Top Gun 2: Greatest Cinematic Event of the New Millennium

[TormundsWoman]

1 hour ago, Rhom said:

It was Cruise talking directly to the audience.  Ran after the trailers and before the movie.

I’m sure they feel they need to encourage people to come back to the theaters. Many are hesitant or just wait for streaming services to pick up the new releases. Cruise seems to be an old timer in that regard and prefer his movies to be on the big screen. Cannot blame him.

[TormundsWoman]

4 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Apparently the Chinese censors have a problem with a patch or a sticker related to Taiwan or something.

Seven help us. They actually saw a Taiwan sticker on prop they didn’t approve of?

I must research this. Sounds insane. I’d have thought it’s because we once again see the might of the US Navy winning an aerial fight against some other unnamed country that looks to have nuclear power that the Chinese won’t approve of, not some sticker thingy but whatever…

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

2 hours ago, TormundsWoman said:

Seven help us. They actually saw a Taiwan sticker on prop they didn’t approve of?

I must research this. Sounds insane. I’d have thought it’s because we once again see the might of the US Navy winning an aerial fight against some other unnamed country that looks to have nuclear power that the Chinese won’t approve of, not some sticker thingy but whatever…

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jun/01/top-gun-maverick-sparks-joy-in-taiwan-after-its-flag-features-on-tom-cruise-jacket

[Veltigar]

I know it is crazy to be so happy about a multi-millionaire actor with weird cult ties succeeding, but I’m pleased to finally see a great film break the bank and bring so much joy to people :D

7 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

That lines up with what Box office mojo are reporting. That figure is for the 4 days (Friday to Monday).

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl2500036097/?ref_=bo_hm_rd

 

What a legend!

2 hours ago, TormundsWoman said:

I’m sure they feel they need to encourage people to come back to the theaters. Many are hesitant or just wait for streaming services to pick up the new releases. Cruise seems to be an old timer in that regard and prefer his movies to be on the big screen. Cannot blame him.

In the end, there really is nothing out there that can beat the movie theatre experience. Especially for this type of big action film.

Between this and the latest Spider Man film I think I saw two great examples of the added advantage of the collective experience of going to the movies. 
 

13 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jun/01/top-gun-maverick-sparks-joy-in-taiwan-after-its-flag-features-on-tom-cruise-jacket

I have said it once, and I’ll say it again. What a legend. For too long Hollywood has been whoring itself out to Chinese censors, thereby undermining American soft power. I hope more film makers grow a spine like that.
 

 

 

 

[Lord Varys]

The movie was pretty good. Although Mark Hamill is the one who made that flight and destroyed the Rogue Nation's Death Star, not Tom Cruise.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

2 hours ago, Veltigar said:

I know it is crazy to be so happy about a multi-millionaire actor with weird cult ties succeeding, but I’m pleased to finally see a great film break the bank and bring so much joy to people

It's crazy. I've actually bee racking my brain thinking about just why this movie works so well. It isn't just a movie I like, It's a movie I like liking.

1st: It's a very "non-sequel"; in the sense that it very much stands on its own. You really don't need to see the first film at all to get into this one. There's enough exposition and flashbacks (that conveniently don't have to use de-aging technology) that you're largely up to speed by the end of act one.

2nd:  Being a "non-sequel", it's a refreshing change to the current CMB and franchise stuff that dominates the box office. IMO, that stuff is is largely tapped out creatively. People watch that stuff now like they watch a soap opera. "What happens in the next chapter?" or "What character will they introduce next?". TG:M on he other hand, doesn't rely on Easter eggs, fan-service,  or throw away cameos. The humor a bit low key but it's genuinely funny and not some Whedon-esque punch-up (which is also getting tired). 

3rd: No endless debates about canon or comic accuracy or being true to the source material. 

ETA: not being a CBM or existing franchise film, it was also not really on the radar of the scoop or movie spoiler/speculation economy. Jesus Christ, that's refreshing. 

4th: The action scenes are incredibly well done. They have a dramatic arc all their own. There is probably a lot more CGI in this film than people realize (eg, the scenes with the SAMs) but it's mixed with a good deal of live action stuff and blended seamlessly. You can feel the G's. The sound mix helps this also. And, I'll say again, the last 40 minutes of the film are intense. Maybe Dunkirk and Triple Frontier are the only films I've seen recently that come close to that. 

There have been comments about actors in actual planes. There is a shot in the film where you can actually see Tom Cruises face turn to pudding in response to some aerial maneuver. It's either the "2:15" run or the actual attack. He has his mask on so you can't see his jowels die but you definitely see his eyelids go wonky and his cheeks deflate. Stunning. 

5th: it's extremely well made. There is a serious attention to craft on display. I'll reiterate: likely Oscar noms for film editing and VFX, with a possible win for the latter. 

Edited June 2, 2022 by Deadlines? What Deadlines?

[WarGalley]

I thought it was funny that even in a Top Gun 2 movie there was the full screen shot of Tom Cruise running. He didn’t do that in the original or in any of the 80s movies or even the original Mission Impossible movie. Feel like he’s now just always trying to push limits in a scene even when it’s not entirely necessary.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

7 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

I understood that reference.

The shot made it because Cruise kept going as he didn't want to re-do the scene.

 

Pussy.

 

[DireWolfSpirit]

Got a kick out of my dad's reaction when we told him he would enjoy seeing this TG2.

Apparently he thinks Cruise is a really "awful guy and in that cult", lol.

I'm thinking to myself, "But dad aren't you a Methodist, of the whole blood drinking and flesh consuming clan?"

[dbunting]

12 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Got a kick out of my dad's reaction when we told him he would enjoy seeing this TG2.

Apparently he thinks Cruise is a really "awful guy and in that cult", lol.

I'm thinking to myself, "But dad aren't you a Methodist, of the whole blood drinking and flesh consuming clan?"

lol, but that's his cult, that's different!

[dbunting]

15 hours ago, WarGalley said:

I thought it was funny that even in a Top Gun 2 movie there was the full screen shot of Tom Cruise running. He didn’t do that in the original or in any of the 80s movies or even the original Mission Impossible movie. Feel like he’s now just always trying to push limits in a scene even when it’s not entirely necessary.

He heard that there is young actress in Obi-Wan who runs a lot so he wanted to remind us that he can too!

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

Not to get bogged down in box office mambo jambo, but according to Box Office Mojo, TG:M's 6 day domestic cume is ahead of The Batman and is within spitting distance of Dr. Strange 2, which had a considerably stronger opening weekend. 

It's worth mentioning that The Batman was a 3 hour long movie; fewer screenings per day, etc. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

Movie Maker Valhalla, Mellon Farmer!!!

 

[BigFatCoward]

Lowest drop off for a 100 million dollar opening film ever (32%). Its got serious legs. 

[polishgenius]

Not bad. That's two great nationalistic-but-awesome epically manly emotional action epics to hit in May 2022. 



Also was a better long sequel to Star Wars than The Force Awakens was. 

[Zorral]

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/06/03/tom-cruise-top-gun-maverick-00036897

 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

Lack of a China opening will hurt it internationally, but if the second weekend estimates are correct, it's on track to beat Dr Strange 2 domestically. 

Dr Strange 2 is weird. It opened in 4500 theaters domestically and didn't start shedding screens until the beginning of its 4th week. It has a 74% rating on the tomato meter but it's average critics score is 6.5/10, which suggest a lot of, "Meh, it's OK" reviews. I haven't seen it so I won't comment, but is this just franchise momentum? The thing'll probably cross a billion globally.

[Raja]

Caught this on IMAX and I'm glad I did!

The Good: The visuals are fantastic, and it's a lot of fun watching the planes fly around and the dog fighting. They convince you that it's actually these actors flying these planes. Plus, watching this in IMAX made it even better and some of the sequences with the plane were stunning. I think the core story of focusing on Goose's son & maverick is also a good choice and the emotional core of the movie is one that I find believable and did resonate with me.

The Bad: I had absolutely zero interest in everything that had to do with Jenniffer Connelly, her daughter or any of that stuff. She's a paper thin character, which is fine, I don't really expect much in a movie like this. All that time could have been spent with the pilots, or maybe Jon Hamm etc. I don't think her character, or her daughter, add anything to the movie  and we could have used that time to get to know the other characters in the film. This isn't the fault of Connelly, who does what she can with what she has, but on the writers for not really making her a compelling character, or at least one we cared about.

I don't think the movie takes any risks per se, creatively, following a similar structure to the first one, which I think is it's biggest flaw. 

Lastly, I think one of my issues is that the 'enemy', in this case is a faceless entity, allows us to not think about them too much, but we all know life isn't like that but painting the enemy in that way makes the whole thing fell like a simulation, which robs the film of any sense of stakes.

Overall, I had fun and it's worth seeing in IMAX for sure, but I was a little disappointed that they didn't really push the envelope creatively at all, and it follows the trend of filmmakers not really taking chances when it comes to sequels. I

In addition, the whole thing sorta feels like a simulation, and the more I think about the aspect the less I like both films. However, the action sequences are worth the price of admission alone.

Edited June 7, 2022 by Raja

[Corvinus85]

12 minutes ago, Raja said:

In addition, the whole thing sorta feels like a simulation, and the more I think about the aspect the less I like both films. However, the action sequences are worth the price of admission alone.

heh

Spoiler

https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a40205289/top-gun-maverick-death-dream-fan-theory/

 

The first movie's antagonists were also faceless and in made up planes, too. In this case, at least, the planes were based on real ones without declaring them. *cough Russian *cough

[Raja]

2 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

heh

  Reveal hidden contents

https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a40205289/top-gun-maverick-death-dream-fan-theory/

 

Yeah, it doesn't take a lot of thought to figure out who they are supposed to be, but them being faceless makes it all seem like a simulation to me, thereby lowering the stakes of what's going on on screen.