Jump to content

Top Gun Maverick


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Awful, awful movie.

Not actual spoilers below. Well, MAYBE if you overthink what I am about to write. Small text is what you might not want to read.

Ward Carroll YouTube actually depicts a lot more. I would assume that you already watched it. As well as the commercials. They say most of it if you look closely.

 

Now, I was in SD for the premiere and have a video on how almighty Tom lands on the carrier and slides off of the back seat of the helicopter. Also I watched the movie last week. Money wasted. Got a poster and a pin. Gee.


So, before I start, TAKE A LOOK /and a good one PLEASE/ at the commercials seen on YouTube.

The one and only jet pilot Tom Cruise using BOTH hands putting his mask on, while the Super Hornet seemingly driven by AI roll itself leveling its wings.

That should be enough. If you want more, read below. If you want to keep everything a big surprise, STOP HERE. Anyhow, what I am about to write is already on the web for couple of days. This is the harsh reality:

 

Cobras in Super Hornet, WTF? But we already knew that's coming.

 

A 2nd gen. fighter pilot, son of a fighter pilot killed in Tomcat comments on why Tomcat's wings are moving!?!!? WTF?? Insulting.

 

Columbia Shuttle destruction practically seen in an aircraft /and survived by its pilot/. What? Really? Insulting, especially to the victims.

Ridiculous advertisement from Lockheed Martin by the way. You'll see.

 

A misfit who almost nobody can stand besides Iceman stole a jet to show off and got away with it? Really? We all know Maverick is the worst pilot possible with that attitude from 1986 right? A pilot WOULD never act like he did in 1986 by the way. 

 

Bird strike killing an engine led to a crash, really? What about passenger planes? Do they fell of the sky like that too? Would that scene create some afterthoughts? No redundancy on the Super Hornet is what they are suggesting maybe?

 

Double Gun Mi-24 in CGI? Double???!!! Heh. Good one. Especially considering two perfectly good and flyable Mi-24Ds in Texas. No, no, this movie was done for IMAX, everything is real because Cruise says so. NO CGI, no fantasies. "There was no other way" he said. 

 

Roll rate of Super Hornet exaggerated. Expected. Same as in M:I famous helicopter scene.

 

33.3% higher G load on a Super Hornet /limit is 7.5/ survived by the plane seemingly without a problem. Oooweee! 

 

Many /probably most/ of the scenes are still shot using green screen. Expected. Watch carefully when you visit the theater. 

 

F/A-18 displayed on the ridiculous demo of the mission as an F-18? F, really? For a ground attack mission?

 

Callsigns seen on radar picture? Reaaaly?

 

Sailing scene? REAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALY?!???!?

 

I won't even start on admiral Kazansky.

For that I can say only one thing: F#ck whoever wrote this movie. F%ck Tom Cruise for letting this slide.

That was VERY insulting on EVERY possible level.

 

This was a joke. Mix of Iron Eagle II /remember there Operation Opera was hinted/ depicted in modern times with Super Hornets, with some mix from first Iron Eagle when the kid got his father on the runway and took off. Same basic ideas. 2022 realization. I rather watch Iron Eagle I and II. Some child memories at least. Doug Masters landing his Israeli F-16 to pick his father from the runway. Oh wait, it was an US F-16, but USAF refused to embarrass themselves and never gave the production its jets.

 

They ruined EVERYTHING. Moslty Cruise with his mentor complex and his stupid jokes. That was mission impossible in a jet fighter. Every single bullshi7 in MI can be seen again and again in TG Maverick.

Tony Scott absence was felt most of everything. Ridley should've taken over.

The film was shot in rushed sequence, disrupted scenes, slightly mixed story. Bad directing. I can go a lot deeper on that, but in short: expect the same movie as the first one, only worse. Sequences are identical. If you don't get it the first couple days, it will sink in time, trust me.


Complete disaster. 
Not if you enjoy M:I movies though. For me, after MI: 2, all else is bull$hit. But if you like those, you'll like this flop too.

 

Expect Director's cut, since some of the scenes seen on the YT commercials were missing.

 

P.S. Oh yes, Radios of F-14 are not working, greased young pilot doesn't know how to work them. Then the other greased young man appears seemingly OUT OF NOWHERE and then.... both planes are on the same frequency speeking shi7 to each other.

 

Cruise said that this was hitting a bullet with a bullet. Now I know for sure why they made American Psycho after him.

Please tune to 121.5. Suicide hotline.

Edited by Eagle Driver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least there are no F9F carrier crashes to stand in for F4F’s at Midway. I’m just looking forward to a comfy theatre seat, a bag of popcorn, a hot dog, a beer, and no one next to me (my Better Half has no interest in seeing it) for some time away from the shite going on IRW. What’s really worth seeing, in the US, is the Applebees commercial spoofing the original Ghostrider flyby sequences: it’s a hoot!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Dpgsbody55 said:

I saw it on Thursday and enjoyed it more than I thought I would.  Entertaining, but suspend any ideas you may have about authenticity.  The whole thing is amazingly far fetched. 

 

 

Cheers,

Michael

 

Hollywood? Reality?    I’ll still go see it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny to see that after all those decades some people are still hoping a Hollywood blockbuster could be reasonably realistic technically, historically and from a scenario perspective. Indeed, the full story is far-fetched to say the least. And for a very small minority such errors are unforgivable. But this is missing the whole point: it is only made to be an entertainment for the masses who have no clue about the way a jet plane flies, about Navy safety rules, etc, etc. Even if that story was plausible, it would not be possible to build it within the time length limits of a normal movie and ensure it would be understandable by John Doe. This already explains many clichés or deliberate inaccuracies. Tom Cruise is an entertainer who produces his own movies, nothing more. Such movies are products to be sold, not documentaries intended to learn something. To conclude, you can be assured that at least, in the end, the movie will be very profitable for the Navy (as the first film was).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...