Top Gun 2

Just saw it...
better than Iron Eagle for sure!
I feel like it was better than the first one. Still a whole bunch of things i had to forgive.... the flares being one of them....they ever made it painfully obvious that they were supposed to be radar guided sams.... but that's one of the things that half the people in the theater at least probably would never notice and would never care. Just military folks an us aviation nerds. Looking past all that stuff...without really thinking about it my gut feel during the movie was that it was a better quality story and dialog. Not deep.....but better.

Sadly, had to sit in the second row....I wanted to see it in the Xd bigger screen theater and so it was either that, split up and not sit next to my wife, or sit way off on the sides of the 3rd ro 4th rows. Not horrible, but I feel like it would have been just as good if not a little better to go to the standard theater screen and a better seat.
Regardless...I enjoyed it more than any movie I've seen in a theater in a long time.
 
Better than Iron Eagle? I don’t know, that’s a close call. I saw IE 2 in the theater. Was definitely underwhelming. “Speed kills peaches!”
 
Just saw it with the family in IMAX. Thought it was solid..Watched the original in the morning so the kids would be up to speed.

Lacking the memorable lines from the first, and the "don't give me that look" bit would have worked better if they didn't beat it to death.
 
I knew going in that the Hornet just wasn't gonna cut it for me as a replacement for the Tomcat and that the obligatory F-14 at the end was going to be completely CGI but I have to give it to them they made it good enough to get me to choke up at least a little bit. I was in the Navy in the mid seventies so I've got a thing for the old relic, still my favorite and it was definitely what gave the original Top Gun it's iconic status.

The best line in the movie: "you told me not to think"
 
TLDR version: US bombs Iran using some mission impossible stuff. Sprinkle in very campy dialog and story, just like the first one. Too bad the actual flying was minimal, but I'm sure paying for real jets was damn expensive.
 
Velocity173 said:
Saw Flight of the Intruder when it opened in the theater. That was a bit of a letdown since I had read the book. Didn’t even realize that “Cool Hand” passed away earlier this year. RIP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Johnson_(actor,_born_1959)
Click to expand...

As so often the case, great book, awful movie. When I got to NAS Whidbey several A-6's were in the VA-196 VN era color scheme and the TRAM balls were missing as they were headed to Hawaii to film it.
 
UngaWunga said:
TLDR version: US bombs Iran using some mission impossible stuff. Sprinkle in very campy dialog and story, just like the first one. Too bad the actual flying was minimal, but I'm sure paying for real jets was damn expensive.
Click to expand...
$11K/hr reportedly for the -18s.
 
I was transfixed from the first minute to the last frame. Almost speechless with joy watching the practice canyon runs. G's! They made a movie about G's!

Even the cornball plot had me hook, line, and sinker. I was blubbering like a baby when Mav and Rooster reconciled. "Bwaah haah haah, he pulled your Naval Academy packet because your MOM didn't want you to follo!!!" Bro-hood is real.

And don't even get me started on the last scene. Taking Jennifer Connelly flying in your personal P-51. Damn. Just Damn.

The only part that lost me was the CSAR bit. Having done that professionally spoiled it for me.
 
Last edited:
Ed Haywood said:
I was transfixed from the first minute to the last frame. Almost speechless with joy watching the practice canyon runs. G's! They made a movie about G's!
Click to expand...

And more, they didn't Mavsplain it. Cruise's character said the other pilot was suffering from "GLOC" and no character picked up the gauntlet to describe, in simple word, what it meant. That really heightened the realism, for me.

Ron Wanttaja
 
I'm sure there are all kinds of plot holes, but this felt like a return to better storytelling.
 
RyanShort1 said:
I'm sure there are all kinds of plot holes, but this felt like a return to better storytelling.
Click to expand...


Agreed. An engaging story and an entertaining movie. As I said above, just suspend disbelief and enjoy it. You can pick it to death, but that’s true with almost any movie where you know something about the subject.

Ultimately the criteria that matters is how entertained were you.
 
Velocity173 said:
How does a Capt in the Navy afford a P-51? Something suspicious going on there. You can’t tell me he’s not flying rubber dog **** out of Hong Kong as a side gig to afford that thing.
Click to expand...


He never married.

Look at Ice. He had a wife and a nice house, but no P-51.
 
I forgot to mention earlier....
one other thing I found funny...was the USAF add before the movie. Did that run everywhere?
 
SoonerAviator said:
$11K/hr reportedly for the -18s.
Click to expand...

That’s cheaper than an E-3. It’s been a while, but the USAF Flying Hour Program ‘charged’ $16k/hr, but that’s a fully baked/all in cost for .gov accounting rules.
 
Velocity173 said:
How does a Capt in the Navy afford a P-51? Something suspicious going on there. You can’t tell me he’s not flying rubber dog **** out of Hong Kong as a side gig to afford that thing.
Click to expand...

Pilot bonus. And CZTE. Lots and lots of CZTE over 30 years, especially if you split deployments/ship tours across two calendar years.
 
I enjoyed the movie. It's probably been 5 years since I saw a movie in a theater. I get suspension of disbelief, but, how much of that was needed for them avoiding all of those SAMS? Knowing nothing about it, my assumption was if one locks on you, flares and maneuvers are not likely to save you. Was that scene even remotely realistic?
 
Mahneuvers said:
I enjoyed the movie. It's probably been 5 years since I saw a movie in a theater. I get suspension of disbelief, but, how much of that was needed for them avoiding all of those SAMS? Knowing nothing about it, my assumption was if one locks on you, flares and maneuvers are not likely to save you. Was that scene even remotely realistic?
Click to expand...

Well, it’s not realistic in that the system involved is radar guided and not IR guided. The movie also makes it seem like popping flares is an automatic break lock for an IR missile. No IRCM system is 100 % effective. I don’t really have a problem with that scene. It was entertaining. At least they didn’t show an F-18 outrunning (Behind Enemy Lines) a Mach 2 + SAM. I would say, if the objective is that important, you’d have some ADA dudes carrying MANPADs along that route below coverage of the S-125s. I’d camp out at the objective in my lawn chair with a dozen SA-24 and put an end to that strike in a heartbeat. ;)
 
wanttaja said:
And more, they didn't Mavsplain it. Cruise's character said the other pilot was suffering from "GLOC" and no character picked up the gauntlet to describe, in simple word, what it meant. That really heightened the realism, for me.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

There were a lot of little details included that surprised me, such as the characters actually using the paddle switch on the stick to override the F-18s G-limiter. Little things like that which a lot of the public wouldn't even realize.

But there was a lot of hokey parts as well, but at least there were real airplanes and not as much CGI as other movies lately. Even the CGI made an effort to look real.
 
Brad W said:
I forgot to mention earlier....
one other thing I found funny...was the USAF add before the movie. Did that run everywhere?
Click to expand...

Yup, and a ton of promo trailers for a dozen coming soon movies.
 
Velocity173 said:
How does a Capt in the Navy afford a P-51? Something suspicious going on there. You can’t tell me he’s not flying rubber dog **** out of Hong Kong as a side gig to afford that thing.
Click to expand...
Then again, nothing ever indicated that he DIDN'T have personal wealth.

Remember reading an article, years ago, in the US Navy Proceedings magazine. It established that, historically, most of the men who made the biggest changes in the Navy were independently wealthy. They could push changes and fight the status quo, and while their naval career might be jeopardized, they didn't have to worry about a loss of income.

Ron Wanttaja
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top