I don't know about that. Aren't the wings on the F-14 normally swept forward during takeoff? Maverick was then doing something normal.

quote:

Originally posted by Windhover:
I don't know about that. Aren't the wings on the F-14 normally swept forward during takeoff? Maverick was then doing something normal.

Yes. They have to be. You can’t deploy the flaps for takeoff and landing unless the wings are full forward.

That was a weird line. Wing sweep forward is normal for takeoff and every pilot I know at least in the military is pretty familiar with previous military aircraft. It was a clunky line. A RIO buddy of mine commented that the scene with the circuit breakers was the most accurate flying reference in the movie. Lol

Still a great movie though.

quote:

Originally posted by benny6:
One large difference in this movie was the absence of sweat. It seems like every scene in the original, everyone was sweating.

When Maverick & Rooster meet up on the ground behind enemy lines, I thought they looked remarkably clean for two pilots who just got shot down. It was a big disconnect after the all the training sequences showed how physically grueling the flying was. Some other thoughts I had during my viewing:

After Mav & Rooster successfully steal the F-14, why do they wait for the pair of bandits to intercept them? In straight-line speed, the F-14 is at least as fast as the Su-57 (mach 2+). High-tail it supersonic back to your carrier group. Isn't that what their teammates did when ordered back after Mav got shot down? Of course, no confrontation w/ enemy planes means no dogfights.

I didn't understand the mission strategy. I thought they needed to fly in through the valley under radar to avoid alerting the enemy air base. Well they launched the tomahawk missiles to destroy one air field before the Americans started their trench run. Wouldn't the other enemy air bases be scrambling their fighter jets, which is what they wanted to avoid in the first place?

When they did the high-G climb to exit the valley after Miracle 1 & 2 bombing runs, they knew they'd encounter SAMs, right? They had no better plan than, 'try not to get hit'?

Why didn't the Americans send in 1-2 extra F-18s instead of the minimum 4? They had the extra pilots trained for the mission. If either of the first two pairs missed what was supposed to be an extremely difficult bombing run (or got shot by a SAM or crashed), then wouldn't it make sense to have other trailing teammates have another shot at it?

quote:

Originally posted by iron chef:
Wouldn't the other enemy air bases be scrambling their fighter jets, which is what they wanted to avoid in the first place?

The movie only talked about the one airbase.

Enjoyed it well enough, but clearly not a movie to overthink.

Yea this is a “push the I believe button” movie. Enjoy the popcorn, drink your soda, and soak in the fun. It ain’t a real mission, it’s a movie.

The beauty of this movie and a few other favorites, is the production companies took great pains to get major things right, along with many other minor parts too. They took it seriously. As many of the former pilots have taken to reminding each other when picking nits about accuracy and plausibility of certain scenes/lines are: its a movie, not a documentary.

Rooster not being familiar with the RIO section of an F-14 is entirely plausible, however humorous commentary helps give the character some...character. Maverick having to manually move the wings...yeah, that doesn't happen but, its helps the unknowing watcher understand one of the defining aspect of the big plane.

quote:

Originally posted by iron chef:
When they did the high-G climb to exit the valley after Miracle 1 & 2 bombing runs, they knew they'd encounter SAMs, right? They had no better plan than, 'try not to get hit'?

Well...there was also no electronic warfare assets (Growler) apart of the strike package so, there's already a flaw with the SEAD planning of this mission which would've helped deal with the SAM/AAA threat. Got to get some CGI love in these movies and trying to show an integrated air defense network is a bit boring, instead, just fill the sky with rabid flying telephone poles.

quote:

Why didn't the Americans send in 1-2 extra F-18s instead of the minimum 4? They had the extra pilots trained for the mission. If either of the first two pairs missed what was supposed to be an extremely difficult bombing run (or got shot by a SAM or crashed), then wouldn't it make sense to have other trailing teammates have another shot at it?

Not necessarily. The idea that they were going into a high-threat environment so, once the element of surprise has been broken, conceivably, air defenses would be air tight and any follow-up flights would've been a reconnaissance flight to confirm the strike damage. The other pilots involved in the training would've also been all apart of the planning and contingencies.

Below vid gives some idea of these types of missions and all that goes in and can go wrong.

It was in my recommended videos...


https://youtu.be/BQIYAJvzNxY

Saw it tonight and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Some nice call-backs to the original film.

Great action sequences and soundtrack

If I want to watch reality, I'll get it from Mooch on Youtube.

Two thumbs up from me.

I just got back from seeing it. It's okay. I prefer films that attempt to show how the military and government operate, even if it's half-assed. The original Top Gun tries a little. Tom Clancy movies try. The Flight of the Intruder movie tries, clunky as a lot of that storytelling is. Top Gun 2 is more like Iron Eagle—just an action movie with a bunch of people in fighter jets. It explains why the general public seems to like the film so much, but it's not really my cup of tea. At least it looked and sounded great in giant IMAX. The afterburners really rocked my seat.

Also, since I grew up in the '80s, I do miss the raw attitude of the films of that time period. They were more about look and atmosphere over plot. This film is very much of this time period—i.e. more restrained and mannered, and yes, less sweaty. Despite all this, neither Tom Cruise nor Jen Connelly wear a helmet while on the motorcycle. Dangerous, but Jen's hair sure looks pretty good after a bike ride in the open air.

quote:

Originally posted by Ronin1069:
I think some of that stuff about Rooster not understanding the F14 is being taken too literal. For me it was simply a Hollywood liberty taken to explain to the audience that Maverick was about to do something unique with the aircraft that is not usually done.

I interpreted this scene differently. I think Miles Teller was commenting on the extended wings because he correctly surmised that Tom was about to take off from the taxiway since the runway was taken out. I think his comment meant: "Why are the wings extended? Are you taking off right NOW?!"

What I want to know is why was Tom working on a P-51 Mustang? He's a Navy guy! Shouldn't it be an F4U Corsair or an F6F Hellcat, or something else that was capable of carrier landings?

It was ok, although some parts bugged me, then I found this in the Trivia section on the imdb:

quote:

A theory from Vulture suggests that there's a logical plot reason for why everything is so heightened: it's all the dying fantasy of Maverick. When we reunite with Maverick at the start of the movie, he's about to attempt to reach Mach 9 in a hypersonic jet as part of the Darkstar program. He's told that Rear Admiral Cain is on his way to shut it down to redirect the funds to unmanned drones. Before Cain arrives, Maverick takes to the skies anyway and reaches Mach 9 before deciding to push on to Mach 10, the planned target of Darkstar. He manages just that but, Maverick being Maverick, decides to push the scramjet even further which is when things go very wrong. We see the jet break apart in the sky and yet, somehow, the next scene sees Maverick wander into a diner a little bit dazed, but still alive and in one piece. The theory argues though that this never really happen, and everything we see play out is the "death dream" of Maverick. It's Maverick's dying fantasy, so of course he's the one pilot in the world that can make this impossible mission work. And, of course, despite Maverick only intended to be the teacher, he ends up leading the mission that includes him making a sacrifice play to save Rooster, which he also somehow survives. Even the fact that the movie leaves the actual identity of the enemy unknown makes sense in the theory. Maverick is just using inspiration from his last major Top Gun mission where he also went up against a similarly-unspecified enemy in the first movie. It's also why when we first meet Rooster, he's dressed exactly as his father Goose did and sports the same moustache, going on to play the same song at the piano. You could even take the theory further and argue that Maverick and Rooster's reconciliation in the finale is part of the fantasy, something that Maverick wasn't able to do in life. You could also apply it to the other main relationships that Maverick has in the movie. It would have to be Iceman who recommended him for the mission as he had Maverick's back throughout his career, while Maverick gets together with Penny at the end as it's another relationship that, like Rooster, Maverick didn't get right in life.

If that's true TGM becomes much more enjoyable
(That would also help with the feeling why the whole attack feels like copied straight from Star Wars...which of course copied it from some 50s war movies

When TG1 came out in 86 took my then first date to see it in Burlingame CA.

Yesterday 36 years later, we went as husband and wife and saw it in IMAX, a great choice by the way, after your ears adjust to the sound level.

Both enjoyed the movie, the sound, it's a movie not a mission, and if some of the details are missed so what, it's fantasy.

Thought they did a good job paying homage to the original, Penny Benjamin in a silver Porsche, Great Balls of Fire, beach football scene, lots of little things, too many to list.

This was fun, and maybe because we've been out of the theaters for several years, it was good to get back into one.

If anything Maverick may get more people back into watching movies at theaters vs waiting at home for it to come out, if you do that, you're going to miss some of the best part of the film as they were meant to be watched.

quote:

Originally posted by LastCubScout:
I interpreted this scene differently. I think Miles Teller was commenting on the extended wings because he correctly surmised that Tom was about to take off from the taxiway since the runway was taken out. I think his comment meant: "Why are the wings extended? Are you taking off right NOW?!"

Well of course they are taking off immediately. They didn't jump in so Uncle Pete can show Bradley what his daddy did back in the day. Besides, they're in an enemy airbase. Waiting for the ground crew to clear off the debris for a proper take off was not an option. They had to go right away to take advantage of the confusions.

That scene was badly written nonetheless. Rooster should be incredulous, not at the moving wings, which he had to know about from daddy's job, and that they were taking off with not enough runway. He should be saying he cannot believe he would ever get to fly in a Tomcat.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
If anything Maverick may get more people back into watching movies at theaters vs waiting at home for it to come out, if you do that, you're going to miss some of the best part of the film as they were meant to be watched.

Not really. Smartphones drove me away for good. So I built a Dolby Cinema at home. Won’t miss a thing. It will be available for streaming late next month which I will skip as streaming quality is I think what you are referring to. The 4k Dolby Cinema disc will be released in August. That’s where I boner up.

quote:

Originally posted by LastCubScout:
I interpreted this scene differently. I think Miles Teller was commenting on the extended wings because he correctly surmised that Tom was about to take off from the taxiway since the runway was taken out. I think his comment meant: "Why are the wings extended? Are you taking off right NOW?!"

Originally posted by Rawny:
Well of course they are taking off immediately. They didn't jump in so Uncle Pete can show Bradley what his daddy did back in the day. That scene was badly written nonetheless. Rooster should be incredulous, not at the moving wings, which he had to know about from daddy's job, and that they were taking off with not enough runway. He should be saying he cannot believe he would ever get to fly in a Tomcat.

The dialogue was to show how Miles Teller couldn't believe they were taking off immediately. The dialogue goes:

"Both runways are cratered! How are we gonna get this museum piece in the air? Why are the wings comin' out, Mav? This is a taxiway, not a runway. This is a very SHORT taxiway, Mav!"

So, I'm pretty sure Teller knew exactly why the wings were deploying. He just couldn't believe that Cruise was gonna launch from that position in that typical action movie trope of "Aw, you're not gonna do what I think you're gonna do?!" way.

Rooster would have known the F-14's wings moved. He certainly would have known about his Dad's aircraft. It was thrown in as a 'funny' moment, IMO, and to imply just how long ago Maverick's F-14 days were. It makes sense that he was wondering why Maverick was preparing to take off from the short taxiway.

Now, it just occurred to me. In 1986, Rooster would have been like 4 yrs old, making him 40 yrs old in 2022. Now, that is WAYYYY too old to be an O-3. I never thought about it until now, so no big deal.

Also, EVERYBODY would have recognized Maverick in the bar at the beginning of the training period. The guy had 3 kills (when they made the big deal about Hangman being "the only active duty Navy pilot with a confirmed kill"). It was funny for them to call him 'pops' and to throw him out, but in real life, he would have been a literal living legend. Assuming the "Darkstar" was a black project, it's ok to assume they would not know he just became the 'fastest man alive,' but they would have known about his 3 MiG-28 kills.

At the end, Hangman bragged about his two kills. Well, Rooster had 3 at this point. He shot down the chopper, and would share kill credit with Maverick for the two Su-57s they shot down (he and Maverick would each get two kills for those). The highest scoring USAF Ace from Vietnam was a backseater - Charles DeBellevue, with 6 kills as a WSO.

quote:

Anyway, it was well done. Yes a fighter guy could tear it apart. I like Red October too though.

Yeah, the biggest thing to me was when they were evading radar-guided missiles (those fixed SAMs were SA-3 Goa radar-guided missiles) and they kept popping flares. They would use chaff for that (in simplified terms, chaff is strips of foil to create obfuscating radar returns). But, flares looked cool. The F-14 heist was complete BS, but I loved it. It was so cool to see the F-14 flying again (even if it was CGI).

Also, the Darkstar was shown turning while going for Mach 10. Turning would slow the aircraft down - the pilot would want to fly in a straight line. I also assume it would take more than 6 guys to go "Hey, let's fly this super-secret billion dollar spy plane." I did like the Lockheed Skunk Works logo on the tail (the cartoon skunk). They built the U-2, SR-71, and F-117 (along with a BUNCH of other stuff we will never see declassified, I'm sure).

This movie reminded me of Ghostbusters: Afterlife. Both were sequels to VERY famous '80s movies. Both had original cast members (Murray, Akroyd, Hudson, Annie Potts/Tom Cruise, Val Kilmer) along with the new characters, including offspring of the original characters (daughter/grandkids in Afterlife; Goose's son in TGM). Both used the same music, effects, and visuals as their originals. Both transported me back in time to give me the thrill I got in the '80s watching these original films in the theater. I got goosebumps seeing the modern carrier action in the beginning with the Top Gun Anthem playing. That 'gong' sound was VERY well utilized, especially when Maverick stole the F-14. Both were really FUN movies to watch. Yeah, I don't believe ghosts are real, and I could spend all day nit-picking TGM, but that's not really the point, is it?

quote:

Overall Maverick gave me everything I could have wanted, it was a modernized nostalgia piece that I am sure to see a few more times.

Yup. I am SO glad I saw this in the theater.

quote:

It was noticeably humorous that they dressed Rooster exactly like Goose in the opening scene and have him play the same song on the piano. I’m assuming so that folks who had maybe not seen TG1, could be beat over the head with the idea that there was some type of connection to the guy in the montage they played with Maverick looking into the bar after he’d been literally thrown out. (Kinda funny)

Yeah, that was sort of heavy-handed. I saw it with my brother and his two teens. Neither of the kids had seen the original, so the film makers had to assume not everybody knew who Goose was. I'm in my 50s, so OF COURSE I knew who Goose was. They needed to explain it for the younger audience members.

Cool part was there were only about 4-6 other in the theater, so I was able to talk a bit more than would have been the case were the theater full. At $7 per ticket, I have no idea how the theater could stay in business.

quote:

Despite all this, neither Tom Cruise nor Jen Connelly wear a helmet while on the motorcycle. Dangerous, but Jen's hair sure looks pretty good after a bike ride in the open air.

I just met a 70 yr old guy yesterday. Not wearing a helmet riding a motorcycle. I thought it was stupid, but it's his life, not mine. . . But, in a movie, you need to see the actors' faces.

quote:

What I want to know is why was Tom working on a P-51 Mustang? He's a Navy guy! Shouldn't it be an F4U Corsair or an F6F Hellcat, or something else that was capable of carrier landings?

A Corsair or Hellcat would have been more 'appropriate,' but neither of them has that big double cockpit with the clear bubble canopy to see the actors in. I don't know of any two-seat Corsairs, but I think I saw at least one Hellcat with an extra seat. But, the guy in the back had tiny little windows and you really couldn't see the person sitting there. And, hey, most people would not know or care that the Navy didn't fly P-51s. Also, I met Dale "Snort" Snodgrass - a former F-14 pilot who actually did a lot of the flying in the 1986 Top Gun. He flew a P-51 and F-86 for the USAF Heritage Flight (and a Hellcat for the Navy Heritage demos).

In the last scene of the movie, it looked like that was really Tom Cruise in the front seat of the Mustang with a woman in the back. Now, that was supposed to be Jennifer Connelly, but I wonder if they put a real pilot back there with full flight controls, and put a wig on him/her to make them LOOK like Connelly. IIRC, she was wearing sunglasses.

That catapult shot that started the trench run mission looked like it was really Tom Cruise in real life (in the back seat of a Super Hornet with a real pilot flying, of course). They really sold the flying scenes, and I heard Cruise actually flew in the F-18s.

quote:

Why didn't the Americans send in 1-2 extra F-18s instead of the minimum 4? They had the extra pilots trained for the mission. If either of the first two pairs missed what was supposed to be an extremely difficult bombing run (or got shot by a SAM or crashed), then wouldn't it make sense to have other trailing teammates have another shot at it?

They SHOULD have sent at least 4-8 F-18s to cover the withdrawal. They KNEW there were bandits in the air - it would have been easy to send a bunch of F-18s to cover the strike team's egress. There was no reason to let them fight it out alone. Also, the Aegis cruiser that launched the Tomahawks could have taken out the Su-57s with its AA missiles. Either way, the carrier should have had all its F-18s airborne or on VERY short alert in case the enemy fighters tried to attack the carrier group.

I thought the whole 'let's steal an F-14' bit was entirely contrived, but I didn't care. I enjoyed this movie more than any other theater experience I remember having. I felt like a teenager again watching Top Gun in 1986.

It did confuse me a bit over Jennifer Connelly's character. I thought she was the 'Admiral's daughter' mentioned in the first movie, but then she had the same kind of house that Kelly McGinnis had in TG, and she even had a gray Porsche (a newer 911, instead of the 1958 Porsche 356 in the 1986 movie). So, I thought she was the same character (that was "Charlie," but I couldn't remember her name at the time). People complained that it was sexist to not include McGillis, but she did not age as gracefully as Cruise did. Connelly was a good choice, IMO.

Val Kilmer looked like crap, but he really has throat cancer. I read they had to digitally add his speaking parts, as the actor can no longer speak. Also, the Commander of the Pacific Fleet has headquarters in Pearl Harbor. But, again, rule of cool. They had to have Maverick pop over to talk to him.

I really liked the jerk admiral (the second one; not Ed Harris). He was saying, "I don't know whether to court-martial you or let you lead the mission." Cruise starts to stammer and answer, when the 'cool admiral' (black 2-star) says "I believe the Admiral was speaking rhetorically. . ." I thought that was the same actor from the 1986 movie, but that was Sundown (different actor; this guy's call sign was Warlock).

Cruise doing that unauthorized practice run with a goal of 2:15 (instead of 3 minutes, or 4 like the admiral wanted) was also 'Rule of Cool.' Again, it didn't seem anywhere near realistic, but I really enjoyed it.

I really enjoyed it. I didn't notice any 'woke' scenes. I assume some of the pilots were probably played by gay actors, but I didn't pick up on any blatant stuff (like Rooster and Hangman swapping spit).

I believe the SR71 flew at Mach 3.3 and remains the world record.

Going to Mach 9 and then 10 seemed a bit of a stretch to me. Would have been more believable if they went maybe 4 and then 5.

But then again, I'm not a plane guy.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:
I believe the SR71 flew at Mach 3.3 and remains the world record.

Going to Mach 9 and then 10 seemed a bit of a stretch to me. Would have been more believable if they went maybe 4 and then 5.

But then again, I'm not a plane guy.

The SR-71 flew Mach 3+ in 1963. That was almost 60 yrs ago. I'm convinced we have (at LEAST) Mach 6-8 planes flying now. Mach 10 is a 'cool' number that sounds reasonable for the 21st century.

IMO, of course.

The P-51 in the movie is actually owned by Tom Cruise and he’s a licensed pilot. That is him flying his own plane. Don’t know why it wouldn’t actually be Jennifer Connelly in the back seat. She probably enjoyed the ride.