re: Official “Top Gun: Maverick” Thread - Spoilers Welcomed

There was nothing mission impossible esque about this movie. No elaborate hand-to-hand fight scenes or caper. My wife and I watched TopGun the night before we went see the movie, it is just a continuation of the story 30 years later. Rooster was a better character than I though he would be, he was just not a Goose stand-in. Maverick taking he heat from Rooster so he would not be mad at his mother after her deal showed how much Maverick has matured. Also, Hangman is not an analog for the new Maverick; Maverick was never as reckless as Hangman. In spite of the mistake of leaving his wingman, Hangman continued to do it. Maverick made the mistake once and only once and checked his ego immediately to Goose the next scene vowing to never do that again. Maverick was played as cocking, confident in the first movie. Hangman was just arrogant.

I am surprised they never had Maverick blamed Iceman for killing Goose. If you go watch the original movie, Maverick told Iceman to peel off high right and Iceman when high left. Basically sending Maverick through the jet wash. So Iceman is really the reason Goose was killed because he could not let his ego be bested by Maverick and do has he was ordered. Just an observation.

It is ok, to think the movie was average, but it was not. In comparison to all the crap put out by Hollywood, that was a good action movie. Great bit of escapism and nostalgia with lots of new character development.

It’s almost forgettable because of how early it is in a great movie, but how about the shot where Maverick flies the test run right over Admiral Kaine’s head

quote:

---

Are you kidding or have you not watched the original Top Gun recently? Serious question.

Mav was arguably more reckless in this one than hangman

And yes he’s an obvious “new” maverick, without the charm as the writers flipped who the audience is supposed to identify with among the new pilots because they thought it would be cute and had no new ideas of their own.

---

Actually, yes, I saw it in the theaters in 1986 and probably 100 times since. Rooster is the new Maverick. Hangman is the new Iceman. Hangman was the antagonist, the story was about Rooster and Maverick.

quote:

---

Rooster is the new Maverick. Hangman is the new Iceman

---

Except Rooster has the personality of Iceman and Hangman has the Maverick personality.

But yes, from the story perspective, that is true.

But not from a personality perspective.

quote:

---

Why did Maverick have goose and then merlin as an SO, but he didn't have one in Top gun: maverick?

---

I assumed it was different types of planes even within the same model

quote:

---

It has a few nice moments, but doesn’t have anywhere close to the heart of the original.

The love story is not compelling at all, the chemistry between Penny and Mav is, like the movie, average. It’s not bad, just unremarkable.

Way way way too may dumb little callbacks of lines from the original. The entire scene with Ice is forced and relies on the audience’s nostalgia from the previous film.

The new characters are largely flat, with only hints of personality. Even hangman is a transparent “new” version of Maverick.

The Rooster-Mav stuff is the best part of the movie, but even that they push too far forcing them into a F-14 together, again totally reliant on nostalgia of the original. This movie has no heart of its own.

They’re caught dead to rights but the movie telegraphs that hangman will save them, which of course he does at the last milisecond. There’s no stakes in the finale because you see how it’s going to end coming a mile away.

The original did the work of making you think Mav may actually not engage when he’s needed, and they build the relationship between Ice and Mav through the whole movie to pay that off. The new one does this in a hilariously watered down way, to the point that even Jon Hamm of all people seems listless in his performance.

It’s an adequate but unremarkable prostitution of 80’s nostalgia, only slightly more competently executed than the dozens of other nostalgia pieces Hollywood has been shitting out for decades.

C+

---

I'll fall on the sword with you. I agree with all of that. The fight scenes and flying were really cool, but the dialogue was very corny, the ending was predictable, and Tom Cruise kinda sucked acting. It was a good enough popcorn flick, and I enjoyed it, but the love this movie is getting as some cinematic masterpiece is crazy talk.

y'all are both wrong

quote:

---

The difference is that even in something like Infinity War, which is unwatchable if you haven’t seen at least a chunk of the MCU, they are moving the characters and the story of the universe forward. And introducing new characters who are interesting and compelling in their own right as opposed to rehashing the personality of other characters from previous films.

---

I understand what you are saying, but it is questionable if the MCU is moving characters or the universe forward of if these is interesting about their new characters. I would suggest that the idea behind this movie was not to establish some multi-movie franchise.

quote:

---

basically Mission Impossible: Maverick, instead of Top Gun: Maverick.

---

Well maybe, but this is where I disagree. Other than Tom Cruise being in both franchises, the Top Gun movie I saw yesterday was all about pilots and flying their the world around them. No secret missions, no fight scenes, nothing that characterize a special against. There was no mission impossible. This was basically a fun straight up 80's popcorn action flick.

quote:

---

It was a good enough popcorn flick, and I enjoyed it, but the love this movie is getting as some cinematic masterpiece is crazy talk.

---

No, the flying stuff was very ground breaking. That is no different than Avatar (which was Disney's Pocahontas with blue aliens.) Was Avatar ground breaking cinema? Yes, because of the effects and 3d world they created. Was the story remotely good, hell no, it was more hollywood anti-capitalist propaganda.

quote:

---

The operation they were training for was a mission impossible, which is the thrust of the entire movie.

---

I guess you did do not really know the origins of Mission Impossible. Spies do not equal pilots...

quote:

---

I think it would be pretty hard to argue that it wasn’t a lot more hit than miss from phase 2 through Endgame.

---

Well if you point to 10 to 15 of the 30 movies and say well its more hit than miss, I can agree. But you are pointing to the best segment of the MCU. The majority of the MCU is a rinse-and-repeat plot line and not great cinema. Again, I understand what you are trying to say, I just disagree.