DAMN! That's TWICE! I want some butts!

DD* · Post by DD* » Wed May 24, 2017 10:36 am

Tom Cruise says Top Gun II is in the works

I feel the need - the need for speed!

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed May 24, 2017 10:36 am

I feel the need...the need to avoid this.

DD* · Post by DD* » Wed May 24, 2017 10:39 am

hepcat wrote:I feel the need...the need to avoid this.

C'mon hep, you know you love it!

*click to embiggen for all the Maverick 'Murica you deserve!

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed May 24, 2017 10:48 am

Where's the remake for a Cruise film we really need? A remake that answers all those questions we had after it broke into our national consciousness and made us believe again? I'm talking about Cocktail, of course.

When he pours, he reigns.

McNutt · Post by **McNutt** » Wed May 24, 2017 10:54 am

First, good quip about avoiding it, Hepcat. I feel the same way. I've never felt this was a story that needed to be continued. But look what Stallone was able to do with the last Rambo movie. Maybe I'll love it too.

Second, did Cocktail really have a tagline "When he pours, he reigns"? If so, that is genius.

coopasonic · Post by **coopasonic** » Wed May 24, 2017 10:57 am

hepcat wrote:Where's the remake for a Cruise film we really need? A remake that answers all those questions we had after it broke into our national consciousness and made us believe again? I'm talking about Cocktail, of course.

When he pours, he reigns.

Risky Business?

All the Right Moves?

Redfive · Post by **Redfive** » Wed May 24, 2017 10:59 am

I expect I'll see this opening weekend and in my current place in life only a new Star Wars movie gets that from me.

I think I was 14 when Top Gun was released and I can't say how many times I've seen it.

Somewhere in the early to mid 2000s it became much more fun for me to make fun of Top Gun (totally unrealistic and in some places cheese overload).

To paraphrase Jim Rome:

I'm not a 'naval aviator' so I don't know what they do for fun, but I'm pretty sure they don't get oiled up and play shirtless volleyball on the beach while howling at the moon and listening to Kenny Loggins' 'Playin' with the Boys' blaring on the radio.

Tom may be nuts but I'm usually entertained by his movies.

My only concern is what kind of movie this will be in 2017. The world is so different than 1985. Even with the constant perceived threat of nuclear armageddon back then it was a great time for a 'fun' military themed movie.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed May 24, 2017 11:05 am

McNutt wrote: Second, did Cocktail really have a tagline "When he pours, he reigns"? If so, that is genius.

McNutt · Post by **McNutt** » Wed May 24, 2017 11:17 am

Redfive wrote: To paraphrase Jim Rome:

I'm not a 'naval aviator' so I don't know what they do for fun, but I'm pretty sure they don't get oiled up and play shirtless volleyball on the beach while howling at the moon and listening to Kenny Loggins' 'Playin' with the Boys' blaring on the radio.

Jim Rome is great when he breaks down movies. My favorite is when he called out Yoda for being the galaxy's biggest coward for holing up on Dagobah and his calling Grandpa Joe from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory the laziest freeloader ever. He stays in bed all day too decrepit to move until Charlie gets the golden ticket. Then he's dancing up a storm. And when Wonka tells Charlie that he gets to live in the Factory the first thing Grandpa Joe says is, "Me too?"

DD* · Post by DD* » Wed May 24, 2017 11:18 am

Some people have no respect for the classics...

Charlie: So, lieutenant, where exactly were you?

Maverick: Well, we...

Goose: Thank you.

Maverick: Started up on a 6, when he pulled from the clouds, and then I moved in above him.

Charlie: Well, if you were directly above him, how could you see him?

Maverick: Because I was inverted.

Iceman: [coughs whilst saying] Bullshit.

Goose: No, he was man. It was a really great move. He was inverted.

Charlie: You were in a 4g inverted dive with a MiG28?

Maverick: Yes, ma'am.

Charlie: At what range?

Maverick: Um, about two meters.

Goose: It was actually about one and a half I think. It was one and a half. I've got a great Polaroid of it, and he's right there, must be one and a half.

Maverick: Was a nice picture.

Goose: Thanks.

Charlie: Eh, lieutenant, what were you doing there?

Goose: Communicating.

Maverick: Communicating. Keeping up foreign relations. You know, giving him the bird!

Goose: [Charlie looks puzzled, so Goose clarifies] You know, the finger

Charlie: Yes, I know the finger, Goose.

Goose: I-I'm sorry, I hate it when it does that, I'm sorry. Excuse me.

Fucking Oscar-worthy stuff right there!

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed May 24, 2017 11:22 am

Cocktail is practically Arthur Miller in comparison.

Brian: I'm looking for the Manager.

Doug: What's the problem? Did you find a hair in your quiche?

Brian: No, I'm looking for a job.

Doug: Ah, you'd like to put a hair in somebody else's quiche.

McNutt · Post by **McNutt** » Wed May 24, 2017 11:25 am

I remember when Tom Cruise would turn the volume down for the chorus to Addicted to Love and then crank it back up and repeat while the bar sang out loud. That was awesome!

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Wed May 24, 2017 11:57 am

Rumpy · Post by **Rumpy** » Wed May 24, 2017 12:42 pm

I think the movie still holds up today. I rewatched it a few years ago and I was amazed at how good it was.

DD* · Post by DD* » Wed May 24, 2017 12:49 pm

Top Gun was my go-to demo movie when I first got into home theater. Check out the Dolby Pro-logic surround, dude

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Wed May 24, 2017 1:07 pm

DD* wrote:Top Gun was my go-to demo movie when I first got into home theater. Check out the Dolby Pro-logic surround, dude

Ours too. Brought my dad over for it, and pretty much the next day he went out amd got himself a surround sound system and 35" tv.

Kasey Chang · Post by **Kasey Chang** » Wed May 24, 2017 1:19 pm

I like Top Gun, but back then Tom Cruise was basically in his "churn them out by the books" mode. Almost EVERY movie he did in that era was he's about to "master" something and had a mad fling with some woman and struggle against some guy.

When you think about it, Top Gun, Days of Thunder, Cocktail, have the SAME general plot!

hentzau · Post by **hentzau** » Wed May 24, 2017 1:41 pm

Kasey Chang wrote:I like Top Gun, but back then Tom Cruise was basically in his "churn them out by the books" mode. Almost EVERY movie he did in that era was he's about to "master" something and had a mad fling with some woman and struggle against some guy.

When you think about it, Top Gun, Days of Thunder, Cocktail, have the SAME general plot!

Risky Business and Legend too.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Wed May 24, 2017 2:12 pm

It wasn't just his movies from that era that had that same plot...

And, I assume:

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Wed May 24, 2017 2:32 pm

Do you guys really want to spend 2 hours watching Val Kilmer try to squeeze into the cockpit of a jet?

Probably in 3D to boot.

Kurth · Post by **Kurth** » Wed May 24, 2017 2:32 pm

Hold up. "Edge of Tomorrow" doesn't follow the canned early-Cruise movie plot.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Wed May 24, 2017 3:16 pm

I liked Edge of Tomorrow, but it is a movie about him trying to get better at something while falling for the girl who is mentoring him. Seems to sort of fit the theme...

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Wed May 24, 2017 3:26 pm

tgb wrote:Do you guys really want to spend 2 hours watching Val Kilmer try to squeeze into the cockpit of a jet?

Probably in 3D to boot.

Reminds me of a childhood friend whose father was quite large. When the topic of war stories came up, this kid's dad mentioned he was a ball turret gunner in a B-24 during WW2. My dad would ask, "for Christ's sake, Milt, how did they cram your fat ass into that little turret? Did they build the plane around you?"

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed May 24, 2017 3:26 pm

tgb wrote:Do you guys really want to spend 2 hours watching Val Kilmer try to squeeze into the cockpit of a jet?

Probably in 3D to boot.

No, but I'd gladly spend 2 hours watching him try to out-insane Marlon Brando again.

Kurth · Post by **Kurth** » Wed May 24, 2017 3:41 pm

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:I liked Edge of Tomorrow, but it is a movie about him trying to get better at something while falling for the girl who is mentoring him. Seems to sort of fit the theme...

Only if you define the "theme" so broadly that it includes just about every plot involving a protagonist with a love interest. This is like a great copyright idea/expression debate. I'd argue that you are stretching "the idea" underlying Cruise's films out to such a ridiculous degree that it sweeps in not only Cruise's films but like 95% of all action/sci-fi movies (and other genres, too).

But that's probably way more serious discussion than Tom Cruise films deserve (even though I do really like "Edge of Tomorrow").

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed May 24, 2017 3:53 pm

The Tomcat was retired from US service in 2006. I look forward to the new version being him flying a Triton out of a CONEX in the California desert.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Wed May 24, 2017 4:07 pm

Kurth wrote: Only if you define the "theme" so broadly that it includes just about every plot involving a protagonist with a love interest. This is like a great copyright idea/expression debate. I'd argue that you are stretching "the idea" underlying Cruise's films out to such a ridiculous degree that it sweeps in not only Cruise's films but like 95% of all action/sci-fi movies (and other genres, too).

I'm just following the Chang Reliable Assessment Principles (CRAP)™ for judging Tom Cruise's movies. I make no claims to the validity of those well-established criteria.

Rumpy · Post by **Rumpy** » Wed May 24, 2017 5:03 pm

Am I the only one that disliked Edge of Tomorrow? I thought the premise was fun, but that its execution was terrible.

coopasonic · Post by **coopasonic** » Wed May 24, 2017 5:07 pm

Rumpy wrote:Am I the only one that disliked Edge of Tomorrow? I thought the premise was fun, but that its execution was terrible.

No, 14,552 other people were also wrong.

AUDIENCE SCORE

90%
liked it
Average Rating: 4.2/5
User Ratings: 145,532

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed May 24, 2017 5:19 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:The Tomcat was retired from US service in 2006. I look forward to the new version being him flying a Triton out of a CONEX in the California desert.

Yea, should be fun seeing how make a dogfighting flick with a bunch of planes designed for standoff engagements.

Redfive · Post by **Redfive** » Wed May 24, 2017 5:43 pm

Rip wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:The Tomcat was retired from US service in 2006. I look forward to the new version being him flying a Triton out of a CONEX in the California desert.
Yea, should be fun seeing how make a dogfighting flick with a bunch of planes designed for standoff engagements.

Isn't that exactly what the Tomcat was, a standoff platform? I thought the Phoenix missile had an engagement range of beyond visual which was one of the reasons why making fun of the movie was fun. (I realize the missiles they were firing in the movie were not the Phoenix).

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed May 24, 2017 7:25 pm

Given that it was Cold War posturing, I doubt there were BVR rules of engagement.

em2nought · Post by **em2nought** » Wed May 24, 2017 7:47 pm

They should turn the new movie into a disaster movie. F-35s not working, catapults broken, Iranian high speed torpedoes slamming into $36 billion dollar carrier and sinking it in the Strait or Hormuz. Iranian version of Mav, in his old F-14 held together with chewing gum, buzzing Tom Cruise on the bridge of the Gerald R. Ford.

"Cocktails for Two: The Real Natalee Holloway Story" might be fun.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed May 24, 2017 8:28 pm

i have absolutely no clue as to the relevance of Natalee Holloway in that post.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed May 24, 2017 8:49 pm

Redfive wrote:
Rip wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:The Tomcat was retired from US service in 2006. I look forward to the new version being him flying a Triton out of a CONEX in the California desert.
Yea, should be fun seeing how make a dogfighting flick with a bunch of planes designed for standoff engagements.
Isn't that exactly what the Tomcat was, a standoff platform? I thought the Phoenix missile had an engagement range of beyond visual which was one of the reasons why making fun of the movie was fun. (I realize the missiles they were firing in the movie were not the Phoenix).

I was capable of engaging from a distance but its strength was dogfighting.

Because 25% of the Tomcat’s lift came from the large area between the wings — popularly referred to as the “tennis court” — the Tomcat didn’t have a very impressive roll rate relative to airplanes like the A-4 or F-16. But its large horizontal stabilizers gave Tomcat pilots significant pitch authority, which made the jet a lethal dogfighter in the right hands.

http://www.businessinsider.com/17-photo ... s-11111113

em2nought · Post by **em2nought** » Wed May 24, 2017 8:50 pm

hepcat wrote:i have absolutely no clue as to the relevance of Natalee Holloway in that post.

Aruba, Jamaica
Kidnapped by Scientologists?
It could happen!

Matrix · Post by **Matrix** » Thu May 25, 2017 1:03 am

Well, i will go on record and say that Top gun was best dating movie to learn from. Back when i ran dating biz, the home work would be to watch top gun. Aside from crazy flying, the other parts of interactions were gold.
So ya, i will be watching top gun 2 at release! And i dont watch anything at release. Got to give the credit where it is due.
Top gun was really super movie, it was what super food to other food. This is purely from dating perspective, every interaction line was solid.
The confidence on the border of cocky, playful banter, being able to walk away....... too good, too good.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu May 25, 2017 10:30 am

Rip wrote:I was capable of engaging from a distance but its strength was dogfighting.

I must have missed the sub-launched variant.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu May 25, 2017 12:22 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:
Rip wrote:I was capable of engaging from a distance but its strength was dogfighting.
I must have missed the sub-launched variant.

I can neither confirm nor deny that I was a submarine based Tomcat pilot.....