Afghanistan and Libya were both NATO actions.
That may be. I prefer to think the country was Freedonia or maybe Grand Fenwick.
It can’t be Iran simply because the topography doesn’t match. Also don’t say F-14s prove it’s Iran because the F-14s are the later F-14 models with the different engines and not the actual original Iranian ones.
I’m leaning strongly into Stranger’s “alternate Earth” theory above (way above!) In the Top Gun universe the school is still at Miramar, there is a country in the Mideast that has that topography, we sold all sorts of stuff to them over the years, including newer F-14s, CINCPAC is in San Diego instead of Pearl Harbor, etc. And they truly hate Maverick, because he made ace against their air force.
Very late to the party, but my wife and I saw this movie tonight.
Yeah, so it was OK. In fact, parts of it were quite good. I’m not sure I was head over heels for it, but the final 40 minutes or so were really excellent and I’m glad I was able to see it.
I think the first hour was not that great. Definitely a sequel to an 80’s movie. The dialogue was quite bad. If it hadn’t improved, I’d probably be giving it almost a negative review.
Mind you, I have not seen Top Gun since about 1988 on VHS.
I don’t know that Captain is that low of a rank for Maverick. A Navy captain is an O-6, same as a colonel in the Army (where an captain is an O-3, equivalent to a Navy lieutenant). Ed Harris is like ten years older than Tom Cruise and his character (a rear admiral) was only one rank above Maverick.
But yeah, it’s a bit inconsistent that Maverick is both the best pilot ever and the biggest screw up ever and is only able to fly because of Iceman’s constant intervention, and YET Maverick is somehow in a position to delay Goose Jr’s entry in the Naval Academy.
A couple of other things I noticed about the film:
-
Through all their detailed prep work and training for this mission, at no point was there any mention of a freakin railroad bridge they would need to cropdust under at 700mph!
-
Why was “Hondo” the crew chief (or whatever) at the test base, the Top Gun airfield, and the carrier?
-
I don’t have any air strike planning experience, but what I do know from watching the History Channel, the mission definitely feels like some desperate Hail Mary mission from a typical 80s action film than something NATO would actually plan and execute.
Minor bump. My wife and I had a quiet Thanksgiving at home alone. We’d had an early Thanksgiving with family last weekend.
We purchased both Top Guns on streaming and we watched both movies back to back. That was our Thanksgiving.
Seeing the new movie a second time, six months after our first viewing, it was just as fun and moving as the first time. The movie is a winner.
Saw it this week. Not a big TC fan, but what an enjoyable flick. Unlike so many superhero or other action movies, it was easy to follow. None of the, “Who is THAT? Why are they doing THAT?”
There were good guys and bad guys, and a mission to accomplish. No explicit gore, sex, or even profanity. And a good dose of humor to accompany the action. I wish there were more movies like this that are just good clean fun.
Only down side is that it was awfully male-centric - but I guess that happens with most military films. I think there were a total of 5 female speaking parts - and that is counting Iceman’s wife and the person in the radar plane.
I’m curious how negative a movie the US military is willing to tolerate before they’ll pull the plug on cooperation.
Suppose the movie script were instead: Maverick dies, one or more other wingmen die too, Rooster makes it back to base but spends a while recovering from PTSD and is then granted the title of the “new” Maverick. Axed?
IIRC, they pulled out over the bit in THE AVENGERS where the order to nuke New York City is given by — whom? No, seriously: are you saying the call got made by the President of the United States, or by people who answer to the President of the United States, or — something else entirely?