Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 64

Thread: Top Gun Maverick

  1. #21
    Gold
    Reputation
    135
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Posts
    1,075
    Load Metric
    65727951
    2022. (Alberto Pezzali/AP)
    The Israeli heirs of the author who inspired the 1986 blockbuster “Top Gun” movie filed a lawsuit Monday against Paramount Pictures, claiming it produced and released its recent sequel even though it no longer holds the copyright to the story.

    The original “Top Gun” was based on a 1983 article in Californian magazine by Ehud Yonay, who died in 2021. The magazine piece described the high-adrenaline world of jet pilots at the US Navy’s “Top Gun” fighter training school. Yonay also later wrote a book, “NO MARGIN FOR ERROR: The Making of the Israeli Air Force.”

    They are seeking damages and an injunction against the distribution of the new film. The suit was filed in California on behalf of the Yonays by Marc Toberoff, an attorney who specializes in copyright termination cases.

    Under Section 203 of the Copyright Act, authors can end the transfer of copyright after 35 years. Although Paramount was given the rights for the original movie, according to the lawsuit, the Yonays claim they notified the studio in 2018 that they were ending the transfer and that copyright to the story would revert to them in 2020.

    “Top Gun: Maverick” began production in 2018, and was due for release the following year. However, it was delayed until June 2020 as more work was done on flight sequences, Variety magazine reported. The COVID-19 pandemic then caused a further two-year delay. According to the lawsuit, work on the film did not end until May 2021, by which time termination of the copyright transfer had already been effective for over a year.

    “These claims are without merit, and we will defend ourselves vigorously,” Paramount said in a statement.
    End quote

    Bullshit, for an Israeli they'll overpay.

     
    Comments
      
      Gordman: GTFO

  2. #22
    Platinum
    Reputation
    997
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    4,184
    Load Metric
    65727951
    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy View Post
    2022. (Alberto Pezzali/AP)
    The Israeli heirs of the author who inspired the 1986 blockbuster “Top Gun” movie filed a lawsuit Monday against Paramount Pictures, claiming it produced and released its recent sequel even though it no longer holds the copyright to the story.

    The original “Top Gun” was based on a 1983 article in Californian magazine by Ehud Yonay, who died in 2021. The magazine piece described the high-adrenaline world of jet pilots at the US Navy’s “Top Gun” fighter training school. Yonay also later wrote a book, “NO MARGIN FOR ERROR: The Making of the Israeli Air Force.”

    They are seeking damages and an injunction against the distribution of the new film. The suit was filed in California on behalf of the Yonays by Marc Toberoff, an attorney who specializes in copyright termination cases.

    Under Section 203 of the Copyright Act, authors can end the transfer of copyright after 35 years. Although Paramount was given the rights for the original movie, according to the lawsuit, the Yonays claim they notified the studio in 2018 that they were ending the transfer and that copyright to the story would revert to them in 2020.

    “Top Gun: Maverick” began production in 2018, and was due for release the following year. However, it was delayed until June 2020 as more work was done on flight sequences, Variety magazine reported. The COVID-19 pandemic then caused a further two-year delay. According to the lawsuit, work on the film did not end until May 2021, by which time termination of the copyright transfer had already been effective for over a year.

    “These claims are without merit, and we will defend ourselves vigorously,” Paramount said in a statement.
    End quote

    Bullshit, for an Israeli they'll overpay.

    Go keep your bullshit in your other deranged threads.




    SHUT IT DOWN

  3. #23
    Gold BedWetterBettor's Avatar
    Reputation
    3631
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    2,211
    Load Metric
    65727951
    Good movie, but not as great or groundbreaking as everyone seems to make it out to be. I’ll do a quick pros and cons.

    ******Spoiler Alert******

    Pros -

    •Beautifully shot and acted well by nearly everyone save for Val Kilmer(more on that in the Cons part)!

    •Maverick’s arc is well done, true to the character and IMO done as well as can be expected for 50+ Tom Cruise

    •Supporting cast is surprisingly good and obviously opens to door for the obligatory sequels.

    •Satisfying movie experience that gives some nice set pieces, locations and action.


    Cons - *****Once Again Spoiler Alert****

    • Val Kilmer was either sick during filming and they worked it into the script or he just didn’t care to get in shape and demanded they limit his scenes to only showing his face. So he’s basically a terminally ill mute in this film and communicates through text. IMO, he was a huge part of the success of the original film and the tension between him and Maverick is what drove that first movie. You get none of if here and it’s basically transferred to Jon Hamm to try and recreate that dynamic, which doesn’t really work considering the ending.

    •Criminal under use of Ed Harris, who they establish as nothing more than the Michael Ironside of this film. Speaking of Ironside…

    • No appearance or mention of Jester and Viper played brilliantly in the last film by Michael Ironside and Tom Skeritt. I realize they’re very old, but they still do films and look reasonably well. Just thought something to the effect of they retired or died, unless I missed it. But I don’t recall hearing their names.

    • Jennifer Connelly was the wrong choice IMO for the love interest. While she is very attractive she is just too skinny now and there were better choices who would’ve played off well with Cruise. Maybe someone not so “nice” and a little feistier than JC.

    • No backstory or meaningful scenes for the new pilots other than Rooster(Goose’s son). I get the focus of the entire movie is Maverick’s guilt and PTSD over Goose’s death. But it felt like EVERY other scene revolves around that. They had a good young cast to elaborate on and failed miserably. Such as the obvious sexual tension between Hangman(the new Iceman) and Phoenix(the Token female pilot). This would add to the new rivalry between Hangman and Rooster and give the female a backstory. They literally gave nothing on ANY of the new pilots and they had no scenes outside of one bar scene to introduce them. Tom Cruise producing this hurt any new character development. I’m sure it will be fleshed out in future installments, but starting here would help!

    • Maverick never fails in this movie and always gets lucky to escape being court marshaled. Not once but twice he uses unauthorized aircraft and jeopardizes careers, with the excuse given “welllll we had to act or all is lost” which is simply not true. They keep doing the fake out that he’s getting discharged or killed, but we know they won’t get through with it and always come up with some bogus reason to have him persevere!

    • The plot is basically ripped from Star Wars: A New Hope. They have to fly two fighter planes down at top speed, down a narrow, winding treacherous path and drop a precision bomb hit on a target less than 3 meters wide! And of course Han Solo Hangman flys in out of nowhere at the last possible second to destroy the enemy fighter before our hero is shot down! I’m surprised he didn’t yell “You’re all clear kid, now let’s blow this thing and get out!”

    All in all an enjoyable movie, but not better than the original.

  4. #24
    Gold
    Reputation
    308
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    1,741
    Load Metric
    65727951
    Quote Originally Posted by BedWetterBettor View Post
    Good movie, but not as great or groundbreaking as everyone seems to make it out to be. I’ll do a quick pros and cons.

    ******Spoiler Alert******

    Pros -

    •Beautifully shot and acted well by nearly everyone save for Val Kilmer(more on that in the Cons part)!

    •Maverick’s arc is well done, true to the character and IMO done as well as can be expected for 50+ Tom Cruise

    •Supporting cast is surprisingly good and obviously opens to door for the obligatory sequels.

    •Satisfying movie experience that gives some nice set pieces, locations and action.


    Cons - *****Once Again Spoiler Alert****

    Val Kilmer was either sick during filming and they worked it into the script or he just didn’t care to get in shape and demanded they limit his scenes to only showing his face. So he’s basically a terminally ill mute in this film and communicates through text. IMO, he was a huge part of the success of the original film and the tension between him and Maverick is what drove that first movie. You get none of if here and it’s basically transferred to Jon Hamm to try and recreate that dynamic, which doesn’t really work considering the ending.

    •Criminal under use of Ed Harris, who they establish as nothing more than the Michael Ironside of this film. Speaking of Ironside…

    • No appearance or mention of Jester and Viper played brilliantly in the last film by Michael Ironside and Tom Skeritt. I realize they’re very old, but they still do films and look reasonably well. Just thought something to the effect of they retired or died, unless I missed it. But I don’t recall hearing their names.

    • Jennifer Connelly was the wrong choice IMO for the love interest. While she is very attractive she is just too skinny now and there were better choices who would’ve played off well with Cruise. Maybe someone not so “nice” and a little feistier than JC.

    • No backstory or meaningful scenes for the new pilots other than Rooster(Goose’s son). I get the focus of the entire movie is Maverick’s guilt and PTSD over Goose’s death. But it felt like EVERY other scene revolves around that. They had a good young cast to elaborate on and failed miserably. Such as the obvious sexual tension between Hangman(the new Iceman) and Phoenix(the Token female pilot). This would add to the new rivalry between Hangman and Rooster and give the female a backstory. They literally gave nothing on ANY of the new pilots and they had no scenes outside of one bar scene to introduce them. Tom Cruise producing this hurt any new character development. I’m sure it will be fleshed out in future installments, but starting here would help!

    • Maverick never fails in this movie and always gets lucky to escape being court marshaled. Not once but twice he uses unauthorized aircraft and jeopardizes careers, with the excuse given “welllll we had to act or all is lost” which is simply not true. They keep doing the fake out that he’s getting discharged or killed, but we know they won’t get through with it and always come up with some bogus reason to have him persevere!

    • The plot is basically ripped from Star Wars: A New Hope. They have to fly two fighter planes down at top speed, down a narrow, winding treacherous path and drop a precision bomb hit on a target less than 3 meters wide! And of course Han Solo Hangman flys in out of nowhere at the last possible second to destroy the enemy fighter before our hero is shot down! I’m surprised he didn’t yell “You’re all clear kid, now let’s blow this thing and get out!”

    All in all an enjoyable movie, but not better than the original.
    I dont know what rock you have been hiding under the last few years, but he has had a well publicized bout with some kind of throat cancer the last few years. He probably comes across as a terminally ill mute because at this point he unfortunately is one.

     
    Comments
      
      BedWetterBettor: Sorry I don’t follow the career of Kilmer nor care to. It isn’t exactly headline news compared to news worthy world events

  5. #25
    Platinum
    Reputation
    997
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    4,184
    Load Metric
    65727951
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalam View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BedWetterBettor View Post
    Good movie, but not as great or groundbreaking as everyone seems to make it out to be. I’ll do a quick pros and cons.

    ******Spoiler Alert******

    Pros -

    •Beautifully shot and acted well by nearly everyone save for Val Kilmer(more on that in the Cons part)!

    •Maverick’s arc is well done, true to the character and IMO done as well as can be expected for 50+ Tom Cruise

    •Supporting cast is surprisingly good and obviously opens to door for the obligatory sequels.

    •Satisfying movie experience that gives some nice set pieces, locations and action.


    Cons - *****Once Again Spoiler Alert****

    Val Kilmer was either sick during filming and they worked it into the script or he just didn’t care to get in shape and demanded they limit his scenes to only showing his face. So he’s basically a terminally ill mute in this film and communicates through text. IMO, he was a huge part of the success of the original film and the tension between him and Maverick is what drove that first movie. You get none of if here and it’s basically transferred to Jon Hamm to try and recreate that dynamic, which doesn’t really work considering the ending.

    •Criminal under use of Ed Harris, who they establish as nothing more than the Michael Ironside of this film. Speaking of Ironside…

    • No appearance or mention of Jester and Viper played brilliantly in the last film by Michael Ironside and Tom Skeritt. I realize they’re very old, but they still do films and look reasonably well. Just thought something to the effect of they retired or died, unless I missed it. But I don’t recall hearing their names.

    • Jennifer Connelly was the wrong choice IMO for the love interest. While she is very attractive she is just too skinny now and there were better choices who would’ve played off well with Cruise. Maybe someone not so “nice” and a little feistier than JC.

    • No backstory or meaningful scenes for the new pilots other than Rooster(Goose’s son). I get the focus of the entire movie is Maverick’s guilt and PTSD over Goose’s death. But it felt like EVERY other scene revolves around that. They had a good young cast to elaborate on and failed miserably. Such as the obvious sexual tension between Hangman(the new Iceman) and Phoenix(the Token female pilot). This would add to the new rivalry between Hangman and Rooster and give the female a backstory. They literally gave nothing on ANY of the new pilots and they had no scenes outside of one bar scene to introduce them. Tom Cruise producing this hurt any new character development. I’m sure it will be fleshed out in future installments, but starting here would help!

    • Maverick never fails in this movie and always gets lucky to escape being court marshaled. Not once but twice he uses unauthorized aircraft and jeopardizes careers, with the excuse given “welllll we had to act or all is lost” which is simply not true. They keep doing the fake out that he’s getting discharged or killed, but we know they won’t get through with it and always come up with some bogus reason to have him persevere!

    • The plot is basically ripped from Star Wars: A New Hope. They have to fly two fighter planes down at top speed, down a narrow, winding treacherous path and drop a precision bomb hit on a target less than 3 meters wide! And of course Han Solo Hangman flys in out of nowhere at the last possible second to destroy the enemy fighter before our hero is shot down! I’m surprised he didn’t yell “You’re all clear kid, now let’s blow this thing and get out!”

    All in all an enjoyable movie, but not better than the original.
    I dont know what rock you have been hiding under the last few years, but he has had a well publicized bout with some kind of throat cancer the last few years. He probably comes across as a terminally ill mute because at this point he unfortunately is one.



    Im not sure how anyone does not know this at this point - especially with all of the publicity lately.

    Also, small bit of trivia: They used A.I. based on Kilmers real voice for the one line that he "spoke" in the movie.

     
    Comments
      
      BedWetterBettor: Again I don’t follow the everyday comings and going’s of Val! Perhaps you or another one of the appointed news hounds can update us here daily on his health status? Ya know when there isn’t a mass shooting or international conflict going on!

  6. #26
    Plutonium Sanlmar's Avatar
    Reputation
    4291
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    21,090
    Load Metric
    65727951
    From what I can gather they didn’t spring for the extra money to have someone write a non cringe plot.

    On the whole I don’t trust the action sequences can overcome the stupid

    The first one was an original - kind of vapid and gay but original. It worked… barely. I don’t feel the need to revisit it.

    If I’m near an IMAX with nothing to do I might.


    I kinda stumbled on this idea that I think is a rock solid take. Vapid television (movies?) speaks to Generation X as rock music did the Boomers.

    Just got my Eric Clapton tickets.

    Druff’s desire to revisit Top Gun is an example of this.
    Last edited by Sanlmar; 06-07-2022 at 11:22 AM.

  7. #27
    Plutonium Sanlmar's Avatar
    Reputation
    4291
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    21,090
    Load Metric
    65727951
    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy View Post
    2022. (Alberto Pezzali/AP)
    The Israeli heirs of the author who inspired the 1986 blockbuster “Top Gun” movie filed a lawsuit Monday against Paramount Pictures, claiming it produced and released its recent sequel even though it no longer holds the copyright to the story.

    The original “Top Gun” was based on a 1983 article in Californian magazine by Ehud Yonay, who died in 2021. The magazine piece described the high-adrenaline world of jet pilots at the US Navy’s “Top Gun” fighter training school. Yonay also later wrote a book, “NO MARGIN FOR ERROR: The Making of the Israeli Air Force.”.
    I’m gonna to grant Entropy some latitude Gordman.

    I found both these pieces of trivia interesting. Might be interesting to read the magazine piece.

    Paranthetically, the Israeli Air Force was a huge feature in “The Undoing Project”. Required reading for all gamblers….. but I digress

  8. #28
    Gold The Boz's Avatar
    Reputation
    790
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    1,035
    Load Metric
    65727951
    Went today. As someone who lives in the heart of Scientology and doesn’t like it or Cruise….I loved the movie.

    It’s an incredible 2 hours and putting biases away I’m not sure how anyone couldn’t enjoy it.

    Nuff said.

  9. #29
    Plutonium Sanlmar's Avatar
    Reputation
    4291
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    21,090
    Load Metric
    65727951
    Quote Originally Posted by The Boz View Post
    Went today. As someone who lives in the heart of Scientology and doesn’t like it or Cruise….I loved the movie.

    It’s an incredible 2 hours and putting biases away I’m not sure how anyone couldn’t enjoy it.

    Nuff said.
    Any Navy recruiters in the lobby?

     
    Comments
      
      The Boz: Might be a good opportunity on a weekend evening show. Noon showing in Florida had probably 40 people and I was the youngest.��

  10. #30
    PFA Emeritus Crowe Diddly's Avatar
    Reputation
    1954
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    6,682
    Load Metric
    65727951
    Quote Originally Posted by The Boz View Post
    Went today. As someone who lives in the heart of Scientology and doesn’t like it or Cruise….I loved the movie.

    It’s an incredible 2 hours and putting biases away I’m not sure how anyone couldn’t enjoy it.

    Nuff said.
    Top Gun 2 and Going Clear can both be great and flawed but mostly great.

    you near clearwater, Boz?

     
    Comments
      
      The Boz: Just a few miles North, still in Pinellas county.

  11. #31
    Plutonium Sanlmar's Avatar
    Reputation
    4291
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    21,090
    Load Metric
    65727951
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowe Diddly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Boz View Post
    Went today. As someone who lives in the heart of Scientology and doesn’t like it or Cruise….I loved the movie.

    It’s an incredible 2 hours and putting biases away I’m not sure how anyone couldn’t enjoy it.

    Nuff said.
    Top Gun 2 and Going Clear can both be great and flawed but mostly great.

    you near clearwater, Boz?
    I surrender. I guess we gotta score one for the military-entertainment complex.

    My problem is is I know how the sausage is made. The massive subsidy by the Pentagon to see that this was made has gotta be off the hook.

    I guess we all need a a Reagan era feel-good-about-America-for-change piece. I can’t explain it but I haven’t seen it.

    Maybe I’ll bring a couple chewables, a box wine, unclench my sphincter and see what’s up.

  12. #32
    Feelin' Stronger Every Day tony bagadonuts's Avatar
    Reputation
    558
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    3,517
    Load Metric
    65727951
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanlmar View Post

    I surrender. I guess we gotta score one for the military-entertainment complex.

    My problem is is I know how the sausage is made. The massive subsidy by the Pentagon to see that this was made has gotta be off the hook.

    I guess we all need a a Reagan era feel-good-about-America-for-change piece. I can’t explain it but I haven’t seen it.

    Maybe I’ll bring a couple chewables, a box wine, unclench my sphincter and see what’s up.
    Military-entertainment complex?? C'mon guy it's 2022 there's no such thing.

  13. #33
    PFA Emeritus Crowe Diddly's Avatar
    Reputation
    1954
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    6,682
    Load Metric
    65727951
    Quote Originally Posted by tony bagadonuts View Post

    Military-entertainment complex?? C'mon guy it's 2022 there's no such thing.
    now that's truly funny. The first Top Gun increased naval aviation recruits by something like 500+% immediately, not including long-term trends, just the first year after movie release. This movie is expected to follow a similar path. That's why the military cooperates, and aggressively courts such a movie and movie star.

     
    Comments
      
      Sanlmar: Forgot Pentagon script approval before all that hardware, pilots & free run of military installations was permitted.

  14. #34
    Platinum
    Reputation
    997
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    4,184
    Load Metric
    65727951
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowe Diddly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tony bagadonuts View Post

    Military-entertainment complex?? C'mon guy it's 2022 there's no such thing.
    now that's truly funny. The first Top Gun increased naval aviation recruits by something like 500+% immediately, not including long-term trends, just the first year after movie release. This movie is expected to follow a similar path. That's why the military cooperates, and aggressively courts such a movie and movie star.

    I think Bagadonuts was maybe joking


    In any case, yes, its no secret that the military has subsidized many many movies over the past decades.


    I am genuinely curious as to what the actual numbers were in terms of what the military covered in this movie and what the production paid for.

    Ive seen articles that stated that production paid a little over $11,000 per hour per plane, but I would like to know where they got that figure from and how legit it is.

    There were some high end planes used in this and they weren't CGI (probably except for the "experimental" one.

    Hell, there were even a couple of F-35's for a short scene in the film, which kind of surprised me given how mind blowingly expensive they are (north of 110 million).

    Side note - people asked why Cruise wasnt flying the "latest and greatest" F-35 in the movie. The reason was that it is a single seater, which would have been impossible to shoot scenes in given the fact that the actors obv cannot fly the planes themselves.

     
    Comments
      
      tony bagadonuts: my man

  15. #35
    Platinum
    Reputation
    997
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    4,184
    Load Metric
    65727951
    Another thing is, I think people maybe need to chill the fuck out about how "the plot doesn't make sense" "this doesnt make sense", "that doesn't make sense" "but but Iran...." yada yada yada, like they are desparately trying to compare it to real life shit.

    IT. IS. A. MOVIE.

  16. #36
    Plutonium Sanlmar's Avatar
    Reputation
    4291
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    21,090
    Load Metric
    65727951
    Quote Originally Posted by Gordman View Post
    Another thing is, I think people maybe need to chill the fuck out about how "the plot doesn't make sense" "this doesnt make sense", "that doesn't make sense" "but but Iran...." yada yada yada, like they are desparately trying to compare it to real life shit.

    IT. IS. A. MOVIE.
    I think Gordman was maybe joking

    sry Tony Bags

     
    Comments
      
      tony bagadonuts: lol

  17. #37
    Bronze
    Reputation
    18
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    161
    Load Metric
    65727951
    I saw it last week and I liked it. Nothing remarkable but entertaining. I recommend to watch it at cinema for the big movie screen and sound effects.

  18. #38
    PFA Emeritus Crowe Diddly's Avatar
    Reputation
    1954
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    6,682
    Load Metric
    65727951
    Quote Originally Posted by Gordman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowe Diddly View Post

    now that's truly funny. The first Top Gun increased naval aviation recruits by something like 500+% immediately, not including long-term trends, just the first year after movie release. This movie is expected to follow a similar path. That's why the military cooperates, and aggressively courts such a movie and movie star.

    I think Bagadonuts was maybe joking
    Shit, you proabbly right.

  19. #39
    Feelin' Stronger Every Day tony bagadonuts's Avatar
    Reputation
    558
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    3,517
    Load Metric
    65727951
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowe Diddly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gordman View Post


    I think Bagadonuts was maybe joking
    Shit, you proabbly right.
    Name:  b60.png
Views: 192
Size:  473.7 KB

  20. #40
    Gold
    Reputation
    135
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Posts
    1,075
    Load Metric
    65727951
    Cruise is a licensed pilot irl ,wow.


    When he was promoting Mission Impossible Cruise took Corden sky diving. I was surprised Corden actually did it. It's worth a watch.

    Idk about Scientology and all that but Cruise is a super nice guy.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-20-2021, 07:58 AM
  2. Top Gun actors 26 years later
    By Dan Druff in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-27-2019, 10:25 AM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-11-2013, 01:34 PM
  4. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 01-20-2013, 11:21 PM
  5. Replies: 49
    Last Post: 08-21-2012, 11:05 AM