Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Anybody see Top Gun Maverick? Biggest movie of the year (so far, it could get dethroned by Avatar or Black Panther). Made over $700m in the US and Canada, and like $1.4b worldwide. I think this is the first weekend it has fallen out of the top 5.
Anyways, I was excited to see it and finally went a couple weeks ago. But it seems like absolute shit to me. Beautifully shot, the flying scenes are great. And yet the story seems bland. The graphics used when they are discussing missions and stuff seemed like some shit out of a Command & Conquer cutscene. A lot of transitions between scenes felt a bit sudden, like something was cut. I've seen celebrities gushing over this film, Quentin Tarantino was fanboying over it. But I honestly think it's one of the worst Tom Cruise movies I've ever seen.
And despite being the biggest movie of the year, I've barely seen a peep about it online (other than it's box office success). Despite seeing it a coupe weeks ago, I never ran into a single spoiler for it. Never saw a single meme. So obviously not a movie that appealed to those who very online. On YouTube I'd been putting every Top Gun video I saw in my Watch Later playlist, to binge after I saw it. And even those videos, going over how great the film was, really had no substance. All the interviews I found with the cast were just the same stories about flying in a jet or meeting Tom Cruise.
The bits James Corden did with Tom Cruise were more satisfying than the actual film.
I'm definitely not a film buff, so maybe I'm missing something. I have seen the original, quite a few times. But something just felt 'off' throughout this film.
I don't think "shit" describes it, but the plot is paper thin and the "villains" completely uncharacterized seemingly to avoid any controversy. You know, a lot like the first one. It's an '80s action movie, not some creepily lit french drama.
The fact that it was a competently executed action movie that didn't have to drum up "controversy" to sell tickets is what set it apart, and probably why people fawned all over it. That shouldn't be impressive, but apparently it is these days.
Tom Cruise being one of the most bankable stars in existence, and his insistence on sitting on the film until it could be released in theaters, and being a completely standalone experience that didn't require you watch the previous film nor attempt to set up a larger cinematic universe all played in its favor.
It is fair to note that the movie had way less serious competition in theaters than it might have in the counterfactual situation.
This was an optimal time for a feel-good, escapist actioner that doesn't demand much of its audience other than strapping in and enjoying the ride.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link