+allenjb42 4,240 Posted July 21, 2008 http://entertainment.uk.msn.com/movies/new...umentid=8959156 We've gotta have some casting thoughts for the "cocky new female pilot."..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lorddemonicus 0 Posted July 21, 2008 Yeah, a top gun sequel, my prayers have been heard :yes: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Jimbib 747 Posted July 21, 2008 reports The Sun Well it's got to be true then Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ruggbutt 45 Posted July 21, 2008 Hopefully they'll get some of the technical aspects of the film correct. When I saw Top Gun in the movie theatre when it was first released and Mav says he's gonna put on the brakes then jams the throttle forward and pulls the stick back I said quite loudly "bulls**t". Top Gun was a great movie but stupid inaccuracies like that as well as reusing the sidewinder shot a dozen times in the movie made a great movie a bit less great. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted July 21, 2008 Hopefully they'll get some of the technical aspects of the film correct. When I saw Top Gun in the movie theatre when it was first released and Mav says he's gonna put on the brakes then jams the throttle forward and pulls the stick back I said quite loudly "bulls**t". Top Gun was a great movie but stupid inaccuracies like that as well as reusing the sidewinder shot a dozen times in the movie made a great movie a bit less great. Let me rephrase that, Duke Cunningham used that brake tactic but not like you see it in the movie. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
column5 63 Posted July 21, 2008 What are they going to do about the fact that Top Gun doesn't exist in the same sense that it did when the first movie was made? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Longestpants 1 Posted July 21, 2008 What are they going to do about the fact that Top Gun doesn't exist in the same sense that it did when the first movie was made? Uh, ignore it and do whatever they want? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eraser_tr 29 Posted July 21, 2008 I saw this coming, with all the rehashes of older films they've been doing. I'm surprised they hadn't done it before. Chances are it will suck. I mean, what are they going to fly? superbugs? Without the Tomcat, the movie has to do double duty if they want it to be nearly as cool as the original. And Kelly McGillis looks like crap now. My vote goes for Kiera Knightly or Jessica Biel. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted July 21, 2008 What are they going to do about the fact that Top Gun doesn't exist in the same sense that it did when the first movie was made? what - you want accuracy? or great box office? have to make up your mind.... its like "cheaper, better, faster - pick any two" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rambler 1-1 9 Posted July 21, 2008 OH GOD NO! EJECT! EJECT! AAAHHHHH!!!! (*punches out but gets KILLED AFTER HITTING THE CANPOY*) I'm still mad at top gun for that. We all know that is completely impossible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Viggen 644 Posted July 21, 2008 What will replace MiG-28s? The MiG-32s (F-16s )? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Caesar 305 Posted July 21, 2008 Oh dear God no. I'm sorry, but the Bug does not have the swagger and screen appearance of the Tomcat, heck the Tomcat was practically the star of the first movie! And I really don't see them taking any closer eye to reality than they did before: when they tried, it didn't look good on camera (they talk about it on the special edition DVD). I just hope it never goes through. Rambler, the sequence where Goose dies is perfectly possible; the Tomcat generates a low pressure system above the aircraft when in an upright flat spin and it is recommended in NATOPS for the pilot or RIO to punch the canopy first and wait for it to clear before initiating ejection (sequence is listed on pp. 548 or 14-40); as Pete "Viper" Pettigrew said, that sequence was based on an actual accident (not sure if the RIO was killed in that instance, but apparently it did happen). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Jarhead1 27 Posted July 21, 2008 What will replace MiG-28s? The MiG-32s (F-16s )? NO NO NO NO Viggen, the replacements this time will be the same MiG F-4s from Iron Eagle 2, you know, the "MiG-29"???? lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted July 21, 2008 (edited) OH GOD NO! EJECT! EJECT! AAAHHHHH!!!! (*punches out but gets KILLED AFTER HITTING THE CANPOY*) I'm still mad at top gun for that. We all know that is completely impossible. uh, yes it is possible. update: I see cesar has already filled in those details. concur, sadly...... Edited July 21, 2008 by Typhoid Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eraser_tr 29 Posted July 21, 2008 That crossed my mind too, but with Iran making their own upgraded F-5, they could probably just reuse the T-38s from the first one, painted differently. More likely, they could just digitally do any real foreign aircraft they felt like, technology has come a long way since 1986. It occurred to me instead of Top Gun 2, doing a psuedo sequel for the AF "Red Flag" But then I remembered they already did a red flag movie for IMAX I saw down at the Udvar Hazy center. Met a phantom driver while we were waiting on line too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rambler 1-1 9 Posted July 21, 2008 Rambler, the sequence where Goose dies is perfectly possible; the Tomcat generates a low pressure system above the aircraft when in an upright flat spin and it is recommended in NATOPS for the pilot or RIO to punch the canopy first and wait for it to clear before initiating ejection (sequence is listed on pp. 548 or 14-40); as Pete "Viper" Pettigrew said, that sequence was based on an actual accident (not sure if the RIO was killed in that instance, but apparently it did happen). yeah, I just looked it up. I thought the F-14 had a charge in the canopy to shatter it after it is jettisoned, and I thought there was a bar in the seat to punch through the canopy in case it didn't come off. I got my ejection sequences mixed up! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,885 Posted July 21, 2008 always dismissed top gun as totally unrealistic - but it looks like they did their homework for most of it - may have even based some of it on Nam era pilots such as Winston Copeland. Even the dogfight at the end - always thought it was typical hollywood that the bad guys missiles missed - but then again countries like libya (which it is kinda depicting )had exported rear aspect AA-2s - which must have been flippin useless!!. Of course 6 x F-5Es Vs 1 x F-14A (aka Iceman) guns only at the range depicted should be a kill for the F-5s regardless of their skill level - cue Hollywood Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted July 21, 2008 yeah, I just looked it up. I thought the F-14 had a charge in the canopy to shatter it after it is jettisoned, and I thought there was a bar in the seat to punch through the canopy in case it didn't come off. I got my ejection sequences mixed up! I know there is in the A-6, not sure if there is one in the F-14. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Syrinx 13 Posted July 21, 2008 - always thought it was typical hollywood that the bad guys missiles missed - Musta been using TW AIM9-B's... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Klavs81 4 Posted July 22, 2008 (edited) There's a gentleman FI at Laughlin that has some wicked scars from the dripping hot liquid detcord that dropped down onto his neck as the canopy shattered. From what I gather from that experience and others like it is that most pilots I know prefer a clean canopy punch off to ejecting through shards of plexiglass and liquid fire. Edit: If you have to eject at all, that is. Edited July 22, 2008 by Klavs81 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SayethWhaaaa 245 Posted July 22, 2008 Top Gun was a great movie but stupid inaccuracies like that as well as reusing the sidewinder shot a dozen times in the movie made a great movie a bit less great. Like Iron Eagle and the F-16B that can fire 3 wingtip sidewinders... I mean, I knew the Israeli F-16s were different, but... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
serverandenforcer 33 Posted July 22, 2008 (edited) Well, I guess they can draw up a future time line at a training school using the F-35C. That should be able to hold a swager that the superbug can't hold a candle to. And with current hollywood technology, it can all be CGI, going up against SU-35s, or even SU-40s, depiciting an incident against a hell bent Russia, China, Venezuela or even going up against current threats, such as Iran or N.K. For the actress... current possiblities: Jessica Biel, Scarlett Johansson, Katie Holmes (wouldn't that be funny), or any other hot movie star that we all wish we could some day date. Kiera Knightly? uh, no. She would have to get rid of that accent, and every movie that I've seen that has her starring in it, she has the accent. Edited July 22, 2008 by serverandenforcer Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Klavs81 4 Posted July 22, 2008 (edited) Well, I guess they can draw up a future time line at a training school using the F-35C. That should be able to hold a swager that the superbug can't hold a candle to. And with current hollywood technology, it can all be CGI, going up against SU-35s, or even SU-40s, depiciting an incident against a hell bent Russia, China, Venezuela or even going up against current threats, such as Iran or N.K.For the actress... current possiblities: Jessica Biel, Scarlett Johansson, Katie Holmes (wouldn't that be funny), or any other hot movie star that we all wish we could some day date. Kiera Knightly? uh, no. She would have to get rid of that accent, and every movie that I've seen that has her starring in it, she has the accent. Yeah, they could have Jessica Biel fresh from her experiences flying the F/A-35 Talon and ejecting over north korea. That'd make ME cocky. Plus, she could ditch that pretty boy Josh Lucas. Just as long as we don't see Cruise putting the moves on her. Innapropriate relationship anyone? Actually, scratch Biel, she's 0.5 inches taller than Cruise. Can't have that, can we? Edited July 22, 2008 by Klavs81 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
