The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sun Nov 24, 2024 1:18 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:47 am
Posts: 324
Location: Knoxville, TN USA
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!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:12 pm 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
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?

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:58 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
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.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:23 pm 
Offline
Bull Moose
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:36 pm
Posts: 7507
Location: Last Western Stop of the Pony Express
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.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones


Last edited by Micheal on Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:47 am
Posts: 324
Location: Knoxville, TN USA
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:45 pm 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
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.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 11:30 pm
Posts: 1776
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 . . .


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:05 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
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.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:39 pm 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
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?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:05 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
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.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:59 pm
Posts: 9412
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.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 2169
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 11:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:36 am
Posts: 4320
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. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 11:42 am 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
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.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:05 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
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.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:08 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
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.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:15 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
As an aside, evolution of the F-22 airframe:

Image

Not sure if I posted this before, but a comparison of the F-22, F-23, F-35 and PAK-FA:

Spoiler:
Image

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:25 pm 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
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).

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:30 pm 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
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.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:04 pm 
Offline
Deuce Master

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:45 am
Posts: 3099
Hopefully they don't try to reinvent the lubed up volley ball scene in this one.

_________________
The Dude abides.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 2169
The F-20 was a single engine version, while the F-5 had 2, which is what was displayed in the movie.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:09 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
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.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 2:42 pm 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
I find the looks of this:
Image

Unbelievably sexy.

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 45 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group