To think Top Gun Maverick is only good because it’s so bad!

[Butterflyfluff]

Lighthearted!

I heard / read loads of great reviews about Top Gun Maverick but I couldn’t believe how bad it was!

It’s essentially the same film as the first one - I’m sure deliberately so but it became a parody of itself.

And, I know I’m over thinking this but

• Since when can people fighter planes wear glasses
• How can 4 jets fly in a row so closely together?
• How can they fly through a viaduct?

There were a couple of laughs in it and the ending was cheesy Hollywood at its finest but it was nowhere near as good as I expected.

God yeah, total cheese-fest. I didn’t want to go, not my thing, but went because a very poorly friend wanted to go and I’ve got to be honest, I did enjoy it!

I was massively underwhelmed. The ending was a cross between James Bond and Owen Wilson in behind enemy lines but so unbelievably unrealistic that it was laughable. There was no superhigh tense moment in the film to really grab onto as a highlight either.

Loved it, but probably best not to overthink it.

Jets do fly very close together at times, I live near lots of air bases. But it’s a great cheesy film.

I enjoyed it never been a Top Gun fan. It helped seeing it in 4DX and being thrown about everywhere 😂

Definitely best not to over think it but - that didn't stop me!!

I loved where on two occasions, someone said to TC that they didn't like the look on his face and he said it's the only one he has!!

The ending was a bit like the Disney movie, Planes where the broken old plane saves the day. The bit before was totally unrealistic, unbelievable.. but then so was the beginning.. no one survives a plane breaking up at infeasibly high speeds.

It is really annoying that they replaced the love interest....

It was brilliant fun.

It ticked all the boxes for me. I thought it was fab. It's meant to be tongue in cheek. I think they captured the 80s joy brilliantly.

It is really annoying that they replaced the love interest
Well they couldn't hardly force Kelly McGillis to return!

I loved it , seen it whilst in the US. In answer to your questions;

Since when can people fighter planes wear glasses. - not sure if they can or not, but havecseen many airline pilots with glasses.

How can 4 jets fly in a row so closely together? -Have you seen the red arrows?

How can they fly through a viaduct - Google hawker hunter tower bridge, an RAF pilot flew under it.

Enjoyed it. Thought it was fab.

All of the flying footage was from real planes, so yes they can fly close together and yes, they could fly through a viaduct if they needed to. The story was obviously as cheesy as hell but the actual flying is possible.

Don't talk mad. It was awesome.

Thank goodness I thought i was the only one who thought this 😂

Exactly this! It was one for the fans and I loved it!

Also, they didn't replace the love interest... in the first film, when in the bar with Goose and his wife mention is made of Maverick's fling with the admirals daughter "Penny", so in the new Maverick Penny is the one he had long history with.

1) Since when can people fighter planes wear glasses?

2) How can 4 jets fly in a row so closely together?

3) How can they fly through a viaduct?

1. This has long the case - correctable to 20/20 vision.

2. A lot of training and communication between the pilots! Ever seen the Red Arrows in formation?

3. As long as the parapets of the viaduct is wide enough for horizontal or sideways flying, its possible. The Super Hornet could fly through Glenfinnan viaduct sideways with some room for clearance since its 18 feet wide to the jet's ground to top tail of 16 feet.

Real planes are flown in Top Gun: Maverick. Seriously difficult stunts are done by trained military pilots.

If you think this film was the same as the first, I have to question if you actually were conscious watching it since there is nothing remotely the same in the story beats. Homage scenes (the opening carrier segment, the beach sports) are not remotely the same as “this is the first film, but it’s 2022”.

Also the guy with glasses was a WSO. And I know one who wears glasses in the RAF. You might have noticed he wasn’t a pilot, literally a whole scene about it.

It was just the escape I needed a few weeks ago on the anniversary of a very painful bereavement.

It is exactly what it is intended to be. Help you escape reality for a few hours. If you want reality, then you came to the wrong place.

I think it might have been you who missed all the similarities to the other film.

It was literally full of scenes with the new cast in the same positions / situations as the first film.

and I didn’t say Bob was a pilot - I said he was in the plane

Interesting 👍

I totally agree it is escapism - I guess I just expected a bit more realism.

Don’t regret seeing it though

Yeah, you’re right. I forgot how a load of already Top Gun passed out pilots were getting trained for a bombing mission by a local legend to stop a nuclear weapons plant going active was a core part of the first film. Silly of me.

Aside from the whole mission, the relationship with Goose’s son, the romantic subplot, and the entire third act, basically Top Gun, I guess. Kinda like how every Harry Potter film is the same because it’s at Hogwarts and magic is involved.

@Notcoolright sums it up perfectly. Loved it (apart from the flashback to the first film, no need for that) and will watch it again and again

An F-14 not dying to the “5th generation fighters” was the only unrealistic thing on account of it being fictional. That and the contrived “we can’t use an F-35 because we want the film to happen” excuse to allow the production to be made using a non-classified plane in filming.

Hoe much more “realism” can be obtained when they literally flew the planes as you see them? This isn’t Marvel. You were watching pilots with actors in the back seat go about doing the action scenes.

Who wants realism ...when watching an escapism film ?

Total nostalgia..
I went with DS (20) we loved it and I came home ...put the soundtrack on...and was just buzzing !