Top Gun: Maverick

In a way, the home versus theater experience for this movie specifically reminds me of Gravity.

Yeah, you can watch it at home and it's still a great film, but you don't really get the sense of scale for a movie like this by not being in a theater, IMAX or otherwise.

Man, I'll never forget watching that movie. It was about 90 minutes long and when it was over, I thought they were going to have to get a gurney to haul me out of there.

The only think I remember about Gravity was the baby in our theater crying during a space explosion scene and her ****ty parents doing nothing about.

I have a 65” Atmos setup and was perfectly satisfied, as usual, with watching from the comfort of my home. That said, I knew after two minutes how this movie made $1.5b though.

That happens sometimes. When it does, I usually go to theater management, tell them what happened and get a comp ticket. I don't do it often, but once the AC went off, another time someone was being really obnoxious and I got him removed from the theater (and got a ticket).

I had a really nice home theater setup with a 120" screen before we converted to an ADU, but it's still not the same.
 
Man, I'll never forget watching that movie. It was about 90 minutes long and when it was over, I thought they were going to have to get a gurney to haul me out of there.



That happens sometimes. When it does, I usually go to theater management, tell them what happened and get a comp ticket. I don't do it often, but once the AC went off, another time someone was being really obnoxious and I got him removed from the theater (and got a ticket).

I had a really nice home theater setup with a 120" screen before we converted to an ADU, but it's still not the same.
I did, quite often in fact, for disruptions and presentation issues. At a certain point, you've lost me because the anticipation is no longer about seeing a movie, it's about what's going to go wrong.
 
I did, quite often in fact, for disruptions and presentation issues. At a certain point, you've lost me because the anticipation is no longer about seeing a movie, it's about what's going to go wrong.
Incidents like this are pretty rare when I go to the movies. In fact, I can only remember one time things were interrupted by a baby and one of the parents, being a decent human being, immediately stepped outside. There was a guy who I saw a few times, that was always being obnoxious, but I got him banned after a few episodes. I once went up to a group and confronted them myself. That's from years of going to the movies so maybe people are more civilized in LA. LOL.
 
Last edited:
Film Twitter a few months ago: Nobody (in my college group) is gonna watch this movie. It’s military propaganda at a time when people (aka my college buds) are taking a critical stance at the military industrial context. This will especially flop overseas because non-Americans (aka the foreign exchange student in my college) don’t wanna see American militarism. It will be lucky to make 200 million dollars.



Well, that aged well. :funny::funny::funny:
 
It’s funny; the film didn’t really seem jingoistic at all to me. It really just emphasized how much these pilots love to be in the air and their loyalty to each other more than any sort of “USA! USA!” crap.

Either way, good on Cruise and his costars for not going all Chris Pratt after the film proved successful.
 
Film Twitter a few months ago: Nobody (in my college group) is gonna watch this movie. It’s military propaganda at a time when people (aka my college buds) are taking a critical stance at the military industrial context. This will especially flop overseas because non-Americans (aka the foreign exchange student in my college) don’t wanna see American militarism. It will be lucky to make 200 million dollars.



Well, that aged well. :funny::funny::funny:

LOL. Well, in their defense, they were right; it didn't make $200M so I guess the movie was "lucky".
 
I wonder if Tom's cut goes up if they hit certain BO milestones. Do we know ANY details about his contract?
 
I wonder if Tom's cut goes up if they hit certain BO milestones. Do we know ANY details about his contract?
Only thing reported was that he god paid $13M up front, and that he gets a percentage of the BO. When the film crossed $1B it was said he's getting at least $100M of that, so it can't be any less than 10% of the total, plus whatever comes from the home sales. Which is absolutely insane.
 
Last edited:
Film Twitter a few months ago: Nobody (in my college group) is gonna watch this movie. It’s military propaganda at a time when people (aka my college buds) are taking a critical stance at the military industrial context. This will especially flop overseas because non-Americans (aka the foreign exchange student in my college) don’t wanna see American militarism. It will be lucky to make 200 million dollars.



Well, that aged well. :funny::funny::funny:
How were they to know that the plot was going to be that we are going to throw away these obsolete airplanes after the mission?
 
It’s funny; the film didn’t really seem jingoistic at all to me. It really just emphasized how much these pilots love to be in the air and their loyalty to each other more than any sort of “USA! USA!” crap.

Either way, good on Cruise and his costars for not going all Chris Pratt after the film proved successful.

It's jingoistic in the sense you have this faceless foreign menace. No questions asked about what they are doing or who they are. They are a threat to the US and US interests, and we have to take them out. That's it.

There's no question about the Navy's actions and whether or not they are in the right. Pilots are also venerated for the number of combatants they kill in the air.

It is jingoistic, just not overly so.
 
Only thing reported was that he god paid $13M up front, and that he's get a percentage of the BO. When the film crossed $1B it was said he's getting at least $100M of that, so it can't be any less than 10% of the total, plus whatever comes from the home sales. Which is absolutely insane.
Holy carp.
 
It's jingoistic in the sense you have this faceless foreign menace. No questions asked about what they are doing or who they are. They are a threat to the US and US interests, and we have to take them out. That's it.

There's no question about the Navy's actions and whether or not they are in the right. Pilots are also venerated for the number of combatants they kill in the air.

It is jingoistic, just not overly so.

Fair points, definitely.
 
I saw this on demand, and the action sequences are awesome. I can see why this did well in theaters on that basis. But the writing and such while good isn't great. It is a solid enough story and execution with a meh romance tacked onto it. So overall, I liked this movie but I didn't love this movie.
 
Best Picture? That would be strange, its just a mainstream blockbuster, nothing more.
Also cruise is too old now for these action films, its just not credible anymore.

Glad those MI films will be the last ones for now.
 
Best Picture? That would be strange, its just a mainstream blockbuster, nothing more.
Also cruise is too old now for these action films, its just not credible anymore.

Glad those MI films will be the last ones for now.

Hmmm I don't agree at all with dismissing it as "just" a blockbuster. It still tells a worthwhile and emotional story. Strip away all the dogfighting, the incredible visuals and production value and you still have a well-acted and moving story about a finding purpose late in life, loss, regret, forgiveness...potent themes. You add in the thrilling and fun elements and you get something that is pretty much a shrine to the big screen, moviegoing experience. Add in the fact that this is the biggest non-superhero hit in a long time, post-Covid...it has a notable place in movie history.

I don't care about the Oscars, but I see no reason it couldn't get nominated. If Joker can nominated for Best Picture (and get 11 nominations) there is absolutely no reason Top Gun can't be the crowd-pleasing film that gets the awards attention next year.
 
Best Picture? That would be strange, its just a mainstream blockbuster, nothing more.
Also cruise is too old now for these action films, its just not credible anymore.

Glad those MI films will be the last ones for now.

Were Titanic, Gladiator and Lord of the Rings anything more than that? And they won...
 
Best Picture? That would be strange, its just a mainstream blockbuster, nothing more.
Being a well-received blockbuster is precisely the reason why it would be nominated. On top of being a box office juggernaut, it also received rave reviews and audiences loved it. The Academy is starting to catch on that only nominating arthouse indie films means ratings for the awards telecast takes a nosedive, which is the reason why we've been seeing more blockbusters being nominated in recent years such as Get Out, Black Panther, Bohemian Rhapsody, and Joker. This practice is also nothing new when you consider the number of blockbusters that have been nominated for Best Picture in the history of the Oscars ranging from Jaws to Star Wars to Raiders of the Lost Ark to E.T. to Forrest Gump to Apollo 13 to Titanic to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, etc.
 
Best Picture? That would be strange, its just a mainstream blockbuster, nothing more.
Also cruise is too old now for these action films, its just not credible anymore.

Glad those MI films will be the last ones for now.
That is why they expanded the number of nominations for the Best Picture category. In hopes that will get people who actually watch popular movies to watch the Oscar telecast.
 
That is why they expanded the number of nominations for the Best Picture category. In hopes that will get people who actually watch popular movies to watch the Oscar telecast.

Granted, I don't see this helping much unless those movies actually stand a chance of *winning*. If it becomes obvious that a couple actual popular movies are only being given tacit nominations for marketing purposes without any serious consideration, the viewers will disappear again.

If Hollywood wants the Oscars to actually draw attention, and viewers, and ratings? They need an actual change in the mindset of their own voters; which is to say, they need to stop overvaluing "inside baseball" arthouse films whose only intended target audience was "Oscar voters". Otherwise, they should just abandon the pretension that the Oscars have any broader cultural meaning, and just treat it like the industry trade award that it really is.
 
Granted, I don't see this helping much unless those movies actually stand a chance of *winning*. If it becomes obvious that a couple actual popular movies are only being given tacit nominations for marketing purposes without any serious consideration, the viewers will disappear again.

If Hollywood wants the Oscars to actually draw attention, and viewers, and ratings? They need an actual change in the mindset of their own voters; which is to say, they need to stop overvaluing "inside baseball" arthouse films whose only intended target audience was "Oscar voters". Otherwise, they should just abandon the pretension that the Oscars have any broader cultural meaning, and just treat it like the industry trade award that it really is.
It's true. Also taking into consideration that this past year the telecast itself was a total snoozefest until the infamous slap happened and it became the most talked-about Oscars ceremony in years for all the wrong reasons.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"