IMDB.
Click to expand...

Penny Benjamin was the Admiral's daughter that Maverick his qualifications as section leader three times, put in hack twice , with a history of high speed passes over five air control towers, and one admiral's daughter! She was never in the movie, only referenced. It is implied there was a relationship with said daughter.
 
Half Fast said:
Why not, since they ripped off the Death Star attack anyway?
Click to expand...
I thought they ripped that attack off Iron Eagle II. Changed it from the desert to the mountains. Same same.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Penny Benjamin was the Admiral's daughter that Maverick his qualifications as section leader three times, put in hack twice , with a history of high speed passes over five air control towers, and one admiral's daughter! She was never in the movie, only referenced. It is implied there was a relationship with said daughter.
Click to expand...

I think she was too busy flying around with the Rocketeer...

1-13.jpg
 
Finally saw the movie last night. Thought it was really good. Better than the first? Eh. Maybe not quite - hard to beat an original.

After the first 2 minutes, I leaned to my wife and said "Already the best movie ever made." Then the storyline kicked in and I scaled my review back a bit - but still a really good movie with lots of airplaney stuff in it.

I did appreciate that it wasn't the typical sequel where they just re-do all the gimmicks from the first one. I thought for sure Mav was going to 'communicate' and/or take a pic when he went inverted. The token buzzing the tower was a nice subtle touch.
 
CJones said:
Finally saw the movie last night. Thought it was really good. Better than the first? Eh. Maybe not quite - hard to beat an original.

After the first 2 minutes, I leaned to my wife and said "Already the best movie ever made." Then the storyline kicked in and I scaled my review back a bit - but still a really good movie with lots of airplaney stuff in it.

I did appreciate that it wasn't the typical sequel where they just re-do all the gimmicks from the first one. I thought for sure Mav was going to 'communicate' and/or take a pic when he went inverted. The token buzzing the tower was a nice subtle touch.
Click to expand...
I was opposite. For the first half of the movie I was unimpressed.
 
I finally got to see it Wednesday. I was impressed, and my non-flying wife even said it was one of the better movies she's seen in recent memory.

I was amused at the lengths they went to in obscuring who the enemy was that the pilots were attacking. Just some anonymous, technologically-advanced country, to whom we had apparently sold fighters in the past. It was coastal, with mountains significantly more impressive than the Himalayas just a short hop away from the carrier.

Disneyland, maybe, if their Matterhorn copy got a bit of CGI tweaking for the film.

:)
 
GaryM said:
I finally got to see it Wednesday. I was impressed, and my non-flying wife even said it was one of the better movies she's seen in recent memory.

I was amused at the lengths they went to in obscuring who the enemy was that the pilots were attacking. Just some anonymous, technologically-advanced country, to whom we had apparently sold fighters in the past. It was coastal, with mountains significantly more impressive than the Himalayas just a short hop away from the carrier.

Disneyland, maybe, if their Matterhorn copy got a bit of CGI tweaking for the film.

:)
Click to expand...


The enemy apparently had a flying F14 and AFAIK the only country still flying F14s is Iran, and Iran has been trying to hide uranium enrichment, so it didn’t seem to be much of an obscuration.
 
GaryM said:
I finally got to see it Wednesday. I was impressed, and my non-flying wife even said it was one of the better movies she's seen in recent memory.

I was amused at the lengths they went to in obscuring who the enemy was that the pilots were attacking. Just some anonymous, technologically-advanced country, to whom we had apparently sold fighters in the past. It was coastal, with mountains significantly more impressive than the Himalayas just a short hop away from the carrier.

Disneyland, maybe, if their Matterhorn copy got a bit of CGI tweaking for the film.

:)
Click to expand...
They did the same thing in the first one. Just "the Enemy." Depending on how many scientologists were involved, they might've said "suppressive persons." Without getting banned, I think I can get away with saying it's hard to win a war when you won't say the name of the enemy. But it's a movie.
 
CJones said:
I did appreciate that it wasn't the typical sequel where they just re-do all the gimmicks from the first one. I thought for sure Mav was going to 'communicate' and/or take a pic when he went inverted. The token buzzing the tower was a nice subtle touch.
Click to expand...

My one main groan was that they used the "Talk to me ____" line FOUR times. It was a nice send-up the first time he said "talk to me Goose". The second time he said it, my daughter and I both thought "yeah, you already did that one". The third time was "Talk to me Rooster", which would have worked as the nostalgic reference if it hadn't already been done twice before. The fourth time was "talk to me Dad" which ALSO would have worked had it not been done now THREE previous times.
 
Half Fast said:
The enemy apparently had a flying F14 and AFAIK the only country still flying F14s is Iran, and Iran has been trying to hide uranium enrichment, so it didn’t seem to be much of an obscuration.
Click to expand...
Red stars, like the first. And they're flying Russianish fighters.
 
Lindberg said:
Red stars, like the first. And they're flying Russianish fighters.
Click to expand...

I remember seeing a red bird insignia, but not any stars.

But all the evidence does point to Iran. And Iran does apparently have some mountainous, snow covered peaks reasonably close to the water as well - that was absolutely news to me, I like most people probably picture Iran as a vast desert.

https://www.theringer.com/movies/2022/6/3/23151745/top-gun-maverick-enemy-country

Picture from the article linked to in that article, Zagros mountains in southern Iran.

upload_2022-6-3_20-37-25.png
 
Saw it today with a non aviator friend. She said it was a great movie. With a bit of suspension of belief, it’s great entertainment.

Cheers
 
Lindberg said:
Red stars, like the first. And they're flying Russianish fighters.
Click to expand...

but are the russian-ish people flying US airframes like the last time?

Personally, I've always thought that the only reason the original was a good movie was the good flying scenes...always fun to watch fast jets do things like breaking low right right when the pilot says he's going to break high and right....or hitting the brakes by slamming full throttle.... stuff like that. Seriously I liked the flight stuff for sure.....just too many flaws for my liking...even though at the time I first saw it I wasn't a pilot...only just an aviation fan.

Regardless, I'm looking forward to seeing this new one Sunday.
 
Since Russia is the only country that has Su-57s, kinda narrows it down. F-14 and the SU-57 were all CGI.
 
Velocity173 said:
Since Russia is the only country that has Su-57s, kinda narrows it down. F-14 and the SU-57 were all CGI.
Click to expand...

And Russia has maybe 4 of them.

Took my wife to see Dr Strange yesterday but the theatre "spooled" TG Maverick instead so got to see the opening scenes. Loved that and will go see it in Imax in a couple weeks.

Sure, we'll all grimace at some of the flying but it will be worth it.
 
What they didn’t show in the movie.

 
Of course, one of the most amazing technological feats in the movie was that Mav's old Ninja was still running. Or was that CGI?
 
The nerd in me (and flies the Hornet and F-14 in the Digital Combat Sim) found most airplanes things to be technically accurate.

(spoilers follow)

the fact they had to air start and use a GPU on the F-14.
They used the actual GPWS callouts (Altitude, altitude) and the engine fire was good.
The targetting pod cues and symbology was mostly accurate.
The 1688 laser bomb code was a plus.

overall it was satisfying to watch.
 
Half Fast said:
Of course, one of the most amazing technological feats in the movie was that Mav's old Ninja was still running. Or was that CGI?
Click to expand...

That also amazed me. Sportbikes in general, and especially from that era, weren't really known for longevity. So they had to find one of that exact model, in running condition, and in good enough appearance to use. I bet that was a bit of a hunt.
 
RussR said:
That also amazed me. Sportbikes in general, and especially from that era, weren't really known for longevity. So they had to find one of that exact model, in running condition, and in good enough appearance to use. I bet that was a bit of a hunt.
Click to expand...

I've seen documentary stories showing some of the prop warehouses folks maintain for "hollywood". I've often wondered if big picture if some of those places don't just collect one or two of pretty much everything ever made and store it like the Library of Congress does books...like, maybe there's a motorcycle warehouse that has most of the models ever sold in any great numbers...something like that.

I know that's not likely true, but something I think about sometimes seeing examples of obscure things like that in modern movies...vintage telephones, clothes, cars, etc... but I know from experience that's not where they always get stuff anyway...
When I was a kid my dad started a side hustle business after he retired from the Coast Guard to North Carolina, repairing and reselling appliances...refrigerators, window air conditioners, laundry machines, etc... A movie studio had come to town and they made a string of very bad but big name movies there (several of the Stephen King based films were the first ones...really bad movies in my opinion) ..... anyway, I recall a few times folks from the studio coming to buy old vintage fridges and things for movie props. I'm pretty sure they didn't keep those things.
 
Like Tesla fanboys, people today can only accept all or nothing. No rational critique is allowed.

 
Velocity173 said:
Like Tesla fanboys, people today can only accept all or nothing. No rational critique is allowed.
Click to expand...
I'd rather watch 2 hours of a bad movie than 1.5 hours of two guys yakkin' about it. If they didn't spend the entire 1.5 talking about TG2, well, I'll never know.

Nauga,
who skews the ratings
 
Like Tesla fanboys, people today can only accept all or nothing. No rational critique is allowed.

nauga said:
I'd rather watch 2 hours of a bad movie than 1.5 hours of two guys yakkin' about it. If they didn't spend the entire 1.5 talking about TG2, well, I'll never know.

Nauga,
who skews the ratings
Click to expand...


I agree. That’s why I only watched the first 5 minutes.
 
Velocity173 said:
The SAM scene was reminiscent of Behind Enemy Lines. Same type of intensity only problem is, spewing flares like it’s the 4th of July won’t do anything against S-125 SAMs. ;)
Click to expand...

Chaff and flares are normally dispensed together from the buckets. Chaff would have a effect.
 
It was unfortunate legendary air show pilot Art Scholl lost his life filming the original Top Gun. Hope nobody paid that high of a price filming this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top