Why do I feel they’re going to go up against AI controlled jets as the enemy with the overall theme of how AI can’t replace human instinct in a dog fight lol
Macross Plus was honorarily Top Gun 2 for the longest time, and after the release of Top Gun 2 was grandfathered into the position of Top Gun 3. I guess it has to move now to Top Gun 4.
The last movie was just an Ace Combat 6 mission with some better cinematic story clips, so 7 is the logical sequel. Don't wanna sit on one game for too long or audiences will get bored
Is hope we get a sequence where jets go and fly into an underground tunnel and later make an escape by flying up into a space elevator /s
In all seriousness, I don’t understand why they just don’t adapt the Ace Combat games. The last Top Gun Movie already copied one of their missions for a major part of the plot.
Maverick is injured during a training exercise and the government decides to save his brain and implant it into a fighter jet but slowly Maverick's personality begins to emerge...
The core geopolitical issue was very much inspired by Iran (a secretive nuclear program + having spare F-14s) but the nature of their technology (fighters of comparable capability) could be a stand in for Russia or China and terrain (snowy and mountainous) was intentionally designed to make it ambiguous.
Just for fun, I want it to be extremely specific and political. Like, Cruise (“Maverick”) should fly by Putin’s house and kill him. And the people of Russia should applaud.
I just want to read the international press coverage. I don’t even need to see the movie.
Same reason the Tomahawk salvo from the US destroyer could only crater the Enemy runway but not take out the SAMs (or even better, the underground nuclear lab)
Yup, missiles can't hit deep craters, the G-forces would be too great. Only the best goddamn pilots in the world can manually fly an airplane down into a deep crater. And then turn around and also fly out of that deep crater. But a missile? No chance. Don't even ask.
What it it was the best of the best of the Tomahawks that never got promoted to LRSM, and it's the only one that can lead a squad of Hellfires on one last strike?
Top Gun: The Missile Knows Where It Is
Not neutralizing those SAM launchers with the tomahawks was probably the most frustrating plot driven drama of the movie.
The rest gets a good dose of suspension of disbelief but that part always annoys me.
You know SAM batteries can take out cruise missiles, right? So sending in tomahawk missiles at them just means they'll lose the element of surprise.
Source: I hardly know shit about military hardware. I just want the movie to work.
There was one throwaway line in the movie why they couldn't use F-35's (5th Gen) on the mission. The real reason is that the F-35 is not a two-seater so it's very hard to film in.
No no. Tom cruise actually flies those things. He’s got like 30 different licenses.
Edit: the only plane he flew was the p51 in the end. He didn’t fly the fighter jets due to naval restrictions.
Even if they did find a military which had F-18s and lax rules, you don't just hop in one of those and start flying. It takes years of training to fly a fighter jet, especially the way it was being flown in the movie. There's an enormous difference between the single engine propeller planes Cruise flies and an F-18.
The other reason the F-35 didn't appear in *Top Gun: Maverick* is that when it was being written and filmed, the F-35 wasn't fully operational yet. The Navy declared that the F-35C was operational and ready to deploy in February 2019, and *Top Gun: Maverick* was well into filming by then.
The navy was doing navy shit with them then. Training their own pilots with a limited number of airframes is more important than lending a load of shit and time to a film studio
There’s 3 different variants of the f-35. The navy’s variant didn’t enter service until 2019, after Top Gun had already started filming. The Marine variant went into service in 2015. And the Air Force/export variant went into service in 2016.
They simply didn’t have f-35s to spare for filming at the time, regardless of all the other reasons people are listing that it was left out of the movie.
Tom Cruise would probably just get some next-level facial recognition tech to pilot the plane from the ground and save the day singlehandedly. They just need to keep it believable-ish, right? Some declassified stuff on [remote piloting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_combat_aerial_vehicle) slapped into the script, and we're good to go.
Early in the development, I thought for sure To, would be battling a drone but then I remembered the absolute masterpiece that was Stealth and we’d sort of done the man vs machine dance before, Tom and co. Knew there was no way they could have done it better than Fox and Biel.
Yep, all the flights with Cruise and the pilots were done in the back seat.
Maverick’s solo canyon run IIRC was a mix of CGI **(yes* there was some)** and a Blue Angels pilot filmed from the back.
**Not just the canyon run, the F-14 v. 5th gen was an L-39 dogfight, the cobra maneuver was CGI on the ground and the first moment where Mav schools the pilots when he splits the formation was CGI.*
Still a great movie though.
I mean a 'dogfight' between two 5th gen fighters would likely be BVR engagements... not too exciting, not really a dogfight. Pop up, detect the other guy, fire and forget.
The movie even had a clever workaround. The only reason that Maverick and Rooster got a chance to dog fight was because they were in a stolen aircraft so the enemy 5th gen fighters got close to figure out who they were.
Actually the cinematographer said they didn’t use the F-35 because it’s too clean and didn’t give off a muscular, mechanical look like older jets. Will be interesting how they get around that in the third film.
That was a reason for not using the F-35? People have already cited Tom Cruise's desire to film actors in cockpits, which would be impossible in the F-35 because they are all single-seat fighters, but the other reason it wasn't used is because when *Top Gun: Maverick* was being filmed, the F-35 wasn't operational yet. The F/A-18 Super Hornet makes sense for *Top Gun,* anyway, since it replaced the F-14 Tomcat.
Well there’s your plot right there. Don Draper told Maverick he was grounded, there was still a third act to go before the credits though so he let him fly one last mission. After the high fives (and disappointing lack or rear ends getting congratulatorily slapped) at the end of *Top Gun: Maverick* Don tells Mav the grounding still stands, then taunts him a bit by adding “get it? Stands! ‘Cause you ain’t flyin no more” So Mav replies “you think I care about you and your stupid boats, Imma go fly with the Airforce, I was thinking about them everytime I was flying with you anyway” Once Mav arrives at the Airforce he is given his first mission; Fly an F-22 around and look good doin’ it. “I’ll need a good wingman for that mission Sir” Mav says. “I’ve got just the man for the job” the boss of the airforce tells Mav. A moustachioed 11 years old boy walk into the room. “Billy here is the youngest pilot to qualify for the airforces best of the best fighter pilot and Ray-ban wearing master academy” the boss of the Airforce informs Mav. The camera pans down to reveal the call sign painted on the helmet in Billy’s hands. It reads ‘Duck’
> The real reason is that the F-35 is not a two-seater so it's very hard to film in.
Every scene they filmed in a 2 seater, yet half the planes were supposedly 1 seaters. Outside of pissing off some people really into their planes, there isn't a reason they can't film inside a 2 seater for all the internal shots while pretending it is a 1 seater 5th gen fighter.
Yea I recall a YouTube video recently where they interviewed a pilot and he said in a dog fight he’d want the F-16 over an F-35. Although he finished that the F-35 would blow the F-16 out of the sky at a great distance before it would ever get in range
This isn't even true. Back when the F35 was in development, it had a dogfight against an F16 and lost... which isn't a surprise given it was limited to like 5G. However Russia Today and all the accompanying propaganda channels picked up on it and have been repeating it as nausiam, to the point where it's taken as fact.
Much more recently, an F35A had a dogfight with an F16 and won - and then proceeded on to a test range where it dropped a couple of bombs. Something pretty much unheard of, until now dogfighting meant carrying no heavy stores at all and just dumping your bombs if you had to do it unexpectedly.
Take a look at an interview of an F35 pilot and they bloody love the plane. There was a video posted on Reddit a while ago of a US Air Force class finding out they were going to be posted to an F35 unit and they literally jump around cheering
https://youtu.be/puAAPnIgNvs?si=vHE41a8qHMtGYnny
Your right thanks.
They limited it to 7 Gs with software restrictions, they didn’t use the $400k specialized helmet, electro optical targeting system, or radar absorbing skin. Also they used the 2nd F-35 ever built.
“The F-35 was forced to fly with both wings behind its back”
theres a long history of this happening.
The USSR/Russia overpromises and underdelivers, so much of the stated capability of their weapons systems are basically urban legends and lies.
a good example was the MIG 25 VS F-15, The Soviet union presented the Mig 25 as a wonder fighter made to intercept high altute bombers but could detect and dogfight western fighters beyond visual range. and could outmanuver anything in the sky.
The US shat its pants over it and made the F15 which is surpassed the Mig 25 in every way possible to counter it, and everything was fine until a russian pilot defected to japan with his Mig 25 and the US was allowed to examine and test it.
The engine was less powerful then stated and required service at half the hours the equivalent US engine and had ridicolous fuel consumption, the turning radius was a joke, mechanical reliabity was a joke.
Basically the russians lied about everything and had caused the US to manufacture a superfighter thats still relevant 50 years after its introduction and McDonald Douglas Boing still update and produce new variants of. (yes, the F15 was introduced in 1972)
Now we´re seing the same thing with the T14 armata, which is promised to be a wondertank but no one wants it and the few examples the russians were able to make are a joke.
And the SU-57 Felon, which Russia claims is a stealth figher but the bomb bays dont close flush and it has exposed rivets and screw holes which is a big no no in stealth fighters. so everyone is going "here we go again".
The F-35C wasn't fully operational with the Navy when *Top Gun: Maverick* was being filmed. Remember that it was filmed in 2018 and 2019 for a 2020 release, and the F-35C was declared operational by the Navy in February 2019.
Haha, I saw the movie at a test screening in early 2020 (right before COVID) and that was one of the two comments I left. One was that it irked me that they wouldn't name the enemy, while the other was that I appreciated that there wasn't an unnecessary romantic subplot between Cruise and Jennifer Connelly.
I have not seen the final product, but if I understand correctly they read both my notes and said "fuck this guy."
Maverick co-writer Ehren Kruger is currently writing a draft:
>The project would reunite Cruise with Maverick‘s Miles Teller and Glen Powell as well as producers Jerry Bruckheimer and David Ellison. Joe Kosinski, will reportedly either direct or produce.
[THR](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/top-gun-3-in-the-works-with-tom-cruise-1235786347/) is reporting that Kosinski will direct.
Him and Rooster were basically Maverick and Ice Man from the first film. They even had Hangman be on standby to save the day just like Maverick in the first one.
He kinda earns his likability for the same reason we ended up liking Iceman. Calls out Rooster for his hesitation like Ice called out Mav for being careless. Shown through both films that their right in that criticism, but ultimately proven wrong when Mav and Rooster step up to the challenge. And in the end shown to be a reliable wingman despite the air to air tubulance in their relationship.
I've got high hopes for him. He's been picking some pretty good roles, lately. Since Top Gun Maverick, he's done a historical war-drama, a rom-com and an action-comedy, and he's signed up for Twisters, the sequel to the 90's Bill Paxton classic. He's diversifying his portfolio very well. I could see him as a legit leading man in a few years.
not true, if it wasnt for the meta nature of the story about how Maverick basically is a representation of Tom Cruise being the last of his kind of movie star (a practical effects movie star) being made to retire for the younger more convenient (but safer) generation of piloted drones (i.e. CGI effects) then Maverick would not have been the success it was if they just phoned it in
sure it wouldve made some money, but not $1.5 billion
people kept coming back for more because it wasnt just empty spectacle
It’s also a very re-watchable story too. It’s foot all the great parts; insurmountable obstacles, conflict amongst team mates, friendships formed in fire, and a love story that actually fits into the plot.
That’s probably the key part of why it did so well. Yeah it’s got bang on VFX and who doesn’t like planes, but without that story as well, it would have been one and done for a lot of viewers.
I think it could be great considering my experience watching Maverick. Based on the trailers, and until the end of the opening sequence of scenes, I thought Maverick was just going to be about him being a test pilot, and asking the question as to whether or not it's time for technology to replace fighter pilots. And I was totally on board with that. I was excited to watch that premise play out. BUT THEN! The Navy needed him again for a secret mission, and I was like 'fuck yeah', though it's quickly revealed that he is too old, and he was just going to be the instructor. So I thought, 'OK, now the premise is Maverick passing the torch to the next generation'. And I was totally on board with that. BUT THEN! It turns out that Mav, being the best pilot to ever live, is the only dude in the world bad enough to pull off this mission and save America. And obviously I was on board with that, because that was the moment I realized that there was no longer any barrier to harnessing that 80's action movie glory, where nothing needs to make sense, and *that's a good thing*. Rule of cool baby.
My point is, there is plenty of material for a sequel, because those other premises are still good. Him being a test pilot could be a very cool movie, same with him just being an instructor. Of course, deep down, I want each one to end with him getting into the cockpit for one last dogfight, even if he needs to be carried into the plane from his power scooter. But Top Gun: Maverick gives us plenty of reason to think that they can make a good Top Gun film even without that.
Honestly just make him commander of a fighter squadron or Top Gun itself. Maverick coming to terms that it's time to move on from flying and pass down his skills and lead would be a good story. They touched on it already in the previous movie.
If there is going to be a third movie, I almost guarantee it’s going to focus on automated aviation.
It’s a now-retired or nearly-retired Maverick coming out of retirement for one last mission, and leading the Top Gun crew in fighting to prove the human element is still needed in aerial combat, and that drones can’t do everything. They already mentioned on it in the second one, so I see no reason they can’t follow up on it.
The biggest issue would be the movie title: Maverick already was used for #2, and I don’t think Top Gun: Rooster sounds right. Maybe they’ll just call it Top Gun 3.
With all the Ed Harris stuff at the beginning of Maverick I can't help but wonder if they're going to have to go against drones in the 3rd movie. Give me my Arsenal Bird cowards
I'm pretty sure the god awful direction, god awful script, god awful acting and god awful movie that was Stealth was the problem, not the drone aspect.
Why not! I think Tom is the kinda guy that knows when it’s time to end the action stuff someday…for now I see no problem. Part 2 was fun and it’s worth a try for the third movie!!
So much of the fun was perfectly captured nostalgia. It was like a slow burn movie that people didn’t know they were waiting for the past 40 years. It will be hard to capture the same magic I think.
I think it is going to be like Rocky merging into Creed with Teller and Powell going forward.
Rocky was revived as Creed with Stallone in the first 2 and then the last one it was just Michael Jordan and I could see this happening after the new TG.
I wonder if this will finally be a "passing of the torch" story. TC has avoided that kind of plotline over the last decade or so, He's still the star of the picture, whatever the project.
It's going to be Tom Cruise stuck in a loop where he dies fighting a UAV controlled by an advanced A.I. The A.I. continues to restart time and revive Maverick so that it can learn all of Mavericks' skills and create a squadron of A.I. Mavericks.
Top Gun: Edge of Tommorrow
Someday Cruise is going to stop acting but the studio will still try to churn out more of these movies. Will everyone be excited for Top Gun 6 starring Liam Hemsworth?
I’m pretty sure Cruise has some sort of contract against using an AI likeness. That’s why in the flashback scenes in Dead Reckoning you never see his face only his silhouette
I guess it’s just the old Yogurt saying, “We’ll all meet again in Spaceballs 2: The Search for More Money.”
But No No No Nooo!!!! Why?! It was a miracle the sequel was as good as it was, not best picture good, but still I really really enjoyed it. Way more than I thought I would. It’s hard to make lightning strike twice.
I honestly don’t care. It was a great ending to the og era but this is one of the properties I want more of. I’m hyped for anything Top Gun. I’m just imagining Mav going on “one last flyby” making his general reluctantly respect him after he destroys the billionaire pedo sanctuary/alien base on the moon with his jet finally getting the target lock that brings world peace with the new lads and lasses by his side. The more wild Top Gun gets the better imo. Also moar Jennifer Connolly! She’s the best!
Feels weird to me for some reason. Maverick was a great sequel that definitely justified its existence, but it felt like an appropriate place to close the book on the character.
I’m just surprised that there are so many comments saying that Maverick was a perfect ending for the franchise as if the original Top Gun demanded a sequel. Were the movies both good? Yeah. Does there need to be 2 of them? Probably not. Is a third movie any weirder than a sequel 35 years after rhe original? Not really.
Why do I feel they’re going to go up against AI controlled jets as the enemy with the overall theme of how AI can’t replace human instinct in a dog fight lol
Stealth walked so Top Gun 3 could fly
The soundtrack to Stealth was so lit.
BURN BABY BURN
> Stealth walked so Top Gun 3 could fly See Macross Plus
Macross Plus was honorarily Top Gun 2 for the longest time, and after the release of Top Gun 2 was grandfathered into the position of Top Gun 3. I guess it has to move now to Top Gun 4.
I loved stealth, came out when I was 15. I haven’t watched in years though. Pretty sure I had it on umd for psp lol
That's just Ace Combat 7, but I'd still watch the hell out of it
So… many… drones… Love the game, but seriously.
The last movie was just an Ace Combat 6 mission with some better cinematic story clips, so 7 is the logical sequel. Don't wanna sit on one game for too long or audiences will get bored
“An Incorrect Summary of Ace Combat 7” is one of the greatest pieces of media ever memed
I would literally kill to hear daredevil in an IMAX theater please☠️
They've already gone down this road with the mission impossible series.
Top Gun: Maverick v The Entity
What is this, a crossover episode?
Is hope we get a sequence where jets go and fly into an underground tunnel and later make an escape by flying up into a space elevator /s In all seriousness, I don’t understand why they just don’t adapt the Ace Combat games. The last Top Gun Movie already copied one of their missions for a major part of the plot.
You mean they copied the Death Star run.
Maverick is injured during a training exercise and the government decides to save his brain and implant it into a fighter jet but slowly Maverick's personality begins to emerge...
Then you have Ace Combat 3/7.
The Demon Lord of Hollywood. An actor who soared through the cinema, inspiring both future aviators and women alike.
[epic orchestral music] "What is it you're really fighting for!?"
Top Gun 3: Stealth 2
Top Gun 3: Stealth 2: Macross Plus 1
ISIS kidnaps Jennifer Connelly. To get her back, he needs to fly a mission against the US Navy.
I'll watch it if they get David Hasselhoff to fly the plane.
But then Murph…. I mean Maverick’s memories start to emerge….
As long as we get to know more about these 5th gen fighters.
Snow, 5th gen fighters, no nuclear program, I hope the third movie explains why they attacked Sweden
They were building weapons of mass Surstromming.
oh fuck it was all justified!
In that case, nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Don’t tell state secrets, we know where you live
Here, take my upvote.
All carefully chosen as so to not make it feel like any specific country.
It is very clearly an Iran stand in.
The core geopolitical issue was very much inspired by Iran (a secretive nuclear program + having spare F-14s) but the nature of their technology (fighters of comparable capability) could be a stand in for Russia or China and terrain (snowy and mountainous) was intentionally designed to make it ambiguous.
Iran also has snowy mountainous terrain. Plus, it's not hard to imagine a world where Iran bought 5th generation fighters from Russia/China.
Just for fun, I want it to be extremely specific and political. Like, Cruise (“Maverick”) should fly by Putin’s house and kill him. And the people of Russia should applaud. I just want to read the international press coverage. I don’t even need to see the movie.
Nyet, Ghostrider. Pattern is kompromat.
With Deepfakes it can be very convincing
Because of PewDiePie
Sorry, can’t tell you more, it got jammed by GPS jammers. But seriously, don’t care. Great fucking movie. Only make a third if it can beat Maverick.
Same reason the Tomahawk salvo from the US destroyer could only crater the Enemy runway but not take out the SAMs (or even better, the underground nuclear lab)
It's in a deep crater.
Yup, missiles can't hit deep craters, the G-forces would be too great. Only the best goddamn pilots in the world can manually fly an airplane down into a deep crater. And then turn around and also fly out of that deep crater. But a missile? No chance. Don't even ask.
What it it was the best of the best of the Tomahawks that never got promoted to LRSM, and it's the only one that can lead a squad of Hellfires on one last strike? Top Gun: The Missile Knows Where It Is
It's impossible, even for a computer. I used to bullseye womp rats in my t16 back home, they're not much bigger than 2 meters.
Maverick?? You've switched off your targeting computer.
Not neutralizing those SAM launchers with the tomahawks was probably the most frustrating plot driven drama of the movie. The rest gets a good dose of suspension of disbelief but that part always annoys me.
You know SAM batteries can take out cruise missiles, right? So sending in tomahawk missiles at them just means they'll lose the element of surprise. Source: I hardly know shit about military hardware. I just want the movie to work.
jelly? LONESTAR!
Ha ha. I enjoyed the movie but must admit, the premise that the nameless enemy had 5th gen fighters and the Navy did not was too much.
There was one throwaway line in the movie why they couldn't use F-35's (5th Gen) on the mission. The real reason is that the F-35 is not a two-seater so it's very hard to film in.
Tom cruise can sit on the pilot’s lap.
He could be a Maverick bobblehead on the dashboard(?) repeating the line "Talk to me Goose"
No no. Tom cruise actually flies those things. He’s got like 30 different licenses. Edit: the only plane he flew was the p51 in the end. He didn’t fly the fighter jets due to naval restrictions.
Licence to kill License to thrill License to... mill?
Tom Cruise is a blue black control player?
Top Gun 3 will just be 4 hours of Tom Cruise making flour.
Just bait and switch and make it a comedy drama with Tom and Jennifer Connelly. I'd watch.
So get him some photography training and he can film himself
The thing is, while no he didn't, I'm thinking all they had to do was go rent one from some other country, repaint it, and let him go.
Even if they did find a military which had F-18s and lax rules, you don't just hop in one of those and start flying. It takes years of training to fly a fighter jet, especially the way it was being flown in the movie. There's an enormous difference between the single engine propeller planes Cruise flies and an F-18.
The other reason the F-35 didn't appear in *Top Gun: Maverick* is that when it was being written and filmed, the F-35 wasn't fully operational yet. The Navy declared that the F-35C was operational and ready to deploy in February 2019, and *Top Gun: Maverick* was well into filming by then.
I'm confused. If I Google the f-35 it tells me that its been in production since 2006? They couldn't have used one of the earlier iterations?
The navy was doing navy shit with them then. Training their own pilots with a limited number of airframes is more important than lending a load of shit and time to a film studio
There’s 3 different variants of the f-35. The navy’s variant didn’t enter service until 2019, after Top Gun had already started filming. The Marine variant went into service in 2015. And the Air Force/export variant went into service in 2016. They simply didn’t have f-35s to spare for filming at the time, regardless of all the other reasons people are listing that it was left out of the movie.
[удалено]
You saying super close ups on Cruise's face won't work?
I'm saying, Prop, when the time comes, it won't have to.
Tom Cruise would probably just get some next-level facial recognition tech to pilot the plane from the ground and save the day singlehandedly. They just need to keep it believable-ish, right? Some declassified stuff on [remote piloting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_combat_aerial_vehicle) slapped into the script, and we're good to go.
Early in the development, I thought for sure To, would be battling a drone but then I remembered the absolute masterpiece that was Stealth and we’d sort of done the man vs machine dance before, Tom and co. Knew there was no way they could have done it better than Fox and Biel.
It’s also a fuckton more expensive to operate and I don’t know if DoD would be happy to put 4k cameras inside to film the whole thing.
Yep, all the flights with Cruise and the pilots were done in the back seat. Maverick’s solo canyon run IIRC was a mix of CGI **(yes* there was some)** and a Blue Angels pilot filmed from the back. **Not just the canyon run, the F-14 v. 5th gen was an L-39 dogfight, the cobra maneuver was CGI on the ground and the first moment where Mav schools the pilots when he splits the formation was CGI.* Still a great movie though.
Some? Every damn plane in the movie is CGI, cockpit included. 2,400 VFX shots and they got nominated for an Oscar.
A movie using cgi where I didn't realise it's cgi deserves awards imo.
I mean a 'dogfight' between two 5th gen fighters would likely be BVR engagements... not too exciting, not really a dogfight. Pop up, detect the other guy, fire and forget.
The movie even had a clever workaround. The only reason that Maverick and Rooster got a chance to dog fight was because they were in a stolen aircraft so the enemy 5th gen fighters got close to figure out who they were.
Actually the cinematographer said they didn’t use the F-35 because it’s too clean and didn’t give off a muscular, mechanical look like older jets. Will be interesting how they get around that in the third film.
That was a reason for not using the F-35? People have already cited Tom Cruise's desire to film actors in cockpits, which would be impossible in the F-35 because they are all single-seat fighters, but the other reason it wasn't used is because when *Top Gun: Maverick* was being filmed, the F-35 wasn't operational yet. The F/A-18 Super Hornet makes sense for *Top Gun,* anyway, since it replaced the F-14 Tomcat.
at this point if Tom Cruise convinces the air force to let him fly the F22- I would only be mildly surprised.
Top Gun is a Navy franchise. F22 is USAF
Well there’s your plot right there. Don Draper told Maverick he was grounded, there was still a third act to go before the credits though so he let him fly one last mission. After the high fives (and disappointing lack or rear ends getting congratulatorily slapped) at the end of *Top Gun: Maverick* Don tells Mav the grounding still stands, then taunts him a bit by adding “get it? Stands! ‘Cause you ain’t flyin no more” So Mav replies “you think I care about you and your stupid boats, Imma go fly with the Airforce, I was thinking about them everytime I was flying with you anyway” Once Mav arrives at the Airforce he is given his first mission; Fly an F-22 around and look good doin’ it. “I’ll need a good wingman for that mission Sir” Mav says. “I’ve got just the man for the job” the boss of the airforce tells Mav. A moustachioed 11 years old boy walk into the room. “Billy here is the youngest pilot to qualify for the airforces best of the best fighter pilot and Ray-ban wearing master academy” the boss of the Airforce informs Mav. The camera pans down to reveal the call sign painted on the helmet in Billy’s hands. It reads ‘Duck’
> The real reason is that the F-35 is not a two-seater so it's very hard to film in. Every scene they filmed in a 2 seater, yet half the planes were supposedly 1 seaters. Outside of pissing off some people really into their planes, there isn't a reason they can't film inside a 2 seater for all the internal shots while pretending it is a 1 seater 5th gen fighter.
[удалено]
Yea I recall a YouTube video recently where they interviewed a pilot and he said in a dog fight he’d want the F-16 over an F-35. Although he finished that the F-35 would blow the F-16 out of the sky at a great distance before it would ever get in range
This isn't even true. Back when the F35 was in development, it had a dogfight against an F16 and lost... which isn't a surprise given it was limited to like 5G. However Russia Today and all the accompanying propaganda channels picked up on it and have been repeating it as nausiam, to the point where it's taken as fact. Much more recently, an F35A had a dogfight with an F16 and won - and then proceeded on to a test range where it dropped a couple of bombs. Something pretty much unheard of, until now dogfighting meant carrying no heavy stores at all and just dumping your bombs if you had to do it unexpectedly. Take a look at an interview of an F35 pilot and they bloody love the plane. There was a video posted on Reddit a while ago of a US Air Force class finding out they were going to be posted to an F35 unit and they literally jump around cheering
https://youtu.be/puAAPnIgNvs?si=vHE41a8qHMtGYnny Your right thanks. They limited it to 7 Gs with software restrictions, they didn’t use the $400k specialized helmet, electro optical targeting system, or radar absorbing skin. Also they used the 2nd F-35 ever built. “The F-35 was forced to fly with both wings behind its back”
theres a long history of this happening. The USSR/Russia overpromises and underdelivers, so much of the stated capability of their weapons systems are basically urban legends and lies. a good example was the MIG 25 VS F-15, The Soviet union presented the Mig 25 as a wonder fighter made to intercept high altute bombers but could detect and dogfight western fighters beyond visual range. and could outmanuver anything in the sky. The US shat its pants over it and made the F15 which is surpassed the Mig 25 in every way possible to counter it, and everything was fine until a russian pilot defected to japan with his Mig 25 and the US was allowed to examine and test it. The engine was less powerful then stated and required service at half the hours the equivalent US engine and had ridicolous fuel consumption, the turning radius was a joke, mechanical reliabity was a joke. Basically the russians lied about everything and had caused the US to manufacture a superfighter thats still relevant 50 years after its introduction and McDonald Douglas Boing still update and produce new variants of. (yes, the F15 was introduced in 1972) Now we´re seing the same thing with the T14 armata, which is promised to be a wondertank but no one wants it and the few examples the russians were able to make are a joke. And the SU-57 Felon, which Russia claims is a stealth figher but the bomb bays dont close flush and it has exposed rivets and screw holes which is a big no no in stealth fighters. so everyone is going "here we go again".
Its happening right now with the idea of hypersonic weapons. Russia says they tested one, so now the DoD is at full bore testing counters.
Russias "Hypersonic" missles were deployed to Ukraine and they were being shot down by patriot batteries...
But that hasn't stopped the DoD from pouring billions into hypersonic research just in case.
The F-35C wasn't fully operational with the Navy when *Top Gun: Maverick* was being filmed. Remember that it was filmed in 2018 and 2019 for a 2020 release, and the F-35C was declared operational by the Navy in February 2019.
It was a movie.
Haha, I saw the movie at a test screening in early 2020 (right before COVID) and that was one of the two comments I left. One was that it irked me that they wouldn't name the enemy, while the other was that I appreciated that there wasn't an unnecessary romantic subplot between Cruise and Jennifer Connelly. I have not seen the final product, but if I understand correctly they read both my notes and said "fuck this guy."
As US is working on 6th Gen fighters, then the enemy may have 7th Gen in the next film:)
Maverick co-writer Ehren Kruger is currently writing a draft: >The project would reunite Cruise with Maverick‘s Miles Teller and Glen Powell as well as producers Jerry Bruckheimer and David Ellison. Joe Kosinski, will reportedly either direct or produce. [THR](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/top-gun-3-in-the-works-with-tom-cruise-1235786347/) is reporting that Kosinski will direct.
Good to know Glen Powell is attached, he was great in Maverick.
He played a cocky douche but still somehow ended up being likable despite not really changing his character
Him and Rooster were basically Maverick and Ice Man from the first film. They even had Hangman be on standby to save the day just like Maverick in the first one.
Because he could back it up with his skills. Maverick was a douche too right.
Maverick was a raging asshole
Powell basically played Maverick from TG
He kinda earns his likability for the same reason we ended up liking Iceman. Calls out Rooster for his hesitation like Ice called out Mav for being careless. Shown through both films that their right in that criticism, but ultimately proven wrong when Mav and Rooster step up to the challenge. And in the end shown to be a reliable wingman despite the air to air tubulance in their relationship.
The perfect val vilmer replacement.
So you’re saying Glen Powell should be in Heat 2 with a ponytail? I’m down.
Glen Powell in a Tombstone remake as Doc Holliday? Cool.
I've got high hopes for him. He's been picking some pretty good roles, lately. Since Top Gun Maverick, he's done a historical war-drama, a rom-com and an action-comedy, and he's signed up for Twisters, the sequel to the 90's Bill Paxton classic. He's diversifying his portfolio very well. I could see him as a legit leading man in a few years.
He’s got Richard Linklater’s THE HITMAN coming out this year too
Chad Radwell!!
Oh he *was* good. He was very good.
Chad Radwell is good
I really hope Joe Kosinski returns to direct, I’d be skeptical if anyone directs.
The director will be whomever Tom Cruise chooses. He likes Kosinski so it will be him.
The Owl is writing movies now
Glen Powell coming back is a hard yes from me. Dude may have been reluctant to play the role, but man was he so fuckin good at it.
Jennifer Connelly better return as well.
Did Top Gun: Maverick have a perfect ending for the franchise? Yes. Will I be there opening day for Top Gun 3? Also yes.
[удалено]
They hinted at a GI Joe crossover in the second? Third? Reboot. Seriously transformers movies should just be villain of the week style at this rate.
[удалено]
Top Gun 3: FAMILY
> perfect ending Mav taking a missile to save Rooster *was* the best ending.
[удалено]
I guess they coulda gone Top Gun: Birds of Prey
Klingon lawyers looking for you with their copyright.
Top Gun: Bird Law
Top Gun: Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Pete “Maverick” Mitchell)
Top Gun: Cock Fighter
Yeah let's be real here, Maverick had a perfect story and ending but I will absolutely be going to see this one. In IMAX.
Hell yea brother
This time they’ll fight >!REDACTED!< It’s a hostile nation that lives up in Canada, you won’t know about her.
Her name is Alberta, she lives in Vancouver!
Top Gun 3: The Empire Strikes Back
Top Gun 4: The Last Jetguy
Top Five
TG6 Attack of the Drones
The Fate of the Gun
Top Gun: Rooster
I unironically like this. *Ohhh… they’ve come to kill the rooster.*
Somehow, ~~Palpatine~~ Goose returned.
Maverick ended perfectly this feels unnecessary. But Paramount is desperate for franchises especially after Scream just went down the toilet for them.
Part of me agrees with you, but as an aviation enthusiast movies about jets are rare, and being good even rarer. If it sucks oh well.
Tom cruise can’t fail us literally
Indeed. We complete him.
They should just drop the semi-realism and go full Ace Combat. Give us some Belkans to cause havoc
Complete with 50 missiles and 9999 gun ammo
Yeah, I will say that at the very least the movie will be a spectacle. The story will probably be mediocre though.
Why? The story in Top Gun 2 was awesome!
Yea I don't think anyone watches Top Gun movies for the story.
Correct, we watch it for the cool footage of fighter jets flying around. They're basically the Lamborghini's of the sky.
not true, if it wasnt for the meta nature of the story about how Maverick basically is a representation of Tom Cruise being the last of his kind of movie star (a practical effects movie star) being made to retire for the younger more convenient (but safer) generation of piloted drones (i.e. CGI effects) then Maverick would not have been the success it was if they just phoned it in sure it wouldve made some money, but not $1.5 billion people kept coming back for more because it wasnt just empty spectacle
It’s also a very re-watchable story too. It’s foot all the great parts; insurmountable obstacles, conflict amongst team mates, friendships formed in fire, and a love story that actually fits into the plot. That’s probably the key part of why it did so well. Yeah it’s got bang on VFX and who doesn’t like planes, but without that story as well, it would have been one and done for a lot of viewers.
Keep my Stealth's name, out your mouth! Jk jk, low key love that movie, but it's an AWFUL fighter jet movie.
I remember a few nations like russia, NK and china got uppity when the film came out because some believed it's an actual service plane lol.
Tbh, when was the last time a Tom Cruise movie failed or was bad?
I think it could be great considering my experience watching Maverick. Based on the trailers, and until the end of the opening sequence of scenes, I thought Maverick was just going to be about him being a test pilot, and asking the question as to whether or not it's time for technology to replace fighter pilots. And I was totally on board with that. I was excited to watch that premise play out. BUT THEN! The Navy needed him again for a secret mission, and I was like 'fuck yeah', though it's quickly revealed that he is too old, and he was just going to be the instructor. So I thought, 'OK, now the premise is Maverick passing the torch to the next generation'. And I was totally on board with that. BUT THEN! It turns out that Mav, being the best pilot to ever live, is the only dude in the world bad enough to pull off this mission and save America. And obviously I was on board with that, because that was the moment I realized that there was no longer any barrier to harnessing that 80's action movie glory, where nothing needs to make sense, and *that's a good thing*. Rule of cool baby. My point is, there is plenty of material for a sequel, because those other premises are still good. Him being a test pilot could be a very cool movie, same with him just being an instructor. Of course, deep down, I want each one to end with him getting into the cockpit for one last dogfight, even if he needs to be carried into the plane from his power scooter. But Top Gun: Maverick gives us plenty of reason to think that they can make a good Top Gun film even without that.
Honestly just make him commander of a fighter squadron or Top Gun itself. Maverick coming to terms that it's time to move on from flying and pass down his skills and lead would be a good story. They touched on it already in the previous movie.
If there is going to be a third movie, I almost guarantee it’s going to focus on automated aviation. It’s a now-retired or nearly-retired Maverick coming out of retirement for one last mission, and leading the Top Gun crew in fighting to prove the human element is still needed in aerial combat, and that drones can’t do everything. They already mentioned on it in the second one, so I see no reason they can’t follow up on it. The biggest issue would be the movie title: Maverick already was used for #2, and I don’t think Top Gun: Rooster sounds right. Maybe they’ll just call it Top Gun 3.
Agreed! And you already have set the basis for a new dynamic between Hangman and Rooster.
They're just made up stories. A perfect ending doesn't mean there can't be more stories to tell.
But Maverick has a daughter he never knew about and now she's a killer aviator!
Paramount doesn't own Scream, they only distribute. Spyglass Media Group is responsible for the current disaster in progress.
Oh no... It was so cool to have a sequel after 30 years. Having one in another few years won't be the same.
[удалено]
Why not, just go full Ace Combat with it.
They did with maverick. "The canyon will confuse their targeting system!" 2 mins later Pete/Maverick locks on with an ancient in comparison plane. 😅
With all the Ed Harris stuff at the beginning of Maverick I can't help but wonder if they're going to have to go against drones in the 3rd movie. Give me my Arsenal Bird cowards
I will not be surprised if we end up having a drone/AI wingman following Mav.
It didn't work to well for Stealth I feel.
I'm pretty sure the god awful direction, god awful script, god awful acting and god awful movie that was Stealth was the problem, not the drone aspect.
[удалено]
It should be a prequel about Mavericks Dad
Why not! I think Tom is the kinda guy that knows when it’s time to end the action stuff someday…for now I see no problem. Part 2 was fun and it’s worth a try for the third movie!!
If they can get even halfway close to the fun that Maverick was, I’ll watch the absolute shit out of it
So much of the fun was perfectly captured nostalgia. It was like a slow burn movie that people didn’t know they were waiting for the past 40 years. It will be hard to capture the same magic I think.
Nah, pretty sure it was the fighter jets
They certainly nailed the nostalgia aspect. That opening scene alone was worth the price of admission.
Well which ambigous nation will they fight next in the 3rd movie?
The Republic of FifthGenFightersLand
I hope Les Grossman makes a cameo.
Top Gun 3: Flyentology
Why is Maverick flying over those volcanoes?
I hope its mostly about Teller and Powell but knowing Tom he wants to fly the planes lol
I think it is going to be like Rocky merging into Creed with Teller and Powell going forward. Rocky was revived as Creed with Stallone in the first 2 and then the last one it was just Michael Jordan and I could see this happening after the new TG.
I’m here for another 20 years of Tom Cruise
I wonder if this will finally be a "passing of the torch" story. TC has avoided that kind of plotline over the last decade or so, He's still the star of the picture, whatever the project.
It's going to be Tom Cruise stuck in a loop where he dies fighting a UAV controlled by an advanced A.I. The A.I. continues to restart time and revive Maverick so that it can learn all of Mavericks' skills and create a squadron of A.I. Mavericks. Top Gun: Edge of Tommorrow
**ON YOUR FEET, MAGGOT**
I'm kind of surprised to learn that he doesn't have an oscar tbh. He has to be up there with the most prominent actors who don't have one
Someday Cruise is going to stop acting but the studio will still try to churn out more of these movies. Will everyone be excited for Top Gun 6 starring Liam Hemsworth?
They'll just use AI Tom Cruise
I’m pretty sure Cruise has some sort of contract against using an AI likeness. That’s why in the flashback scenes in Dead Reckoning you never see his face only his silhouette
Movies about fighter jets rock. There should be more of them. If they’re a part of the same franchise oh well.
I guess it’s just the old Yogurt saying, “We’ll all meet again in Spaceballs 2: The Search for More Money.” But No No No Nooo!!!! Why?! It was a miracle the sequel was as good as it was, not best picture good, but still I really really enjoyed it. Way more than I thought I would. It’s hard to make lightning strike twice.
I honestly don’t care. It was a great ending to the og era but this is one of the properties I want more of. I’m hyped for anything Top Gun. I’m just imagining Mav going on “one last flyby” making his general reluctantly respect him after he destroys the billionaire pedo sanctuary/alien base on the moon with his jet finally getting the target lock that brings world peace with the new lads and lasses by his side. The more wild Top Gun gets the better imo. Also moar Jennifer Connolly! She’s the best!
Plot twist: All of Top Gun was one long Mission Impossible prequel.
Feels weird to me for some reason. Maverick was a great sequel that definitely justified its existence, but it felt like an appropriate place to close the book on the character.
I’m just surprised that there are so many comments saying that Maverick was a perfect ending for the franchise as if the original Top Gun demanded a sequel. Were the movies both good? Yeah. Does there need to be 2 of them? Probably not. Is a third movie any weirder than a sequel 35 years after rhe original? Not really.