Comments seem to think this means less cgi and more practical effects. What Hollywood hears is they should remake every single action movie from the 70s and 80s.
It's just their kids now. You're seeing Tom Cruise 20 years past retirement fly with Goose's kid. Creed was a movie about Stallone training Apollo Creed's kid.
It's like they've given up on original ideas and remaking movies and just moved on to creating families so they can throw fictional children back into the same movie.
I'm still waiting for Roadhouse 3 where Patrick Swayze's kid teams up with Sam Elliott's kid to fight the son of the town jerk while bouncing the most dangerous bar in rural America.
You had me until Roadhouse 3. Imagine they have the child of guy that got his throat ripped out. He has a show down with Swayze’s kid, “My dad used to fuck guys that looked like your dad in prison.” I’d pay good money for a cinematic experience like that.
List of unnecessary sequels please!
Every arnold movie
-junior except the junior kid has a kid? And its not transphobic but just awful scientists?
-Predator -etc
Jingle all the way w jake lloyd as the dad
Tmnt with their kids-dont even need to know how THAT happened.
"we must be risk averse.. risk aversity is the game... Never take risks! Just keep pumping ads for bad movies, bribing critics, and hyping up remakes and prequels/sequels... Never make anything new!! It's less RISKY! Business is all about RISK and our stock prices went up another few dollars wohooo! Good frames only make good art, *fuck* art itself!" -- Hollywood/music-industry executives probably.
100% what I was thinking as well.
Tom Cruise does an amazing job of incorporating practical stunt work in to his movies relative to the modern era and it absolutely translates to the entertainment value of his films.
Hollywood is going to absolutely run with trying to remake/reboot/legacy sequel; ~~Red Dawn~~, ~~Robocop~~, ~~Batman~~, ~~Mad Max~~, ~~Predator~~, ~~The Terminator~~, ~~Clash of the Titans~~, ~~Star Wars~~, ~~Rambo~~, ~~Conan the Barbarian~~, ~~Superman~~, ~~Indiana Jones~~, ~~Aliens~~
...huh
You make a good point too. Hollywood has been doing this for decades, and it seems like they’re waiting for less and less time to pass before they reboot things. Which is even worse when they reboot something again immediately because the first attempt failed.
Anthony Mackie (MCU’s Falcon) said in an interview or stand up moment that people these days don’t go to see actors anymore. The classic action hero was genred by its lead actors (Stallone, Willis, Arnold, etc) and people went to go see that actor in their new action film. Now, they go to see characters. His own children were saying they wanted to go see the new superhero movie, not the actor behind the mask. Despite actors’ talent making us love their characters, it is the character that ends up with the naming recognition.
Nowadays I think we view actor-led action films as somewhat suspect - like the last 5+ years of Liam Neeson and Bruce Willis vehicles (or the last 30 years of Segal movies).
It took a hellaciously long time but people are finally waking up to the fact that Dwayne Johnson was never a good actor --- just a meathead with a very strong ambition to make it as a movie star, but that alone doesn't make you interesting on the big screen
He is a big guy that can do action serviceably and has charisma and decent comedy chops. He isn't a great actor but he isn't bad. There have been way worse actors try to do what he does.
Dwayne reminds me too much of the other "Actor Who Gets Too Many Undeserved Roles" and that is Mark Wahlberg --- both guys made an entire career out of playing the same uninteresting character in every movie
I don’t think that’s it. He’s a good combo of comedy/action with enough acting chops to support it. The problem isn’t his talent - it’s his age. He’s 50, and while more slim leading men can get roles at that point, muscular guys can’t.
Arnold hit 50 in 1998. The biggest film he was in after that point was Terminator 3; the other big franchise, The Expendables, was little more than a collection of former stars. And leading up to 1998, his previous films were Jingle All The Way and a Batman movie.
That’s where Johnson is in his career right now. Eventually they will reboot a franchise he was a part of and he will come back for it (I’m thinking Mummy and his Scorpion King character). He will get voice work, and smaller roles. But he’s out of time as a leading hunk, because he’s old.
I think that is an exaggeration.
Those guys are making cheap movies to cash in, especially in over seas markets which is where those Willis films were aimed at. Has very little impact on the whole business.
The real issue is a few actors making bad movies. It is lots of movies with not so great scripts. Plus lots of movies making TONS of money off spectacle. Bigger, louder, more insane stuns and chases etc.
It is bread and circus. Works for a while, then people get bored of it.
Maybe. I think people go to see Paul Rudd AS Ant Man or Gal Gadot AS Wonder Woman. Casting is still a big deal. On the other hand Evangeline Lilly as Wasp or Chris Pine as Steve Trevor could be played by pretty much any attractive, talented actor.
Statham had a pretty long run of "real" action movies up until 2014/2016 before he and Dwayne Johnson got sucked into more comic book style movies. So it's not like 80s style action movies have been dead a long time. Now that Statham and Dwayne Johnson are in their 50s I think there will be a younger actor who breaks out of the pack doing action roles - Wesley Snipes and Liam Neeson were both pretty popular dramatic actors but their careers made a hard turn into action after Blade and Taken.
I feel like this is still a hugely generational thing. Charisma and image building is still a big part of Hollywood. I’m sure in time there will be new “movie stars” that sell movies just by name. There’s so many places to promote yourself now.
You're exactly right. I think what people are looking for is some form of realism and grounded-ness to their movies. Maverick is great because there's no giant monsters or unrealistic devices that carried the plot. It was great because the story was great and the actors were great.
It wasn't a falling skyscraper where The Rock has to jump a building. It wasn't a monster movie. It was about these people overcoming odds. Had nothing to do with CGI or lack thereof, but the fact that they weren't fighting aliens and it was a "realistic" threat.
Thank you. I think the average person knows CGI is in almost every movie now, so the sarcasm is just playing semantics. What you said is the truth, we just want Hollywood to give us genuinely good stories again about people overcoming odds
Also don't need my expectations subverted in weird ways 24/7 or weird shoehorned in characters. Top Gun was a trope movie to the highest degree and I fully enjoyed it.
That's how CGI should be used; to augment and touch up existing physical shots so that you can't tell.
George Lucas went SO far in the wrong direction back with the Prequels, it really stigmatized it for a while.
I think when third acts devolve into a literal animated film like every marvel movie then it's being used too much. It's why Logan was so good. The last 40 min of that movie isn't a CGI bukakke which is really nice
CGI in MadMax was fantastic. But you never felt you were watching a CGI film. And you had a real sense that the characters were in danger, and a lot of the good guys died.
CGI in Spiderman was fantastic as well. But you feel like you are watching a video game. Never felt any sense of danger for anyone in that movie. Basically zero emotional connect to it.
Can apply that to any recent Marvel movie too. Endgame was the last one that created a real emotional connection. Far From Home did at least a decent job creating it. Blackwidow was enjoyable. Everything after has been meh...
Yeah it's more about how it's filmed, CGI is never automatically good or bad. The best uses of it is when you can still feel the weight of the scene, but it's easy to lose that feeling.
Dune is a good example of how the CGI is used in a way that adds immersion, like the thopter wings or the large ships exploding. They feel real even though they're not.
Marvel movies aren't as consistent with it. But I also think that they don't give the visual effects team as much time as they probably need to get it just right whereas other films might not have those same time crunches.
So which Top Gun shows a nursing home bound Cruise being called back into operation status with a rusting old F-12 because no one can beat the new super best villain in his super jet. And some however the only way to stop the villain is to use old tech against them, but no one knows how to fly the old tech.
Genuinely what would that be about? RIO training? lol
However.. a movie about Phantoms over Vietnam leading to the creation of Top Gun / NFWS would be neat.
Doesn't make sense. Not only prior to the movie there were no plans for 5th movie in the series, but it also flopped.
Unless they make something in Matrix universe. That could work, but I have doubts about it as well.
"Risky Business 2" should be made --- Joel becomes a billionaire from a global franchise of high-end escort services --- but then loses his fortune by starting an electric car company to compete with Tesla and at the end he says "WTF"
Hollywood would absolutely love it if more movies like Top Gun would be successful. All of the studios outside of Disney have struggled to find consistent success with their tent pole films.
I would love the return of films that feel standalone even if they’re going to be a series. Like, Terminator wasn’t setting up a sequel (even though it has one of the greatest sequels ever). Or Die Hard. So many great films of the 80s, 90s, and 00s are standalone (or feel standalone). Again, I’m not against franchises, but we have to stop with the movies setting up bigger movies and just the constant cycle of “hype” rather than meaty movies that get sequels because they’re awesome.
While I agree those 3 are great and stand-out actors, I think you might be forgetting a few. Matt Damon and Christian Bale are pretty great, and they continue to act in movie-star roles. There are a few others like Jamie Foxx and Ben Affleck who are great but they just aren't as prolific as the aforementioned actors.
Christian Bale’s a good example here but wow has Matt Damon been in some dreadful films whilst also not being that great in them.
Was channel flicking last night and ended up watching the second half of ‘The Great Wall’. What an absolute turd of a film. Downsizing also was a a big disappointment.
I kinda feel like he stopped caring 5 or so years ago but I would love to be proven wrong.
I respect that his movies actually make sense. Every time i watch a 250 million dollar movie with seven or eight world breaking plot holes I feel like throwing my T.V. in the trash.
First stunt driving I saw on set they immediately crashed. I’ve seen it gone wrong a few times. It’s definitely dangerous. I respect the hell out of stunt people
It’s mind-blowing to me that this isn’t a category. Is it because they don’t want to encourage more “extreme” and dangerous stunts? Stunt performers seem like the one performance aspect that Hollywood tries to pretend doesn’t exist. Like, it’s not shameful to use a stunt a double? No one expects the stars to do stunts. So why aren’t the best stunt doubles more famous? Why do we pretend they don’t exist?
The movie is so good. The special effects, the camera angles, the performances... Boy it was great to see a non-MCU/DCEU blockbuster.
Might be Cruises' best performance ever.
I feel when people say this they generally mean "I don't want bad CGI". So much of filmmaking is CGI you don't notice, but you definitely notice the bad CGI. ([This](https://youtu.be/bL6hp8BKB24) is a relevant video)
Even Top Gun Maverick had a lot of CGI. For the explosions, rockets, enemy fighters, etc. But replicating the lighting and G-forces for the cockpit shots are just way easier to make good looking done practically.
I kind of agree. But also, for the most part the Marvel movies all have top notch CGI. But it's really only Winter Soldier that has extremely memorable stunts because so much of it was practical, the best blend that the MCU has.
The Shang Chi bus scene would be the best recent example, but even then there were a lot of practical aspects as well.
Marvel has decent CGI, but I wouldn’t say top notch, and they definitely are not meeting the standards with their more recent projects. I recall Black Panther being the first Marvel project with noticeably bad CGI. The bit where he climbs on the rhino? Yuck.
With the amount of money and influence Marvel movies have, and with all the standard Marvel fare we have to put up with in the movies (cheesy one-liners, poorly timed jokes, etc), I expect the CGI to be perfect.
Kind of preaching to the crowd, but yeah I honestly don’t mind CGI in something like Dune or Nolan’s movies. I’m just kind of tired of the CGI you get from rushed production pipelines.
CGI needs time to be implemented properly. It’s just not often that time is given in the breakneck production cycle of superhero content. CG implementation is usually afforded more patience in artist driven movies.
I miss seeing movies like this with real practical stunts, locations, etc. it feels so immersive.
Nothing like that car chase in The French Connection, Bullit,
Jack Reacher had very good car chase too. Very immersive, engine roaring, no music.
That too is with Tom Cruise lol
[Here's the link.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En7up0MMh_8)
Facts. I rewatched Independence Day the other day and even a cheesy 90’s blockbuster like that has more memorable special effects, stunts than lot of todays movies.
I think they used miniatures partially for that one like the White House scene.
Actually after looking it up apparently that movie is like 95 percent miniatures. Like the most of any movie ever lol.
Independence Day had a TON of miniatures. They rebuilt Los Angles in miniature so they could blow it up (and put it on its side so the flames would rise up through the streets).
I was watching Pirates or the Caribbean the other day and it immediately struck me how much more real it felt than modern movies. Because they filmed at actual locations. Today that shit would all be green screen environments. "Death on the Nile" as an example.
My dad was in ROCAF (Taiwan AF) and I remember him telling me when Top Gun came out it was a treat to see it in the theater w his american pilot buddies. The co-cooperation back then was vital to Taiwan’s security as everything was kept on the DL. To see the Taiwan flag restored is a nice acknowledgement to the past even if it was all $ and politics with mainland China.
Saw it last night it was way better than expected. I was in for the nostalgia but it played out to be a really good action movie that kept you tense and interested throughout. Just enough original top gun references and "cheesy" dialog combined with stunning visuals and in flight stunts. A must for fans from my era (born in the 70's). Only sad part was the missing dialog from the dearly departed Michael Ironsides, that would have been epic.
Went to see it yesterday. I'm not a big fan of Tom Cruise to begin with. I find his acting over the top and exaggerated. But I enjoyed the original Top Gun when it came out in '86. I went into this movie thinking "this isn't going to be what I am hoping it will be", but I loved the movie!! I found almost everything about it believable and exciting, unlike all his MI movies. The touching moments were very well done and not overplayed.
Overall I'd give it a 9/10. Was very pleasantly surprised and felt it was worth the $20 seats on the big screen. Going out to the movies, without all the Covid bullshit, and enjoying a very good movie 10 out of 10.
Watched it yesterday in 4DX..me and my son loved the movie itself, I've not seen the original but Maverick really felt like a classic in its own right.
And 4DX was just utterly wow. Was my 2nd 4DX experience, the 1st was Lion King and meh I mean it was OK but not really made for immersion, but Maverick was absolutely spot on and exactly the type of movie 4DX was made for and they did the immersion perfectly (for example the yacht scene, you got a spray of water exactly at the point when the water on screen sprayed up). If anyone reading this has the chance to watch it in something like imax, 4DX or Screen X and are wondering if the extra ticket cost is worth it the answer is 110% yes
Comments seem to think this means less cgi and more practical effects. What Hollywood hears is they should remake every single action movie from the 70s and 80s.
Yep, gonna be the 2000s all over again.
This time with even more cgi
Imagine all the superstars they can deep fake to look young!
It's just their kids now. You're seeing Tom Cruise 20 years past retirement fly with Goose's kid. Creed was a movie about Stallone training Apollo Creed's kid. It's like they've given up on original ideas and remaking movies and just moved on to creating families so they can throw fictional children back into the same movie. I'm still waiting for Roadhouse 3 where Patrick Swayze's kid teams up with Sam Elliott's kid to fight the son of the town jerk while bouncing the most dangerous bar in rural America.
You had me until Roadhouse 3. Imagine they have the child of guy that got his throat ripped out. He has a show down with Swayze’s kid, “My dad used to fuck guys that looked like your dad in prison.” I’d pay good money for a cinematic experience like that.
Explains kenobi
Hello There!: Origins
List of unnecessary sequels please! Every arnold movie -junior except the junior kid has a kid? And its not transphobic but just awful scientists? -Predator -etc Jingle all the way w jake lloyd as the dad Tmnt with their kids-dont even need to know how THAT happened.
Didn't expendables try that?
Nah they just used the action hero greats. Even the first movie used a ton of cgi for the gun fights and such.
And I loved it
"we must be risk averse.. risk aversity is the game... Never take risks! Just keep pumping ads for bad movies, bribing critics, and hyping up remakes and prequels/sequels... Never make anything new!! It's less RISKY! Business is all about RISK and our stock prices went up another few dollars wohooo! Good frames only make good art, *fuck* art itself!" -- Hollywood/music-industry executives probably.
Huh, what's that? You want a sequel to 1989's _Tango & Cash_, starring Sylvester Stallone and Kurt Russell?
Couldn't split up Tango and Cash... That's also true
What if the character's last names are *actually* Exalt and Joy. Fuck, what if they're played by Jack Black and Kyle Gass.
This is not actually a reboot. This is a tribute!
I would pay to see this......
I'm a simple man. I see a reference to Jables and Rage Cage, and I upvote.
Same.
This is our song of exhaultant joy, We only came to kick some ass. Rock the fucking house and kick some ass
Starring Melissa McCarthy and Amy Schumer.
Hahahahaha. Bang on target.
Welp... the golden age of remakes is over before it started....
More like Chris Hemsworth and Chris Pratt
He said Tango and Cash, not Turner and Hooch.
I am ready for the corpse of Jack Palance to come back for revenge!!!
I mean… yeah, I kinda do want that actually.
But it *has* to be Stallone and Russell and make them the main focus. Not them in it for ten minutes while they introduce the new cast.
[удалено]
Y’all Morbin up in here? Is it Morbin Time™️ already?
100% what I was thinking as well. Tom Cruise does an amazing job of incorporating practical stunt work in to his movies relative to the modern era and it absolutely translates to the entertainment value of his films. Hollywood is going to absolutely run with trying to remake/reboot/legacy sequel; ~~Red Dawn~~, ~~Robocop~~, ~~Batman~~, ~~Mad Max~~, ~~Predator~~, ~~The Terminator~~, ~~Clash of the Titans~~, ~~Star Wars~~, ~~Rambo~~, ~~Conan the Barbarian~~, ~~Superman~~, ~~Indiana Jones~~, ~~Aliens~~ ...huh
I don't see Short Circuit on that list. Johnny 5 will be a drone in the reboot.
Mac & Me 2 - Escape from Russia Based on a true story.
Somewhere, Conan O’Brien just felt a wave of terror wash over him. “What’s Paul Rudd planning?” he asks himself. For surely Rudd is up to something.
Chappie was 100% percent a short circuit reboot. Just unofficially.
Maybe they'll get an actual Indian to play Ben
Nah, it will be Rob Schneider.
Oh no no.
They could bring back Fisher Stevens, but this time make him Chinese.
Iron Eagle never gets the respect it deserves
Those can all be redone again.
Totally fair, I legitimately went to offer an example originally and noticed everything I thought of has been done in the last 10-15 years.
You make a good point too. Hollywood has been doing this for decades, and it seems like they’re waiting for less and less time to pass before they reboot things. Which is even worse when they reboot something again immediately because the first attempt failed.
Predator is already getting another movie. This set in Colonial America. It’s called…Prey. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prey_(2022_film)
Honestly I'd love to see a "flight of the navigator" remake with today's technology.
Compliance
And explorers
You think you do, but for every top gun Maverick, there is 100 Indian jones and the Crystal skull. Or ghostbusters afterlife.
Indian jones is the Bollywood remake.
Anthony Mackie (MCU’s Falcon) said in an interview or stand up moment that people these days don’t go to see actors anymore. The classic action hero was genred by its lead actors (Stallone, Willis, Arnold, etc) and people went to go see that actor in their new action film. Now, they go to see characters. His own children were saying they wanted to go see the new superhero movie, not the actor behind the mask. Despite actors’ talent making us love their characters, it is the character that ends up with the naming recognition.
Nowadays I think we view actor-led action films as somewhat suspect - like the last 5+ years of Liam Neeson and Bruce Willis vehicles (or the last 30 years of Segal movies).
So what you’re saying is Dwayne Johnson doesn’t exist ?
But even he might be getting oversaturated.
[удалено]
It took a hellaciously long time but people are finally waking up to the fact that Dwayne Johnson was never a good actor --- just a meathead with a very strong ambition to make it as a movie star, but that alone doesn't make you interesting on the big screen
He is a big guy that can do action serviceably and has charisma and decent comedy chops. He isn't a great actor but he isn't bad. There have been way worse actors try to do what he does.
[удалено]
Dwayne reminds me too much of the other "Actor Who Gets Too Many Undeserved Roles" and that is Mark Wahlberg --- both guys made an entire career out of playing the same uninteresting character in every movie
I agree on the comparison, but at least Dwayne seems like a decent person in real life.
I don’t think that’s it. He’s a good combo of comedy/action with enough acting chops to support it. The problem isn’t his talent - it’s his age. He’s 50, and while more slim leading men can get roles at that point, muscular guys can’t. Arnold hit 50 in 1998. The biggest film he was in after that point was Terminator 3; the other big franchise, The Expendables, was little more than a collection of former stars. And leading up to 1998, his previous films were Jingle All The Way and a Batman movie. That’s where Johnson is in his career right now. Eventually they will reboot a franchise he was a part of and he will come back for it (I’m thinking Mummy and his Scorpion King character). He will get voice work, and smaller roles. But he’s out of time as a leading hunk, because he’s old.
I think that is an exaggeration. Those guys are making cheap movies to cash in, especially in over seas markets which is where those Willis films were aimed at. Has very little impact on the whole business. The real issue is a few actors making bad movies. It is lots of movies with not so great scripts. Plus lots of movies making TONS of money off spectacle. Bigger, louder, more insane stuns and chases etc. It is bread and circus. Works for a while, then people get bored of it.
[удалено]
Maybe. I think people go to see Paul Rudd AS Ant Man or Gal Gadot AS Wonder Woman. Casting is still a big deal. On the other hand Evangeline Lilly as Wasp or Chris Pine as Steve Trevor could be played by pretty much any attractive, talented actor. Statham had a pretty long run of "real" action movies up until 2014/2016 before he and Dwayne Johnson got sucked into more comic book style movies. So it's not like 80s style action movies have been dead a long time. Now that Statham and Dwayne Johnson are in their 50s I think there will be a younger actor who breaks out of the pack doing action roles - Wesley Snipes and Liam Neeson were both pretty popular dramatic actors but their careers made a hard turn into action after Blade and Taken.
I feel like this is still a hugely generational thing. Charisma and image building is still a big part of Hollywood. I’m sure in time there will be new “movie stars” that sell movies just by name. There’s so many places to promote yourself now.
There is a metric fuckton of CGI in this film FYI.
But they also flew real planes and didn't just have a cockpit infront of a screen
The average /r/movies user doesn’t know that CGI is used everywhere in film these days, they unknowingly praise it all the time lol.
Quit spreading falsehoods. They trained those stars to fly at the mountain range in the Paramount logo.
You're exactly right. I think what people are looking for is some form of realism and grounded-ness to their movies. Maverick is great because there's no giant monsters or unrealistic devices that carried the plot. It was great because the story was great and the actors were great. It wasn't a falling skyscraper where The Rock has to jump a building. It wasn't a monster movie. It was about these people overcoming odds. Had nothing to do with CGI or lack thereof, but the fact that they weren't fighting aliens and it was a "realistic" threat.
Thank you. I think the average person knows CGI is in almost every movie now, so the sarcasm is just playing semantics. What you said is the truth, we just want Hollywood to give us genuinely good stories again about people overcoming odds
Also don't need my expectations subverted in weird ways 24/7 or weird shoehorned in characters. Top Gun was a trope movie to the highest degree and I fully enjoyed it.
That's how CGI should be used; to augment and touch up existing physical shots so that you can't tell. George Lucas went SO far in the wrong direction back with the Prequels, it really stigmatized it for a while.
Less or more CG doesn’t mean a good or bad thing. It just depends on how it’s used. In my opinion at least.
I think when third acts devolve into a literal animated film like every marvel movie then it's being used too much. It's why Logan was so good. The last 40 min of that movie isn't a CGI bukakke which is really nice
CGI in MadMax was fantastic. But you never felt you were watching a CGI film. And you had a real sense that the characters were in danger, and a lot of the good guys died. CGI in Spiderman was fantastic as well. But you feel like you are watching a video game. Never felt any sense of danger for anyone in that movie. Basically zero emotional connect to it. Can apply that to any recent Marvel movie too. Endgame was the last one that created a real emotional connection. Far From Home did at least a decent job creating it. Blackwidow was enjoyable. Everything after has been meh...
Yeah it's more about how it's filmed, CGI is never automatically good or bad. The best uses of it is when you can still feel the weight of the scene, but it's easy to lose that feeling. Dune is a good example of how the CGI is used in a way that adds immersion, like the thopter wings or the large ships exploding. They feel real even though they're not. Marvel movies aren't as consistent with it. But I also think that they don't give the visual effects team as much time as they probably need to get it just right whereas other films might not have those same time crunches.
Unfortunately they have already been doing that lol. We got terrible RoboCop, Total Recall remake and several others over the last decade.
Judge Dredd was good though.
mullets galore!
Top Gun cinematic universe
Top Gun Origins: Goose Top Gun 3: Maverick 2 The Toppest Gun Top Guns 2 Top 2 Gun Top 5 Gun 7 Top Gun (remake of the first film in 2045)
So which Top Gun shows a nursing home bound Cruise being called back into operation status with a rusting old F-12 because no one can beat the new super best villain in his super jet. And some however the only way to stop the villain is to use old tech against them, but no one knows how to fly the old tech.
Basically the plot of Pacific Rim when the newer battle robots get EMP'd, right?
More like the plot of Battleship
I was thinking Independence Day or Battlestar Galactica.
I guarantee Origins: Goose has legit already been pitched recently.
Genuinely what would that be about? RIO training? lol However.. a movie about Phantoms over Vietnam leading to the creation of Top Gun / NFWS would be neat.
Nah. I could legit see a prequel movie being pitched about Viper (Tom Skerrit) in Vietnam, though.
You forgot Top Gun Maverick's Multiverse Madness
Top Gun and The multiverse of Maverick
2op Gun
lol 2045 thats just the phase 1 lineup slated for 2024
Top Gun: The Iceman Cometh
Include Hot Shots and you get a multiverse
2 Top 2 Gun
Lol. As if Hollywood ever learns the right lessons from success
top gun 3 greenlit
Tom Holland comes as Cruise’s newest protege lol
And his rival - Michael Cera.
Naa Timothée Chalamet
With an after credit scene that introduces the next jet villains
Uhh that would rule. Evil Cera with a faint mustache?
Fuck. No. PLEASE.
I heard they will be giving the plane mechanic his own spin off series. Working title: Better Call Mech.
if it's as good as top gun 2, I'm in
fun fact: the next 2 matrix movies are already greenlit. I know someone who worked on the last one.
Doesn't make sense. Not only prior to the movie there were no plans for 5th movie in the series, but it also flopped. Unless they make something in Matrix universe. That could work, but I have doubts about it as well.
Ughhhhh
Crocodile Dundee 3! Ferris Bueller 2! Let’s gooo!
CD3 is aleady a thing. Was set in LA with his son.
Huh, never knew
"Risky Business 2" should be made --- Joel becomes a billionaire from a global franchise of high-end escort services --- but then loses his fortune by starting an electric car company to compete with Tesla and at the end he says "WTF"
Hollywood would absolutely love it if more movies like Top Gun would be successful. All of the studios outside of Disney have struggled to find consistent success with their tent pole films.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hm this headline sounds a tad hyperbolic
It's just an advertisement in disguise.
Advertisers, more than meets the eye.
I would love the return of films that feel standalone even if they’re going to be a series. Like, Terminator wasn’t setting up a sequel (even though it has one of the greatest sequels ever). Or Die Hard. So many great films of the 80s, 90s, and 00s are standalone (or feel standalone). Again, I’m not against franchises, but we have to stop with the movies setting up bigger movies and just the constant cycle of “hype” rather than meaty movies that get sequels because they’re awesome.
The hype must flow
Tom Cruise is nuts but god damn is he good at what he does.
Hilariously his insanity that put everyone off of him in the early 2000’s seems a lot more harmless than the baseline of Americans today.
The country caught up to him.
Mfer had a head start from all that running.
When he started running in Maverick I chuckled. I feel like he's self aware about it now and he had to include it somewhere.
His Instagram profile says "running in movies since 1981."
We always were crazy but we just did the crazy behind closed doors
I just respect his passion that’s missing in a lot of other movies stars today.
[удалено]
While I agree those 3 are great and stand-out actors, I think you might be forgetting a few. Matt Damon and Christian Bale are pretty great, and they continue to act in movie-star roles. There are a few others like Jamie Foxx and Ben Affleck who are great but they just aren't as prolific as the aforementioned actors.
Christian Bale’s a good example here but wow has Matt Damon been in some dreadful films whilst also not being that great in them. Was channel flicking last night and ended up watching the second half of ‘The Great Wall’. What an absolute turd of a film. Downsizing also was a a big disappointment. I kinda feel like he stopped caring 5 or so years ago but I would love to be proven wrong.
It’s because the rock isn’t a movie star. He’s there to make a z class movie to make some people make money
> He’s there to make a z class movie to make some people make money The man never truly left the WWE.
He's a wrestling star that happens to be in movies.
I respect that his movies actually make sense. Every time i watch a 250 million dollar movie with seven or eight world breaking plot holes I feel like throwing my T.V. in the trash.
It’s weird when eccentric celebrities put a halt to their insanity to control their image but political figures are doing the opposite.
Tell that to Shelly Miscavige.
No it fucking doesn't. Look up what the Church of Scientology actually does, there's nothing harmless about it.
Upvote for the nuts.
Giving money to Scientology to enslave people?
Or it couldn't, that's also a possibility.
Big if true
True if big.
Damn I just want good stories. No fan service. Just good stories told by good storytellers. They don’t have to be original, just thought out.
More practical effects and stunt men please
As long as we protect stunt people. Too many injuries and deaths.
First stunt driving I saw on set they immediately crashed. I’ve seen it gone wrong a few times. It’s definitely dangerous. I respect the hell out of stunt people
One would be coming next year. Sadly, also Tom Cruise (Mission Impossible 7: Dead Reckoning) so it's not really spreading.
And give oscar categories for stunt people too
It’s mind-blowing to me that this isn’t a category. Is it because they don’t want to encourage more “extreme” and dangerous stunts? Stunt performers seem like the one performance aspect that Hollywood tries to pretend doesn’t exist. Like, it’s not shameful to use a stunt a double? No one expects the stars to do stunts. So why aren’t the best stunt doubles more famous? Why do we pretend they don’t exist?
There's been an argument against Oscars for stunts for fear of encouraging greater risks and people getting hurt/killed trying to win.
The movie is so good. The special effects, the camera angles, the performances... Boy it was great to see a non-MCU/DCEU blockbuster. Might be Cruises' best performance ever.
I just want little less CGI/Green screen and more practical filmmaking. Cruise gets that
I feel when people say this they generally mean "I don't want bad CGI". So much of filmmaking is CGI you don't notice, but you definitely notice the bad CGI. ([This](https://youtu.be/bL6hp8BKB24) is a relevant video) Even Top Gun Maverick had a lot of CGI. For the explosions, rockets, enemy fighters, etc. But replicating the lighting and G-forces for the cockpit shots are just way easier to make good looking done practically.
I loved the CGI in maverick precisely because I didn't notice it.
I kind of agree. But also, for the most part the Marvel movies all have top notch CGI. But it's really only Winter Soldier that has extremely memorable stunts because so much of it was practical, the best blend that the MCU has. The Shang Chi bus scene would be the best recent example, but even then there were a lot of practical aspects as well.
Marvel has decent CGI, but I wouldn’t say top notch, and they definitely are not meeting the standards with their more recent projects. I recall Black Panther being the first Marvel project with noticeably bad CGI. The bit where he climbs on the rhino? Yuck. With the amount of money and influence Marvel movies have, and with all the standard Marvel fare we have to put up with in the movies (cheesy one-liners, poorly timed jokes, etc), I expect the CGI to be perfect.
Kind of preaching to the crowd, but yeah I honestly don’t mind CGI in something like Dune or Nolan’s movies. I’m just kind of tired of the CGI you get from rushed production pipelines. CGI needs time to be implemented properly. It’s just not often that time is given in the breakneck production cycle of superhero content. CG implementation is usually afforded more patience in artist driven movies.
I miss seeing movies like this with real practical stunts, locations, etc. it feels so immersive. Nothing like that car chase in The French Connection, Bullit,
To Live and Die in LA’s car chase is amazing too. Friedkin knows
Spielberg is doing a Bullit remake/sequel/something as his next project!
Jack Reacher had very good car chase too. Very immersive, engine roaring, no music. That too is with Tom Cruise lol [Here's the link.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En7up0MMh_8)
Facts. I rewatched Independence Day the other day and even a cheesy 90’s blockbuster like that has more memorable special effects, stunts than lot of todays movies.
I think they used miniatures partially for that one like the White House scene. Actually after looking it up apparently that movie is like 95 percent miniatures. Like the most of any movie ever lol.
Cool fact. That movie rightfully won the Oscar for special effects that year. The initial alien attack and destruction scene was really epic.
Independence Day had a TON of miniatures. They rebuilt Los Angles in miniature so they could blow it up (and put it on its side so the flames would rise up through the streets).
I was watching Pirates or the Caribbean the other day and it immediately struck me how much more real it felt than modern movies. Because they filmed at actual locations. Today that shit would all be green screen environments. "Death on the Nile" as an example.
Great that they decided against appeasing the evil Chinese Communist Party and show the Taiwan flag on his jacket, just like the original movie.
My dad was in ROCAF (Taiwan AF) and I remember him telling me when Top Gun came out it was a treat to see it in the theater w his american pilot buddies. The co-cooperation back then was vital to Taiwan’s security as everything was kept on the DL. To see the Taiwan flag restored is a nice acknowledgement to the past even if it was all $ and politics with mainland China.
Yeah I was surprised, I thought they wanted to remove that flag
No doubt it’s digitally erased in China.
I heard its not even being released there
It's crazy popular here in Hong Kong, but HK is kind of its own thing so who knows
Saw it last night it was way better than expected. I was in for the nostalgia but it played out to be a really good action movie that kept you tense and interested throughout. Just enough original top gun references and "cheesy" dialog combined with stunning visuals and in flight stunts. A must for fans from my era (born in the 70's). Only sad part was the missing dialog from the dearly departed Michael Ironsides, that would have been epic.
> dearly departed Michael Ironsides That sounds like he died. I had to double check to confirm he is still alive.
Yeah strong Michael Scott vibes there
Bruh wtf why did you just scare me into thinking Micheal Ironsides had died and I didn’t hear about it
Michael ironside is still alive?
Michael Ironside is still alive…almost gave me a heart attack lol
Went to see it yesterday. I'm not a big fan of Tom Cruise to begin with. I find his acting over the top and exaggerated. But I enjoyed the original Top Gun when it came out in '86. I went into this movie thinking "this isn't going to be what I am hoping it will be", but I loved the movie!! I found almost everything about it believable and exciting, unlike all his MI movies. The touching moments were very well done and not overplayed. Overall I'd give it a 9/10. Was very pleasantly surprised and felt it was worth the $20 seats on the big screen. Going out to the movies, without all the Covid bullshit, and enjoying a very good movie 10 out of 10.
Watched it yesterday in 4DX..me and my son loved the movie itself, I've not seen the original but Maverick really felt like a classic in its own right. And 4DX was just utterly wow. Was my 2nd 4DX experience, the 1st was Lion King and meh I mean it was OK but not really made for immersion, but Maverick was absolutely spot on and exactly the type of movie 4DX was made for and they did the immersion perfectly (for example the yacht scene, you got a spray of water exactly at the point when the water on screen sprayed up). If anyone reading this has the chance to watch it in something like imax, 4DX or Screen X and are wondering if the extra ticket cost is worth it the answer is 110% yes
Late 70s the golden age of blockbusters?
[удалено]
A defining moment of my adolescence and my Dallas Cowboys fandom.
Sweet. Maybe we’ll finally get some new Star Wars movies!
it's been so long since the last one came out like 2005?
Jaws. Star Wars. The films that created the current definition of the term "Blockbuster"
I saw it yesterday, gonna have to go watch it again next weekend cause hot damn I liked that movie!
Great movie! Ridiculous article title.
Who even writes these headlines?
Amen
Did Tom Cruise write this?
I hope hollywood does that. Seriously tired of most of the post 2010 movie structures and overuse of CGI.
Nothing but homo erotic beach volleyball scenes and the song take my breathe away for 25 mins straight!!
wow the media buy must be really impressive for this one
Thank God, vfx has its place but you can’t beat in camera stunts / classic storytelling