I know they mapped waypoints but the footage shows them doing this practice down a canyon, which would make alternative waypoints very hard to follow
Exactly no wonder they voted for Trump
Its not illegal to have rotten taste in movies 🤷♂️
Sending in a drone to take out the enemy target would have made for a much less interesting movie.
Everyone in the world is wrong and corrupt except me? Wish I had your self confidence.
Fair enough if you didn't like the movie, ain't no sin, but it's a weird flex to decide everyone else is not just wrong, but probably took the shilling.
There's a French movie: Sky Fighters 2005.
If the movie had more planes and less of everything else it might have been only half bad but as it is it’s all bad.
Best line in the movie “the mission has been moved up”
I'm still awaiting my cheque. Hope it comes soon so I can but another cinema ticket to see it again.
Now you're getting somewhere. First step is self-awareness. Admitting it to yourself.
I found the film excellent. The cinema was packed, even though it was week 3 of the release. I saw the original when it first debuted and while it was good, this was the better film and fair play to Tom Cruise for his performance.
🤔👀
Indeed.... Most fans wouldn't be expecting much so their views would be along the lines of the fanboi sh1te here.
Watched it last night. Two hours of Tom Cruise’s ego. Very cringe. He looks no more than 40.
Rubbish acting, and zero connection/flow or chemistry in the movie.
I used to really rate Cruise as an actor, but these last few years with these over kill action flicks, I think he has really regressed. Very unconvincing.
Are you ok?
I agree it's absolutely not convincing. But it's top gun.
Take another look - they weren't flying in a canyon, they were just flying close to terrain, hills and such. A bit of common sense and we can assume they probably didn't lay out their waypoints in locations where the real underlying geography would cause accidents.
It's been a nice thread but, time to unfollow. Cheerio!
Hmmmm... $757m worldwide ($393m USA, $353m World) now..
It'll definitely pass Batman at $770 .. Not sure it'll get the $1b or even pass Dr Strange at $930m
Still early days all the same.
Not sure what hold Jurassic World can do and what pull Lightyear will have.
Top Gun might be able to coast along until Minions and Thor in July.
Saw it last night. Average enough isnt it.
Having now outgrossed Dr Strange 2 in the US, this will probably be the highest-grossing movie of the year there, although maybe Thor or Avatar 2 can overtake it.
Fantastic movie.
A perfect sequel.
The scene between Cruise and Kilmer was lovely. For a little while I did actually thing that Maverick died.
The aerial action and fights and the mishaps in the training were edge of the seat stuff.
They were not training in a canyon..
The were flying along mountain and hillside but in several scenes wide open ground in the other side was clearly visible.
They were simply flying as though it was a valley or canyon.
I think Maverick even stated I. The first meeting that they had no similar terrain to train in.
Went in with low expectations but this was a fun film. The only thing I hated was that the absence of an identity for the enemy nation. That was just absurd but it was great craic otherwise.
Loads of films are part funded by China or Dubai these days so they probably left the identity in the air for those reasons I'd imagine, I thought it was funny that there was no identity given it was the entire plot of the movie but it also didn't take away from the enjoyment of it.
It just stuck out to me. I'd have just said it was the Russians. There'd have been no blowback.
I think the film would have come across as far more jingoistic if the enemy nation was explicitly coded as a particular country. It takes on a more cartoonish vibe in its current form, befitting the film. It's still a very pro-American / military film, but it'd have been far more distracting if they were explicitly targeting Iran, North Korea, China or even 'fictional Middle Eastern country that ends with -stan'.
The film is of course ideological and political by its very nature (and having an anonymous enemy is its own statement) - personally I'd prefer if films didn't need to cooperate with the US Department of Defence or military at any capacity! But IMO the decision to at least partially insulate it from modern geopolitics made it easier to just go along with the spectacle.
Of course, with tedious inevitability, The Asylum has released its Mockbuster: Top Gunner! Looks like a classic "Eric Roberts sits at a desk, half drunk" kind of film.
It would be more satisfying from the standpoint of fiction but also more inflammatory.
As for co-operation with the military... in the first film in 1986 the camera lingered on a recruitment poster at one point. Many critics saw it as a 110-minute recruiting ad, which it was. It led to a 500-percent increase in naval aviation recruitment.
The military talk openly about using these films for recruitment and have big links to Hollywood.
That the current US armed forces doesn't have enough pilots is well known in military circles so that American Airlines which depends on ex-military pilots is now running buses instead of planes between regional airports. Plus they will now need even more military personnel if Sweden and Finland join NATO (Yes, I'm aware that this film went into production in 2018 long before the conflict in Ukraine started).
'“The movie came out on Friday and [we] haven’t seen a giant uptick yet just because it’s the weekend,” said Navy recruiter Lieutenant Caitlin Bryant. “But we’re looking forward to it.”
Bryant says there was a noticeable bump even after the trailer first came out.'
Btw I liked this movie a lot and might go see it again.
Only one country in the world flies Su-57s (the enemy fifth gen fighter) and another country is the only one to have operational F-14s so it might be a team up between those two.
