T-bone22

"Huh huh huh, he's called Rooster cuz he likes cock and he's gay."

Sounds like some witty banter went on in that car.

Dr. DVD

Interesting that you noticed as well. When I went to my Thursday night showing last week the audience was white people my parents age, my age, and then several kids , mostly sitting together. Neat little generational viewing.

clckworang

It was more observing all of the homoeroticism on display and then realizing even character names are reinforcing it, even if unintentionally. Blame the movie for giving its characters stupid names.

Anyone who denies the Top Gun films are filled with homoeroticism is blind or in deep, deep denial. The first film especially has a reputation for being filled with this imagery. This new one is no different. In many ways, I'd say it's even more blatant.

Edit to add: There were also quite a few exclamations of "America, fuck yeah!" because of how jingoistic it all felt.

Artman

Yes that's why people like it.

And playing a game shirtless on the beach does not have anything to do with homosexuality. The aspect of brotherhood between guys just can't seem to be understood by some (see Frodo & Sam, Poe & Finn for ex) so they have to attach sexuality to it.

Draven

I know what the words cock and rooster mean. I just don’t hear people swap cock=penis with rooster=penis. Even in Deadwood.

And my sound system is just fine but I certainly don’t go to the drive-in for the best presentation of a movie. Maybe you should go to a better theater?

Why So Blu?

You described the first film, which is gayer than a leather piρata. This one, not so much. The first film was also a product of the 80's - a "cold war" film along with Rocky 4. It was definitely about "America, fuck yeah" and all that. Part 2, again, not so much. I'm not a fan of the first film, which is why I was floored at how good this film was. You weren't a fan and that's ok, too. The issue is that the way it comes off in your critique is that you soured on it due to your theatrical experience. You say that the way you saw the film had no influence on your opinion, but I don't believe that. I think that if you had seen it in an amazing theater with all the bells and whistles you may have had a better time instead of some crummy drive-in. A good film should transcend all this, but you have a bunch of other variables that were a buzzkill, even if you don't want to think so.

T-bone22

On the subject of drive-ins, I’ve never actually been to one, but I can’t imagine that going to see a new movie and sitting in a car watching a screen through the windshield would be enjoyable whatsoever. Why the hell would anyone choose that option if there is a real theater in their vicinity?

Now going to a drive-in on a nice cool Fall evening and pulling out some lawn chairs and watching a cheesy horror film under the stars… that I can get behind.

*Oh and to be clear, I’m not suggesting the drive-in experience had any real sway on his opinion of the film, since he seems to be so focused on that from others. He clearly has different issues.

Double_Oh_7

Maneuver through a narrow trench to destroy a small target, all while avoiding enemy fighters and heavy fire. Where have I seen that before

Why So Blu?

Stay on target...

Mike86

My girlfriend and saw it last night. Went to a drive in theater for a different experience. The technical aspects would have played better in a normal theater, but we both still really enjoyed it. Met my expectations from the positive reviews and I think it exceeded hers.

Neither of us are really fans of the first film, but this was definitely a case where I think the long time between the original and the sequel was beneficial.

Cruise was still able to pull off the part well. He was great as always and brought his all to the role. Miles Tellers was really good too as was the rest of the cast. The film pulled off being nostalgic, but not as cornball as the original film. Just a fun movie to watch and one I’d see again.

DJariya

Top Gun is only projected to take a 33% drop week 2. That’s pretty amazing. Usually movies take 60% drops or more. It just shows how word of mouth has kept it going strong.

RichC2

Yep, very impressive hold.

mapasu

We did, I thought it was cool after all the troubles these past years.

Dr. DVD

Great to hear about the small drop. This is a bit of a tangent, but I truly feel part of the reason the original was the top film of 1986 is simply due to the fact that chain multi-plexes were not yet a major force and movies tended to play at theaters for a much longer time period. My small city only had five screens at two different theaters under the same independent owner ship during most of my childhood. However, every movie got a large screen and auditorium to provide the best experience possible no matter what you were seeing. Something I used to love doing while on summer vacation when we were at our hotel was get a local newspaper for whatever city and look at the movie listings. While big cities did have maybe one multi-plex, viewing most movies required a trip around town. Top Gun could still be found playing in a large auditorium in early July at most likely the same location where it opened in May. There was no big rush to see it in a premium format because some other big movie was about to come and take said screen in a week or two, because the new movie would probably be at a different theater and have its own large screen. I honestly think this is why so many blockbusters from the mid to late 80s (basically until Batman in 1989) were able to sustain , and nobody never really knew going in to the summer what would be the break out hit.

DJariya

I'm glad that Paramount held out to make this a summer release. I don't think it would have done nearly as well if it came out last November.

Dr. DVD

It would have had one big opening weekend followed by some Thanksgiving holdover fueled entirely by nostalgia. However, many people were still afraid to go back to theaters at that point, so it wouldn't have had the numbers it's having now. The movie plays like it was tailor made for Memorial Day weekend and summer time.

dhmac

Perfect timing to release this movie now. It's the kind of escapist entertainment wanted post-pandemic but isn't too fantastical like most modern action movies (and superhero movies) are today. This is something exciting but more realistic visually on the screen than some swirling CGI mess.

Michael Corvin

Saw this last night. Wasn't the biggest theater (had to go with the one that fit with my time availability) but it was a damn fun movie. I want to go again to see it in the biggest theater just for comparison. at the drive-in discussion above. Who the fuck goes to see something like this (for the first time anyway) at a drive-in? What a bizarre choice. As soon as the trailer hit, it was immediately clear that this is a movie that had to be seen in a giant theater with amazing sound.

As for the movie itself, almost flawless right up until the last minute, literally. Captured the vibe of the original, even had similar cheesy 80s-ish moments, but kept it all together and caring about these characters. The Death Star trench run was a weird choice, but it worked. Strange that Cruise would crib something so blatant for one of his films as that doesn't seem like him at all, but in the end, it was different enough with other factors at play that it worked.

Back to that "almost flawless" bit. I have but a single gripe. The movie had a classic rock soundtrack, tunes from the original flick and solid score and they end with Lady fucking Gaga? A modern pop song? I don't care how popular/famous she is or that she has an Oscar for a film song, it was simply out of place. I typically stay for the credits, but I bailed. No need to sully the previous 2 hours. Sure the original had some 80s pop cheese but it was sprinkled throughout, this was just out of nowhere by the end.

Lastly, two production questions since I didn't follow the pre-release leading up to it:
1. Did Meg Ryan not want to partake? Or was the film written to give Rooster a better story if they left her out altogether?
2. The production was credited to Don Simpson/Jerry Bruckheimer which hasn't been seen in decades. Was that just a loving tribute or something contractual regarding a sequel that was written decades ago? Just a curiosity thing.

Michael Corvin

Also, this really feels like a movie that could have Summer Legs, which I can't recall the last movie that did.

Outside of "drive-in guy" above, I haven't seen/heard a single complaint from anyone that has seen it. Nothing but positive word of mouth. Definitely a recipe for some longevity.

d2cheer

We saw this last night and it brought this man to tears of joy. I can't think of an experience I have had like this in a long time. Not even the Marvel movies. I was exhausted after seeing it and may actually go see it again. Something I rarely ever do. I think the las time was the original Spider-Man movie. What an amazing theatrical experience. Everything else has been basically said. What an accomplishment for all involved. Whew...

Decker

Um, I know I’ve already said how much I love that Gaga song. But leaving that out for a second — “Out of place”? Seriously? Are you aware of the only Oscar that was awarded to Top Gun? It was for this modern pop song.

TomOpus

I'll agree the song fits in well.

The numbers in the poll are pretty phenomenal. 100% 4 stars and above. Without check all the polls I think Spider-man: Far from Home was high scoring but 10 people still rated it below 4 stars.

GoldenJCJ

I noticed Simpson’s name in the opening credits too. I just assumed it was a loving tribute to mirror the opening of first movie. But now that you mention it, it probably was some sort of contractual thing.

Either way, I thought it was cool to include his name.

~~ PAL ~~

Just to compare, the 1986 Top Gun played "Mighty Wings" by Cheap Trick during the credits. The sequel used the Lady Gaga song.

Overall I thought the original soundtrack was better, plus many of those songs got a lot of air time on the radio.

One other thing that I noticed from the poster of Tom Cruise showing the back of his leather bomber jacket, is that the studio digitally altered the patch to remove both Japan and Taiwan's flag. My guess is that this was done to not piss off China with such a prominent display. When you watch the original movie, or even during the very first time in Maverick when he puts on the jacket, you can clearly see both Japan and Taiwan's flags in the center patch which was for some kind of joint operation with USA. But now in the promotional poster those two spots were changed to some meaningless gibberish emblems.

DJariya

I don't think it's a contractual thing. Simpson's been deceased for 26 years. I think it was his friend and colleague Jerry Bruckheimer paying homage to him and the 1st movie.

As for Meg Ryan, it just was a creative thing from what I understand. She just wasn't needed for this story same as potentially forcing in Maverick's ex Charlie (McGillis) After all, 36 years have passed and things can change in people's lives. And we've all seen the pictures that McGillis looks really old now and is out of shape. But, those characters just weren't needed or made no sense to bring in.

and "Hold My Hand" was not an awkward song to end the movie. It had bits and pieces sprinkled throughout. I think it's a really good song and works, but opinions are always subjective with pop music. I know not everyone likes Lady Gaga and that's totally fine.