Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Cafe Society (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   "You can ride my tail any time!" It's Top Gun 2: Maverick (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=878987)

Walken After Midnight 07-18-2019 07:02 PM

"You can ride my tail any time!" It's Top Gun 2: Maverick
 
The first trailer has been released for the sequel to Top Gun (1986), entitled Top Gun: Maverick.

Looks like the Navy might have reduced the hourly rates they charge for use of their aircraft. Not much indications of what the plot might be yet, but the few clues we're given make it look a lot like the the previous movie, with a much older Tom Cruise. "Iceman"/Val Kilmer's in it, although I didn't notice him in the trailer, as are Jennifer Connelly, Jon Hamm and Ed Harris.

Darren Garrison 07-18-2019 07:06 PM

Saw that trailer earlier today. If I had heard that Topper Gun was being made, I forgot about it.

Kobal2 07-18-2019 07:45 PM

Cool. Top Gun is one of my shameful faves. As is Sky Fighters - another movie that's dumb as shit but the flying and dogfighting scenes are just out of this world. No CGI whatsoever either.

silenus 07-18-2019 08:14 PM

Good to see they are keeping the homoerotic undertones of the original.

Chronos 07-18-2019 08:21 PM

I presume that Cruise is an instructor now, and they'll have some new hot young thing to be the pilot who doesn't play by the rules.

Quote:

Looks like the Navy might have reduced the hourly rates they charge for use of their aircraft.
I'm not sure you can assume that any particular scene has real aircraft in it. Except maybe for a scene of a pilot climbing the ladder into the cockpit, it's probably cheaper now to do that all in computer graphics, and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Walken After Midnight 07-18-2019 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silenus (Post 21758410)
Good to see they are keeping the homoerotic undertones of the original.

Tarantino on Top Gun
[NSFW]

Walken After Midnight 07-18-2019 09:03 PM

I think it would be pretty cool if, in this movie, it turned out that one of the original pilots was gay, probably either "Iceman" or his wingman "Slider".

txtumbleweed 07-18-2019 09:34 PM

First thoughts: Looks a lot better than Emmerich's Midway, the inflight cinematography looks absolutely gorgeous!

Music is a great call back to the original.

Only negative... F-18's will never be as cool as the old swingwing Tomcats. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't turn down a ride in a Hornet, they are pretty little airplanes, but the Tomcat, well, I'll let a better write than I describe it:
Quote:

Make it totally clear that this gun has a right end and a wrong end. Make it totally clear to anyone standing at the wrong end that things are going badly for them. If that means sticking all sort of spikes and prongs and blackened bits all over it then so be it. This is not a gun for hanging over the fireplace or sticking in the umbrella stand, it is a gun for going out and making people miserable with.
:)

Isamu 07-18-2019 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight (Post 21758488)
I think it would be pretty cool if, in this movie, it turned out that one of the original pilots was gay, probably either "Iceman" or his wingman "Slider".

They were all gay - in the movie and in real life.

Dale Sams 07-18-2019 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isamu (Post 21758555)
They were all gay - in the movie and in real life.

Yup.


My take away from the trailer was what great shape Cruise has kept himself in, compared to what Kilmer and even Meg Ryan look like today.

Looked up and am glad to see Michael Ironside and Tom Skerritt are still alive.

nightshadea 07-19-2019 01:43 AM

erm didnt the "top gun" academy close down in the 90s ?

Bijou Drains 07-19-2019 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nightshadea (Post 21758719)
erm didnt the "top gun" academy close down in the 90s ?

It is still around, it was moved to Nevada from San Diego

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ructor_program

Machine Elf 07-19-2019 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight (Post 21758306)
Looks like the Navy might have reduced the hourly rates they charge for use of their aircraft.

Not likely; there's plenty of CGI apparent in the trailer, which was inevitable, but is disappointing. CGI is getting really good these days, but there are still a lot of details that get left out, and some that just seem wrong. Special effects were necessary even in the first movie for a few scenes (most notably the impossible canopy-to-canopy scene), but the vast majority of the flight sequences featured actual aircraft.

Tom Cruise's demeanor/acting in the trailer is notably different from the original movie. Not sure whether he's deliberately portraying an aged fighter pilot, or if it's just that he himself has matured as an actor. He seems a lot closer to his Jack Reacher character than to the original Maverick character.

LaughingSnowman 07-19-2019 07:55 AM

Gotta keep this one away from the girlfriend she may climax.

Chronos 07-19-2019 08:03 AM

If the CGI is detectable, that's disappointing. They don't lack the capability to get those details right; if there are details missing, it's because they didn't know to include them. Which means that they skimped on the technical consultants.

Stuntman Mike 07-19-2019 08:30 AM

I don't get the adoration for Top Gun.

...at all.

Machine Elf 07-19-2019 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 21758973)
If the CGI is detectable, that's disappointing. They don't lack the capability to get those details right; if there are details missing, it's because they didn't know to include them. Which means that they skimped on the technical consultants.

I think that (skimping on technical consultants) has almost always been a problem; for example, many movies feature aircraft with ridiculous thrust-to-weight ratios and otherworldly maneuverability. But another part is about using CGI for footage that you would never attempt to produce IRL because it would be too hazardous, in which case you think "that's gotta be CGI because they would never try to get that footage IRL." See e.g in the trailer at 0:38; there's no way they're going to hover a camera drone and then fly a real aircraft within a few feet of it at a closure rate of several hundred knots.

The scene at 1:42 (three aircraft hustling upriver at treetop level) is questionable, too. They are exhibiting vapor cones indicative of transonic speed, but they don't appear to be moving that fast. Not only that, but there's snow and ice all around, so it's a pretty cold day; there shouldn't be enough moisture in the air to make the super-dense vapor cones that are visible in this sequence.

In some cases you can have all the right parts and pieces and movements, but something just doesn't seem right, and it's really difficult for anyone to say exactly what the problem is. See e.g. in the trailer at 1:00, when the engines are coming up to afterburner and the flight control surfaces are all being checked for movement. Contrast this with the matching sequence in the early moments of the original movie (see here), and you can see what I mean. I can't articulate the differences, but I'd bet money that that scene in the new trailer is CGI.

Gladwell's book Blink covers this sort of thing, explaining why people can quickly make assessments like this, even when they can't explain why.

Machine Elf 07-19-2019 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuntman Mike (Post 21759030)
I don't get the adoration for Top Gun.

...at all.

Do you not like planes at all? Or do you like planes, but just not Top Gun?

Robot Arm 07-19-2019 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Machine Elf (Post 21759045)
I think that (skimping on technical consultants) has almost always been a problem; for example, many movies feature aircraft with ridiculous thrust-to-weight ratios and otherworldly maneuverability. But another part is about using CGI for footage that you would never attempt to produce IRL because it would be too hazardous, in which case you think "that's gotta be CGI because they would never try to get that footage IRL." See e.g in the trailer at 0:38; there's no way they're going to hover a camera drone and then fly a real aircraft within a few feet of it at a closure rate of several hundred knots.

The scene at 1:42 (three aircraft hustling upriver at treetop level) is questionable, too. They are exhibiting vapor cones indicative of transonic speed, but they don't appear to be moving that fast. Not only that, but there's snow and ice all around, so it's a pretty cold day; there shouldn't be enough moisture in the air to make the super-dense vapor cones that are visible in this sequence.

In some cases you can have all the right parts and pieces and movements, but something just doesn't seem right, and it's really difficult for anyone to say exactly what the problem is. See e.g. in the trailer at 1:00, when the engines are coming up to afterburner and the flight control surfaces are all being checked for movement. Contrast this with the matching sequence in the early moments of the original movie (see here), and you can see what I mean. I can't articulate the differences, but I'd bet money that that scene in the new trailer is CGI.

Gladwell's book Blink covers this sort of thing, explaining why people can quickly make assessments like this, even when they can't explain why.

Despite using real planes for the flight sequences in the original, I never thought the aerial combat scenes were very good. The planes that were supposed to be fighting each other were way too close together. I always assumed that they did that for cinematography reasons; two planes in a shot, trying to maneuver relative to each other, is more exciting than one plane on its own. From what I've read about air combat, though, the planes never get that close to each other, even when using their guns rather than missiles.

There was also a scene, I think it was Maverick's first dogfight at the school, where they're (Maverick and the adversary/instructor) flying around the rock outcroppings out in the desert. Then everybody goes way up high, then back down, and Maverick gets dressed down for violating the minimum altitude. As a wise dog once said, it just don't add up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txtumbleweed (Post 21758533)
Only negative... F-18's will never be as cool as the old swingwing Tomcats. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't turn down a ride in a Hornet, they are pretty little airplanes, but the Tomcat, well, I'll let a better write than I describe it:
:)

There is a brief shot of an F-14 at the end of the trailer.

Dale Sams 07-19-2019 09:19 AM

Does this mean there will be a Hot Shots Trois?! That officially makes fun of all this nostalgia porn?

Kobal2 07-19-2019 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Machine Elf (Post 21759045)
In some cases you can have all the right parts and pieces and movements, but something just doesn't seem right, and it's really difficult for anyone to say exactly what the problem is. See e.g. in the trailer at 1:00, when the engines are coming up to afterburner and the flight control surfaces are all being checked for movement. Contrast this with the matching sequence in the early moments of the original movie (see here), and you can see what I mean. I can't articulate the differences, but I'd bet money that that scene in the new trailer is CGI.


Not really seeing it. However trying to see it led me to notice something heinous at 1:08 : he's got the standard pair of Sidewinders on the wingtips, fine, but what are those hanging off the external pylons ? Are those... those are Paveways, aren't they. Maverick's become a ground pounder ?! *shakes head* shameful shit.

swampspruce 07-19-2019 11:22 AM

The back seat of an F-18 flying 1v2 against F-16s makes every carnival ride I've ever been on combined feel tame. One of the best experiences of my life. I'll watch this for the same reason I watched the first one, Airplanes going fast!

mbh 07-19-2019 11:35 AM

From and old SDMB thread:

Which Shit is Faker: Dances with Wolves or Top Gun?

Quote:

posted by Boyo Jim

Top Gun is faker because Kelly McGillis is a lesbian but the movie made me believe she would fuck me if I joined the Navy. That was 4 years down the drain.



Quote:

posted by nachtmusick

So...after watching Tom Cruise beat Val Kilmer in the finals of the Homoerotic Beach Volleyball Tournament, you concluded that your best chance to get laid by a beautiful lesbian is to join the Navy and ship out?

Pork Rind 07-19-2019 12:00 PM

One thing I saw that I doubt anyone else here will be as excited about as me...

Midway through the trailer, Maverick pulls the sheet off his old GPZ900R Ninja, and I felt like I should stand and put my hand over my heard in salute to one of the old titans of the sportbike world. Then, in the very next shot, where he's recreating the ride along the runway, he's riding a new Kawasaki H2. 250MPH supercharged madness!

Machine Elf 07-19-2019 12:32 PM

What's with the scenes featuring a high-altitude pressure suit (see and 0:53 and 1:58 in which you can see the suit's collar, at 1:23 with helmet on)? Other people are wondering, too. Here's more photos of the suit. Are they putting him in a U2?

The Vorlon 07-19-2019 01:06 PM

Not a U2, maybe the Navy answer to a A-12

I guess the Tomcats must be CGI, as all of ours were crushed and melted so that a certain non-friendly adversary would be lacking for spare parts.

Darren Garrison 07-19-2019 01:35 PM

Whenever I hear that music I'm back playing the Nintendo game, trying to dock with that damned flying tanker.

Kobal2 07-19-2019 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darren Garrison (Post 21759655)
Whenever I hear that music I'm back playing the Nintendo game, trying to dock with that damned flying tanker.


*PTSD intensifies*

Declan 07-19-2019 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Machine Elf (Post 21758876)
Tom Cruise's demeanor/acting in the trailer is notably different from the original movie. Not sure whether he's deliberately portraying an aged fighter pilot, or if it's just that he himself has matured as an actor. He seems a lot closer to his Jack Reacher character than to the original Maverick character.


I feel the need, the need for Motrin

Banksiaman 07-19-2019 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight (Post 21758306)
The first trailer has been released for the sequel to Top Gun (1986), entitled Top Gun: Maverick.

... Not much indications of what the plot might be yet, but the few clues we're given make it look a lot like the the previous movie, with a much older Tom Cruise. "Iceman"/Val Kilmer's in it, although I didn't notice him in the trailer, as are Jennifer Connelly, Jon Hamm and Ed Harris.

Judging from all those snow-capped mountains I think those no-goodnik Swiss are at it again.

txtumbleweed 07-19-2019 11:35 PM

There might be a little bit of interest in the movie, already about 13.5 million hits on the trailer.

And according to Tom Cruise (apparently he premiered this the other day at Comi-Con) all of the flying shots are real. No CGI.

Richard Pearse 07-20-2019 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Machine Elf (Post 21759045)
I think that (skimping on technical consultants) has almost always been a problem; for example, many movies feature aircraft with ridiculous thrust-to-weight ratios and otherworldly maneuverability. But another part is about using CGI for footage that you would never attempt to produce IRL because it would be too hazardous, in which case you think "that's gotta be CGI because they would never try to get that footage IRL." See e.g in the trailer at 0:38; there's no way they're going to hover a camera drone and then fly a real aircraft within a few feet of it at a closure rate of several hundred knots.

The problem with CGI is that, because everyone knows it is very good, if they don’t know how a shot could be produced with real objects, they assume it is CGI.

The way I would shoot the scene you are talking about is out the back of a C130 with a fair amount of zoom on the camera. No need for camera drones or extreme closure rates.

Machine Elf 07-22-2019 10:25 AM

Japanese and Taiwanese flags were present on Maverick's jacket in the original movie. They have been removed for this one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CNN.com
In the Paramount Pictures trailer of "Top Gun: Maverick," two jacket patches that had originally shown the Japanese and Taiwanese flags appear to have been swapped out and replaced with two ambiguous symbols in the same color scheme — leading to social media speculation that the swap was done to appease China.

Several Twitter users quickly pointed out that Chinese tech giant Tencent (TCEHY) is one of Paramount's partners on the movie, which is slated to release next summer. Tencent said in December that its subsidiary Tencent Pictures is "an investor and co-marketer" of the highly anticipated sequel.


bump 07-22-2019 02:31 PM

So based on his rank (O-6/Captain), Maverick is one of a handful of things on the carrier. The captain of the ship, the XO of the ship, the CAG (commander of the Carrier Air Group), or the Deputy CAG. All of them are typically O-6 billets, and the CAG/DCAG fly fairly regularly.

But Maverick's age is the real problematic thing... Tom Cruise is 57, which made him the right age (maybe even a tad young) for Maverick in 1986. But it makes him positively ancient for an O-6 in the real world- and Ed Harris' character points that out. If you look at real-world things- the O-6es in charge of carriers are typically in their mid-late 40s. THe OLDEST officers in the military are Cruise's age- the USN Chief of Staff is 59, and is a 4 star Admiral, for example.

Meanwhile, they have Jon Hamm wearing 3 stars; that's quite a bit higher rank than a 48 year old would typically hold in today's military.

I'm curious how they resolve/explain this.

Chronos 07-22-2019 04:15 PM

[Moderating]
Walken After Midnight, while NSFW links are allowed here, they must comply with the two-click rule: A reader must have to click at least twice before seeing the NSFW material. The easiest way to do this is to put the link in a spoiler box, as I have done.

The Other Waldo Pepper 07-22-2019 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bump (Post 21764187)
So based on his rank (O-6/Captain), Maverick is one of a handful of things on the carrier. The captain of the ship, the XO of the ship, the CAG (commander of the Carrier Air Group), or the Deputy CAG. All of them are typically O-6 billets, and the CAG/DCAG fly fairly regularly.

But Maverick's age is the real problematic thing... Tom Cruise is 57, which made him the right age (maybe even a tad young) for Maverick in 1986. But it makes him positively ancient for an O-6 in the real world

To be fair, Tom Skerritt was, what, 52 and, James Tolkan 54, when TOP GUN came out with them playing O-5, right?

bump 07-23-2019 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper (Post 21764502)
To be fair, Tom Skerritt was, what, 52 and, James Tolkan 54, when TOP GUN came out with them playing O-5, right?

Sure, but we don't know how old their characters were supposed to be.

Maverick pretty much had to be Cruise's age, more or less when the movie came out, which means that his character is 33 years older.

I mean, had they decided to cast another mid-50s actor and say he was an O-6 in charge of the carrier, it wouldn't matter; you could hand wave that away and say he just looks old.

But Maverick has 33 years of interim time between the movie and now, and I wouldn't think that could be waved away easily.

Pleonast 07-23-2019 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bump (Post 21765490)
But Maverick has 33 years of interim time between the movie and now, and I wouldn't think that could be waved away easily.

Did the story in the original Top Gun take place in the year the movie was released? Will the story in the sequel take place in the year it'll be released?

GargoyleWB 07-23-2019 10:38 AM

I'm wondering what airplane type they're using as the foreign aggressor type. It needs to be something obscure enough to be unknown to 90% of the viewing public, but common enough to arrange for an American studio to be flyable for all of the movie shots (e.g. we ain't getting an SU-xx planes).

I'm putting my money on JAS39 Gripens, painted brick red with yellow tiger stripes to look fierce. :D

bump 07-23-2019 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleonast (Post 21765519)
Did the story in the original Top Gun take place in the year the movie was released? Will the story in the sequel take place in the year it'll be released?

How much latitude could there really be? To squeeze it in, you'd have to have it set in 1989 and 2014.

I get the distinct impression from the first trailer that it's present-day, and the original was probably not set 5 years in the future.

Dorjän 07-31-2019 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bump (Post 21765490)
Sure, but we don't know how old their characters were supposed to be.

Maverick pretty much had to be Cruise's age, more or less when the movie came out, which means that his character is 33 years older.

I mean, had they decided to cast another mid-50s actor and say he was an O-6 in charge of the carrier, it wouldn't matter; you could hand wave that away and say he just looks old.

But Maverick has 33 years of interim time between the movie and now, and I wouldn't think that could be waved away easily.

For anyone else, sure. But this is MAVERICK we're talking about here. :D

Sam Stone 08-01-2019 11:40 AM

It's interesting that Cruise says there is no CGI in the flying scenes, Because even though Cruise is a pilot (and a good one, by all accounts), I don't see him getting rated in an F-18. He did do all the helicopter flying in the last Mission Impossible, including some crazy canyon flying, and he is jet rated and flies a P-51 Mustang as well, but flying an F-18 as a civilian for a movie is problematic.

My guess is that the cockpit footage showing Cruise Flying is him in a 2-seat trainer version, and the exterior shots showing a single cockpit are not with Cruise in the cockpit. If CGI was in play, I would have assumed that they simply deepfaked his face onto another pilot's body for the sequences that show him flying.

But maybe I'll be surprised. Cruise is a maniac when it comes to doing his own stunts and his own flying. I'm sure he would have tried like crazy to get qualified in an F-18 and be allowed to fly one.

Given that he's seen in a pressure suit, my guess as to the plot is that he volunteers to fly some sort of highly dangerous yet important recon over China or North Korea or something. Probably a U2, but perhaps also an SR-71 or some secret high altitude plane.

Icarus 08-01-2019 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bump (Post 21765490)
Sure, but we don't know how old their characters were supposed to be.

Maverick pretty much had to be Cruise's age, more or less when the movie came out, which means that his character is 33 years older.

I mean, had they decided to cast another mid-50s actor and say he was an O-6 in charge of the carrier, it wouldn't matter; you could hand wave that away and say he just looks old.

But Maverick has 33 years of interim time between the movie and now, and I wouldn't think that could be waved away easily.

Shhhhhhh, it's just a movie!

I have the same issue with movies where 65 year old actors are playing beat cops. C'mon, they would be retired!

dba Fred 08-02-2019 06:25 PM

Maverick was promoted to Admiral 2 or 3 times but kept getting busted down for doing unauthorized tower fly-bys.
(That and when he pushed the ship’s chaplain aside during evening prayer and used the 1MC trying to convert the crew to Scientology)

eunoia 08-12-2019 12:27 PM

"You want subversion on a massive level." Quentin Tarantino as Sid in Sleep with Me (1994)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmGuy0jievs

Sir T-Cups 08-12-2019 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icarus (Post 21783963)
Shhhhhhh, it's just a movie!

I have the same issue with movies where 65 year old actors are playing beat cops. C'mon, they would be retired!

Nah, they're just two days from retirement

Tangent 08-12-2019 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir T-Cups (Post 21801905)
Nah, they're just two days from retirement

And they just bought a boat!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.