Top Gun 2

Them running back to the destroyed airfield to steal a plane was a bit iron eagle
Click to expand...
The "two pilots getting shot down and joining up to escape" has been used in a couple of movies as well..."The Hunters," "Flight of the Intruder," even "The Bridges at Toko-Ri". Albeit in "The Hunters," the second pilot deliberately belly-lands to join his boss on the ground.

Ron "Tastes like Stalin's socks" Wanttaja
 
I thought it was a GREAT movie. You just have to suspend belief.

As stated, an airplane breaking up at Mach 10 and you survive? (There is a whole theory on the internet that he actually died in the crash and the rest of the movie was his brain correcting the wrongs of his life in the moment before death)

Why didn't they send in cruise missles to take out the sam sites?

If they are worried about planes coming after them after they completed the mission, why not launch a bunch of F18's to be ready to help?

Why not just take out the sams and the runway and send in B52's with MOAB's?

But again, great movie!
 
cowtowner said:
I thought it was a GREAT movie. You just have to suspend belief.

As stated, an airplane breaking up at Mach 10 and you survive? (There is a whole theory on the internet that he actually died in the crash and the rest of the movie was his brain correcting the wrongs of his life in the moment before death)

Why didn't they send in cruise missiles to take out the sam sites? Cuz.... SAM sites can be mobile, agile, and most important hostile.

If they are worried about planes coming after them after they completed the mission, why not launch a bunch of F18's to be ready to help? Cuzz... they had to get "feet wet" and at the point they were either dead, or lucky with nothing to worry about.

Why not just take out the sams and the runway and send in B52's with MOAB's? Cuzzz... you're thinking the Air Force could have actually pulled this off using YF 117, B-2 Stealth let alone some of the other things we don't know about in the arsenal.. now, would that have made for an action packed movie? :D:p:cool::)


But again, great movie!
Click to expand...
 
Of course F-35s would’ve most likely been used instead. Since the movie revolved around G forces it seemed. Hard to film actors pulling Gs in a single seat fighter.
 
For @RhinoDrvr or @35 AoA, is that ordnance CGI on the wings? Could they rip through the canyons like that and pulling Gs with that type of load? Probably inert but any reg prohibiting carry live ordnance with a civ onboard?
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
For @RhinoDrvr or @35 AoA, is that ordnance CGI on the wings? Could they rip through the canyons like that and pulling Gs with that type of load? Probably inert but any reg prohibiting carry live ordnance with a civ onboard?
Click to expand...

Haven’t seen the movie yet, but the ordnance I saw was blue (ie inert). I doubt they’d CGI inert stuff on there.
 
Just saw it in IMAX with SWMBO and thoroughly enjoyed it. Even my wife liked it. Very good sequel. Just suspend disbelief, ignore the story flaws, embrace the hokum and enjoy the movie. If you have an IMAX theater in your area then that's where you should see it, by all means. Excellent visuals, lots and lots of flying.

I was glad to see they found a way to include Val Kilmer. It wouldn't have been such a good sequel without him.
 
cowtowner said:
Why didn't they send in cruise missles to take out the sam sites?
Click to expand...


Yep, an easy shot for a JASSM, and JASSMs can be launched from F-18s.

upload_2022-5-31_19-3-54.png


But that would have been a boring movie.


Velocity173 said:
Of course F-35s would’ve most likely been used instead.
Click to expand...


Certainly. But can you imagine how much more it would cost to fly F-35s instead of F-18s? If the USN would even make 35s available?

You really do have to ignore all the BS and story contrivances and just enjoy the movie for what it is. It's very entertaining, definitely a good sequel that pays a nice homage to the original.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2022-5-31_18-58-1.png
    upload_2022-5-31_18-58-1.png
    493.3 KB · Views: 21
Wife, Kid and myself all really liked it. I think its better than the original. But hard to replace the original's kick ass feeling during the Reagan Years. Seeing it in a theatre back then just coming off a patrol was awesome.

Hopefully not a spoiler, but did two certain individuals actually have their helmets in hand when they got in the plane together. I thought they were left behind a bit earlier in the movie? Doesn't really matter though, loved where that all went.
 
Velocity173 said:
For @RhinoDrvr or @35 AoA, is that ordnance CGI on the wings? Could they rip through the canyons like that and pulling Gs with that type of load? Probably inert but any reg prohibiting carry live ordnance with a civ onboard?
Click to expand...

I imagine GCI for the releases themselves, but quite possibly actual inert rounds being carried for filming. Haven't seen the movie yet, but my understanding is that they were carrying Paveway III/GBU-24b/b which is basically a Desert Storm era weapon that we almost never use, but looks pretty huge/cool on an F/A-18. I'd have to go and look in the pub, but I don't recall there being any significant limitations of G or carriage airspeed with it (or most other pieces of ordnance for that matter). No idea about carrying civ pax......every wing has their own regs about VIP rides (which this would essentially be).....generally speaking, you don't do tactical flying with a non-uniformed guest, but that also generally can be waived (in this case by the 1 star in Fallon I'd imagine). I doubt they flew any of the cast in a jet with ordnance or doing many of the things they appear to be doing.....can do a lot of magic with editing these days of course. But it isn't, I suppose, outside the realm of possibility.
 
Velocity173 said:
I’m hearing a lot of people saying it’s better than the original. Even the best movie they’ve ever seen. Come on, that’s like saying Jaws 2 is better than the original. While I enjoyed it and the in the cockpit stuff was amazing, it’ll never be a classic, quotable movie like the first one. There’s a lot of unrealistic CGI in this one as well.

Without giving away too much, Mover and Gonky do a good review on it.

Click to expand...
You preferred seeing the same missile fired and the same model plane blow up nineteen times?
 
Lindberg said:
You preferred seeing the same missile fired and the same model plane blow up nineteen times?
Click to expand...

Fake is fake either way. I still know it’s either CGI or a model. Doesn’t detract from the movie though. I understand that some things can’t be filmed with real aircraft. Take The Battle of Britain. They used models but it also has some of the best flying scenes in an aviation movie.
 
Sinistar said:
Wife, Kid and myself all really liked it. I think its better than the original. But hard to replace the original's kick ass feeling during the Reagan Years. Seeing it in a theatre back then just coming off a patrol was awesome.

Hopefully not a spoiler, but did two certain individuals actually have their helmets in hand when they got in the plane together. I thought they were left behind a bit earlier in the movie? Doesn't really matter though, loved where that all went.
Click to expand...

They had them when they met up, because Maverick threw his down in angst, lol. Having those helmets from the Super Hornet connect right in to a Tomcat is probably a non-starter.
 
cowtowner said:
As stated, an airplane breaking up at Mach 10 and you survive? (There is a whole theory on the internet that he actually died in the crash and the rest of the movie was his brain correcting the wrongs of his life in the moment before death)
Click to expand...
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...
 
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...


Well, I can understand wanting to establish him as a test pilot. He couldn’t have been a TG instructor for the last 30 years.

So given that, what do you want to show him testing? Most test flights are to verify a new software load or some new sensor mode. Pretty boring stuff to watch. So if you want something exciting, Maverick needs to be thrashing some hot new plane.

And there you are.
 
Question for the collective: could you have enjoyed TG2 without having seen the original?

Yesterday my wife and I suggested to @SkyChaser and @2-Bit Speed that they go see it. But later I remembered that the original came out before they were even born (heck, before SWMBO and I even met!), so I doubt they’ve seen it. If not, they won’t catch a lot of the references.

So can the movie stand on its own?
 
SoonerAviator said:
They had them when they met up, because Maverick threw his down in angst, lol. Having those helmets from the Super Hornet connect right in to a Tomcat is probably a non-starter.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but if you get past that then you have to get past the fact that apparently the helmets have transponders in them.
 
Half Fast said:
If you know Val Kilmer’s real-life circumstance, the scene between Maverick and Iceman was pretty emotional.
Click to expand...
I finally got around to looking this up. I did not know about that. That does put a whole new spin on that scene.
 
Half Fast said:
Question for the collective: could you have enjoyed TG2 without having seen the original?

Yesterday my wife and I suggested to @SkyChaser and @2-Bit Speed that they go see it. But later I remembered that the original came out before they were even born (heck, before SWMBO and I even met!), so I doubt they’ve seen it. If not, they won’t catch a lot of the references.

So can the movie stand on its own?
Click to expand...

Won’t be as good because there’s several throwbacks that pay homage to the original and stories that are linked to the original. Things like they won’t have a clue who the bar tender is and won’t know the specifics around Goose’s death.Wouldn’t be so sure that they haven’t seen it though. Got a lot of aviation movies at home that were way before I was born.
 
Velocity173 said:
Won’t be as good because there’s several throwbacks that pay homage to the original and stories that are linked to the original. Things like they won’t have a clue who the bar tender is and won’t know the specifics around Goose’s death.Wouldn’t be so sure that they haven’t seen it though. Got a lot of aviation movies at home that were way before I was born.
Click to expand...
Half the morons in my theatre didn't know who the bartender was.
 
Half Fast said:
Question for the collective: could you have enjoyed TG2 without having seen the original?

Yesterday my wife and I suggested to @SkyChaser and @2-Bit Speed that they go see it. But later I remembered that the original came out before they were even born (heck, before SWMBO and I even met!), so I doubt they’ve seen it. If not, they won’t catch a lot of the references.

So can the movie stand on its own?
Click to expand...

I think they should see the original first. It seems to be on a lot of streaming services right now.

As a pilot, you should also have it on Betamax, VHS, DVD, and Blu-Ray.

(I've only got it on DVD, but I didn't start flying until well after it was released).
 
I think there should’ve been a Kelly Mcgillis cameo where she tells Mav that Phoenix is their love child. Rooster and Phoenix eventually have and on screen romance. Mav’s worried about her safety so he puts her on “alert 5” instead of being in the big game. At the end, Rooster gets shoot down and dies in an ejection and Phoenix has to go save the day. She goes on to be the first female Blue Angel pilot ever…I should’ve been a movie writer.
 
Which bartender was I supposed to recognize? I only saw Jennifer Connelly, who was too young to be a bartender in the first one.
 
Speaking of spoiler alerts. :rolleyes:
 
Velocity173 said:
I think there should’ve been a Kelly Mcgillis cameo where she tells Mav that Phoenix is their love child. Rooster and Phoenix eventually have and on screen romance. Mav’s worried about her safety so he puts her on “alert 5” instead of being in the big game. At the end, Rooster gets shoot down and dies in an ejection and Phoenix has to go save the day. She goes on to be the first female Blue Angel pilot ever…I should’ve been a movie writer.
Click to expand...

And she has a side business repairing juke boxes.
 
Velocity173 said:
I think there should’ve been a Kelly Mcgillis cameo where she tells Mav that Phoenix is her and Goose’s love child. Rooster and Phoenix eventually have and on screen romance. Mav’s worried about her safety so he puts her on “alert 5” instead of being in the big game. At the end, Rooster gets shoot down and dies in an ejection and Phoenix has to go save the day. She goes on to be the first female Blue Angel pilot ever…I should’ve been a movie writer.
Click to expand...



FIFY. Now go with your scenario from there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top