KalKal
Superstar
80's Baby Certified Stamp of a Approval. I never knew what a Top Gun Sequel would look like, but this was definitely it. Damn. Makes me upset because this was the Franchise that Tom should of been making sequels too. I mean I love "Mission Impossible" but they left Millions on the table by having no Top Gun Sequels in the 80's and 90's. I mean we even had the "Iron Eagle" Trilogy during that time. Even though I enjoyed it, I can't put it over the original. Tony Scott has this unique aesthetic in his films. You have to grow up on it. But it gave me what I wanted from the sequel. Also since it's been 36 years, the Franchise lived on a Stand Alone Film and video games for all this time and remained popular. Props Tom. Box Office killin it too but that's not shocking. The first Top Gun won 1986 Box Office and adjust to over 450 Million. Also the Nostalgia was good but not overbearing so it still felt fresh and new. The flying was definitely better for sure. I wasn't expecting the Soundtrack to top the original but glad the played "Danger Zone", that's an 80's Classic.
Honestly, an 80s sequel would have been lower budget and worse than what we got, probably.
“Top Gun: Maverick”
Paramount Pictures
The film pointedly does not mention the “enemy” by name, and there’s been lots of stories in which journalists try to figure out what the rogue nation is. At what point was it decided that the enemy would not be named, and what do you think of stories that posit to know who it “really” is?
The answer is it’s Canada. [laughs] We didn’t want to make this a movie about geopolitics. It’s a competition film. It’s a film about friendship, about sacrifice. It’s a rite-of-passage story. It’s all those things. It’s not a movie about the current state of world events which, by the way, have changed so much from when we made the film. If we had even decided [a country when we made it], it probably would’ve been outdated. The idea was always to make the enemy faceless and nameless.
That’s why in designing this third act, I put it in a world that was not identifiable as, I think, any of the places people are guessing. I liked the idea of putting it in a snowy region, so we shot it in the Cascade Mountains of Washington state to also invert the “Top Gun” aesthetic, to get away from the San Diego sunsets and flip it on its head. To me, that was an exciting way to really change the feeling of the film and make it feel like we were somewhere far away. I know people look at the F-14 [enemy fighter jets] or the fifth-generation fighter jets or the landscape and try to piece it together, but it really is nowhere.
‘Top Gun: Maverick’ Director Joseph Kosinski Answers All Our Burning Questions
The filmmaker tells IndieWire about emotional cameos, cut scenes, who the "enemy" really is, and what's next for this massive franchise.www.indiewire.com
It has to be either Iran, or somebody who bought F-14s from Iran, since they're the only ones with F-14s now.
Iran makes the most sense.
Before this came out I would have said yes... but after seeing it and the reactions in this thread from people who never saw the original.....not really.
The movie basically tells you most of what you need to know. (Other than that Maverick and Iceman hated each other at first)
.
It might hit a billion.
