Top Gun 2

If you feel you absolutely must talk about cars, morality, or anything else not related to the F-16, do it here.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2049
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post04 Jun 2018, 16:36

Tiger05 wrote:Meh. The real star of 'Top Gun' was the F-14, not Tom Cruise. A sequel without the Tomcat is pretty pointless to me. Instead it seems the rather boring and underwhelming Subpar Hornet will be the featured aircraft. Yuck. Sorry but the F/A-18 (any versions) simply doesnt have the mystique and presence the Tomcat has.


I disagree.
IMO, what made the F-14 so "popular" was exactly the Top Gun movie and not the other way around!
For example, if Top Gun was made featuring F/A-18s instead of F-14s than IMO, the Hornet would be the "popular fighter aircraft" and not the F-14.
And what made Top Gun so "popular" has a movie was a mix of a "cheesy" elements which were so "popular" in the 1980's and other elements such as an appealing (IMO) mix of soundtrack with movie scenes, and yes, Tom Cruise (like it or not) helped A LOT!

For example, Top Gun was very popular for the boys due to the fighter aircraft scenes (doesn't matter much which aircraft(s) was(were) featured in) and the soundtracks coupled with these scenes while it was very popular for the chicks due to Tom Cruise and the "Take my Breath Away" soundtrack.

Tiger05 wrote:And why does a sequel even need to made? Too much time has passed and Tom Cruise is now in his mid-fifties... a bit old to still play a fighter jock. Last but not least, i have zero faith in Hollywood's ability to produce a decent sequel that will live up to its predecessor. Expect a CGI crapfest, nonsensical plot and full of political correcteness. No thanks. Sorry for the negativity but i am just being realistic. :|


Well, I believe that there's a very big chance that you could be right with this last part of yours.
But again, time will tell...
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

Tiger05

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 84
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 15:55

Unread post04 Jun 2018, 19:15

ricnunes wrote:I disagree.
IMO, what made the F-14 so "popular" was exactly the Top Gun movie and not the other way around!
For example, if Top Gun was made featuring F/A-18s instead of F-14s than IMO, the Hornet would be the "popular fighter aircraft" and not the F-14.
And what made Top Gun so "popular" has a movie was a mix of a "cheesy" elements which were so "popular" in the 1980's and other elements such as an appealing (IMO) mix of soundtrack with movie scenes, and yes, Tom Cruise (like it or not) helped A LOT!

For example, Top Gun was very popular for the boys due to the fighter aircraft scenes (doesn't matter much which aircraft(s) was(were) featured in) and the soundtracks coupled with these scenes while it was very popular for the chicks due to Tom Cruise and the "Take my Breath Away" soundtrack.


Maybe. But i think that the F-14 already had a certain aura even before "Top Gun":

1. It was the latest fighter of the famous Grumman 'Cats' (Wildcat, Hellcat, Bearcat, Tigercat...) series that dated back to WWII.
2. It had made headlines a few years before when it downed two Libyan Su-22s during the Gulf of Sidra incident (first US air-to-air victories since Vietnam)
3. It had appeared in another major Hollywood movie ("The Final Countdown" in 1981) where it had played a prominent role. Remember the legendary scene where two Japanese A6M Zeros are downed by two Jolly Rogers F-14As? :)
4. and perhaps the most obvious: the Tomcat looked so damn cool and intimidating. 8)

Appearing as the star aircraft in "Top Gun" only cemented the F-14's iconic status IMO. The F/A-18 however has been around for a hell of a long time and nobody really cared about it even though it appeared in at least two major movies too ("Independence Day", "Behind Enemy Lines"). Hell, the Legacy Hornet was recently retired from frontline service by the USN in nearly total indifference... That says it all really.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5562
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post05 Jun 2018, 08:53

In my opinion the F-14 Tomcat combined with Top Gun the movie was a "perfect storm". Which, is why it was such a hit! 8)
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2769
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post05 Jun 2018, 13:06

I think Tomcat suited the movie also because they were two-seater aircraft and made natural two-man team with Goose and Maverick. Of course it would be possible to plot a team with single-seat fighters, but IMO with two-seater it becomes more natural.

I think modern Top Gun would be quite interesting to make both remotely realistic and interesting to watch. Maybe some kind of modern Attack on Pearl Harbor variation with a lot of enemy smart UCAVs, cruise/ballistic missiles and some stealthy aircraft (use them like Boss monsters from video games). These could be used for some very intense battle scenes and impressive CGI moments. Good guys could have a handful of F-35Cs and some banged up Super Hornets at hand. Enemy could also have nasty SAM umberella for Good guys to deal with. Enemy ship VLS firing large numbers of SAMs at Good guys would be visually impressive and would create some nice action.

I think electronic and cyber warfare could also be pretty easily used to create kind of scary and paranoid atmosphere especially before the actual combat scenes.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2049
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post05 Jun 2018, 14:27

Tiger05 wrote:Maybe. But i think that the F-14 already had a certain aura even before "Top Gun":

1. It was the latest fighter of the famous Grumman 'Cats' (Wildcat, Hellcat, Bearcat, Tigercat...) series that dated back to WWII.
2. It had made headlines a few years before when it downed two Libyan Su-22s during the Gulf of Sidra incident (first US air-to-air victories since Vietnam)
3. It had appeared in another major Hollywood movie ("The Final Countdown" in 1981) where it had played a prominent role. Remember the legendary scene where two Japanese A6M Zeros are downed by two Jolly Rogers F-14As? :)
4. and perhaps the most obvious: the Tomcat looked so damn cool and intimidating. 8)


You may have a point here.
Your point 4. is of special interest namely because of one of the F-14 design features: Sweep Wings. I remember quite well that Sweep Wings were very popular in the 1980's and got the attention of people back in the 1980's more or less as super-maneuverability and/or Stealth gets people's attention nowadays.
I remember that Tornado, F-111 and the Mig-23 were quite popular in the 1980's and IMO it was also due to having Sweep Wings, otherwise they would be "rather uninteresting" aircraft even back in the 1980's.

Of course the F-14 took the Sweep Wing concept to another level since it was coupled with other "powerful" features such as powerful radar and missiles (Phoenix) and "sexy lines".


Tiger05 wrote:Appearing as the star aircraft in "Top Gun" only cemented the F-14's iconic status IMO. The F/A-18 however has been around for a hell of a long time and nobody really cared about it even though it appeared in at least two major movies too ("Independence Day", "Behind Enemy Lines"). Hell, the Legacy Hornet was recently retired from frontline service by the USN in nearly total indifference... That says it all really.


Here, I believe you are underplaying the F/A-18's popularity a lot and perhaps putting things out of context a bit.
First, obviously that the Hornet didn't feature in any movie similar to "top gun" and the reason is IMO quite simple: No other "Top Gun" kind of movie was released ever since.
Nevertheless the movies that you pointed out "Independence Day" and "Behind Enemy Lines" seems to somehow prove something that I read in an aircraft magazine back in the early 1990's - The Hornet (legacy of course) was probably the most popular fighter aircraft in the USA in that timeframe (early 1990's).
The Hornet had its very big share of appealing and popularity namely of which, being probably the first true Multi-role aircraft when it came up (capable of all sort of Air-to-Ground missions and Air-to-Air missions including BVR combat) which was proven in real combat during Desert Storm when two F/A-18Cs while conducting an air-to-ground mission, shot down two intercepting Migs without ever releasing their bomb load and then proceeded to attack the intended ground target also successfully - If I'm not mistaken this was the first time that something like this happened in the history of aerial warfare.

Regarding the Legacy Hornet being retired from frontline service without fanfare, there are these IMO quite valid reasons:
1- The Legacy Hornet was "retired from frontline" but not "completely retired". This means that the Hornet is still in service (with the USN) namely with reserve squadrons or simplifying, the Legacy Hornet still hasn't been retired (I would say that they can return to carriers anytime when/if needed).
2- The Legacy Hornet was/is being replaced by Super Hornets and currently by F-35Cs as well. The point of being replaced by the Super Hornet is of special interest because if doesn't really matter how different both aircraft are (namely from the inside but also from the outside), the Super Hornet will always be perceived by the "general population" as a Hornet or a Hornet variant (note how you mentioned the "Behind Enemy Lines" movie - which features a Super Hornet and not a Legacy Hornet!) so the "Hornet" will be retired when the last Super Hornet and not the last Legacy Hornet will be retired - Then you'll most likely get the "Hornet retirement fanfare".
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2141
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post05 Jun 2018, 14:32

I wasn't alive in 86 so for folks who were, how do you compare it to the Raptor in terms of mystique in the public eye.

Regarding the F/A-18, Holywood has so far not done it justice in the movies were it was the "hero".

Behind Enemy lines - It didn't beat anything and it was blown to bits.
Independence Day - Wasn't really focused on air combat, it was more about the characters and aliens.

Topgun was all about the F-14, some can argue that the F-14 was the leading support character in that film,
The closest I can think of is Pacific Rim. That film was all about the Jagers. Look how popular that made Gypsy Danger and its not even a real thing.

But to be clear, I don't want TopGun to be a dumb robot film. I'd rather have them make it dark like Black Hawk Down.

Strange as it is, but I think Michael Bay can do it justice.
Just hear me out
I hate Transformers, all of them, maybe the 1st was good but the next 13 were horrible. HOWEVER the guy seems to make good war movies
-The Rock
-Pearl Harbor
-13 Hours
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2049
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post05 Jun 2018, 14:44

hornetfinn wrote:I think Tomcat suited the movie also because they were two-seater aircraft and made natural two-man team with Goose and Maverick. Of course it would be possible to plot a team with single-seat fighters, but IMO with two-seater it becomes more natural.


Agreed!
However I would say that a carefully thought plot could "easily" replace the "two-seater aircraft team(s)" part with an "air-to-ground" role/combat part.
For example the Top Gun's last combat scenario was a US cargo ship which became stranded near enemy lines (similar to a USS Pueblo or SS Mayaguez kind of incident?) and the F-14's were dispatched to provide air cover for the rescue operation.
I could easily see this performed (likely even better) with Hornets engaging enemy fighters while at around the same time attacking enemy gunboats trying to capture the cargo ship. :wink:

Anyway, I also agree with the last part of your post (which I didn't quoted above) in where there's "plenty of stuff" to make a Top Gun 2 similarly appealing today as Top Gun was in the 1980's, however (and here I kind of share Tiger05 opinion) I don't know if they'll manage to do it so...
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2769
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post06 Jun 2018, 08:29

ricnunes wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:I think Tomcat suited the movie also because they were two-seater aircraft and made natural two-man team with Goose and Maverick. Of course it would be possible to plot a team with single-seat fighters, but IMO with two-seater it becomes more natural.


Agreed!
However I would say that a carefully thought plot could "easily" replace the "two-seater aircraft team(s)" part with an "air-to-ground" role/combat part.
For example the Top Gun's last combat scenario was a US cargo ship which became stranded near enemy lines (similar to a USS Pueblo or SS Mayaguez kind of incident?) and the F-14's were dispatched to provide air cover for the rescue operation.
I could easily see this performed (likely even better) with Hornets engaging enemy fighters while at around the same time attacking enemy gunboats trying to capture the cargo ship. :wink:

Anyway, I also agree with the last part of your post (which I didn't quoted above) in where there's "plenty of stuff" to make a Top Gun 2 similarly appealing today as Top Gun was in the 1980's, however (and here I kind of share Tiger05 opinion) I don't know if they'll manage to do it so...


Totally agree. I think they'd need script writers and director who really is into military stuff and also professional technical and military assistants to make it both fairly realistic and a decent and popular movie too. Especially if they could get help from USAF, USN or USMC like they did for first one, then it might be possible.

I'm imagining scenes of being at the receiving end of cruise and ballistic missile volleys or long range SAM systems from the Bad Guys. Some ships getting hit by anti ship missiles or torpedoes. I think the tough part would be to make decent plot and characters for the movie. Who would be the Bad Guys and what would be their motives and goals. Would they have J-21s, Su-58s or Grippens? :wink:
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2049
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post06 Jun 2018, 14:54

hornetfinn wrote:I'm imagining scenes of being at the receiving end of cruise and ballistic missile volleys or long range SAM systems from the Bad Guys. Some ships getting hit by anti ship missiles or torpedoes. I think the tough part would be to make decent plot and characters for the movie. Who would be the Bad Guys and what would be their motives and goals. Would they have J-21s, Su-58s or Grippens? :wink:


Well, regarding the "Bad Guys" they could always use the North Koreans with modern Hardware/weaponry since they received secret help from Russia, China and Iran... Ooops, this was already done :mrgreen:

More seriously, I guess that regarding the "Bad Guys" they could repeat the same formula from the first movie - Use an "unnamed enemy" which in the end we all had a clue who it was (Red Starts and all...).

The plot that you mentioned would IMO be very appealing indeed, however there's a added level of difficulty to it which I hope they can implement well - The use (and rather heavy use) of CGI (Computer-generated imagery). I just hope that they can master this well and make a perfect balance between real footage and CGI.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2141
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post06 Jun 2018, 15:54

What are the chances that we see a mass scale conflict spanning months or even years?

See, I think the TopGun 1 drew inspiration from the Gulf of Sidra incident which happened just a few years before. It was a small skirmish and nothing more.

Today whats the most recent Naval air to air engagement? that Rhino shoot down of a Su-22 right.

So hopefully we get a story where there is an ongoing war.
Maverick may even have an Ace Pilot Rival in the enemy ranks who is a legendary pilot just like him. A survivor of the 1986 engagement who swore to get his revenge against Maverick. IIRC they did not shoot everyone down, 2 of the Mig-28s bugged out. Maybe also some beef between him and another Ace in the USAF or another Airforce like the ISDF or RAF. they're all competing on who gets to kill the legendary enemy Ace who is out to get Maverick.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2141
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post01 Jul 2018, 15:06

So who would play LTJG Nick “Goose” Bradshaw (Goose's son) best
https://theaviationist.com/2018/06/28/t ... heme-song/

The frontrunners are Nicholas Hoult, Glen Powell and Miles Teller.”


TheAviationist.com, the plot for “Top Gun: Maverick” will likely introduce dramatic conflict between the world of traditional manned-fighter aircraft like the F-14 Tomcats (made famous in the original film) and their more modern replacements and the emerging role of Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) or “drones” like the U.S. Navy’s new X-47B experimental remotely piloted aircraft and the Navy’s giant MQ-4C Triton UAVs.


The plot seems stupid, there is no competition between manned platforms and UAV's yet, I hope they don't make any fictional high G capable air superiority drone ala STEALTH. Keep it realistic, a little stretch is okay,
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2769
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post02 Jul 2018, 11:01

If this movie is to be kept fairly realistic and interesting, I'd go for some local conflict with America-class amphibious assault ship with F-35Bs and some supporting ships. Maybe use VMA-311 for reference to original movie... :D
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2241
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post02 Jul 2018, 13:07

With the crazy way aircraft manufacturers have aggressively pursued the rights to royalties for displaying their products in movies and on toy lines, would Boeing torpedo anything that put F/A-18E/F is a negative light? From a fan perspective I want an exciting movies, which comes from anything from beautiful backdrops and great music, to imaginative stunts, to unexpected turns of events. I'd settle for something on the level of Les Chevaliers du ciel (Sky Fighters) with a dramatic twist at the end that leaves open room for Top Gun 3. It would even be awesome to see Maverick learning his lessons during a Red Flag before taking them out to sea so to speak. Nellis is the perfect place to mix all sorts of aircraft without putting any of them in a negative light.
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 644
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post03 Jul 2018, 01:23

madrat wrote:would Boeing torpedo anything that put F/A-18E/F is a negative light?

I mean, Behind Enemy Lines is a thing...
"You could do that, but it would be wrong."
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2241
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post03 Jul 2018, 02:29

rheonomic wrote:
madrat wrote:would Boeing torpedo anything that put F/A-18E/F is a negative light?

I mean, Behind Enemy Lines is a thing...

The movie took place in 1995, long before Super Hornet was available.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0159273/goofs
PreviousNext

Return to Off-topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest