First Top Gun 2 trailer
- Thread starter Greyman
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Interesting!
Barrett
Senior Airman
Real Topgunners remain skeptical of The Sequel, knowing the (un)reality of The Original. But it's notable that Big Navy is sensitive enough to criticism of TG2 that ChInfo (or somebody) issued a lengthy explanation of how an overage in grade Maverick could remain on active duty THIRTY FOUR YEARS later. Special duty, broken service, yadda-yadda. The sequel was due out this month but has slipped badly and kept on slipping to sometime next summer.
I agree with your point of view Barrett. Even from a historical perspective there can't be a TOPGUN 2.
The other thing that personally really annoys me is the use of CGI. For anyone interested, take a closer look to each scene (excluding those that show Tom Cruise in the back seat, though if you notice the seat harnesses are loose) and you will notice what I'm talking about.
I have also heard that the movie is sponsored by the Chinese. The reason for this, who knows????
Moreover, some people say that this movie will motivate young people to join either the USAF and/or the US Naval Aviation. I doubt that and this for two reasons; one, there are a lot of military aviation movies already that can motivate a young man (or woman) to join the armed forces and two, I predict that in a decade or two, there will be no pilots flying the fighter jets (UAVs, AI).
Just my two cents.
The other thing that personally really annoys me is the use of CGI. For anyone interested, take a closer look to each scene (excluding those that show Tom Cruise in the back seat, though if you notice the seat harnesses are loose) and you will notice what I'm talking about.
I have also heard that the movie is sponsored by the Chinese. The reason for this, who knows????
Moreover, some people say that this movie will motivate young people to join either the USAF and/or the US Naval Aviation. I doubt that and this for two reasons; one, there are a lot of military aviation movies already that can motivate a young man (or woman) to join the armed forces and two, I predict that in a decade or two, there will be no pilots flying the fighter jets (UAVs, AI).
Just my two cents.
- Thread starter
- #5
I don't think it's sponsored by the Chinese, no - but as with many (most?) films now there is absolutely an eye on the vast Chinese box office potential and running afoul of Chinese censors is one way to lose a large percentage of profits.
To this end, if you watch the trailer closely (1:15) you can see Maverick's jacket has been altered so as so omit the Japanese and Taiwanese flags.
To this end, if you watch the trailer closely (1:15) you can see Maverick's jacket has been altered so as so omit the Japanese and Taiwanese flags.
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
Just like the totally inaccurate movie "Battleship". It is just time to
kick back, grab a beer and a pizza, enjoy and have fun!
kick back, grab a beer and a pizza, enjoy and have fun!
Looking forward to this.
At least it's a film about men being men and way better than what Leftist Hollywood has been pushing recently (new Thor is a 5' 3'' female, the new James Bond is a black female, etc).
Actually, no the new Bond is not a black female.
James Bond is James Bond, a white Scottish male. He however goes into retirement at the beginning of the new film. His designation 007 is given to a new agent, who happens to be a black female. And no, her name is not Bond The designation 007 can be given to anyone.
During the film, he comes out of retirement and takes his 007 designation back.
1. Don't fall for the Rightest tripe you read on the internet. There is nothing leftist about this Bond.
2. Keep the Left vs. Right stuff for another forum. We don't like falling for that "dividing sheepist" crap here.
Sorry, if that sounds harsh, but nothing boils my blood more than this left vs. right BS. Both sides are one and the same, and equally guilty if the same ignorance, just a different flavor.
There is no left v right,
I am not political.
You are splitting hairs....Bond, 007, ....you know what was inferred.
It was a simple statement....more as humour.
Yes, you are being harsh. I've already seen a lot worse on this forum and you have been quite restrained and mannerly in answer to some pretty vociferous ''arguments.''
Don't victimise me.
Aren't you supposed to be setting an example of fair play?
p.s. Wouldn't this have been better sent as a PM? ...I would have happily edited it.
[It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice].
I am not political.
You are splitting hairs....Bond, 007, ....you know what was inferred.
It was a simple statement....more as humour.
Yes, you are being harsh. I've already seen a lot worse on this forum and you have been quite restrained and mannerly in answer to some pretty vociferous ''arguments.''
Don't victimise me.
Aren't you supposed to be setting an example of fair play?
p.s. Wouldn't this have been better sent as a PM? ...I would have happily edited it.
[It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice].
Last edited:
Sid, my post was not meant to be a personal attack on you, so please do not take it that way.
This forum has had problems with the "Leftist" and "Rightist" BS. The people that fall for them, and use them are causing further divide, and are quite honestly part of the problem.
Additionally, these are political terms. And in this context are not used in a favorable way. This forum has a rule against this political discussion, with the sole purpose of keeping the peace and friendships. We have members of this forum who allign with the left, and members who allign with the right. Lets not alienate each other by using such terms in a negative light.
I recommend going and reading the rules of the forum.
And no I am not splitting hairs, you incorrectly made a statement that the Bond character has been changed to a black female. If you make a false statement on this forum, expect to be corrected. That goes for all of us.
Nor was I "victimizing" you, in fact I do not know how you come up with that.
As for fair play? It was fair. You made a comment, I addressed it. I did so in the same manner as I would have anyone. There was no personal attack or insults made. It was a straight to the point response, as anyone would get. There is no need on your part to take it personal.
As for your "nice to be important" comment, that is uncalled for. I do not consider myself important, or more important than anyone here. Everyone here that is a part of this dysfunctional online family is important, and I am no better than any of them. Our community exists because of the contributions of everyone, and that is what I try to preserve.
I would also suggest, we shake hands, drink a beer and move on. That however is up to you.
Again, it may have been harsh, but it was not personal.
Again, it may have been harsh, but it was not personal.
As mentioned I am not political.
It was just an inoffensive term.
I am treading carefully because I am new to the forum and because I respect good manners.
I am neither arrogant, or conceited by nature. I'm not a grumpy git, quite the opposite.
Without anything other than typed words with no emojis or signs of humour, it came across as pretty harsh.
I got jumped on before for nothing more than relaying information and then binned this forum in 2013 because I don't need people who act like a piece of salt micro-managing every single word.
If a subject gets technical then by all means, let's have accurate info & feedback.
You did not get jumped on, you were corrected when you made an incorrect statement. You were also told to leave the leftist (or rightest for anyone else for that matter) comments for another forum.
It is also not necessary to make comments such as "I don't need people who act like a piece of salt micro-managing every single word." Besides not knowing what it means, it does not seem like a good way to move foward. It sounds like a low blow attempt (I could be mistaken). Besides its my job as a moderator to somewhat micromanage and keep posts with forum guidelines.
It is also not necessary to make comments such as "I don't need people who act like a piece of salt micro-managing every single word." Besides not knowing what it means, it does not seem like a good way to move foward. It sounds like a low blow attempt (I could be mistaken). Besides its my job as a moderator to somewhat micromanage and keep posts with forum guidelines.
Noted.
Your idea of moderating is not the same as mine.
I don't appreciate your idea of well balanced moderating, or your ability to keep a cool head at the use of a term lefty.
This is my last post. I have better things to do than justify myself.
Victimised was the correct word. But just my opinion naturally.
Full marks for handling that with tact.
Relax, I'm out of your hair, for the second time, due to bullish behaviour over something so petty it is astonishing.
Your idea of moderating is not the same as mine.
I don't appreciate your idea of well balanced moderating, or your ability to keep a cool head at the use of a term lefty.
This is my last post. I have better things to do than justify myself.
Victimised was the correct word. But just my opinion naturally.
Full marks for handling that with tact.
Relax, I'm out of your hair, for the second time, due to bullish behaviour over something so petty it is astonishing.
Last edited:
Sorry you feel that way. It was neither my intent or act.
Your participation is your choice, and yours alone. I find it sad to leave over something as petty as this, and over a discussion of Hollywood and movies.
You were not "in my hair", but I will not twist your arm. Have a good day sir.
Your participation is your choice, and yours alone. I find it sad to leave over something as petty as this, and over a discussion of Hollywood and movies.
You were not "in my hair", but I will not twist your arm. Have a good day sir.
