Film Top Gun: Maverick
- Thread starter pauldyson1uk
- Start date
The enemy from the first movie was not a real enemy either; it was described as some fictional hostile country bordering the Indian Ocean, which is weird because no one around the Indian Ocean was hostile to the US. For the sake of it in Maverick, we could say it is another fictional country with quite the wintery landscape, with high terrain and a coast giving on the sea. I know that people say it's Iran because of the F-14s, but the enemies look more like a former Soviet republic gone rogue and grabbing any hardware they are willing to pay for, including the Iranian F-14s.
I sure remember when Air Force One scripted Kazakhstan (before it became rich through oil exports) as the post-Soviet era republic that looked to maintain the Cold War with the West by owning a nuclear arsenal and by drawing all kinds of Soviet ultranationalists on their side. So I'd say the concept of a fictional former Soviet republic is not a bad shout.
edit: Ed Harris is a badass at 71 years of age.
Last edited:
If Statham, who I like, could pull off a light comedy performance like The Rock’s in MOANA, we’d be talking.
Love Ed Harris! Yeah I guess it doesn’t have to be Iran. It certainly wouldn’t be Russia or China though.
He was stellar in Glengarry Glen Ross.
Saw it last night I loved it. Turn your brain off, nostalgic, all action fun.
People are giving out about it as though it's the same as 30 other Top Gun movies they bring out every year, but they're missing the point.
You're allowed be gooey and nostalgic when revisiting a film for the first time in 35 years.
I left the cinema with a smile from ear to ear. Sometimes that's all you need from a movie.
People are giving out about it as though it's the same as 30 other Top Gun movies they bring out every year, but they're missing the point.
You're allowed be gooey and nostalgic when revisiting a film for the first time in 35 years.
I left the cinema with a smile from ear to ear. Sometimes that's all you need from a movie.
Haven't seen that one! I'll check it out. First film I remember him from is the Abyss. He was bald back then too
Saw it a 2nd time at a 4DX cinema, didn't care for all the random seat shaking half the time, but that final act... Shit gets wild, loved it.
Yeah I seen it in 4DX too, thought it was fun (especially the end as you say).
I dragged the missus to it and if it wasn't for all the effects I don't know if she would have been a big fan.
And magnificent in The Abyss.
The Right Stuff as well.
Anyone know when this leaves cinemas? Can't find the answer anywhere.
edit: Seems to be until 16th, IMAX ends tomorrow.
edit: Seems to be until 16th, IMAX ends tomorrow.
Last edited:
Statham is exceptional in Spy
It’s fiction. It’s not a real country.
What a bloody great film that is. Not watched that for years, will dig it out over the weekend, nice reminder.
Tom Cruise might be a scientologist weirdo but feck me he can make a good film. Just watching the behind the scenes on the stunts he's done is mind blowing.
Watched this on IMAX over the weekend and loved it. Proper movie made for the cinema.
Literally my favorite movie of all time. The cast & the acting are unparalleled.
Just watched the movie, absolutely loving it.
Was one of the better visits to the cinema in recent years, must say.
The lack of actual peril came through though, so a couple of points dropped for that.
The lack of actual peril came through though, so a couple of points dropped for that.
I never felt that tbh, was actually a bit worried for them as the tension built going into the last mission. If I put much thought into it, i'd probably guess the Mav death hints they kept dropping were a bit too staged, I was just enjoying the ride though.
He was a lot of fun in that.
Highlights. Maverick. He's still got it.
Lowlights. Iceman. He looked like a carrier bag filled with shite.
8.75mg/10mg.
Lowlights. Iceman. He looked like a carrier bag filled with shite.
8.75mg/10mg.
Yeah, that's always my first thought when I see cancer survivors too.
Actually I would argue Iran was the enemy in both films. Iran has direct access to the Indian Ocean and the first film came out fairly soon after the Iranian Revolution. It would have actually made sense for carriers to not be in the Gulf of Oman, depending on the range of onshore anti-ship missiles. The biggest inconsistency would be the presence of MiGs as Iran only got these after the time period of the first film.
The second film is without a doubt Iran though. They are the only country that would try to enrich uranium in underground facilities that the US would feel comfortable directly targeting (although I would argue that Israeli pilots would be more likely to attempt such a mission). Iran is the only country with F-14s still in service and while they don't have any 5th gen fighters, the 5th gens in the film were Su-57 felons, which Russia have been trying to sell to other countries for sometime now. As far as the geography, there are parts of Iran with that sort of snowy mountain climate, it's not all desert and is in fact a rugged country with multiple mountain ranges.
If anything, the least believable part of the film would be that the US would use F-18s in such a contested environment and the operational plan was contrived to allow for the dogfighting component to be present. In reality, any fights involving 5th gen fighters would be BVR (beyond visual range), which would make for an extremely boring film as it would just be planes firing air-to-air or air-to-surface missiles at targets that can't be seen. Also, the US would perform SEAD and use precision standoff munitions to knock out the SAM sites (or F-35s to fire precision missiles at the SAM sites), which can then allow for F-18s to attack the target directly. Ironically, the US plan in the film is what Russia tried to do in Ukraine after the Russian cruise missiles were unable to hit targets with any precision in the first hours of the invasion (such as knocking out enemy airfields or anti-air systems). The issue is that while the Russian planes flew low to avoid SAM sites, Ukrainian troops could then use Stingers to hit these planes. As a result, Russian planes have stopped flying into Ukrainian airspace and instead fire missiles from inside Russia.
Last edited:
Well, well, well, look at Mr. Knowledgeable over here.
Sick movie, btw. Enjoyed every minute.
To be fair i was kinda expecting him to be dead and dreaded it. Specially when he propsed to penny. But not every movie needs to be sad ending.
Can't the tomahawk also blow the sam away instead?
Wasn't aware of that.
A tomahawk is a precision standoff munition, sorry for the lingo.
Finally watched the movie! Totally enjoyed it. This genre of films always run the danger of being saturated with American nationalistic pride, but I didn't feel it from watching the film. As for who the adversary is, I think people are overthinking it. It is clearly fictional, designed to bring out the various aspects of the mission. The inclusion of F14 is purely intended for the plot development and not a reflection of reality.
If movies won Oscars for sheer entertainment this one would be the favourite by a mile.
Watched the original for the first time last week in prep for this and was not a fan at all. But this was just such a good action film I honestly don’t think I’ve had as much fun in a cinema.
If only Cruise wasn’t a Scientology creep.
Watched the original for the first time last week in prep for this and was not a fan at all. But this was just such a good action film I honestly don’t think I’ve had as much fun in a cinema.
If only Cruise wasn’t a Scientology creep.
Well after starting this all off.
I have booked to see it, tomorrow with my lads, cant wait.
I have booked to see it, tomorrow with my lads, cant wait.
For anyone on the fence about watching this at the cinema - go and watch it.
Best “cinema film” I’ve seen in ages - absolutely loved it. Good levels of nostalgia without being too much, but honestly just a great great popcorn flick.
Best “cinema film” I’ve seen in ages - absolutely loved it. Good levels of nostalgia without being too much, but honestly just a great great popcorn flick.
They had to remove 5th gen fighters as there aren't any two seaters they could film in. I don't mind that though, there are places where an F35 would find it difficult to get into.
So you’re saying the movie isn’t realistic? I, for one, am shocked. It all seemed so believable.
I think it was realistic, just saying that they had to make some adjustments for the dogfighting aspect to take center stage (and as @11101 said, to have 2-seater planes for the cast).
I was being facetious. Even for someone with zero knowledge of (or interest in) all of the military porn it was obvious the whole thing was completely preposterous from start to finish.
The only technical stuff I personally understand in any detail was the sailing and that scene was fecking ridiculous.
best film I have seen for a while and for me the best sequel I seen.
Loved the story , liked they way they worked in Goose's son.
The F-14 steal was just brillant, loved it, I don't care is was complete unrealistic.
Straight after coming out of the cinema, we wanted to watch it again.
Loved the story , liked they way they worked in Goose's son.
The F-14 steal was just brillant, loved it, I don't care is was complete unrealistic.
Straight after coming out of the cinema, we wanted to watch it again.
There’s a great YouTube video between Jocko and Dave Berke talking about the legitimacy of the film… the only reason f-18’s were used because it’s the only twin seat navy jet left. F-35 all singles.
Airforce would be different as you could run strike eagles (or whatever the two seat variant is) or f-16 two seaters etc.