The Glade 4.0 :: View topic - Paging Elmo

Two weeks ago, Vulture broke the news that Paramount and its co-financier, David Ellison's Skydance Productions, were developing a sequel to 1986's classic Top Gun. We told you it would be written by Oscar-winning scribe Christopher McQuarrie (The Usual Suspects), and that deals could be made with director Tony Scott (who confirmed as much yesterday) and producer Jerry Bruckheimer. But though our original report stated that "Tom Cruise's Maverick would play a smaller role" in the Top Gun sequel, Mr. McQuarrie himself just dropped us an email to gently chide: "There is no Top Gun 2 in which Maverick is not the starring role." Thanks, Chris, for keeping us honest. Stay tuned!

Awesome, I hadn't heard that about Maverick.

And there should still be pilots that can run an F-14 in front of a chaser camera plane easy enough.

You mean this?

I wouldn't hope much for that either; the Navy quit looking at the ATF before the contract was even awarded to Lockheed.

I also wouldn't hope much for the current F-22; it's Air Force only. On the bright side, if they go with the F-35 and pay even minimal attention to detail, it at least won't be the V/STOL B model.

I read one source that indicated there might be a focus on *shudder* UAVs... I hope not, for the sake of posterity.

Besides, aren't UAVs the Air Force's pet toy?

The reason Top Gun got so much support from the Navy was because it was basically recruiting publicity showing off and glorifying all their cool toys. Thus, I'd be highly surprised if they deviated from their actual equipment into scrapped projects or, worse, Air Force gear.

Diamondeye wrote:

Nah there was a naval version of the F-22 proposed but it got axed early 90's - no idea how far it got. And the first movie had "Migs" in it that were about as accurate as calling a bathtub an aquarium although no carrier launches unless they totally special effect it if they use F-22's. 35's are just too boxy.

Author:	Jeryn [ Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:13 pm ]
Post subject:	Paging Elmo - zomg Top Gun 2
This belongs in Entertainment but I have no idea if Elmo frequents there or not... http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/20 ... se_wo.html the article wrote: Two weeks ago, Vulture broke the news that Paramount and its co-financier, David Ellison's Skydance Productions, were developing a sequel to 1986's classic Top Gun. We told you it would be written by Oscar-winning scribe Christopher McQuarrie (The Usual Suspects), and that deals could be made with director Tony Scott (who confirmed as much yesterday) and producer Jerry Bruckheimer. But though our original report stated that "Tom Cruise's Maverick would play a smaller role" in the Top Gun sequel, Mr. McQuarrie himself just dropped us an email to gently chide: "There is no Top Gun 2 in which Maverick is not the starring role." Thanks, Chris, for keeping us honest. Stay tuned!

Author:	Rorinthas [ Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:12 pm ]
Post subject:
They'll probably just have Maverick get shot down at the very beginning of the movie and they can bring him back from the dead to help under privileged teenagers a couple of sequels later. That'd be cool, right?

Author:	Diamondeye [ Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:58 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Paging Elmo - zomg Top Gun 2
Its not going to be the same with Super Hornets.. maybe F-35s? That would be a little better, but even if its set when the F-14 is still flying I dunno where they'd find any to use in filming that are serviceable, or pilots that are current. Oh well, lets hope for the best.

Author:	Micheal [ Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:23 pm ]
Post subject:
24 years later? He'll be in command of the Top Gun flight school, Iceman will be the Colonel assigned to Afghanistan as a mission planner/coordinator/command role. There will still be unpleasant banter indicating that while they respect each other they don't get along all that well. Something happens to Iceman, he's kidnapped by Taliban and several old friends are gunned down in the process. Maverick back at Top Gun is asked to train the rescue mission. Instead he takes the latest fly-by-thought T-35 and has his top students running drones to the Taliban hide-out where everyone with a raggedy turban dies. Maverick and Iceman fly off into the sunset over Kabul, their running lights blinking don't ask don't tell.

Author:	Jeryn [ Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:36 pm ]
Post subject:
That's wonderful. I was just thinking that all they have to do is include a completely tongue-in-cheek, way over the top beach volleyball scene and I'll laugh enough to make whatever else they do tolerable.

The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/

Paging Elmo - zomg Top Gun 2 https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4519	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Elmarnieh [ Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:45 pm ]
Post subject:
Awesome, I hadn't heard that about Maverick. And there should still be pilots that can run an F-14 in front of a chaser camera plane easy enough.

Author:	Rodahn [ Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:46 pm ]
Post subject:
Well Tom Cruise still looks like he's 16 like he was in the first movie, so they should not have any problems asking him to reprise his role. Besides, the guy already believes that Humans came to Earth in a giant airplane, so . . .

Author:	Diamondeye [ Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:05 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Elmarnieh wrote: Awesome, I hadn't heard that about Maverick. And there should still be pilots that can run an F-14 in front of a chaser camera plane easy enough. If they can find one in working order. I'm not optomistic that the F-14 will be featured though.

Author:	Elmarnieh [ Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:39 pm ]
Post subject:
I'd be ok with F-22's. Better look, faster, and more camera tricks than the 35. Or int he timeline the kept the Navy version of the F-22 with swept wings or the two-seater version?

Author:	Diamondeye [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:05 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Paging Elmo - zomg Top Gun 2
You mean this? I wouldn't hope much for that either; the Navy quit looking at the ATF before the contract was even awarded to Lockheed. I also wouldn't hope much for the current F-22; it's Air Force only. On the bright side, if they go with the F-35 and pay even minimal attention to detail, it at least won't be the V/STOL B model. I read one source that indicated there might be a focus on shudder UAVs... I hope not, for the sake of posterity.

Author:	Kaffis Mark V [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:14 am ]
Post subject:
Besides, aren't UAVs the Air Force's pet toy? The reason Top Gun got so much support from the Navy was because it was basically recruiting publicity showing off and glorifying all their cool toys. Thus, I'd be highly surprised if they deviated from their actual equipment into scrapped projects or, worse, Air Force gear.

Author:	Ladas [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:40 am ]
Post subject:
That email only says that "Maverick" will be the lead role, not that it will be the same character using that call sign, much less the same actor reprising the same role.

Author:	Aizle [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 11:31 am ]
Post subject:	Re:
Micheal wrote: 24 years later? He's even more reckless and crazy as he's trying to prove his manhood because his girlfiend is now a lesbian.

Author:	Elmarnieh [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 11:42 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Paging Elmo - zomg Top Gun 2
Diamondeye wrote: You mean this? I wouldn't hope much for that either; the Navy quit looking at the ATF before the contract was even awarded to Lockheed. I also wouldn't hope much for the current F-22; it's Air Force only. On the bright side, if they go with the F-35 and pay even minimal attention to detail, it at least won't be the V/STOL B model. I read one source that indicated there might be a focus on shudder UAVs... I hope not, for the sake of posterity. Nah there was a naval version of the F-22 proposed but it got axed early 90's - no idea how far it got. And the first movie had "Migs" in it that were about as accurate as calling a bathtub an aquarium although no carrier launches unless they totally special effect it if they use F-22's. 35's are just too boxy.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Diamondeye [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:05 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Kaffis Mark V wrote: Besides, aren't UAVs the Air Force's pet toy? The reason Top Gun got so much support from the Navy was because it was basically recruiting publicity showing off and glorifying all their cool toys. Thus, I'd be highly surprised if they deviated from their actual equipment into scrapped projects or, worse, Air Force gear. At the moment they are. There's all kinds of talk about how the F-22/F-35 will be the last manned fighters, but I'm not buying it yet. The next bomber will almost certainly be manned, and I think the basic problem that a data link could be hacked and a control station destroyed (especially for strategic bombers and fighters intended for air defense) will prove to be a deterrent. There's all kinds of advantages to unmanned full-sized aircraft in terms of the savings in qeight and increases in permissible performance without a human on board, but ultimately tht data link seems like a huge weak point. Even if you can't hack it, it could be jammed, or like I pointed out above, interrupted at the control end. If it relies on satellites for long-range control, those could be attacked as well.

Author:	Diamondeye [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:08 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Paging Elmo - zomg Top Gun 2
Elmarnieh wrote: Diamondeye wrote: You mean this? I wouldn't hope much for that either; the Navy quit looking at the ATF before the contract was even awarded to Lockheed. I also wouldn't hope much for the current F-22; it's Air Force only. On the bright side, if they go with the F-35 and pay even minimal attention to detail, it at least won't be the V/STOL B model. I read one source that indicated there might be a focus on shudder UAVs... I hope not, for the sake of posterity. Nah there was a naval version of the F-22 proposed but it got axed early 90's - no idea how far it got. And the first movie had "Migs" in it that were about as accurate as calling a bathtub an aquarium although no carrier launches unless they totally special effect it if they use F-22's. 35's are just too boxy. The article explains that. The naval F-22 got axed before the F-22 was selected. The naval F-22 could actually have been the F-23 for precisely that reason; in fact there was a series of computer games called JetFighter based on that specualtion in the warly 90s, but that never happened. The games sucked too. The MiG-28 was actually an F-5; there are no even-numbered MiGs. Iron Eagle did better; it got Israeli fighters, and not ones America sold them to play MiG so they were more subtle. Iron Eagle II, on the other hand, had F-4 Phantoms standing in for MiG-29s which was... jarring.

Author:	Diamondeye [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:15 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Paging Elmo - zomg Top Gun 2
As an aside, evolution of the F-22 airframe: Not sure if I posted this before, but a comparison of the F-22, F-23, F-35 and PAK-FA: Spoiler:

Author:	Khross [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:25 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Paging Elmo - zomg Top Gun 2
Fairly certain that the jets used in Top Gun as the MiG-28 were F-20s, not F-5s (although they're practically the same plane, seeing as how the F-20 was an evolution of the F-5).

Author:	Khross [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:30 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Paging Elmo - zomg Top Gun 2
It's also possible it was a combination of the two, because I distinctly remember the jets in Top Gun having that boxy secondary intake under the tail that the F-5s don't have.

Author:	Screeling [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:04 pm ]
Post subject:
Hopefully they don't try to reinvent the lubed up volley ball scene in this one.

Author:	Ladas [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:08 pm ]
Post subject:
The F-20 was a single engine version, while the F-5 had 2, which is what was displayed in the movie.

Author:	Diamondeye [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:09 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Paging Elmo - zomg Top Gun 2
The Top Gun MiGs were F-5s, specifically E and F models. The F-20 was initially called the F-5G, which could account for the confusion. I'm not sure what the box you're referring to is, but it may have been something introduced on the E model that wasn't present on earlier versions. Only 3 F-20s were built. There weren't enough to film the battle at the end where there were at least 5 enemy aircraft. They could have been used mixed with F-5s since they look so similar but I ahven't found anything indicating they were.

Author:	Müs [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 2:42 pm ]
Post subject:
I find the looks of this: Unbelievably sexy.