Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
Top Gun Maverick: Review hopefully no major spoilers
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="L8APEX" data-source="post: 16779824" data-attributes="member: 51947"><p>I haven't seen a fictional movie that I've enjoyed as much as this movie in a very long time. Decades.</p><p>Is it 100% accurate, no. But much better than the original as they had the Navy give them guidance they actually followed to get the coolest video and aircraft visuals possible. It'd be very boring if they went combat spread etc. The TLAMs altitude and speed passing the flight with rockets for the launch pase still cooking made me roll my eyes, but it looked cooler than them passing groups of a turbofan powered cruise missiles like a slower car on the interstate that are intentionally hard to see. They even screwed up the sailing equating the raising of the spinnaker/ flying it to an afterburner. It's a Hollywood movie, the pre woke summer blockbuster variety that you love and in a few years when it's on cable you'll see it on you turn it on and watch, as it's essentially aviation porn.</p><p>They wanted to use the F-35C originally but the Navy was not comfortable filming of such a sensitive airframe, thus the F/A-18E/F Super hornets took the top spot.</p><p></p><p>They brought only enough of the original back as needed to reward those that waited 36 years (that they got so right) without using nostalgia as a crutch (some eastereggs that many will miss.</p><p>This "throwaway" being one. [MEDIA=youtube]dMpGhcbUu0A[/MEDIA] )</p><p>They assume you have seen the original build on the story from '86 and even the actors real life struggles to create a bookend that is a fitting way to tie things up. </p><p>You'll laugh, you'll cry (missing man gets me everytime) but be blown away with the cinematography. This is meant to be seen on the biggest screen possible. </p><p></p><p>The original had the best Soundtrack, but this may be the better movie.</p><p></p><p>They left enough threads to make a 3rd Top Gun possible, but even Rooster would be past the point of flying being he was 3-4 in '86. I think a third would be a disservice as the 2 balance with each other so well. They allready said this sequel was like trying to hit a bullet with a bullet. To do it right a 3rd time would be practically impossible. Spiritual successors could work though.</p><p></p><p>So watch the original, listen to the original soundtrack in your toy car the next week (I have it in both cars saved to the hard drive.) then see the sequel in imax.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sent from my S22 Ultra using Tapatalk</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="L8APEX, post: 16779824, member: 51947"] I haven't seen a fictional movie that I've enjoyed as much as this movie in a very long time. Decades. Is it 100% accurate, no. But much better than the original as they had the Navy give them guidance they actually followed to get the coolest video and aircraft visuals possible. It'd be very boring if they went combat spread etc. The TLAMs altitude and speed passing the flight with rockets for the launch pase still cooking made me roll my eyes, but it looked cooler than them passing groups of a turbofan powered cruise missiles like a slower car on the interstate that are intentionally hard to see. They even screwed up the sailing equating the raising of the spinnaker/ flying it to an afterburner. It's a Hollywood movie, the pre woke summer blockbuster variety that you love and in a few years when it's on cable you'll see it on you turn it on and watch, as it's essentially aviation porn. They wanted to use the F-35C originally but the Navy was not comfortable filming of such a sensitive airframe, thus the F/A-18E/F Super hornets took the top spot. They brought only enough of the original back as needed to reward those that waited 36 years (that they got so right) without using nostalgia as a crutch (some eastereggs that many will miss. This "throwaway" being one. [MEDIA=youtube]dMpGhcbUu0A[/MEDIA] ) They assume you have seen the original build on the story from '86 and even the actors real life struggles to create a bookend that is a fitting way to tie things up. You'll laugh, you'll cry (missing man gets me everytime) but be blown away with the cinematography. This is meant to be seen on the biggest screen possible. The original had the best Soundtrack, but this may be the better movie. They left enough threads to make a 3rd Top Gun possible, but even Rooster would be past the point of flying being he was 3-4 in '86. I think a third would be a disservice as the 2 balance with each other so well. They allready said this sequel was like trying to hit a bullet with a bullet. To do it right a 3rd time would be practically impossible. Spiritual successors could work though. So watch the original, listen to the original soundtrack in your toy car the next week (I have it in both cars saved to the hard drive.) then see the sequel in imax. Sent from my S22 Ultra using Tapatalk [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
Top Gun Maverick: Review hopefully no major spoilers
Top