Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-18-2019, 07:02 PM
Walken After Midnight is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,862

"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.

Last edited by Walken After Midnight; 07-18-2019 at 07:03 PM.
  #2  
Old 07-18-2019, 07:06 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 11,494
Saw that trailer earlier today. If I had heard that Topper Gun was being made, I forgot about it.
  #3  
Old 07-18-2019, 07:45 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,442
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.
__________________
--- ---
Assume I'm right and you're wrong - we'll both save a lot of time.
  #4  
Old 07-18-2019, 08:14 PM
silenus's Avatar
silenus is online now
Isaiah 1:15/Screw the NRA
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 51,536
Good to see they are keeping the homoerotic undertones of the original.
  #5  
Old 07-18-2019, 08:21 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,754
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.
  #6  
Old 07-18-2019, 08:22 PM
Walken After Midnight is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by silenus View Post
Good to see they are keeping the homoerotic undertones of the original.
Tarantino on Top Gun
[NSFW]

Last edited by Chronos; 07-22-2019 at 04:13 PM. Reason: Added spoiler tags
  #7  
Old 07-18-2019, 09:03 PM
Walken After Midnight is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,862
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".
  #8  
Old 07-18-2019, 09:34 PM
txtumbleweed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Panther City
Posts: 354
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.
  #9  
Old 07-18-2019, 09:53 PM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
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.
  #10  
Old 07-18-2019, 11:28 PM
Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
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.
  #11  
Old 07-19-2019, 01:43 AM
nightshadea is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: a condo in hell 10th lvl
Posts: 5,529
erm didnt the "top gun" academy close down in the 90s ?
  #12  
Old 07-19-2019, 06:46 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightshadea View Post
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
  #13  
Old 07-19-2019, 06:48 AM
Machine Elf is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 12,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
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.
  #14  
Old 07-19-2019, 07:55 AM
LaughingSnowman's Avatar
LaughingSnowman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: USA
Posts: 20
Gotta keep this one away from the girlfriend she may climax.
  #15  
Old 07-19-2019, 08:03 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,754
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.
  #16  
Old 07-19-2019, 08:30 AM
Stuntman Mike is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 189
I don't get the adoration for Top Gun.

...at all.
  #17  
Old 07-19-2019, 08:39 AM
Machine Elf is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 12,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
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.
  #18  
Old 07-19-2019, 08:41 AM
Machine Elf is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 12,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuntman Mike View Post
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?
  #19  
Old 07-19-2019, 08:55 AM
Robot Arm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 23,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post
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 View Post
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.
  #20  
Old 07-19-2019, 09:19 AM
Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,075
Does this mean there will be a Hot Shots Trois?! That officially makes fun of all this nostalgia porn?

Last edited by Dale Sams; 07-19-2019 at 09:20 AM.
  #21  
Old 07-19-2019, 11:14 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post
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.
__________________
--- ---
Assume I'm right and you're wrong - we'll both save a lot of time.
  #22  
Old 07-19-2019, 11:22 AM
swampspruce's Avatar
swampspruce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Cool Pool
Posts: 4,474
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!
__________________
Life is an economy. Where everything must be traded for something else and the value of all things rise and fall with the amount of attention and effort you put into them. -Mark Manson
  #23  
Old 07-19-2019, 11:35 AM
mbh is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 4,711
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?
  #24  
Old 07-19-2019, 12:00 PM
Pork Rind's Avatar
Pork Rind is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 2,570
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!
  #25  
Old 07-19-2019, 12:32 PM
Machine Elf is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 12,197
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?

Last edited by Machine Elf; 07-19-2019 at 12:32 PM.
  #26  
Old 07-19-2019, 01:06 PM
The Vorlon is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sol III
Posts: 2,202
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.
  #27  
Old 07-19-2019, 01:35 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 11,494
Whenever I hear that music I'm back playing the Nintendo game, trying to dock with that damned flying tanker.
  #28  
Old 07-19-2019, 01:51 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Whenever I hear that music I'm back playing the Nintendo game, trying to dock with that damned flying tanker.

*PTSD intensifies*
__________________
--- ---
Assume I'm right and you're wrong - we'll both save a lot of time.
  #29  
Old 07-19-2019, 04:22 PM
Declan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Barrie , Ontario
Posts: 5,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post
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
__________________
What would Bugs Bunny say
  #30  
Old 07-19-2019, 05:31 PM
Banksiaman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
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.
  #31  
Old 07-19-2019, 11:35 PM
txtumbleweed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Panther City
Posts: 354
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.
  #32  
Old 07-20-2019, 04:40 AM
Richard Pearse is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 10,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post
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.
  #33  
Old 07-22-2019, 10:25 AM
Machine Elf is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 12,197
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.
  #34  
Old 07-22-2019, 02:31 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,277
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.
  #35  
Old 07-22-2019, 04:15 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,754
[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.
  #36  
Old 07-22-2019, 05:20 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
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?
  #37  
Old 07-23-2019, 09:45 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
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.
  #38  
Old 07-23-2019, 10:00 AM
Pleonast's Avatar
Pleonast is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los 'Kamala'ngeles
Posts: 7,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
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?
  #39  
Old 07-23-2019, 10:38 AM
GargoyleWB's Avatar
GargoyleWB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Somewhere cold 'n squishy
Posts: 5,457
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.
__________________
"He was shortish. And oldish. And brownish. And mossy. And he spoke with a voice that was sharpish and bossy."
  #40  
Old 07-23-2019, 01:34 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleonast View Post
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.
  #41  
Old 07-31-2019, 11:22 AM
Dorjän is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Euclid, OH
Posts: 2,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
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.
  #42  
Old 08-01-2019, 11:40 AM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,164
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.
  #43  
Old 08-01-2019, 02:51 PM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
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!
  #44  
Old 08-02-2019, 06:25 PM
dba Fred is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,081
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)
  #45  
Old 08-12-2019, 12:27 PM
eunoia's Avatar
eunoia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Outside Poker Flat
Posts: 1,677
"You want subversion on a massive level." Quentin Tarantino as Sid in Sleep with Me (1994)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmGuy0jievs
  #46  
Old 08-12-2019, 12:37 PM
Sir T-Cups is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 8,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
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
__________________
Want to see more of my adventures in Orlando? Follow Mrs. Cups and me @theorlandoduo on Instagram. And check out our blog too: TheOrlandoDuo.com
  #47  
Old 08-12-2019, 01:14 PM
Tangent's Avatar
Tangent is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Cowtown
Posts: 9,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir T-Cups View Post
Nah, they're just two days from retirement
And they just bought a boat!
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:59 PM.

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 © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017