Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Seriously.  About time we had a good Pacific theater flick, and despite any reality of the situation, naval battles always wind up seeing larger scale and more spectacular than anything on land.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I’m cautiously optimistic about Midway....though I don’t care for the far too low strafing runs they are using just like Pear Harbor.

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, derex3592 said:

that actually looks kinda good.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Around the 0:26 mark, are they still promoting the narrative that Japan attacked the hospitals and infirmaries at Pearl Harbor? Because I remember Michael Bay getting tons of flak for specifically that bit of revisionist history.

At that point, they should just add in the giant transforming airborne supercarriers or I'm just not even interested.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bolt said:

+1

+2

The trailer looks really good. If they can make it a two hour movie that feels like the best twenty or so min from Pearl Harbor - rather than the stupid soap opera that the rest of it was - then it will be worth going to see.  At the moment, the only drawback is that Emmerich directed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kajnrig said:

At that point, they should just add in the giant transforming airborne supercarriers or I'm just not even interested.

I am down for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, a good set of movies based around WWII is not a bad thing.  As long as they don't take too many Hollywood license with it, because seriously, none of those pilots broke out katanas and did kung fu fighting.  

I also find it weird that to do Midway, they compressed in Pearl, Doolittle, and then Midway, part of me is wondering if they're also going to throw Coral sea in there.  There are plenty of great material for the Pacific theater, they could do one on O'Kane, or one revolving around Spruance, or may be Evans on the Johnston during Samar.   Heck, they could do Guadalcanal as a trilogy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's Emmerich, so don't expect more than giant ships, lotsa planes, heroes & damsels, and America wins in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to the Midway trailer F*** Emmerich and F*** the SFX guys. These dumb***** still can't get the right model of B-25 for the Doolittle Tokyo Raid just like they screwed it up in Pearl Harbor. They're never going to get it right because film makers are too lazy to ever visit any other airplane museum than Chino's Planes of Fame so everytime a B-25 it's modeled off their B-25J with its tailgun position and side cockpit gunpods. Nevermind the USAF has a perfectly fine B-25B that is the exact same type used on the raid and bearing the raiders livery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like they had a shot of IJN Yamato (or Musashi) in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry about the B-25 rant guys, but I've noticed something else that's kind of nagging me. For a movie called Midway there's actually very little of the actually battle shown. Everything we see in the trailer is either Pearl Harbor, Doolittle Raid, Coral Sea, or the Air Raid on Rabaul that was launched over the Owen Stanley mountains. Only the last five minutes with the Dauntless dive bomber are of the Midway battle.

 

If they spent that much money for sfx on things that aren't the actual battle I really have to wonder how much of it we will actually see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, peter said:

Looks like they had a shot of IJN Yamato (or Musashi) in it.

Better be the Yamato - it did have a small (minsicule) part to play in the battle while I don't think Musashi was completed yet.

 

20 minutes ago, renegadeleader1 said:

For a movie called Midway there's actually very little of the actually battle shown. Everything we see in the trailer is either Pearl Harbor...

 

If they spent that much money for sfx on things that aren't the actual battle I really have to wonder how much of it we will actually see.

They did not spend much money - most of that footage is from the Pearl Harbor film a few years back.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The beauty of Top gun, Maverick, is they don’t have to follow history too closely. Now if they can get the planes right..

I didn’t realize Iran was the only ones left with active F-14’s..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Dynaman said:

Better be the Yamato - it did have a small (minsicule) part to play in the battle while I don't think Musashi was completed yet.

 

They did not spend much money - most of that footage is from the Pearl Harbor film a few years back.  

So... The trend of a Midway film cribing battle scenes from earlier movies continues. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know the sad thing about historical films is how Hollywood always seem to botch those.  There is plenty of good stories without having to throw in a female lead to make the story "interesting" but actually detracts from the main point of the film.   Whatever happened to good ol' war films without the human interest stories.  For those, we can have the Top Gun.  

I do hope TG:M is going to have enough ACM to make things worth while.  The nice thing is that the stuff they can do with CGI these days would more than make up for the same shot of an F-14 launching the same Sidewinder off the same rail five times during the same engagement.  Hey, I wonder if this means Goose Jr is going to fly the F-35 and go do the ACM thing with Cruise in an F-18E.

That might be kind of cool.... Maverick: "Son, your stealth don't mean crap when I can see you with my Mark I eyeballs and put some 30 Mike Mikes up your ass."  ACM is still necessary in the age of stealth because you might not be able to fire until fired upon.  And that would ruin the whole stealth thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, kalvasflam said:

You know the sad thing about historical films is how Hollywood always seem to botch those.  There is plenty of good stories without having to throw in a female lead to make the story "interesting" but actually detracts from the main point of the film.   Whatever happened to good ol' war films without the human interest stories.  For those, we can have the Top Gun.  

I do hope TG:M is going to have enough ACM to make things worth while.  The nice thing is that the stuff they can do with CGI these days would more than make up for the same shot of an F-14 launching the same Sidewinder off the same rail five times during the same engagement.  Hey, I wonder if this means Goose Jr is going to fly the F-35 and go do the ACM thing with Cruise in an F-18E.

That might be kind of cool.... Maverick: "Son, your stealth don't mean crap when I can see you with my Mark I eyeballs and put some 30 Mike Mikes up your ass."  ACM is still necessary in the age of stealth because you might not be able to fire until fired upon.  And that would ruin the whole stealth thing.

Honestly, I sort of want Hollywood to focus on things that aren't WW2. Its a big, important war, but there's been so many other interesting conflicts and events in the 20th century alone that constantly focusing on that single war is pretty boring.

I agree with you on hoping for the new Top Gun being able to take advantage of both physical, on-location filming and contemporary CG FX to deliver more varied ACM sequences than the first one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AN/ALQ128 said:

Honestly, I sort of want Hollywood to focus on things that aren't WW2. Its a big, important war, but there's been so many other interesting conflicts and events in the 20th century alone that constantly focusing on that single war is pretty boring.

I think it's partially that the air combat aspect after world war II becomes much less interesting to show on screen. Korea had Mig-15s vs Sabres, but by the time Vietnam came around it was all about guided missiles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, kalvasflam said:

You know the sad thing about historical films is how Hollywood always seem to botch those.  There is plenty of good stories without having to throw in a female lead to make the story "interesting" but actually detracts from the main point of the film.   Whatever happened to good ol' war films without the human interest stories.  For those, we can have the Top Gun.   

That's ironic, given Top Gun is mostly a human interest story. Heck, I'd say it is about a third romance story, dangerously close to "chick flick" territory.

It is almost perfect in that regard, actually. It has a little bit of everything, but it all comes together naturally to combine romance, loss, personal growth, and really cool jets into a movie that everyone can enjoy. It is the chick flick that men can enjoy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sanity is Optional said:

I think it's partially that the air combat aspect after world war II becomes much less interesting to show on screen. Korea had Mig-15s vs Sabres, but by the time Vietnam came around it was all about guided missiles.

I think a competent director/writer could definitely make modern air combat interesting without necessarily remaking WW2 dogfights but with Hornets and Flankers.

In the context of Top Gun 2, maybe add a brief sequence where Maverick outlines a simplified concept of BVR and WVR combat so the audience gets the idea.

Then, when we finally get to the shooty parts, a tense cat and mouse situation between two forces where both sides are trying to get a lock on the other without revealing themselves, then contrive a situation that necessitates a close up look on the bad guys.

Give the movie just enough "reality" to make the Hollywood exaggeration seem plausible. Of course, its a fine line to walk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2019 at 12:31 PM, electric indigo said:

In the meantime, you can watch the sequel to "Pearl Harbor"...kinda

 

Michael Bay: I made Pearl Harbor.

Roland Emmerich: Hold my beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JB0 said:

That's ironic, given Top Gun is mostly a human interest story. Heck, I'd say it is about a third romance story, dangerously close to "chick flick" territory.

It is almost perfect in that regard, actually. It has a little bit of everything, but it all comes together naturally to combine romance, loss, personal growth, and really cool jets into a movie that everyone can enjoy. It is the chick flick that men can enjoy.

 

You mean like Macross?  All that's missing is a pop idol, and that might still be the role Jennifer Connelly gets.

2 hours ago, AN/ALQ128 said:

I think a competent director/writer could definitely make modern air combat interesting without necessarily remaking WW2 dogfights but with Hornets and Flankers.

In the context of Top Gun 2, maybe add a brief sequence where Maverick outlines a simplified concept of BVR and WVR combat so the audience gets the idea.

I like that idea, imagine Maverick schooling Goose Jr about the fine art of BVR and the necessity of WVR in some scenarios. 

For the stealth thing, I just remembered that the exact same scenario IRL gets played out today when F-22s has to intercept Bears and Flankers over the Bering sea, in that case, stealth doesn't mean squat.  If the Russians were hostile, the biggest advantage of stealth gets thrown away on those interceptions where visual range is a necessity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kalvasflam said:

You mean like Macross?  All that's missing is a pop idol, and that might still be the role Jennifer Connelly gets.

Pretty much, yeah.

...

TOP GUN RIPPED OFF MACROSS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 505thAirborne said:

Michael Bay: I made Pearl Harbor.

Roland Emmerich: Hold my beer.

frakk YEAH!!!  Maybe they will get it better than Bay's Pearl Harbor.  Lots of awesome aviation action at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, BeyondTheGrave said:

 

 

I'm going to see this in theaters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know $hit about the Air-force or Navy, but it appears that the mil stuff is more accurate than the first film?  

 

Just hope they don't use F5s as stand ins for a fictional Mig.....

That being said, I hope someday they go back to the first film and just drop in CG modded Mig 29's or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, how many people think we're going to get a (Macross Plus style) plot about who needs human combat pilots when we have drones?

Also, I'm interested in exactly which experimental or high-altitude plane he'll be in that requires a fully pressurized flightsuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell yes! The CG flight stuff is impressive looking. 

Mane Yes, the beloved Tomcat at the end. :wub: Her name is very apt for this movie...Tom’s Cat

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...