Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This morning I read an opinion piece that was linked on the Fox News site and want to invite comments on it from those who have seen the movie. I have not seen it yet, for a number of different reasons.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/impo...ment-moviegoer
It is difficult today to see a "rainbow" without an immediate association with the LGBTQ movement that has been in our faces increasingly and inescapably for the last year and a half.
In reading review commentary on the film, one of the observations I've seen repeatedly is that it is not "woke", that it is refreshingly free of the "wokeness" that is everywhere today. And each time I have read that, I have found it hard to believe.
So what's your take? Did you see the "rainbow" imagery to which this article refers? If so, do you think it is there as something of a subtle tip of the hat to LGBTQ activism?
I didn't notice it at all. Everyone that I know that saw the movie (that I talked to about it) was pleased with the absence of "wokeness".
I was never much of a fan, especially during the couch jumping period. But I have to hand it to him. He did a great job and that movie gave me a couple of hours of relief from the shi$show going on in the world right now.
Disagree. There was no need for her in this and to put her in just because she was in the first, made no sense.
I can answer why this happened. People are sick and tired of being preached to in movies. This movie was like a movie in the older, not woke days. We could root for the hero and it was ok.
I was so happy they put Kilmer in it. I knew he was ill but I didn't know much about it. I felt emotional seeing it.
100% agree. THIS is why it's so successful.
Same and same.
Agree.
I didn't love her either. I feel like that character was very typical of that time though. Had to be self sufficient and strong. Didn't NEED a man....a little cynical. None of that baggage in the new one.
Didn't see it at all. And I am pretty aware of those things. There were a lot of non white characters. But not in your face like all the TV commercials.
I saw a lot of things in this film that I liked. No wokeness, the Iceman thing, ok to be patriotic. The younger generations smarta$$es being shown they aren't all they think they are, they have something to learn from us old timers and coming together with the older generation eventually.
I think it was a unifying message as opposed to a dividing one. All good. If Hollywood would return to this formula, I think they could survive. Other than that, $64 for a family of 4 to just buy tickets, isn't going to last long.
100% agree with you (not the person you were replying to) on the bolded.
I did learn one interesting thing today though re the character of 'Charlie'. She was based on a real person:
I think it's brilliant that they made Penny Benjamin the love interest for Maverick in the sequel, rather than creating a character with no connection at all.
Maverick seems to want Carole (Meg Ryan) to stop talking about Penny Benjamin...almost as if revelations about about how he felt about Penny might make him seem less cool. It's subtle. And....
You're right. It's just a name, presumed to have no more significance than a million other names. We're noticing these things now because we're listening for that particular name.
(I'd been wanting to watch the original (which I've seen many times, but not all of it in a long time) and then go right out and see the new one. I sat down last night (Tuesday night) to do some web research re which theaters still be showing it on their best screens most full blown sound systems. I noticed that there was a 10:25pm showing in a good location (Cinemark at Memorial City Mall which, most locally, serves Houston's Memorial Villages) for discount Tuesday. I looked at the clock, and realized that I had enough time to watch the original on Paramount Plus, with time left to drive to the theater in time to see the new one....so I did that. I figured, if I found the sound to be lacking, I could always look again for an improvement, and see it again.)
First....don't make me regret this reply....
I agree that bringing Penny Benjamin to real life in the new one was an excellent idea. And Jennifer Connelly is an excellent choice to play her role, despite the fact that she was 15 when the original came to the screen. No wonder Mav was in hot water with Penny's Admiral father.
But most of today's audience won't be aware of the age thing....or give it more than a moment's thought if they are. Especially since Tom looks 10 years (20 years?) younger than his 60.
If I were the same immortal 36 year-old that I was in pandemic-free May of '86, I would have seen Top Gun:Maverick several times by now. But this 72 year-old, who doesn't even remember the last time he got a full, restful night's sleep, very grudgingly gave up on immortality 7 years ago and remains extremely wary of the risk of lengthy indoor public congregation today. COVID cases have been rising here and are many times what they were a few months ago. I know the risk of any serious illness is low, but I don't want to take any risk that I don't have to.
I know time is running out for theater viewing. Still hoping for that magic day soon when I wake up fully rested, feeling hale and hearty, ready to fight off anything that comes my way. Hoping, but not expecting....it just doesn't happen any more. My hunch is that my first of many, many viewings will be of my Blu-Ray copy upon release, in the safety and peace of my living room.
I definitely wanted to see this while it was still in the theater (it's apparently finally starting to drop off). My SO and I saw it a couple days ago. I don't actually remember much from the first one, but we kept hearing so many good things about this sequel, so we wanted to see it. We liked it. There are some very intense scenes. Like others have said, the flight scenes are incredible. Good music. I got "chills" at some points and teared up at others. There are some what I would call "cheesy" scenes, but not enough to ruin it. Overall, I say it's definitely worth seeing.
If you've seen the 1st one, you pretty much seen the 2nd.
That doesn't mean it's not a kick a$$ movie, though. Far from it.
Both movies star fighter aircraft. (Some here, think Tom was the star, LOL)
Nope, the stars are the aircraft. (Some even noticed that the studio was allowed to "sneak" in a static and TO sequence of a bird that we're NOT supposed to know about, yet....)
I didn't notice it at all. Everyone that I know that saw the movie (that I talked to about it) was pleased with the absence of "wokeness".
Of course being released 3 years late during a fast moving global social revolution does mean things intended as woke when produced are now thought of as regressive
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
