Top Gun (original) is still top ...

Is Top Gun (the original) or Maverick a better movie

  • Top Gun (Original)

    Votes: 2 40.0%

  • Top Gun: Maverick

    Votes: 3 60.0%
  • Total voters
    5
K

kandlekid

Ok, well, I saw Top Gun: Maverick a few weeks ago with my dad in Utah. I must say that it is a
great film. Lots of action. But I think the original was better.

Why:

The original:

o Had better character development (imho).
o Had a better story line/plot.
o Had more likable/dislikable characters.
o Had more memorable lines ...
"I feel the need ..."
"You two characters are going to Top Gun."
etc
o Had more drama (Goose's death).
o Had the love angle w/Charlie.

Just my humble opinion ... what do you think?
 
Last edited:
It is not even close, the new one is so much better. But I saw it in PA with my wife, so maybe that is why. :)
 
Old one had a production budget of just $15million, (lets say $50 million in todays money).
New one had a $175 million budget.

I would say the new one is much better for sure.
But is the new one 3 or 4 times better than the original?

The original grossed $375M
$15M budget vs $375M gross. So grossed 25 times budget.

I doubt the new one is going to make that kind of return on investment. Probably half that which is still outstanding.
 
Last edited:
kandlekid said:
Ok, well, I saw Top Gun: Maverick a few weeks ago with my dad in Utah. I must say that it is a
great film. Lots of action. But I think the original was better.

Why:

The original:

o Had better character development (imho).
o Had a better story line/plot.
o Had more likable/dislikable characters.
o Had more memorable lines ...
"I feel the need ..."
"You two characters are going to Top Gun."
etc
o Had more drama (Goose's death).
o Had the love angle w/Charlie.

Just my humble opinion ... what do you think?
More...

Haven't seen it yet but will definitely chime in on it after watching it. I remember the first one very well, I really liked the first one. Great storyboard, good throughput on the themes. Smooth.
 
Pekelo said:
It is not even close, the new one is so much better. But I saw it in PA with my wife, so maybe that is why. :)
More...

Maybe. I think Maverick has alot of great flying sequences. and the bar scene with Rooster was
really good. The flash backs in Maverick to the original were great, and moving. And Ice's inclusion was powerful.
In terms of memorable lines, in my mind, Top Gun has tons, Maverick, unfortuantely, I can't think of many, but
then I've seen it (Top Gun) maybe a hundred times ...

I donno, maybe I feel that Maverick is some kind of a formula movie. Top Gun was something else, a
cultural phenomenon.
 
Last edited:
Overnight said:
Haven't seen it yet
More...

You should really see it in the cinema. The sound, the big screen. Some cinemas have vibrating seats too.

I missed Avatar in the special cinemas, but they are going to rerelease it again in 3 weeks. I will definitely see it in 3D this time.
 
Neil deGrasse Tyson debunks Tom Cruise’s ‘Top Gun: Maverick’ plane stunt: ‘His body would splatter’

https://www.insider.com/neil-degrasse-tyson-top-gun-maverick-tom-cruise-stunt-2022-10

    • Neil deGrasse Tyson said Tom Cruise's pilot shouldn't survive the "Top Gun: Maverick" opening stunt.
    • The scientist took to Twitter to explain how the supersonic speeds would've killed him.
    • Tyson also suggested an interesting change to the movie's climactic scenes.
Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson has become a reliable source of scientific facts and knowledge about the universe, so much so that he's hosted a number of documentaries and shows about topics like black holes, time, and the wider cosmos.

But he occasionally applies real science to movies and TV shows to explain how they wouldn't work, recently taking aim at Tom Cruise's "Top Gun: Maverick."

The hugely successful movie sees Pete "Maverick" Mitchell (Tom Cruise) come back to the Top Gun Academy to train a new cohort of fighter pilots to undertake a near-impossible mission to preemptively stop a foreign power from getting its hands on nuclear weapons. But according to Tyson, Cruise's iconic character wouldn't have made it past the opening plane stunt.

Before Maverick goes back to Top Gun, he makes a living flying experimental planes, and pushes himself to hit Mach 10.5 in a last-ditch effort to prove his superiors wrong — and ends up having to eject. But according to Tyson, the ace pilot should've faced a grisly death as soon as he exited the plane.

The scientist tweeted on Sunday: "Maverick ejects from a hyper sonic plane at Mach 10.5, before it crashed. He survived with no injuries. At that air speed, his body would splatter like a chainmail glove swatting a worm."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1579165291434897409

Tyson added: "At supersonic speeds, air cannot smoothly part for you. You must pierce it, which largely accounts for the difference in fuselage designs between subsonic and supersonic planes. For this reason, the air on your body, if ejecting at these speeds, might as well be a brick wall."

Basically, the film would've been over before it had even really begun.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1579171207655870464

The scientist explained the situation in much more detail in another tweet, saying: "When Maverick ejected at Mach 10.5, he was going 7,000 mph, giving him 400 million joules of kinetic energy — the explosive power of 100 kg of TNT. A situation that human physiology is not designed to survive." He added: "So, no. Maverick does not walk away from this. He be dead. Very dead."

Well, it's a good job director Joseph Kosinski didn't take the real-world approach to the hugely successful sequel, since it raked in $1.48 billion worldwide, according to Box Office Mojo.

But Tyson's criticisms didn't stop with the film's opening, as he pointed out there might've been an easier solution to the mountainside climax, in which the pilots have to fly low to avoid the enemy's radar.

He explained: "they dangerously fly under the radar, through a narrow, winding canyon to destroy a target, avoiding multiple banks of surface-to-air missiles. But why not first take out the missile banks? Could then fly without daredevil maneuvers. Just sayin'."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1579221475038756866
 
NGT aka Mr. Buzzkill

By the way Dr. Scientist forgot about altitude. If he was high enough air resistance should have been much, much less, but hey I am only a physicist on the interwebs...

His later remark is also dumb, they couldn't take out the canyon missiles because there wouldn't be an element of surprise and the enemy's airplanes would be in air to kill them off why they are escaping.
 
Pekelo said:
NGT aka Mr. Buzzkill

By the way Dr. Scientist forgot about altitude. If he was high enough air resistance should have been much, much less, but hey I am only a physicist on the interwebs...

His later remark is also dumb, they couldn't take out the canyon missiles because there wouldn't be an element of surprise and the enemy's airplanes would be in air to kill them off why they are escaping.
More...
I think he may be right about the first comment even at altitude. Mach 10 is an extreme and I would guess in real life if they had the vehicle, it would be an escape pod encompassing the cockpit that was ejected for the reason of the pilot being destroyed otherwise.
I have a friend, a couple actually who have ejected, but one who was clipping along, but not at Mach when he had to pull. He felt it for a couple weeks after. He said he couldn't imagine ejecting anywhere near or over a mach speed, and not being broken.
I would agree with your 2nd assessment, the idea is to surprise and get in and out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top