Top Gun: Maverick

I'd like to see them straight up do that Mr Webber, but sadly do not think they have the balls to do so. Despite all of this, I'm still hyped for some 80's cheesy fun. I know Iceman is on board, and I hope we get to see Viper and Jester as well.

Just wanted to add that I haven't lost that loving feeling.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Your probably right MooCricket, I just miss the days when we had proper enemies through which to vent our action movie style revenge on at will.
 
goose.jpg
 
Mr Webber said:
Who says it has to be based around an invasion scenario?

I get that even in the movies we cant poke the Bear or Dragon these days but the way NK presents themselves on and their standing on the world stage, they are absolute fair game for whatever Hollywood cares to throw at them. No need to soften anything by using the not official government involvement ploy. Straight up Supreme Leader down stuff.

Get your eighties plums back Hollywood. If NK had been news worthy back in the day, Rambo would have "visited" the joint.

EDIT, As I`m typing the news just announced NK launched another missIle in the Sea of Japan.....POWER TO THE DANGER ZONE.....
Click to expand...

"landed in Japan's exclusive economic zone"

At this rate, there may not be a N. Korean military left by the time this movie start filming.
 
Sluis Van Shipyards said:
We also heard that around the Vietnam era and it turned out not to be true. I'd rather have a fighter that can out maneuver any other and win than just design something for BVR fights.



That's the reason I never watched the Red Dawn remake. There's no freaking way the North Koreans, or really anyone, could invade the U.S. unless they somehow got UFOs or something. I think the same guy wrote some game series with that premise, which is idiotic. The other thing wrong with these "the U.S. is invaded" movies is that they never take into account all the armed civilians, not to mention former military. Anyone who invaded would face something that made WW2 Berlin seem relatively safe. You're talking street fighting on every street in the country. Red Dawn kind of did this, but the civilians gave up way too quickly in that movie.
Click to expand...

In the Red Dawn remake. NK did it......
....with help from the Russians
 
That's the reason I never watched the Red Dawn remake. There's no freaking way the North Koreans, or really anyone, could invade the U.S. unless they somehow got UFOs or something. I think the same guy wrote some game series with that premise, which is idiotic. The other thing wrong with these "the U.S. is invaded" movies is that they never take into account all the armed civilians, not to mention former military. Anyone who invaded would face something that made WW2 Berlin seem relatively safe. You're talking street fighting on every street in the country. Red Dawn kind of did this, but the civilians gave up way too quickly in that movie.
Click to expand...

I recall the North Korea adversary in the Red Dawn remake being a later decision.

They rolled the cameras on the premise that it was China invading us. Then it occurred to somebody that alienating the entire Chinese audience might be a costly move. (D'oh!) Enter the re-edits & CGI fixes. North Korea was the only other option for an invading force with Asian-looking soldiers.
 
MooCriket said:
I'd like to see them straight up do that @Mr Webber, but sadly do not think they have the balls to do so. Despite all of this, I'm still hyped for some 80's cheesy fun. I know Iceman is on board, and I hope we get to see Viper and Jester as well.

Just wanted to add that I haven't lost that loving feeling.
Click to expand...

Sadly, I think that both Tom Skerritt (Viper) and Michael Ironside (Jester) are bit too old now to reprise their roles, at least not as still being in the Navy, even as Admirals. Tom Skerritt is 83 and Michael Ironside is 67, which means that Viper would be long retired and Jester (even if he made Admiral) would have hit mandatory retirement age a few years back.
 
Last edited:
Riceball said:
Sadly, I think that both Tom Skerritt (Viper) and Michael Ironside (Jester) are bit too old now to reprise their roles, at least not still as being in the Navy, even as Admirals. Tom Skerritt is 83 and Michael Ironside is 67, which means that Viper would be long retired and Jester (even if he made Admiral) would have hit mandatory retirement age a few years back.
Click to expand...

That could be the surprise plot. Viper and Jester pulled outa retirement to save Maverick and zombie Goose using Top Gun space shuttle proto type jets. They have to save them from zombie, werewolf, lizard aliens from the fourth dimension.
 
MooCriket said:
That could be the surprise plot. Viper and Jester pulled outa retirement to save Maverick and zombie Goose using Top Gun space shuttle proto type jets. They have to save them from zombie, werewolf, lizard aliens from the fourth dimension.
Click to expand...

As long as its served up with the correct amount of fromage, I`m in.
 
MooCriket said:
That could be the surprise plot. Viper and Jester pulled outa retirement to save Maverick and zombie Goose using Top Gun space shuttle proto type jets. They have to save them from zombie, werewolf, lizard aliens from the fourth dimension.
Click to expand...

They would have to fly F-14s and an A-4. It would be similar to Iron Eagle 3 where they get the old planes to go fight the new bad guy!
 
Between the ages of all the characters/actors, the changes in combat & planes, the USA's various wars/occupations . . . this whole movie would have worked a lot better at least a decade ago.

Even doing the movie now, they could still move the story back a decade. I'm sure Tom Cruise would prefer an excuse not to have to look his real age.
 
Tom Cruise looks exactly the same today as he did when the first film came out, so they could set it whenever they want.

I mean, seriously, they could have it start the day he returned to his own unit after graduating and nobody would say "Wait a minute, how come he's like 30 years older now??"


That said, it would be interesting to see which direction they go. When the first film came out the F-14 had been in service for what, just over 10 years? While a decent amount of time, back then I feel not a ton of people had access to see/know about fighter planes so to them it was new and cool. Today though? Even though the Super Hornet would probably be the plane most likely used, most people would just see it as a Hornet, a plane that's been in service for over 30 years...and while I'm not trying to say Hornets/Super Hornets aren't awesome machines, they certainly don't carry a "Wow factor" like the F35 and its variants...so I feel the film would almost have to feature something that has a "Wow factor."

The problem with these planes (other than their real-world problems) is that literally everything I've seen and read says that they are basically unfair. A few years back I watched a documentary on the F-22 where a pilot being interviewed said it's not a fair fight until it's like 11 on 1. I've also seen a documentary where it showed five Raptor pilots in F15s dogfighting one Raptor...and none of the guys in the Eagles even SAW the Raptor before they had been "shot down." I remember one of the pilots saying "You only know you're in a fight with an F22 when you're below a parachute watching your plane fall to earth below you" or something to that effect.

Now is some of that hype and a bit of propaganda? I'm sure it is...but there's probably a bit of truth to it as well. While these pilots are still trained for up close dog fights, that is a last resort. Why get in close and dogfight when you can kill your enemy before he even has any clue you're there?

What I'm rambling on about is that nobody wants to watch a movie where a plane goes up, tracks 18 different targets at once, fires 8 missles, kills those targets, then goes and lands. While realistically that's incredibly impressive...from an entertainment standpoint it sucks.

So yeah...it would be very interesting to see what direction they tried to go.
 
To be fair, most dogfights now a days are not at the same kinds of distances as WW II, which is probably what most people imagine. Most dogfights will be at the limits of visual range utilizing short range heat-seeking missiles like the Sidewinder with a range measured in miles. Also, as I mentioned before, even if a plane is stealthy and invisible or near invisible to radar its missiles aren't and any enemy plane will also definitely know when they're being painted and will detect the missiles once they lock on. So it won't be like in some anime where two forces come at each other and a mass of missiles is launched that just plows in to the enemy, what will happen is that once the enemy realizes that missiles are inbound they're going to start maneuvering to try and break radar lock and dodge the missiles. Once that happens, the friendlies will then in turn start to maneuver to keep track of the enemy so that the can fire more missiles at them, assuming that they don't fire everything all at once and just turn around and RTB.
 
Gimpdiggity said:
Tom Cruise looks exactly the same today as he did when the first film came out, so they could set it whenever they want.

I mean, seriously, they could have it start the day he returned to his own unit after graduating and nobody would say "Wait a minute, how come he's like 30 years older now??"


That said, it would be interesting to see which direction they go. When the first film came out the F-14 had been in service for what, just over 10 years? While a decent amount of time, back then I feel not a ton of people had access to see/know about fighter planes so to them it was new and cool. Today though? Even though the Super Hornet would probably be the plane most likely used, most people would just see it as a Hornet, a plane that's been in service for over 30 years...and while I'm not trying to say Hornets/Super Hornets aren't awesome machines, they certainly don't carry a "Wow factor" like the F35 and its variants...so I feel the film would almost have to feature something that has a "Wow factor."

The problem with these planes (other than their real-world problems) is that literally everything I've seen and read says that they are basically unfair. A few years back I watched a documentary on the F-22 where a pilot being interviewed said it's not a fair fight until it's like 11 on 1. I've also seen a documentary where it showed five Raptor pilots in F15s dogfighting one Raptor...and none of the guys in the Eagles even SAW the Raptor before they had been "shot down." I remember one of the pilots saying "You only know you're in a fight with an F22 when you're below a parachute watching your plane fall to earth below you" or something to that effect.

Now is some of that hype and a bit of propaganda? I'm sure it is...but there's probably a bit of truth to it as well. While these pilots are still trained for up close dog fights, that is a last resort. Why get in close and dogfight when you can kill your enemy before he even has any clue you're there?

What I'm rambling on about is that nobody wants to watch a movie where a plane goes up, tracks 18 different targets at once, fires 8 missles, kills those targets, then goes and lands. While realistically that's incredibly impressive...from an entertainment standpoint it sucks.

So yeah...it would be very interesting to see what direction they tried to go.
Click to expand...

I was flying home near Palmdale AFB and saw a F16 and a F22 playing cat an mouse. Both were leaving visible contrails. The F22 was running circles around the F16....it was an impressive show.

The problem with our current 5th gen fighters is that they kill from miles and miles away. But Im sure Hollywood will find a way to make it plausible (yea right).
 
Riceball said:
To be fair, most dogfights now a days are not at the same kinds of distances as WW II, which is probably what most people imagine. Most dogfights will be at the limits of visual range utilizing short range heat-seeking missiles like the Sidewinder with a range measured in miles. Also, as I mentioned before, even if a plane is stealthy and invisible or near invisible to radar its missiles aren't and any enemy plane will also definitely know when they're being painted and will detect the missiles once they lock on. So it won't be like in some anime where two forces come at each other and a mass of missiles is launched that just plows in to the enemy, what will happen is that once the enemy realizes that missiles are inbound they're going to start maneuvering to try and break radar lock and dodge the missiles. Once that happens, the friendlies will then in turn start to maneuver to keep track of the enemy so that the can fire more missiles at them, assuming that they don't fire everything all at once and just turn around and RTB.
Click to expand...

That's more what I was getting at.

People imagine dogfights like in The Battle of Britain or Star Wars, and that's not the way it works anymore.

I also don't think that, for example, you'd have a lot of incidents like in the original film where you're doing training and having two jets so close to each other that one of them has its backwash put the other into a flat spin as they're both trying to score a lock on the enemy fighter.
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.

Similar threads

ghostryder
Fighter (Bollywood's "Top Gun")
Replies
0
Views
230
ghostryder
ghostryder
gunnerk19
Top Gun: The TV series?
Replies
5
Views
480
Solo4114
Solo4114
TazMan2000
Naked Gun Reboot!
2
Replies
29
Views
1,066
blewis17
blewis17
ghostryder
Top Gun: Maverick "replica" helmet popcorn bucket
Replies
8
Views
3,778
NakedMoleRat
NakedMoleRat
heckinohio
"Predator" movie gun
Replies
1
Views
463
Sundowner
Sundowner
Back
Top