Movie Debate #167: Top Gun

[Reed Rothchild | 9,967]

[Tulpa | 3,725]

Top Gun 1986

Nine year old me: 100/10! OMG, USA! USA!

Me now: It's all right. The dogfights, both training and the real ones, are still fun to watch. The romance is forgettable. The lines are cheezy and classic at the same time. The volleyball scene was cringy then and is still cringy now. 

It's a cut above most action flicks of the era, and still a fun time.

Maverick

In some ways better than Top Gun, and other ways still has some things that need to be ironed out. It does that remake/long removed sequel thing where it goes "hey, remember this from the original?" (nudge, nudge), but it's not as bad as other movies in that regard. The characters that are analogs from the original (Hangman, Rooster) could have used more nuance rather than just be copies. The romance again is forgettable. Seeing Iceman as Maverick's friend/mentor now was cool. 

With all the superhero and spy thriller action films, this one kind of stands apart the way the original did. And it's a fun time. 

Edited August 7 by Tulpa

[Gloves | 12,283]

Never seen any Top Gun. 

[Reed Rothchild | 9,967]

12 minutes ago, Gloves said:

Never seen any Top Gun. 

But have you seen the Canadian* Top Gun?

 

 

*The director is Canadian so I'm going with it

[TDIRunner | 2,922]

I enjoyed the original, but I was probably a little too young to really love it, and rewatching it as an adult I find it to be good, but not awesome.  I really enjoyed the sequel and was lucky enough to see it in the theater.  I definitely enjoy the second one much more.  

Edited August 8 by TDIRunner

[Tulpa | 3,725]

2 hours ago, Reed Rothchild said:

But have you seen the Canadian* Top Gun?

 

 

*The director is Canadian so I'm going with it

The two things I remember about the movie is 1) the USAF declined to be involved as the main plot involves a teen stealing a jet fighter, so the production got help from the Israeli Air Force (the bad guy jets are Israeli Kfirs) and 2) the obviously wooden models blown to bits to simulate shooting down an aircraft. 

[AstralSoul | 523]

The original is classic, great movie, and I didn't even see it for the first time til a couple years ago. 8/10

Maverick was alright. I hate when sequels try too hard to be or beat the original. It was unnecessary and I hate miles teller. But other than that it was an alright movie. 5/10

[G-type | 2,831]

seeing Maverick on a big Imax screen was like going on an rollercoaster ride.

[doner24 | 1,228]

4 for Top Gun, I put a 5 for Maverick thinking it was the Mel Gibson western Haven’t seen Top Gun Maverick. 

[Sumez | 3,168]

Watched Top Gun for the first time only last year when it dropped on Netflix. It's one of those movies you have heard about your entire life, but I never really had any excuse to actually watch it. Honestly it was only because I was interested in seeing Maverack, I wanted to catch up to the old one.

I can see why it's an iconic, memorable and even quotable movie. It really has that special 80s flair.

But at the same time... it's not a very good movie? Nothing particularly exciting ever happens, and it's mostly going through the motions. The forced love interest feels extremely awkward, and is never convincing for a second, which drags the movie down a lot.

[DarkTone | 1,016]

Still haven't watched this. 

[Tulpa | 3,725]

4 hours ago, Sumez said:

?Nothing particularly exciting ever happens

*planes explode*

Sumez: meh.

[Sumez | 3,168]

Planes exploding doesn't make a movie exciting to me, guilty as charged. I'm more interested in the story, I hope that's not too weird  

As far as action goes, the movie honestly doesn't have a whole lot of that either, though. Not that it needed it. It's more about the people.

Edited August 8 by Sumez

[Tulpa | 3,725]

13 minutes ago, Sumez said:

Planes exploding doesn't make a movie exciting to me, guilty as charged. I'm more interested in the story, I hope that's not too weird  

No, when you get down to it, the story is kinda basic and paint by numbers.

You have to understand that movie came out at the very height of the Reagan era Cold War. America was in a Mexican standoff with the Soviet Union, the Olympics where we kicked everyone's ass had just happened (we'll ignore the fact that the Soviet bloc boycotted), and movies didn't have to have global appeal to be successful, just American appeal. So a hyper patriotic movie with jet planes comes at the perfect time.

Also, it's had a fuckton of imitators since, but when it came out, nothing was like it. It's silly in hindsight, but at the time it was the perfect drug.

Yes, it is the poster child for American superficial indulgence, but goddam did we ever flex with it in the 80s.

*American flag flies behind Tulpa while a bald eagle with an M-16 zooms past*

Damnit, you made me all nostalgic for a really weird period of the past.

 

[Hammerfestus | 4,107]

This movie is mostly carried on Kenny Loggins’ shoulders.  

[Tulpa | 3,725]

Oh yeah, the soundtrack. Loggins, Berlin, Cheap Trick...

[JamesRobot | 6,038]

As a kid, Top Gun was up there.  Everybody wanted to be a jet fighter pilot after this movie came out, especially yours truly.  Dog fights, explosions in the sky, and it's all set to the Danger Zone soundtrack.  I think there was even some volleyball.  Then you had the Nintendo games to bolster the entire experience.  Badass 80s to the core.

And Maverick was a pretty great more-of-the-same-decades-later sequel.  Definitely a theater movie experience.  I think that one had some volleyball too.  

I'm at 7 overall for both after setting aside all the hype and nostalgia.  Both coulda used more lightsabers.

And since Reed brought it up, Iron Eagle is the superior movie.  And I know I'm wrong, but I totally remember Danger Zone being a part of that soundtrack too.  That song should be in every aerial action movie.

[Tulpa | 3,725]

8 hours ago, JamesRobot said:

And since Reed brought it up, Iron Eagle is the superior movie.  

I just rewatched some highlights on Archive.org of that one. It's every cheesy action cliche in one movie.

I can see why you hold it in high esteem.  

[Gentlegamer | 228]

Don't look up Kelly McGillis now/10

[Sumez | 3,168]

17 hours ago, Tulpa said:

movies didn't have to have global appeal to be successful, just American appeal. So a hyper patriotic movie with jet planes comes at the perfect time.

Dude, Top Gun was super popular globally  

[Tulpa | 3,725]

8 hours ago, Sumez said:

Dude, Top Gun was super popular globally  

i know, but nowadays movies are made with a global audience in mind, or at least China in mind, because the global box office is now paramount. Back then, studios didn't give a fuck about  anything but what Americans liked, because they were mainly looking at US box office. If it did well globally, that was a bonus.

It just so happens the rest of the world also liked American jets shooting down Russian proxy jets.

Edited August 9 by Tulpa

[wongojack | 322]

These are the greatest advertisements for the US Navy ever made. 

The romance is non-existent or even strangely abusive - The original is certainly not ready for 2024.  But somehow these are both still freaking awesome.  I think it is because the movies know what they want to be, and they don't really try to take the audience too far in a direction they shouldn't.  Also, I'm not a cinematography guy, but these both seem to have some pretty incredible practical shots of jet aircraft in action.  That's not something you get to see every day.  I'm voting TG1 9 and TG2 8.

Also - holy sh!+

Edited August 9 by wongojack

[Tulpa | 3,725]

Yeah, the Navy actually put recruitment booths outside of movie theaters to sign up dudes who were pumped from seeing it. That's so cynically despicable it's beautiful.  

[fox | 1,777]

I like how Maverick’s mission is just straight up the trench run from Star Wars

Why couldn’t we get a Rogue Squadron movie?  Top Gun in space, it writes itself.

[FireHazard51 | 2,105]

On 8/7/2024 at 4:00 PM, Tulpa said:

The two things I remember about the movie is 1) the USAF declined to be involved as the main plot involves a teen stealing a jet fighter, so the production got help from the Israeli Air Force (the bad guy jets are Israeli Kfirs) and 2) the obviously wooden models blown to bits to simulate shooting down an aircraft. 

Holy shit, I didn't know USAF didn't do this movie.  Also, it is crazy laughable that a teen could steal a fighter jet from USAF.  I totally get why they turned it down.  US military has some strict requirements in that the US military always has to be shown in a good light for them to offer participation in a movie production.

I need to re-watch this movie.  Also I'm going to be pissed if there are no Canadian accents in it.