Top Gun: Maverick

Oafley Jones

Tefral wrote: »

Think he had cancer.

Id say he is dead in the movie... They surely would have used him in place of Ed's character otherwise.

Throat Cancer, so even speaking for him is a big deal the moment.

Gatling

Seemed to look a little more alive giving a UN talk last night

https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/21/top-gun-star-val-kilmer-speaks-united-nations-throat-cancer-battle-10435561/

pixelburp

Re. Cruise's ageing, I dunno; in the glorious era of HD you can definitely see around the eyes and mouth where Botox & god knows what else is fighting a losing fight. His work pales compared with someone like Ming-Na Wen (Agents of SHIELD), who is 55 yet looks easily early 40s and is clearly practising dark magic to remain looking that amazing.

Don't get me wrong, Cruise looks relatively amazing, for a man supposedly in his early 50s, but The Mummy was the point where I lost patience for it all; when Russel Crowe, someone 2 years his junior, referred to Cruise's character as "young man", later finding out said lead character was supposed to be in his mid-30s. At least Top Gun seems to be addressing the fact Cruise should possibly grow the F up.

alchemist33

conorhal wrote: »

I just thought it was depressing.
Arrested development man in his 50's still wearing the the same jacket as he did in his 20's and riding his mid life crisis bike?
Jesus.
Maybe that's a crux of the storyline but it's presented as glorious and cool when in fact it's laughable.
I'm coming to the conclusion that people will watch any ol sh1te as long as it tickles their nostalgia-balls.

I'm looking forward to it but agree. It'll take some plot shenanigans to portray him at this age, NOT in a position of authority, yet still believable.

Tazzimus

pixelburp wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, Cruise looks relatively amazing, for a man supposedly in his early 50s, but The Mummy was the point where I lost patience for it all; when Russel Crowe, someone 2 years his junior, referred to Cruise's character as "young man", later finding out said lead character was supposed to be in his mid-30s. At least Top Gun seems to be addressing the fact Cruise should possibly grow the F up.

Think you mean late 50's, chap is 57. He's older than Charlie Sheen, yet looks ten years younger.
Granted, Charlie has done his best to kill himself repeatedly, so that'll take a toll..

Mellor

pixelburp wrote: »

His work pales compared with someone like Ming-Na Wen (Agents of SHIELD), who is 55 yet looks easily early 40s and is clearly practising dark magic to remain looking that amazing.

Hardly a fair comparison. Those Asian anti-aging genetic voodoo.

pixelburp

Tazzimus wrote: »

Think you mean late 50's, chap is 57. He's older than Charlie Sheen, yet looks ten years younger.
Granted, Charlie has done his best to kill himself repeatedly, so that'll take a toll..

Holy shít, you're right. Can see why they're keen to film two Mission Impossible films back to back, cos that has to be the last of them as "Tom Cruise Endangerment" vehicles.

How you live your life tends to catch up with you, no question, and it's probably only the self-pickling that keeps the likes of Keith Richards alive, but Cruise's mid life crisis has gone on enough IMO. "Oblivion" was the last film I remember where he could legitimately pass for the mid to late 30s he still seems to be playing ...

TheIrishGrover

Not much regarding the story in the trailer but I suppose it's really only a teaser.

Was never a huge fan of Top Gun but if those flying sequences are even half real, my God. That first scene looks amazing and the in-cockpit shots look great (Assuming they didn't give Cruise control of their fighter jets. I know he's a pilot but still

yourdeadwright

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

Not much regarding the story in the trailer but I suppose it's really only a teaser.

Was never a huge fan of Top Gun but if those flying sequences are even half real, my God. That first scene looks amazing and the in-cockpit shots look great (Assuming they didn't give Cruise control of their fighter jets. I know he's a pilot but still

Actually belief it or not they did let him be in control for that scene , Crazy I know

Tazzimus

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Actually belief it or not they did let him be in control for that scene , Crazy I know

I can't see a civilian being given control of a military fighter jet worth many, many millions just for a movie. Even if it is the adrenaline junkie that is Tom Cruise.

TheIrishGrover

Stolen from YLYL:

Oafley Jones

Tazzimus wrote: »

I can't see a civilian being given control of a military fighter jet worth many, many millions just for a movie. Even if it is the adrenaline junkie that is Tom Cruise.

I can see it happening. Years back, the Air Force let Jeremy Clarkson drop a live bomb from an F-15, and they'd no idea who he was.

lukin

I've been watching clips of the first movie on YouTube and it really is remarkable what a terrible film it was. Laughable storyline, an astrophysicist who looks like she just stepped off a catwalk, cringe-inducing dialogue ("I feel the need—the need for speed"; I mean really, come on).
Not to mention the fact that there wasn't one character in it who was remotely likeable. All of the pilots were arrogant self-obsessed w####rs and their superiors were cliched portrayals of military top brass.
Kelly McGillis was just there for eye-candy. In fact I think I only watched it when I was a kid 'cause I thought she was super hot.
Typical Tony Scott film (RIP); big on style but low on substance.

Goodshape

lukin wrote: »

I've been watching clips of the first movie on YouTube and it really is remarkable what a terrible film it was. Laughable storyline, an astrophysicist who looks like she just stepped off...

Sorry? What?

I'm afraid I can't hear you over the sound of all thisHIGHWAY TO THE DANGERZONE!!!!

lawred2

This will be unadulterated garbage. Hollywood hasn't had an original thought in years

lawred2

lukin wrote: »

I've been watching clips of the first movie on YouTube and it really is remarkable what a terrible film it was. Laughable storyline, an astrophysicist who looks like she just stepped off a catwalk, cringe-inducing dialogue ("I feel the need—the need for speed"; I mean really, come on).
Not to mention the fact that there wasn't one character in it who was remotely likeable. All of the pilots were arrogant self-obsessed w####rs and their superiors were cliched portrayals of military top brass.
Kelly McGillis was just there for eye-candy. In fact I think I only watched it when I was a kid 'cause I thought she was super hot.
Typical Tony Scott film (RIP); big on style but low on substance.

I've been watching a few clips.... <white noise>

lukin

Goodshape wrote: »

Sorry? What?

I'm afraid I can't hear you over the sound of all thisHIGHWAY TO THE DANGERZONE!!!!

Actually that's another thing I forgot to mention, thanks for reminding me; the soundtrack is utter garbage too; the very worst of 80's MOR.

lawred2

lukin wrote: »

Actually that's another thing I forgot to mention, thanks for reminding me; the soundtrack is utter garbage too; the very worst of 80's MOR.

Your opinion is wrong

MuffinTop86

So very wrong

salmocab

lawred2 wrote: »

Your opinion is wrong

He’s trying hard not to show it

Mellor

lawred2 wrote: »

Hollywood hasn't had an original thought in years

If you actually think that, then your opinion on movies in general is pretty void.

pah

lukin wrote: »

I've been watching clips of the first movie on YouTube and it really is remarkable what a terrible film it was. Laughable storyline, an astrophysicist who looks like she just stepped off a catwalk, cringe-inducing dialogue ("I feel the need—the need for speed"; I mean really, come on).
Not to mention the fact that there wasn't one character in it who was remotely likeable. All of the pilots were arrogant self-obsessed w####rs and their superiors were cliched portrayals of military top brass.
Kelly McGillis was just there for eye-candy. In fact I think I only watched it when I was a kid 'cause I thought she was super hot.
Typical Tony Scott film (RIP); big on style but low on substance.

We can never be friends

Kermit.de.frog

lukin wrote: »

I've been watching clips of the first movie on YouTube and it really is remarkable what a terrible film it was. Laughable storyline, an astrophysicist who looks like she just stepped off a catwalk, cringe-inducing dialogue ("I feel the need—the need for speed"; I mean really, come on).

Isn't that what is so likable about it? It's pure 80's tripe?

But the aircraft - awesome

Agent Coulson

lawred2 wrote: »

This will be unadulterated garbage. Hollywood hasn't had an original thought in years

lawred2 wrote: »

Your opinion is wrong

.

brianregan09

To be fair not every film needs to be an intense deep dive character study ffs

1st was one of the best original popcorn movies leave your brain at the door

gnarbarian

Lets not forget that without Top Gun we would not have been able to see this classi:pac:

Dades

People complain about certain movies being cliched when it was these movies that spawned the cliche.

Die Hard is another movie that looks cliched to the younger viewer, when instead the bits that worked were just rehashed endlessly by subsequent movies.

Zubeneschamali

No, I saw Top Gun in the cinema when it came out and the script was lazy clicheed rubbish then.

The cliches are much, much older than that movie.

Cool planes though.

salmocab

Top gun was cheesy nonsense with a healthy dose of America good Russia bad. The dialogue was rubbish.
It’s a brilliant movie and I love it.

TinCool

lukin wrote: »

I've been watching clips of the first movie on YouTube and it really is remarkable what a terrible film it was. Laughable storyline, an astrophysicist who looks like she just stepped off a catwalk, cringe-inducing dialogue ("I feel the need—the need for speed"; I mean really, come on).
Not to mention the fact that there wasn't one character in it who was remotely likeable. All of the pilots were arrogant self-obsessed w####rs and their superiors were cliched portrayals of military top brass.
Kelly McGillis was just there for eye-candy. In fact I think I only watched it when I was a kid 'cause I thought she was super hot.
Typical Tony Scott film (RIP); big on style but low on substance.

Your point being?