• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Top Gun 2

mz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
683
Reaction score
1
Orionblamblam said:
mz said:
These tales come from a time when the society was very status quo.
A type of society I dislike intensely.
Yes, they can convey quite a depressing picture, probably even more than what the writers intended. Though, they were living in their own time and place, how could they do otherwise?

Ever watch a BBC historical drama?
I try not to. I'm not an insomniac.
Some of them are quite well made. Miniseries like Jane Eyre or Fingersmith pop to mind from the latest ones.

I also like some British TV series, the eighties Sherlock Holmes and nineties Hercule Poirot, if one understands that they must not be taken too seriously.

They're all full of dull upper class people posturing around and worrying about their relationships with nobody doing any real work of course... I'm also of the opinion that Sherlock especially has gotten some semi-supernatural characteristics which have probably inspired superheroes.

Probably the most humorous TV I've seen in a long while is the Danish "Klovn" by Zentropa where everything's dead serious and there's not a single joke ever. All just goes horribly wrong. Especially for the main character Frank. Get it if you can, if you can stomach some really black and dry stuff.

I don't have a TV at home at the moment by the way.

Is the new Futurama any good? It has some hat tips at science fiction literature from time to time. Stanislaw Lem's absurd stories would mostly benefit for computer generated or cartoon techniques.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,402
Reaction score
263
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
mz said:
Some of them are quite well made. Miniseries like Jane Eyre or Fingersmith pop to mind ...
Eeep.



Is the new Futurama any good?
Yes. Not *quite* as good as Futurama Classic, but they're basically still getting started. There were some pretty good ones in the latest, rather short, season.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,402
Reaction score
263
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
SOC said:
I had the exact same thought the first time I realized that House and Fringe were basically set in the same region!
And on the same network, no less.

Having House and Walter try to figure each other out would be epic.
Instant enemies or instant best friends. Hard to tell.


For what it's worth, yesterday's House had probably the single best line of dialogue on TV, ever.
This one? http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,11475.msg109266.html#msg109266
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,732
Reaction score
10
mz said:
Is the new Futurama any good? It has some hat tips at science fiction literature from time to time. Stanislaw Lem's absurd stories would mostly benefit for computer generated or cartoon techniques.
It's very good. They actually have already filmed 26 (or maybe 27) episodes, but are breaking them up into two "seasons". On the 21st they showed one more new one, their holiday show. Now that they're on cable, they also are a bit more edgy. My two favorite episodes so far are "Attack of the Killer Apps", about M.O.M.'s new product, the Eye-Phone, and "That Darn Katz", which answers all those questions you might have had about feline behavior. BTW, Season "5" will be released on DVD Dec. 21
 

Hammer Birchgrove

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
586
Reaction score
1
Orionblamblam said:
Hammer Birchgrove said:
Not enough mindf*** in my taste. :p
Fine. Here's what I *really* wanted to see:
1) Here's what we know of the Potterverse... the wizards are fully aware of the "muggles," but the "muggles" have limited to no knowledge of the wizards. However, there is official contact... the Prime Minister is shown being contacted at least once, IIRC.
2) So we have to assume that in the "muggle world," there are people desperately trying to figure out the wizard world. Since the "muggles" are never shown to be of consequence, we must assume that either there has been no success... or any success the "muggles" have had have either been destroyed by the wizards... or hidden from them.

So, my idea of how to end the Potter stories was this:

A] Flashback to New Mexico, 1947. Aliens crash near Roswell. US Army scrapes up the wreckage, takes it to Area 51 for analysis. It's found that the aliens use a hybrid of science and magic for their technology.
B] Decades are spent analyzing the wreckage. As with Manhattan, Yanks, Canucks, Limeys, Frogs, Krauts, etc. all send their best scientists. A good misinformation campaign keeps this under wraps.
C] After fifty years of intense work, there has been only one useful development. A small device (call it an amulet) that creates a ten-meter-diameter bubble where magic ceases to function.
D] Back to the Potterverse: Voldemort spends the bulk of the book gaining in power, causing a ruckus, making his presense known to the outer world via acts of destruction. Death, mutilation, horror, pain, high taxes, all the great evils.
E] A high-speed plane leaves Area 51 heading to Britainland.
F] Potter & Co. fight back valiantly, but lose. Hogwarts goes up in the equivalent of magical nuclear fire.
G] Plane lands at an out-of-the-way RAF base in the middle of the night. A small box is transferred to a dark figure.
H] Our heroes of course manage to escape in the nick of time through a tunnel. But they are chased down and surrounded by death eaters in a wide field. Usual magical battle ensues, heroes are beaten.
I] Dark figure boards a fast helicopter.
J] Voldemort shows up, kills a few of the lesser heroes, begins monologuing.
K] Dark figure plummets from the sky, pops a chute at the last minute, lands a few dozen yards from where we see Voldemort & Co. doing their schtick.
K] Voldemort raises wand to kill Potter. Utters the "death curse," just as the light on his wand, and all the others, suddenly goes dark. Scene lit solely by a few small fires. Everyone looks around in confusion. Dark figure steps out of shadows. Everyone looks; death eaters try magic to stop him, absolutely nothing happens. Dark figure steps up to Voldemort, raises hand. Three shots ring out, two to center of mass, one headshot from a Walther PPK. Gun flashes briefly illuminate Daniel Craig's face. Voldemort drops dead, back of skull blown off. Death Eaters mob him, but since all the bullying and thuggery they've ever done has been magical, they suck at actual hand to hand combat, and are all easily defeated, most dead.
L] Our heroes look on in shock. Dark figure melts back into shadows, calls back "We'll be watching you." Chopper comes down, dark figure boards. Lights come back on on wands.
M] Heroes watch helicopter disappear into darkness, see a C-130 orbiting several thousand feet up. A turret pops out of the bottom of the C-130; a megawatt-class free electron laser lances down and vaporizes Voldemort and the Death Eaters, along with their wands. A surviving death eater shoots back with his wand; the "bolt" vanishes ten meters from the C-130. Laser fries his ass too. C-130 takes off.
N] Heroes left standing in burning field. Potter looks up into the night sky, sees a single satellite in the distance. View switches to satellite, looking back at Potter via Keyhole optics. Close, credits.

Ta-da.
Awesome sauce, man!

Geeky? You bet. But one thing I've never been able to stand are stories where some people are "just better" than everyone else to the point where everyone else is essentially meaningless (think of all those damned European fairy tales and whatnot where the blacksmiths kid wins the day not because he's smarter or better trained or tries harder, but because he's secretly the prince. Bah.). Having the wizarding world get its ass handed to it by a good dose of Science seemed like the best way to end the series.
Dude, I'm the guy with Robocop as avatar, so I'm not the one to complain about others' geeky-ness. ;)

Can't the same thing be said about (certain) aliens, Mutants, Homo Superior, Slan etc? There *are* people *better* than others because of genetics, or upbringing, or whatnot. In any event, it's Machiavellian bastiches like Albus Dumbledore and Obi-Wan Kenobi I like to get slapped, not Harry Potter and Luke Skywalker. :p
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,732
Reaction score
10
Hammer Birchgrove said:
Dude, I'm the guy with Robocop as avatar, so I'm not the one to complain about others' geeky-ness. ;)

Can't the same thing be said about (certain) aliens, Mutants, Homo Superior, Slan etc? There *are* people *better* than others because of genetics, or upbringing, or whatnot. In any event, it's Machiavellian bastiches like Albus Dumbledore and Obi-Wan Kenobi I like to get slapped, not Harry Potter and Luke Skywalker. :p
Now don't pick on Obi-Wan, at least he's got himself an honest day job:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUtRi011FLY
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,402
Reaction score
263
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Hammer Birchgrove said:
Can't the same thing be said about (certain) aliens, Mutants, Homo Superior, Slan etc? There *are* people *better* than others because of genetics, or upbringing, or whatnot. In any event, it's Machiavellian bastiches like Albus Dumbledore and Obi-Wan Kenobi I like to get slapped, not Harry Potter and Luke Skywalker. :p
On the one hand, I'm a strong disbeliever in the obviously wrong notion that "all men are created equal." Some people are genetically predisposed to being both intellectual giants and physical perfection; other people have an IQ of 75 in a body that won't make it twenty years. On the other hand, I'm also a strong disbeliever that someone's genetic or ancestral "gifts" make them "better person," in the sense of ethics or morality. "All men are equal" in legal terms... and that's pretty much about it.

In the aforementioned "secret prince" cliche, it turns out that someone is "better" to be ruler of a land and all it's people and wealth simply because of who his father is. Not because that someone has any actual talent for leadership... or even because his father was any damned good at it, either.

In literature, those characters are more interesting who have to work hard & smart to attain their goals, as compared to those who have their goals gifted to them. Let's face it, Superman could kick Batman's ass... and we'd all be rooting for Batman. Why? Because Superman is, when you come right down to it, *boring.* If you're invincible, there's no drama. There's no lesson to be learned from the invincible superman or the immortal all-powerful god. It's those who can easily fail yet who struggle through that inspire.

And yes, Batman is Bruce Wayne, who was gifted good genes for brains and physique from his parents, as well as a whopping huge sum of cash. But Bruce Wayne didn' become Batman simply because he was smart, good looking and rich; he became Batman because he *worked* at it. He could easily have taken his gifts and become a complete scumbag. (Insert Ted Kennedy reference HERE)
 

Nik

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
382
Reaction score
0
Sure, Superman could kick Batman's ass... in a fair fight.

Given his propensity for gadgets and contingency plans, The Bat's probably got a box of kryptonite tucked away, just in case, plus some 'special loads' cast from same...

Sorry, got off-topic: FWIW, I enjoyed the theme music and flying sequences of TopGun but, IMHO, five minutes of 'Flight of the Intruder' had more credible plot...
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,915
Reaction score
179
Orionblamblam said:
Hammer Birchgrove said:
Can't the same thing be said about (certain) aliens, Mutants, Homo Superior, Slan etc? There *are* people *better* than others because of genetics, or upbringing, or whatnot. In any event, it's Machiavellian bastiches like Albus Dumbledore and Obi-Wan Kenobi I like to get slapped, not Harry Potter and Luke Skywalker. :p
On the one hand, I'm a strong disbeliever in the obviously wrong notion that "all men are created equal." Some people are genetically predisposed to being both intellectual giants and physical perfection; other people have an IQ of 75 in a body that won't make it twenty years. On the other hand, I'm also a strong disbeliever that someone's genetic or ancestral "gifts" make them "better person," in the sense of ethics or morality. "All men are equal" in legal terms... and that's pretty much about it.

In the aforementioned "secret prince" cliche, it turns out that someone is "better" to be ruler of a land and all it's people and wealth simply because of who his father is. Not because that someone has any actual talent for leadership... or even because his father was any damned good at it, either.

In literature, those characters are more interesting who have to work hard & smart to attain their goals, as compared to those who have their goals gifted to them. Let's face it, Superman could kick Batman's ass... and we'd all be rooting for Batman. Why? Because Superman is, when you come right down to it, *boring.* If you're invincible, there's no drama. There's no lesson to be learned from the invincible superman or the immortal all-powerful god. It's those who can easily fail yet who struggle through that inspire.

And yes, Batman is Bruce Wayne, who was gifted good genes for brains and physique from his parents, as well as a whopping huge sum of cash. But Bruce Wayne didn't become Batman simply because he was smart, good looking and rich; he became Batman because he *worked* at it. He could easily have taken his gifts and become a complete scumbag. (Insert Ted Kennedy reference HERE)
OBB - A lot of agreement with your philosophy as "all men are created equal" does not stand alone but is followed by endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Not endowed by equal intelligence or wealth or strength or drive for success. Can't have the first part of the phrase without the second part.
 

InvisibleDefender

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Messages
152
Reaction score
0
Orionblamblam said:
F-14D said:
Now don't pick on Obi-Wan, at least he's got himself an honest day job:
Now THAT was awesome!

Almost as good as...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5blbv4WFriM
That was hilarious!!!! thanks
 

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,177
Reaction score
3
Orionblamblam said:
This one? http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,11475.msg109266.html#msg109266
That one was good, but not the one I'm thinking of.
 

Hammer Birchgrove

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
586
Reaction score
1
F-14D said:
Hammer Birchgrove said:
Dude, I'm the guy with Robocop as avatar, so I'm not the one to complain about others' geeky-ness. ;)

Can't the same thing be said about (certain) aliens, Mutants, Homo Superior, Slan etc? There *are* people *better* than others because of genetics, or upbringing, or whatnot. In any event, it's Machiavellian bastiches like Albus Dumbledore and Obi-Wan Kenobi I like to get slapped, not Harry Potter and Luke Skywalker. :p
Now don't pick on Obi-Wan, at least he's got himself an honest day job:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUtRi011FLY
:D Great find F-14D!

On a semi-serious note, he did confuse that poor farm boy on whom his father was, nor did he mention a certain sister... Could have spared the boy a few inconvenient miss-haps and one major chock! :p
 

Hammer Birchgrove

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
586
Reaction score
1
Orionblamblam said:
Hammer Birchgrove said:
Can't the same thing be said about (certain) aliens, Mutants, Homo Superior, Slan etc? There *are* people *better* than others because of genetics, or upbringing, or whatnot. In any event, it's Machiavellian bastiches like Albus Dumbledore and Obi-Wan Kenobi I like to get slapped, not Harry Potter and Luke Skywalker. :p
On the one hand, I'm a strong disbeliever in the obviously wrong notion that "all men are created equal." Some people are genetically predisposed to being both intellectual giants and physical perfection; other people have an IQ of 75 in a body that won't make it twenty years. On the other hand, I'm also a strong disbeliever that someone's genetic or ancestral "gifts" make them "better person," in the sense of ethics or morality. "All men are equal" in legal terms... and that's pretty much about it.
Agreed. I would say '"All men are equal" in legal and moral terms' though. :)

In the aforementioned "secret prince" cliche, it turns out that someone is "better" to be ruler of a land and all it's people and wealth simply because of who his father is. Not because that someone has any actual talent for leadership... or even because his father was any damned good at it, either.
Well, for example The Sword in the Stone can certainly be interpreted that way. On the other hand, you could also claim that the story is about Arthur needing to face his responsibilities as the Once and Future King. Lets face it, feudalism and absolute monarchy sucks from a modern POV. But that was what they had back in the day. Who knows what people of tomorrow will think of representative democracy, the market economy, socialism or the current de facto mixed economy? Whoever claimed that history "ended" in 1990 was incredibly foolish.

Mark Twain (The Prince and the Pauper) - and later Robert A Heinlein (Double Star) - made interesting twists on the theme.

In literature, those characters are more interesting who have to work hard & smart to attain their goals, as compared to those who have their goals gifted to them. Let's face it, Superman could kick Batman's ass... and we'd all be rooting for Batman. Why? Because Superman is, when you come right down to it, *boring.* If you're invincible, there's no drama. There's no lesson to be learned from the invincible superman or the immortal all-powerful god. It's those who can easily fail yet who struggle through that inspire.
This depends on what version(s) of the characters you mean. Only the Silver Age version of the Mort Weisinger era was truly god-like and invincible (except for the Achilles he-, I mean kryptonite of various colours). I disagree in general about Superman being boring.

Also, there is a lesson to be taught: With great power comes great responsibility. (Yes, I took it from Spider-Man, but it's still relevant.) There is a Superman story (which I haven't yet read so please excuse me for paraphrasing from second hand sources) in which Superman got elected for US President. (I guess an amendment made it possible for naturalized citizens to hold the office.) And he did not abuse his powers, or became a dictator. And when he had made his two full terms, he stood down. He simply was a honest and effective statesman.

And yes, Batman is Bruce Wayne, who was gifted good genes for brains and physique from his parents, as well as a whopping huge sum of cash. But Bruce Wayne didn' become Batman simply because he was smart, good looking and rich; he became Batman because he *worked* at it. He could easily have taken his gifts and become a complete scumbag. (Insert Ted Kennedy reference HERE)
Agreed. (But did he become Batman - mostly - because he wanted justice or because he -mostly - wanted vengeance? Either way he does help people, but still.)
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,402
Reaction score
263
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Hammer Birchgrove said:
This depends on what version(s) of the characters you mean. Only the Silver Age version of the Mort Weisinger era was truly god-like and invincible
The ability to fly around thw world so fast that it turns back time is a "god like" power sufficient to wipe out any relationship with mere mortals.


Also, there is a lesson to be taught: With great power comes great responsibility.

And yet there are so few actual examples of that. With godlike Superman powers, there should be godlike responsibilities, not just nabbing the odd mugger. Dr. Manhattan is the only such character that I can think of in pretty much *all* of literature who took this concept seriously... he friggen' *left.*

The general idea is that the "greast responsibility" is to "do good." But wha'ts "good?" When you look at the monotheistic religions, there's what's good for humans... and there's what's good for someone with ultimate godlike power. And that includes wiping out whole worlds on a whim, or order Group A to slaughter Group B down to the last child. So what's right for a godlike Superman? Rescuing cats from trees and arresting catburglars? Or flying around the world using his laser eyes to lobotomize every criminal from jaywalker on up?

Historically, "right and wrong" have been largely determined by whoever can pull it off.


But did he become Batman - mostly - because he wanted justice or because he -mostly - wanted vengeance?
There's no definite distinction between the two concepts.
 

Hammer Birchgrove

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
586
Reaction score
1
Orionblamblam said:
Hammer Birchgrove said:
This depends on what version(s) of the characters you mean. Only the Silver Age version of the Mort Weisinger era was truly god-like and invincible
The ability to fly around the world so fast that it turns back time is a "god like" power sufficient to wipe out any relationship with mere mortals.
That was in the film(s), mind you.

At least the Donner's Cut took away Zod's power to zap things with his index finger. :p


Also, there is a lesson to be taught: With great power comes great responsibility.

And yet there are so few actual examples of that. With godlike Superman powers, there should be godlike responsibilities, not just nabbing the odd mugger. Dr. Manhattan is the only such character that I can think of in pretty much *all* of literature who took this concept seriously... he friggen' *left.*

The general idea is that the "greast responsibility" is to "do good." But wha'ts "good?" When you look at the monotheistic religions, there's what's good for humans... and there's what's good for someone with ultimate godlike power. And that includes wiping out whole worlds on a whim, or order Group A to slaughter Group B down to the last child. So what's right for a godlike Superman? Rescuing cats from trees and arresting catburglars? Or flying around the world using his laser eyes to lobotomize every criminal from jaywalker on up?

Historically, "right and wrong" have been largely determined by whoever can pull it off.
Squadron Supreme by Mark Gruenwald, Batman: The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller, and Kingdom Come by Mark Weid and Alex Ross have all dealt with this in different ways.

But did he become Batman - mostly - because he wanted justice or because he -mostly - wanted vengeance?
There's no definite distinction between the two concepts.
All right, how about "justice or revenge"? ???
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,402
Reaction score
263
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Hammer Birchgrove said:
But did he become Batman - mostly - because he wanted justice or because he -mostly - wanted vengeance?
There's no definite distinction between the two concepts.
All right, how about "justice or revenge"? ???
I don't think there's a distinction between "vengeance" and "revenge." Since "justice" is definable as "revenge we can agree upon as a society," there's again no clear distinction. Note that in popular culture, someone taking revenge against someone who hurt them ("Death Wish" and "The Brave One" come immediately to mind) is quite a popular cliche. And it's popular because it's something most of us can get behind.

For example, note what is quite possibly the best ending of a TV episode ever:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7vW1oEKP1k

I remember when this aired. It was a hell of a shock, and had people yammering about it for days. And what they yammered about was how awesome it was, and how surprised that somethign like this would be aired. There was very little debate over whether the action taken was wrong, because few believed that it was.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,915
Reaction score
179
Love Dr. Manhattan would like to "explode" people with a thought ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeFZXNDz7uA
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,739
Reaction score
11
Anyway, back to Top Gun 2......
Just seen this over at OBB's blog,

http://up-ship.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/ah-56-sunset.jpg

That's It!! Top Gun II - Maverick flies Helos

Maverick, with 'The Girl', flying as his WSO, has to fly a refurbed, pimped-up, AH-56, to thwart the Evilstan plot to destroy Hope, Change, and Life as we Know It, Jim.
Plot details to follow (maybe), but I'm also trying to set things up for the threequel; 'Top Gun III - Maverick must Die'....


cheers,
Robin.
 

HeavyG

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
Hey, did anyone forget about the Iceman?
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,732
Reaction score
10
robunos said:
Anyway, back to Top Gun 2......
Just seen this over at OBB's blog,

http://up-ship.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/ah-56-sunset.jpg

That's It!! Top Gun II - Maverick flies Helos

Maverick, with 'The Girl', flying as his WSO, has to fly a refurbed, pimped-up, AH-56, to thwart the Evilstan plot to destroy Hope, Change, and Life as we Know It, Jim.
Plot details to follow (maybe), but I'm also trying to set things up for the threequel; 'Top Gun III - Maverick must Die'....


cheers,
Robin.
He'd probably use an AH-1Z--more potent machine, it's a "Navy" (USMC) bird and has a landing skid he can stand on when he pulls the orphans out under enemy fire.
 

bagera3005

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
76
Reaction score
2
Website
s4.photobucket.com
Michel Van said:
fightingirish said:
I wonder, what Quentin Tarantino thinks about a new Top Gun movie... ;D
Link: youtube.com/watch?v=9lTRFWve0Rc
dam, that is the most brilliant analyst of the Movie ...EVER !

by the way, today Val Kilmer doesn't fit in fighter Cockpit anymore
Val Kilmer looks like only way they can stuff him in cock pit is with shoe horn an hammer
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,739
Reaction score
11
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2071810/Tom-Cruise-says-hes-working-on-reprising-famous-role-Top-Gun-2.html




cheers,
Robin.
 

harrier

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
48
Tom Cruise (or someone else - maybe he's too old?) will be flying and F-35 apparently:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/03/top-gun-2-will-rock-the-f-35-t.html

Plot synopsis is pretty funny! ;D :

Maverick is a test pilot struggling to keep the flight test programme on schedule, even though his better judgment is sometimes compromised by a lifelong, paralyzing fear of vertical landings. Maverick almost throws in the towel after his favourite knee board/test card holder is destroyed in an unfortunate lift fan malfunction. Meanwhile, the programme's enemies, led by the snearing Bill "Iceman" Sweetman and Karlo "Slider" Kopp, take advantage of Maverick's absence to nearly bury the programme in a wave of seemingly overwhelming blog attacks. That's when Maverick's love interest -- a Texas congresswoman strategically placed on the AirLand subcommittee -- intervenes. She gives Maverick her father's last knee board (er, her father was also a test pilot ... just go with it) and literally pushes him back into the cockpit. Maverick straps on the knee board, takes the Block 3 software build out for a spin, hits every test point and -- for the finale -- lands vertically right on top of Aviation Week's building in downtown Washington DC. And that's when Kenny Loggins starts singing.
 

cosmicpop

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Whatever the plot, I really hope they use real aerial photography and not go down the easy route of using CG. I've yet to see a convincing CG aircraft battle, whereas the original Top Gun looked amazing.
 

GeorgeA

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
784
Reaction score
36
cosmicpop said:
Whatever the plot, I really hope they use real aerial photography and not go down the easy route of using CG. I've yet to see a convincing CG aircraft battle, whereas the original Top Gun looked amazing.
. . . which was models on wires IIRC. I suspect cutting-edge CGI might look pretty good.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,106
Reaction score
355
GeorgeA said:
cosmicpop said:
Whatever the plot, I really hope they use real aerial photography and not go down the easy route of using CG. I've yet to see a convincing CG aircraft battle, whereas the original Top Gun looked amazing.
. . . which was models on wires IIRC. I suspect cutting-edge CGI might look pretty good.
You should go back and watch it again. ::) They used special cameras mounted on Phoenix pallets as I recall. There were many writeups on it back in the day. Almost all of it was real footage shot for the movie from Tomcats.
 

GeorgeA

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
784
Reaction score
36
sferrin said:
You should go back and watch it again. ::)
Life's too short.

You may be right. Perhaps I'm thinking of "The Right Stuff".
 

grcoffman104

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I hate to ask as I allways had this question, but felt off topic in this forum. But yall opened the door. :)
In one shot during the movie it looked like a acess door banged open. The view was a forward shot from one of the pallet mounted cameras.

Any info?
 

Madurai

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
97
Reaction score
0
sferrin said:
GeorgeA said:
cosmicpop said:
Whatever the plot, I really hope they use real aerial photography and not go down the easy route of using CG. I've yet to see a convincing CG aircraft battle, whereas the original Top Gun looked amazing.
. . . which was models on wires IIRC. I suspect cutting-edge CGI might look pretty good.
You should go back and watch it again. ::) They used special cameras mounted on Phoenix pallets as I recall. There were many writeups on it back in the day. Almost all of it was real footage shot for the movie from Tomcats.
Well, except when they had to blow stuff up or do the flat spin sequence--then they were very visibly models. M5 did that part, before they became Mythbusters. (You can still see the "MiG-28" model remains on the wall in the show.)

CGI gets a bad rap these days, due a combination of nostalgia goggles and outright hipster snobbery. Bad CGI can ruin a film, but then so could bad miniatures work. Go back and rewatch some of the shitty bluescreen effects from films cashing in on the post-Star Wars boom before you decide we've really taken a step backwards.

In any case, if the film actually does feature the F-35, I can't imagine the Navy doing anything other than bending over backwards to get the filmmakers as much real-world flying time as possible. They went all-out for that terrible Stealth movie a few years ago, I don't see why they wouldn't do so for this.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,007
Reaction score
198
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/cool_japan/anime_news/AJ201304250101
 

sienar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
577
Reaction score
85
I wonder if the sequel will have as much subtext

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzY9a-WmE6o
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,915
Reaction score
179
Plot for TG II - Cruise vs Drones

http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/01/tom-cruise-will-face-off-against-drones-in-top-gun-sequel-video/
 

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
116
Jerry Bruckheimer said:
“The concept is, basically, are the pilots obsolete because of drones. Cruise is going to show them that they’re not obsolete. They’re here to stay,” Bruckheimer said. “It’s just getting to the starting place. Fortunately for Tom, he’s very busy, so you have to find a slot he can fit into and get a budget that Paramount feels they can make the picture.”

First thought was, that it is just like the scene from the movie "Green Lantern". :-\
Code:
http://youtu.be/XtXPQNW2HqE
 
Top