quote:

Originally posted by LastCubScout:
In the last act, Miles Teller disobeys the RTB order and returns to save Tom Cruise from a Hind helicopter, but gets downed by a SAM. How much trouble would he be in? He disobeyed orders and lost a Hornet, but saved Tom Cruise. Is that the end of Rooster's Navy career?

I can't say what today's US Navy leadership would do but a very similar real life incident occurred during the Korean War, that you can read about in the book Devotion, out for several years now, or watch in the just-released movie by the same name and being discussed in this thread.

"Devotion" - Coming to Theaters November 2022

At the time of this incident the pilot involved thought he would be court martialed for his actions, but instead received a commendation for his heroism.

ETA: see this newly posted discussion of a rescue during the Vietnam War. Although it didn't explicitly involve breaking an order, it is most definitely an example of heroism under fire.

Apollo’s Warriors USAF SpcOps during the Cold War

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Modern Day Savage,

Hmmm

quote:

Originally posted by LastCubScout:
In the last act, Miles Teller disobeys the RTB order and returns to save Tom Cruise from a Hind helicopter, but gets downed by a SAM. How much trouble would he be in? He disobeyed orders and lost a Hornet, but saved Tom Cruise. Is that the end of Rooster's Navy career?

In this case, he would be a hero. Assuming the Navy/DoD hyped the raid as a 'daring and courageous' event, Rooster AND Maverick would be national celebrities. . . The Navy would conveniently omit the part where he disobeyed orders.

quote:

Originally posted by LastCubScout:
In the last act, Miles Teller disobeys the RTB order and returns to save Tom Cruise from a Hind helicopter, but gets downed by a SAM. How much trouble would he be in? He disobeyed orders and lost a Hornet, but saved Tom Cruise. Is that the end of Rooster's Navy career?

If an action ultimately turns-out to be successful and/or, puts the Navy in a positive-light, then all-good. Probably get a speaking to about 'what should've happened' however nobody wants to be the one to pour cold water on a positive outcome.

If the action goes tits-up and becomes an incident, where other government entities have to get involved, then his career is toast, and higher up has to get involved to explain to their bosses, what happened and why.

They might have lost a Hornet, but they got one of Eye-Ran's the enemy's Tomcat. That's a good trade.

quote:

Originally posted by Blackmore:
Hmmm

Yep, the similarities were very obvious.

Notice Scott O'Grady was memory-holed after his hero's return from getting shot down over Bosnia? In public, a hero. But he disappeared fast...

Flip side is in Navy circles MiG killers become almost untouchable. Get the good kill, like Maverick did in the first movie, you really need to screw up to not make flag. So it is likely the Navy would cover up disobeying orders bit as long as the end result is good press. And maybe a pre-written letter of resignation slipped in with the awards and promotions to go with the press releases.

I have to say that I don't understand all this excitement and interest in this movie. Honest to goodness, I do not get it. Tom Cruise is 60, and he's a hotshot fighter pilot? Not to mention, he's Tom Cruise, who in real life appears to be a genuine whacko.

What is so great about this movie? This is the extent of my interest in this thing. People have been talking about this movie for months. To me, though, it looks like nothing more than Hollywood sausage grinder crap.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Not to mention, he's Tom Cruise, who in real life appears to be a genuine whacko.

My goodness, if I watched only things that didn't have whacko Hollyweird types in it, there'd be precious little left to watch

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
What is so great about this movie?

It's got jet aeroplanes 'n carrier ops 'n stuff

Yeah, Tom Cruise as an aging test pilot and Top Gun instructor is a stretch. The main plot line is likewise a stretch.

I think maybe nostalgia for the original Top Gun is mainly it for many?

In fact: The night after watching Top Gun: Maverick, we watched the original Top Gun.

It is a good ole' fashioned America First movie. Not some preachy, PC/Woke America uses it's military to the detriment of some poor nation, and some liberal actor becomes the good guy by condemning American policy on screen, hoping to get an Oscar nomination from it.

Plus using traditional practical effects as much as possible vs having all the flying being done with CGI.

As for Mr Scientology:

quote:

When I saw Tom Cruise in Valkyrie I PUKED IN MY MOUTH

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I have to say that I don't understand all this excitement and interest in this movie. Honest to goodness, I do not get it. Tom Cruise is 60, and he's a hotshot fighter pilot? Not to mention, he's Tom Cruise, who in real life appears to be a genuine whacko.

What is so great about this movie? This is the extent of my interest in this thing. People have been talking about this movie for months. To me, though, it looks like nothing more than Hollywood sausage grinder crap.

Nostalgia is huge with this to start. The flight scenes are great and actual flight scenes not CGI (for the most part), the story line is actually good and an actual continuation of the original and not a reboot.
It is not woke in the slightest.
Did I mention the flight scenes???
Best movie to come out of Hollywood in a very long time.
Tom Cruise yup he is a bit of a whacko but he is a good actor.
He does the majority of his stunts and lots of flying in this.

Did you enjoy the original??

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:
Did you enjoy the original??

I can't say that I did. Perhaps the portion of it I didn't see was really good. That would be most of the movie. The whole thing was difficult to take seriously. Then again, I've long been a film snob.

Non-CGI, non-woke, America kicking ass- all very good things.

I got just one more question- How many phone books did they have to stack on that fighter seat for ol' Tom?

OK, yeah, there are no more phone books, but I didn't know what to replace them with.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

What is so great about this movie? This is the extent of my interest in this thing. People have been talking about this movie for months. To me, though, it looks like nothing more than Hollywood sausage grinder crap.

Considering the landscape of current action/adventure/sci-fi/fantasy movies that Hollywood has pumped-out, this movie is a refreshing departure. There's no Mary Jane/lady-boss character, denigrating/insulting the male characters isn't essential to any of the female characters, there's no contemporary social-sexual plot-point, the US is portrayed as strong and justified in its use of force, and the use of CGI was largely limited as filming was on location, to include inside the cockpit.

Anybody saying this movie is ground breaking, is loosing touch with reality. It's a much better airplane movie than the first one, period. The fan-boys and the gen-Z types who are what if-ing this thing into the ground, displays more about their lack of understanding of how the world works or, any world perspective. Reddit is a horrible place to visit. Many questions revolve around how the military works, the vast majority of the general public have never served in the military, don't know of anybody in the military or, their understanding of the military is very limited. A sad commentary on the state of our public service and the military's position within the general citizenry.

I watched this movie twice recently, once on my flight to Honolulu and once on the flight back.

It was good, mindless entertainment.

I also saw a flick called American Underdog, a true story about Kurt Warner who became a hall of fame football player. I highly recommend it.

And I saw Waterman, a true story about Duke Kahanamoku that I also highly recommend.

These are all good things.

Do any sandwiches get made in the movie?

Yeah, it's just a good old fashioned American action movie.

On a flight home two months ago, I started Maverick up as people were still boarding. A young boy, 7 or 8, was walking by and looked at my screen during the opening scenes. His eyes got wide and he said, "ohhh, what are you watching?" I simply said with a grin, "Top Gun, young man. I'm watching Top Gun."

His mother chuckled as she nudged the kid along and he kept trying to watch. One of my favorite memories on a flight.

I've seen Maverick three times.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I got just one more question- How many phone books did they have to stack on that fighter seat for ol' Tom?

Apparently none?

I actually just spent time researching this. Tom Cruise's height is alleged by him to be 5'7". Wikidata says it's 5'7", too.

The Navy's minimum height requirement appears to be 5'4".

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Do any sandwiches get made in the movie?

I do not recall seeing any sammiches being made in the movie, no

I'm going with the theory that Maverick died when his Darkstar aircraft disintegrated at Mach 10.2 and everything we see from that point forward is a dream that flashed through his head in the final few seconds of his life. It's all too dream-like and fantastic with the right people at the right place at the right time and just generic enough an "enemy" that this theory could be what is happening.

It’s a great action movie where Tom Cruise and several actors were put in the back seat of an F/A-18 Super Hornet and tortured by some of the Navy’s best pilots and filmed in IMAX capturing some of the most realistic airplane footage ever seen on film.

Apparently, the mission was more plausible than some of us thought.

https://youtu.be/rQh9qTqd7X8