Jump to content
silverado427

Top Gun 2 Trailer

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

I wonder where they found one for the movie?  I hear Iran still has a few with low air miles. 

They sold them to Iran before their Islamic revolution.  We obviously regret it now. 

I cant believe they still are able to fly them.  Besides the fact we stopped making parts, with the sanctions and all we are not furnishing parts to our mortal enemy.

The movie guys must have gotten permission to redeploy a mothballed f14 - they retired then ‘06.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Maksim said:

Ugh, they are going to make us wait another year?

And wow, Ed Harris got reallly old looking... hopefully they did not make him look older than he is.

 

They did make him look older!  Really older!

Here's a June 2019 pic!

 

 

13-ed-harris.w330.h330.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, NJRulz said:

I cant believe they still are able to fly them.  Besides the fact we stopped making parts, with the sanctions and all we are not furnishing parts to our mortal enemy

I don’t think Iran has been able to fly them for decades, for the reason you gave. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ChrisJM981 said:

Val Kilmer looks like a bad photoshop. Was he taking HGH? His head looks way too big for his body. 

He's recovering from throat cancer. HE also had a couple other health problems prior to that to help out too. 

Also most celebrities have big heads and are shorter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, raz-0 said:

He's recovering from throat cancer. HE also had a couple other health problems prior to that to help out too. 

Also most celebrities have big heads and are shorter. 

I'm still pulling my foot out of my mouth. Poor guy. Apparently it's been a long road to recovery for him and he doesn't appear in public very much from what I read. 

The angle of the picture makes the shot very unflattering. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, voyager9 said:

I wonder where they found one for the movie?  I hear Iran still has a few with low air miles. 

Pretty cool article.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-iconic-f-14-tomcat-returns-aboard-a-u-s-navy-aircraft-carrier-for-top-gun-maverick/

Looks like the F-14 was from the San Diego Air and Space Museum and loaded onto CVN-71 USS Theodore Roosevelt.

It also looks like Cruise will be flying an F18 himself in some shots.

Some of the filming was done on CVN-72 The USS Abraham Lincoln. One of my guys was a yellow shirt on that ship - pretty sure I’ll be going to see this in theaters with him.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, High Exposure said:

Pretty cool article.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-iconic-f-14-tomcat-returns-aboard-a-u-s-navy-aircraft-carrier-for-top-gun-maverick/

Looks like the F-14 was from the San Diego Air and Space Museum and loaded onto CVN-71 USS Theodore Roosevelt.

It also looks like Cruise will be flying an F18 himself in some shots.

Some of the filming was done on CVN-72 The USS Abraham Lincoln. One of my guys was a yellow shirt on that ship - pretty sure I’ll be going to see this in theaters with him.

I'd posted the trailer to a pilot forum yesterday; one of the former military pilots said the face-on shots of Cruise in the cockpit must have had him in the rear seat of an F-18 F variant.

He also observed that to get permission to use Navy aircraft in the low-level flight sequences shown, the production company must have gotten "waivers from God".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 10X said:

I'd posted the trailer to a pilot forum yesterday; one of the former military pilots said the face-on shots of Cruise in the cockpit must have had him in the rear seat of an F-18 F variant.

He also observed that to get permission to use Navy aircraft in the low-level flight sequences shown, the production company must have gotten "waivers from God".

The dual-seat F makes sense. I’d imagine even if the Navy was willing let Cruise fly the plane, I doubt they’d be willing to let him fly solo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 10X said:

I'd posted the trailer to a pilot forum yesterday; one of the former military pilots said the face-on shots of Cruise in the cockpit must have had him in the rear seat of an F-18 F variant.

That makes sense. He does look pretty close to the wings/far back on some of those shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Posts

    • A person exercising their rights, breaking no law should not have a gun pointed at him. Care to explain how that is a strawman? The IRS is different?  How so?  A man following the law (the deputy) oh I can't be here with my gear?  okay i'll leave.  Rentacop procedes to point gun at a non threat.  And you think this is completely different?  Technically the rentacop was fired, arrested and charged.  Technically the deputy wasn't. So in your opinion anyone perceiving a threat is justified in taking lethal action against the perceived threat.   So when I see a bunch of guys in vests and black BDUs and cattying sidearms, i would be justified in pointing a gun at them?  Every Tuesday at lunch.  Funny how i am able to resist.  Man i dont even call the cops. Champion? No.  Support a person exercising their constituional protected rights absolutely. So your stance is  "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Unless I disagree or it might cause someone distress" My stance stops at the period.  
    • Strawman, again, really? Cant simplify it any further for you. I think you get the points made but it breaks your argument so here we go, strawman again.    You brought up the IRS guy. How about an actual response to my comments. Here they are again: But if you are referencing the guy that drew down on the local deputy at the IRS, guess what, he was actually correct that local LE does not have the authority to be armed on federal property. As I understand it that is the actual law. So now what? His judgement was poor but technically correct? Following your logic I would expect you to actually be siding with the security guard because the LAW says the deputy cannot be armed on the premises and the guard was following the law. BUT reasonable judgement would dictate no real threat existed. This is the exact flip side of wallmart. The deputy technically broke the law but was clearly not a threat. The "auditor" was within the law but one could easily articulate he looked like a threat given the totality of the circumstances and the timing of the Texas Wallmart shooting.  
    • Well isn't that great as long as you agree with the point of view all is wonderful.  If you don't agree its okay to shoot them.  
×
×
  • Create New...