You Going to See Top Gun: Maverick?

[BryceC]

Saw it last night and I had a ball. I'm a child when it comes to stuff like this but when you see a dude slam the throttle on an aircraft and you see those white contrails on the wings, it is awesome. Theater I was in had the sound absolutely cranked, the bass was just rumbling on some of the scenes.

I've heard some people say it's a better movie than the first though, and I will fight anybody that says that. This movie was fun, it was thrilling, but I'm sorry it doesn't include nearly the number of hilariously quotable lines like the first one.

 

[BryceC]

I'd still put Will Smith up there, though he's gone for more serious roles that showcase his considerable acting chops, especially in the last 15 years or so. Leo is also similarly bankable, but he's a more traditional movie star rather than action hero.

Cruise's career has honestly been pretty disappointing, IMO. He's free to do what he wants, but for a guy who had a 13-year run in the 80s and 90s that included Top Gun, The Color of Money, Rain Man, A Few Good Men, Born on the Fourth of July, The Firm, Mission Impossible, Jerry Maguire and Eyes Wide Shut, it's hard not to wonder what could have been if he hadn't chosen to pigeonhole himself as a blockbuster action star. He's only wandered out of that genre a few times since 2000. There's nothing wrong with making those kinds of films, but I think he demonstrated quite clearly early in his career that he could do a lot more than that.

It's been a minute for Will Smith to be honest. He really can't open a movie like Cruise can and hasn't been able to for a long time.

 

[HFCS]

Nobody wants a movie like Top Gun to challenge their view of the world.

Not talking about even in terms of military strategy or political forces but even personal relationships and emotions.

I happen to see it with a guy who does mostly drama screen writing and when we walked out he was literally laughing about the Jennifer Connelly subplot…yet he loved movie and had a great time.

That’s really obviously what’ll keep it from being some timeless classic as a film, but as a movie thrill ride it’s pretty perfect.

The stuff with Rooster is obviously less contrived than the love interest story and feels pretty real though.

 

[HFCS]

Spoiler: Spoilers

I find it interesting how vague they were about the country of conflict…unless I missed something.

From the mountains, sea, and snow along with a country trying to get nukes the only real world possibility is North Korea. Does North Korea actually have fighters and anti air at that level?

My love of the movie is 90% about that final action scene where I went from “fun nostalgia” to “ok this incredible”.

On one hand some would say being vague about the country is pandering to China audience concerns…on the other hand it keeps the movie from feeling dated if world events change rapidly.

 

[BryceC]

Spoiler: Spoilers

I find it interesting how vague they were about the country of conflict…unless I missed something.

From the mountains, sea, and snow along with a country trying to get nukes the only real world possibility is North Korea. Does North Korea actually have fighters and anti air at that level?

My love of the movie is 90% about that final action scene where I went from “fun nostalgia” to “ok this incredible”.

On one hand some would say being vague about the country is pandering to China audience concerns…on the other hand it keeps the movie from feeling dated if world events change rapidly.

Yeah I think it's not a real place and it's intended to be something you can't confuse with an actual country.

 

[dahliaclone]

I'd still put Will Smith up there, though he's gone for more serious roles that showcase his considerable acting chops, especially in the last 15 years or so. Leo is also similarly bankable, but he's a more traditional movie star rather than action hero.

Cruise's career has honestly been pretty disappointing, IMO. He's free to do what he wants, but for a guy who had a 13-year run in the 80s and 90s that included Top Gun, The Color of Money, Rain Man, A Few Good Men, Born on the Fourth of July, The Firm, Mission Impossible, Jerry Maguire and Eyes Wide Shut, it's hard not to wonder what could have been if he hadn't chosen to pigeonhole himself as a blockbuster action star. He's only wandered out of that genre a few times since 2000. There's nothing wrong with making those kinds of films, but I think he demonstrated quite clearly early in his career that he could do a lot more than that.

I wouldn't call it disappointing but maybe underwhelming. He begged Paul Thomas Anderson to be in 1999's Magnolia which is unquestionably the best acting he's ever done...and he did it for free. And got an Oscar nom for it which he honestly should have won.

Agree since 2000 he's stepped away from the 'blockbuster action star' not often...the movies are just sh!t that no one saw or cared about. And agree he should do more dramatic work because he can be quite good. Collateral he's great. Magnolia he's top notch.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Yeah I think it's not a real place and it's intended to be something you can't confuse with an actual country.

Spoilers --

Spoiler

Iran is the best fit.

-- The Isfahan nuclear facility is basically what they were attacking. It's a uranium-enrichment facility up in the mountains and heavily defended by SAMs and Iranian fighter jets.

-- We have an image in our heads from popular culture of the Middle East as a huge sandbox, but that is actually only in certain regions. Iran is mostly mountainous and has snow and coniferous forests at altitude. Think more like an Austria and less like the Mojave. Yes, we generally associate snowy terrain like that with like Norway or Russia but there are regions of Iran that definitely look like that.

-- The only other operator in the history of the F-14 was Iran. It won out in a head-to-head competition with the F-15 back when the U.S. and Iran were allies against the Soviets in the Cold War.

So... it's totally Iran.

 

[motorcy90]

Spoiler: Spoilers

I find it interesting how vague they were about the country of conflict…unless I missed something.

From the mountains, sea, and snow along with a country trying to get nukes the only real world possibility is North Korea. Does North Korea actually have fighters and anti air at that level?

My love of the movie is 90% about that final action scene where I went from “fun nostalgia” to “ok this incredible”.

On one hand some would say being vague about the country is pandering to China audience concerns…on the other hand it keeps the movie from feeling dated if world events change rapidly.

The only country we sold F-14s to was Iran. But not enough snow/forests there either so maybe a "combo" the of those 2.

 

[Rural]

I wouldn't call it disappointing but maybe underwhelming. He begged Paul Thomas Anderson to be in 1999's Magnolia which is unquestionably the best acting he's ever done...and he did it for free. And got an Oscar nom for it which he honestly should have won.

Agree since 2000 he's stepped away from the 'blockbuster action star' not often...the movies are just sh!t that no one saw or cared about. And agree he should do more dramatic work because he can be quite good. Collateral he's great. Magnolia he's top notch.

I'd agree with Collateral and Magnolia (almost everyone was great in that, the rising tide may have carried him along) but "Old" Cruise is essentially the same guy in every role.

 

[Sigmapolis]

The only country we sold F-14s to was Iran. But not enough snow/forests there either so maybe a "combo" the of those 2.

Spoilers --

Spoiler

Huge parts of Iran look like that. Here is a nice picture of the Zagros Mountains --



Put some snow on that and you totally have the setting for Act 3.

 

[carvers4math]

I'd still put Will Smith up there, though he's gone for more serious roles that showcase his considerable acting chops, especially in the last 15 years or so. Leo is also similarly bankable, but he's a more traditional movie star rather than action hero.

Cruise's career has honestly been pretty disappointing, IMO. He's free to do what he wants, but for a guy who had a 13-year run in the 80s and 90s that included Top Gun, The Color of Money, Rain Man, A Few Good Men, Born on the Fourth of July, The Firm, Mission Impossible, Jerry Maguire and Eyes Wide Shut, it's hard not to wonder what could have been if he hadn't chosen to pigeonhole himself as a blockbuster action star. He's only wandered out of that genre a few times since 2000. There's nothing wrong with making those kinds of films, but I think he demonstrated quite clearly early in his career that he could do a lot more than that.

I was interested in Valkyrie in a historical context although by then wasn’t particularly interested in Cruise with the cray cray stuff in his personal life. Was expecting a good performance based on his earlier work. Both the movie and his performance seemed like a letdown. Probably better sticking to books for these types of events although I really liked Hacksaw Ridge. So few movies comparatively portray the War in the Pacific, and my father talked about the medics saving him from the bayonets when he got shot on Luzon.

 

[BryceC]

Spoilers --

Spoiler

Iran is the best fit.

-- The Isfahan nuclear facility is basically what they were attacking. It's a uranium-enrichment facility up in the mountains and heavily defended by SAMs and Iranian fighter jets.

-- We have an image in our heads from popular culture of the Middle East as a huge sandbox, but that is actually only in certain regions. Iran is mostly mountainous and has snow and coniferous forests at altitude. Think more like an Austria and less like the Mojave. Yes, we generally associate snowy terrain like that with like Norway or Russia but there are regions of Iran that definitely look like that.

-- The only other operator in the history of the F-14 was Iran. It won out in a head-to-head competition with the F-15 back when the U.S. and Iran were allies against the Soviets in the Cold War.

So... it's totally Iran.

Spoiler: Eh

That makes sense until you consider that there is no way in hell Iran has superior jet technology to us.

 

[dahliaclone]

I'd agree with Collateral and Magnolia (almost everyone was great in that, the rising tide may have carried him along) but "Old" Cruise is essentially the same guy in every role.

Side note: Magnolia is one of my top three movies of all time.

 

[Triggermv]

Spoilers --

Spoiler

Iran is the best fit.

-- The Isfahan nuclear facility is basically what they were attacking. It's a uranium-enrichment facility up in the mountains and heavily defended by SAMs and Iranian fighter jets.

-- We have an image in our heads from popular culture of the Middle East as a huge sandbox, but that is actually only in certain regions. Iran is mostly mountainous and has snow and coniferous forests at altitude. Think more like an Austria and less like the Mojave. Yes, we generally associate snowy terrain like that with like Norway or Russia but there are regions of Iran that definitely look like that.

-- The only other operator in the history of the F-14 was Iran. It won out in a head-to-head competition with the F-15 back when the U.S. and Iran were allies against the Soviets in the Cold War.

So... it's totally Iran.

The first movie was no different with the vagueness of the country they were fighting

 

[Sigmapolis]

Spoiler: Eh

That makes sense until you consider that there is no way in hell Iran has superior jet technology to us.

Well if you want to bark up that tree...

There is no way that military planners would task either Hornets or Super Hornets for this raid. They're fine, far from obsolete, but they're far from the cutting edge. I would imagine they would use either stealth strike fighters (either F-22s or F-35s) and/or high-altitude B-2 strikes above enemy SAM range.

The movie handwaves around this saying they are "jamming GPS signals" at the site and thus they need to use laser-guided bombs to hit the target. Umm, okay? The F-35 can carry laser-guided bombs. I'm not sure it is quite that easy to make the most advanced aircraft in the world totally useless, as well.

In reality, if this were a real operation, I would imagine...

-- Joint operation, because everything is because everybody wants a piece of the action so they can point to their "essential role" when it comes time to make the budget for next year.
-- Probably still a USAF-led operation with F-35s or B-2s to strike the facility with F-22s providing air cover. Mid-air refueling means a lack of local airbases isn't going to be a problem for them.
-- Navy still might have a role with cruiser- or sub-launched cruise missiles to suppress enemy air defenses, electronic warfare/jamming and AWACs coverage from EF-18s and E-2s, respectively, and probably having search and rescue offshore ready to go in case anything happens to the aircraft on the strike.
-- Probably some sort of cyber warfare element to further suppress enemy air defenses.

I get it, Maverick is fun, not serious, but no way that operation is planned as it was.

 

[wxman1]

Well if you want to bark up that tree...

There is no way that military planners would task either Hornets or Super Hornets for this raid. They're fine, far from obsolete, but they're far from the cutting edge. I would imagine they would use either stealth strike fighters (either F-22s or F-35s) and/or high-altitude B-2 strikes above enemy SAM range.

The movie handwaves around this saying they are "jamming GPS signals" at the site and thus they need to use laser-guided bombs to hit the target. Umm, okay? The F-35 can carry laser-guided bombs. I'm not sure it is quite that easy to make the most advanced aircraft in the world totally useless, as well.

In reality, if this were a real operation, I would imagine...

-- Joint operation, because everything is because everybody wants a piece of the action so they can point to their "essential role" when it comes time to make the budget for next year.
-- Probably still a USAF-led operation with F-35s or B-2s to strike the facility with F-22s providing air cover. Mid-air refueling means a lack of local airbases isn't going to be a problem for them.
-- Navy still might have a role with cruiser- or sub-launched cruise missiles to suppress enemy air defenses, electronic warfare/jamming and AWACs coverage from EF-18s and E-2s, respectively, and probably having search and rescue offshore ready to go in case anything happens to the aircraft on the strike.
-- Probably some sort of cyber warfare element to further suppress enemy air defenses.

I get it, Maverick is fun, not serious, but no way that operation is planned as it was.

I am just glad they used a FAC.

There would 10000% have been UAVs involved as well.

 

[motorcy90]

Well if you want to bark up that tree...

There is no way that military planners would task either Hornets or Super Hornets for this raid. They're fine, far from obsolete, but they're far from the cutting edge. I would imagine they would use either stealth strike fighters (either F-22s or F-35s) and/or high-altitude B-2 strikes above enemy SAM range.

The movie handwaves around this saying they are "jamming GPS signals" at the site and thus they need to use laser-guided bombs to hit the target. Umm, okay? The F-35 can carry laser-guided bombs. I'm not sure it is quite that easy to make the most advanced aircraft in the world totally useless, as well.
-- Probably still a USAF-led operation with F-35s or B-2s to strike the facility with F-22s providing air cover. Mid-air refueling means a lack of local airbases isn't going to be a problem for them.
-- Navy still might have a role with cruiser- or sub-launched cruise missiles to suppress enemy air defenses, electronic warfare/jamming and AWACs coverage from EF-18s and E-2s, respectively, and probably having search and rescue offshore ready to go in case anything happens to the aircraft on the strike.

I get it, Maverick is fun, not serious, but no way that operation is planned as it was.

I think the main part about using Super Hornets was having the RIO in back able to paint the target with the lazer and focus on that, while the pilot flew and only focused on the flight profile in and out. But yes spot on for the whole other aspects.

 

[Sigmapolis]

I am just glad they used a FAC.

There would 10000% have been UAVs involved as well.

I was assuming a crewed mission. After all, one of the thematic elements of Maverick is computers can never quite replicate human intuition and pilots solve far more problems than they cause.

You are quite right, though, that even a crewed mission under my parameters is going to have UAVs involved for reconnaissance and perhaps even to perform the strike (or at least elements of it like cratering an enemy runway). They are kind of ubiquitous on any modern battlefield, like over Ukraine.

I think the main part about using Super Hornets was having the RIO in back able to paint the target with the lazer and focus on that, while the pilot flew and only focused on the flight profile in and out. But yes spot on for the whole other aspects.

I think the real reason they used F-18s instead of F-35s in the movie was because they wanted the actors in the actual fighters -- in the backseat acting while the actual pilot was in front driving it.

That's impossible in an F-35 as a single-seater. I don't think Tom Cruise can fly one.



The F-35 has onboard the capabilities given to the F-18 with its external LANTIRN pod (which the movie showed a couple of times). I am no great expert in the particulars here, but I do not see why F-35s could not have done their own target/targeting for a buddy in pairs or used targeting by a drone.

So yes, the setup makes sense if you're forced to use F-18s but... why would you be?

For a dangerous and essential mission like that one, there are more capable aircraft.

 

[BryceC]

Well if you want to bark up that tree...

There is no way that military planners would task either Hornets or Super Hornets for this raid. They're fine, far from obsolete, but they're far from the cutting edge. I would imagine they would use either stealth strike fighters (either F-22s or F-35s) and/or high-altitude B-2 strikes above enemy SAM range.

The movie handwaves around this saying they are "jamming GPS signals" at the site and thus they need to use laser-guided bombs to hit the target. Umm, okay? The F-35 can carry laser-guided bombs. I'm not sure it is quite that easy to make the most advanced aircraft in the world totally useless, as well.

In reality, if this were a real operation, I would imagine...

-- Joint operation, because everything is because everybody wants a piece of the action so they can point to their "essential role" when it comes time to make the budget for next year.
-- Probably still a USAF-led operation with F-35s or B-2s to strike the facility with F-22s providing air cover. Mid-air refueling means a lack of local airbases isn't going to be a problem for them.
-- Navy still might have a role with cruiser- or sub-launched cruise missiles to suppress enemy air defenses, electronic warfare/jamming and AWACs coverage from EF-18s and E-2s, respectively, and probably having search and rescue offshore ready to go in case anything happens to the aircraft on the strike.
-- Probably some sort of cyber warfare element to further suppress enemy air defenses.

I get it, Maverick is fun, not serious, but no way that operation is planned as it was.

I am 100% serious, please never, ever, under any circumstances, watch a movie with me.

 

[theshadow]

Did I miss the announcement that this movie was a poorly-executed documentary, or is CF just doing normal CF things?