Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Actually, a decent chunk of Top Gun was large radio-control F-14's. :)

But again--just like the original Star Destroyer still looks good, the model F-14's still look good--because they were still physically present, and actually existed to be filmed. Nothing looks nor moves more realistically, than real objects. CGI always ages and looks bad later.

Flight is the hardest thing to animate IMHO, because no CG model-maker can mentally three-dimensionally figure out EXACTLY how things move---there's a difference between FLYING IN AIR, and simply "moving around in space". But an actual flying model has to obey the laws of physics and move aerodynamically.

Hear Hear! Well said.

And yes, if they can't get those crazy French sum-bi**hes for the flying duties, then why bother? Those films--and a lot of those warbirds movies you can find on youtube--prove that there are production companies that can use techniques, equipment and pilots to get MUCH better footage than what we're used to from Hollywood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, just went back and watched these...

"Best Guy"? Ah ha ha ha ha! Yes, shameless cinematic plagiarism at its best. :p But lots of eye candy for Eagle-lovers.

LOL, that French film appears to have used all the "stock footage" from the company that does those movies you can find on youtube all the time. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since it's so long after the first movie they could really go anywhere with it. Bring Goose back as a zombie who turns the crew of an entire aircraft carrier into zombies that pilot planes and stage attacks on neighboring ships and coastal cities. Tom Cruise plays the only member of the ship not infected, a cook who has to fight his way from the galley to the bridge and help coordinate an attack on the zombie ship. The film's most poignant scene comes as Chef Maverick takes control of Zombie Goose's plane remotely and jettisons him from the plane where he then, once again, slams into the canopy, dies, and sinks into the sea. The movie ends as the camera pans down through the depths to the ocean floor where we see the waterlogged body of Zombie Goose who's eye opens suddenly as "THE END?" appears on the screen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you actully LIKE airplanes, and are judging the movie from that standpoint, Top Gun is one of the best out there.

It fails there too - they couldn't even get real soviet aircraft for the enemy aircraft - and as I mentioned before they re-used the ONLY impressive shot twice in the same movie.

You want a movie with good flying sequences using real aircraft there are two choices.

1 - Hell's Angels by Howard Hughes, dated script and acting but the aerial shots are excellent.

2 - The Blue Max. Much better version of the entire Top Gun theme of the little guy proving himself and getting the girl.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since it's so long after the first movie they could really go anywhere with it. Bring Goose back as a zombie who turns the crew of an entire aircraft carrier into zombies that pilot planes and stage attacks on neighboring ships and coastal cities. Tom Cruise plays the only member of the ship not infected, a cook who has to fight his way from the galley to the bridge and help coordinate an attack on the zombie ship. The film's most poignant scene comes as Chef Maverick takes control of Zombie Goose's plane remotely and jettisons him from the plane where he then, once again, slams into the canopy, dies, and sinks into the sea. The movie ends as the camera pans down through the depths to the ocean floor where we see the waterlogged body of Zombie Goose who's eye opens suddenly as "THE END?" appears on the screen.

LOL, sounds good. Somebody green-light it! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

It fails there too - they couldn't even get real soviet aircraft for the enemy aircraft - and as I mentioned before they re-used the ONLY impressive shot twice in the same movie.

You want a movie with good flying sequences using real aircraft there are two choices.

1 - Hell's Angels by Howard Hughes, dated script and acting but the aerial shots are excellent.

2 - The Blue Max. Much better version of the entire Top Gun theme of the little guy proving himself and getting the girl.

I've seen some of the aerial sequences from Hell's Angels--puts Flyboys to effing shame. The Blue Max is pretty awesome, too. Love that movie. Much more dark/pessimistic compared to Top Gun, though. But hey, that's life, eh?

I've always liked the dogfight from Tora! Tora! Tora! At least not all of it was lightning-fast-cut tight-shots that try to give an unrealistically fast-paced feel to the action. After all, real dogfights took up square miles of space; not everybody within 50-feet of ea other (or the confines of what can be seen in a static TV screen shot), like modern movies seem to imply.

Is it really so hard to get good aerial/cockpit footage for movies, using real airplanes? I think not:

Edited by reddsun1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, a question for all you haters out there... If Top Gun sucked so badly, how would YOU have achieved production of the movie?

Let's start with this: I'd like to know how you would go about getting your hands on real MiG fighters if you're a Hollywood production company in the 1980's.

Edited by frothymug
Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, a question for all you haters out there... If Top Gun sucked so badly, how would YOU have achieved production of the movie?

Let's start with this: I'd like to know how you would go about getting your hands on real MiG fighters if you're a Hollywood production company in the 1980's.

Hey wait--don't count me among the haters. I like Top Gun. Back in the day, that, and The Final Countdown were the shiz-nit for me. Made me dream of being a fighter pilot when I grew up. Also a big part of why I fell in love with the VF-1s--particularly the "Skull 001" scheme--when I was exposed to Robotech/Macross later on.

Yeah. Back then: getting a real MiG for a movie production? Fuhgedabadit. But nowadays? Might not be so impossible to get one MiG 29, or one Su-27 from a former Soviet-bloc nation looking for more capitalist ways to generate taxes/revenue? But at a pretty penny, to be sure? LOL, it'd just mean NO budget left for paying any big-name actors, and they'd probably have to do a lot of repainting serial no's and such to try to make ONE plane look like multiples. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, a question for all you haters out there... If Top Gun sucked so badly, how would YOU have achieved production of the movie?

Let's start with this: I'd like to know how you would go about getting your hands on real MiG fighters if you're a Hollywood production company in the 1980's.

Item 1 - Get rid of the entire script, it sucked from start to finish. I've talked with a number of real fighter pilots - lived next to one as a kid, and they are not the pyschotic, testosterone filled idiots the movie shows them to be.

Item 2 - Forget the Migs and go with something you could get your hands on. Come up with a plot device that requires going against them. (It would be no worse then the laughable, nuclear war would have broken out, attack on a US carrier would have caused shown in the real Top Gun).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Super Hornets could fulfill the role just fine I think. The problem would be the Aggressors and MiGs. US Navy Adversary squadrons currently fly F-5E/N's, Hornets, and F-16s. So the first movie's "MiG-28" (the F-5s) or the F-16s would have to play the adversary role because using Hornets would make it confusing to follow. The ubiquitous and well known F-16 shouldn't play the MiG role. Super Hornets vs. Legacy Hornets playing the MiG role? Even with different paint jobs, it could become hard to keep track of who is who.

If they have the money they can always borrow some real MiG-29 from Germany or Su-27 from India or Ukraine. But then they will probably save the big money and go CG.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is that some of you guys are "armchair quarterbacking" the movie from the year 2010. In 1985, they didn't have the means to do what they can today.

If you could have written the script, then how would YOU have done it?

If you get rid of the MiGs, who the heck would you fight against that would actually make it believable to the audience? At the time, the Cold War was running strong. Although they never actually confirm the MiG pilots to be Soviet, you can still kind of assume that it's some Soviet-backed faction. You also don't realize that it would take a lot for the US to launch a nuclear missile against another country. Oh noes... one of our carriers had to illegally enter foreign waters to save a disabled ship. How dare the opposing faction try to defend their territory with hostile actions! Quick! Let's justify an attack on a carrier full of military personnel by launching a nuclear missile against a city full of 3 million civilians! The story was written to make it as believable as it could be at the time. What would you have done differently?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they have the money they can always borrow some real MiG-29 from Germany or Su-27 from India or Ukraine. But then they will probably save the big money and go CG.

If they paint a pretty enough picture the armed forces would give them a large discount and allow their pilots and planes (Germany has a very good aggresor squadron that uses Mig29 aircraft).

Still would probably be cheaper to go CGI. I don't have anything against it either - as long as they keep it within realisticky limits (since movies are never completely realistic...)

My point is that some of you guys are "armchair quarterbacking" the movie from the year 2010. In 1985, they didn't have the means to do what they can today.

No - I HATED the movie then and it still stinks today. It was, is, and always will be trash.

I'd answer the rest, but we are not going to agree and it's not worth the time just for fun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to know why you hate the movie. Don't just come up here and say it sucks and not have a good reason. I've already refuted your past reasons.

On a related note, IF (and that's a big "if") they do make a sequel, I'd love to see some naval fleet action. Nothing like those 16-inch guns firing a full-broadside on an enemy target. The air filled with AA fire is a sight to behold.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The plot for the sequal is simple. Goose never died, the whole Top Gun excursion was a setup from the start. It was all designed to make Goose "look" like he was dead (read body already floating in the water with divers waiting to retrieve the real Goose) so he could go on to his next top secret CIA operative mission, and dump that obnoxious wife. Goose was initially a plant put in place to keep Maverick from really knowing what happened to his father, until something blonder was sent in to replace him...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to know why you hate the movie. Don't just come up here and say it sucks and not have a good reason. I've already refuted your past reasons.

I have already said why multiple times. But one last time. [EDIT] - forgot to mention, a difference of opinion is not a refutation.

The Script stinks, the plot and characters are shallow and unrealistic (with the exception of Goose), the aerial combat is not as good as everyone who likes the film says (I've seen much better in the two other films I mentioned), the character conflict is forced and childish "I don't like you, your dangerous", "Yeah that's right I'm dangerous" - how can people stand to listen to dreck like that?

For me personally it is a Tom Cruise competition movie (along with that racing movie and the bartender movie) and I despise them for being moronic at best, a total insult to humanity at worst. (Give Tom a good script, like Born on the Fourth of July, or Valkyrie and you have something, the competition movies are just an excuse for mindless stunts (or mindless cocktail glass acrobatics)

One last edit - Roger Ebert sums up this movie best, and what he says about the character interaction is the #1 reason why this movie is a dog. For my part, I don't agree with him about the arial portion being great, it was good but not great.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19860516/REVIEWS/605160302/1023

Edited by Dynaman
Link to post
Share on other sites

It fails there too - they couldn't even get real soviet aircraft for the enemy aircraft - and as I mentioned before they re-used the ONLY impressive shot twice in the same movie.

You want a movie with good flying sequences using real aircraft there are two choices.

1 - Hell's Angels by Howard Hughes, dated script and acting but the aerial shots are excellent.

2 - The Blue Max. Much better version of the entire Top Gun theme of the little guy proving himself and getting the girl.

I guess if you like to watch propeller planes putter around in the air firing their machine guns at each other, then you're entitled to your own opinion. I'd much rather watch a few planes dogfighting at intra-sonic speeds blowing each other to smithereens with sidewinder missiles and vulcan cannons. There could have been more gun kills, I will admit. "An elegant weapon for a more civilized age."

I have already said why multiple times. But one last time. [EDIT] - forgot to mention, a difference of opinion is not a refutation.

The Script stinks, the plot and characters are shallow and unrealistic (with the exception of Goose), the aerial combat is not as good as everyone who likes the film says (I've seen much better in the two other films I mentioned), the character conflict is forced and childish "I don't like you, your dangerous", "Yeah that's right I'm dangerous" - how can people stand to listen to dreck like that?

For me personally it is a Tom Cruise competition movie (along with that racing movie and the bartender movie) and I despise them for being moronic at best, a total insult to humanity at worst. (Give Tom a good script, like Born on the Fourth of July, or Valkyrie and you have something, the competition movies are just an excuse for mindless stunts (or mindless cocktail glass acrobatics)

One last edit - Roger Ebert sums up this movie best, and what he says about the character interaction is the #1 reason why this movie is a dog. For my part, I don't agree with him about the arial portion being great, it was good but not great.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19860516/REVIEWS/605160302/1023

I refuted your previous reasons because they were dumb. "They couldn't even get soviet aircraft for the enemy aircraft". You expected them to do so in 1985? All I hear from you about this movie is nothing but negativity and you sit there looking for every possible way to put it down.

How are the characters shallow and unrealistic? The aerial combat was flown by real fighter pilots. How could it not be up to par to you? Oh wait, that's right. You'd rather watch propeller planes in old movies so you can seem more worldly and not-in-the-norm than your averaged slack-jawed yokel.

Edited by frothymug
Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what would make the movie rock...if there was a scene like this:

Scene:

Fighter plane spinning out of control and in a nose dive towards the main carrier. A rookie pilot about to lose focus and crash when Maverick gets on the comm and says:

"Pull the lever that says G...do it now!"

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what would make the movie rock...if there was a scene like this:

Scene:

Fighter plane spinning out of control and in a nose dive towards the main carrier. A rookie pilot about to lose focus and crash when Maverick gets on the comm and says:

"Pull the lever that says G...do it now!"

:D

It would depend on what the "G" stood for....

Taksraven

Ugh! She didn't age well. Let's hope that image doesn't get quoted by some douchebag.

You realise that by saying that you are effectively baiting people and it took all of my self control NOT to quote that image.

Taksraven

Link to post
Share on other sites

I Feel The Need For A "Top Gun" Sequel (Dark Horizons)

This is the 1 part of the article I find funny:

Bruckheimer mentioned he'd been approached about it back in July. Of course the story itself will be tricky as the U.S. Navy's elite TOPGUN program doesn't focus as much on aerial combat anymore but rather targeted bombing runs.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Christopher McQuarrie ("The Usual Suspects," "Valkyrie") is being pursued to pen the script and has reportedly found a way to include Tom Cruise's Pete 'Maverick' Mitchell character in a way that's "not too obvious". Cruise has reportedly agreed to take said smaller role.

Not too obvious Maverick? Wow. I'll have to see it to believe it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On a more serious note - I'm curious if there was ever a fighter movie about the Yom Kippur War , in my opinion the second closest time the world was on the brink of nuclear war. The IAF, which previously absolutely dominated the skies during the 1967 conflict had 100+ planes shot down in the first three days of the war, and the whole country was on the brink of defeat, and ultimately was saved by some luck and a US re-supply effort. Sounds like Ace Combat material almost....

It pitted some classic East / West jets against one another - F-4's / Mig-21's / Mirage-III's etc.

As a sidenote: a quick google reveals that the list of 1970's+ modern aces is completely dominated by Israeli pilots. It is probably the most experienced air force in the world in the jet era, and as such a flick would be nice...

Edited by Ghost Train
Link to post
Share on other sites

Goose, is dead.

Maverick had to walk away and move on, and so should we...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • azrael changed the title to Top Gun: Maverick (Top Gun 2 is comin)

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...