Top Gun Sequel in the works

[phillyboy]

TOM CRUISE has been asked to dust off his aviator shades for a Top Gun sequel.
Movie bosses want to bring back cocky fighter-pilot trainee Maverick 22 years after the first film.

The move follows hit sequels to the adventures of fellow ’80s heroes Indiana Jones and Rocky.

A script outline has been written, but the sequel depends on Cruise, 46, saying yes.

An insider said: “The idea is Maverick is at the Top Gun school as an instructor — and this time it is he who has to deal with a cocky new female pilot.”

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/film/article1448779.ece

"You can be my wingman anytime"
"Bull ****, you can be mine"

Bring on the sequel.

 

[DOG LIPS]

Val Kilmer better be in this.

 

[phillyboy]

Val Kilmer better be in this.

"Thats Mr. Iceman to you"

 

[Sawyer]

Didnt care for the first. Why bother with what is destined to be a crap sequel.

 

[Lord Blackbolt]

I actually thought they were gonna do a sequel when I first saw the movie years ago....but now?

If Cruise does this it means he is desparate for a big hit now.

 

[RickO'Connell]

Val Kilmer better be in this.

I say bring back any surviving characters & the same cast members t:

 

[Cinemaman]

God! Will these morons ever stop making unnecessary remakes and sequels to old films?

 

[FaT_tONle]

Val Kilmer never comes back for crap sequels... I mean has he EVER done a sequel?

 

[dogwonder78]

Really?? Wow, the original will be hard shoes to fill!

 

[Sam Fisher]

This is the worst idea in the history of terrible, pointless, lame, idiotoc ideas.

 

[DeaDheaD]

Writer's Strike?

 

[fu manchu]

hmm...."cocky" and "female" in the same sentence.

 

[Mister J]

Yikes. This would be pretty desperate for Hollywood and Cruise. Indy, Rocky and even Terminator (if Arnie shows up for a bit) at least make a little sense; they're franchises. But, Top Gun? Wow.

 

[Symbiotic]

I don't buy it. For at least a year, that very idea has been mentioned on the imdb trivia sction for the first movie as the script idea when they first thought of doing a sequel back in the late 80s.

 

[melfangiel]

This rumor has been debunked.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25804362/

 

[RockSP]

Yikes. This would be pretty desperate for Hollywood and Cruise. Indy, Rocky and even Terminator (if Arnie shows up for a bit) at least make a little sense; they're franchises. But, Top Gun? Wow.

Rocky? Hell no. None of the sequels should have been made.

 

[Evelisse]

I would have watched it if they were going to make it.

What? No one feels the need?

 

[Brian Braddock]

No way would it have been better than 'Iron Eagle 2'.

 

[GreenKToo]

It's about 18 yrs too late.

 

[ANTOINE X]

God! Will these morons ever stop making unnecessary remakes and sequels to old films?

Man! I can't agree more...Is Hollywood that desperate? In fact Tom should focus on been a bad guy, He did well in Collateral

 

[Brian Braddock]

The thing is - some films actually do warrant sequels; even if it's many years later. Sometimes, re-visiting a movie that was made years ago can be interesting as you get to see where the main character is at, all those years later.

Obviously though - some don't. And unfortunately at the moment, there's a slew of the ones that don't need to be made, well, being made. Same goes for remakes.

The problem starts when filmakers start doing more remakes and sequels than original films because studios see it as less of a finanical risk.

Originality and creativity go out the window.

 

[ANTOINE X]

The thing is - some films actually do warrant sequels; even if it's many years later. Sometimes, re-visiting a movie that was made years ago can be interesting as you get to see where the main character is at, all those years later.

Obviously though - some don't. And unfortunately at the moment, there's a slew of the ones that don't need to be made, well, being made. Same goes for remakes.

The problem starts when filmakers start doing more remakes and sequels than original films because studios see it as less of a finanical risk.

Originality and creativity go out the window.

I'm not against all sequels, some are really worth the try like blade runner where the hell is blade runner2 Where is Mad max4? Ghost buser3?Now I know it 's personal but Top gun can wait!

I'm 50/50 on sequels. On one hand I Like to see some but on the other hand what about all those writers,directors with new ideas that will never see the light?

 

[Raiden]

It's about 18 yrs too late.

Yeah, it will become Indy 4, and I guess Cruise

Spoiler

will have a son named Mutt that he didn't know he had with an ex-girlfriend.

 

[GreenKToo]

Ha Ha. (shhhhh, dont give em' any ideas.)

 

[Brian Braddock]

I'm not against all sequels, some are really worth the try like blade runner where the hell is blade runner2 Where is Mad max4? Ghost buser3?Now I know it 's personal but Top gun can wait!

I'm 50/50 on sequels. On one hand I Like to see some but on the other hand what about all those writers,directors with new ideas that will never see the light?[/quote]

Exactly. It's a real danger that creativity could very easitly get stifled in favour of familiarity.

Anyways, there 'kinda' already has been a Blade Runner 2 in a sort of ways.

The Kurt Russel flop 'Soldier' :-

From Wikiepedia:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldier_(film)

'It was written by David Peoples, who co-wrote the script for Blade Runner. By his own admission, he considers Soldier to be a "sidequel"/spiritual successor to Blade Runner.[1] It also obliquely references various elements of stories written by Philip K. Dick (who wrote the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, on which Blade Runner is based), or film adaptations thereof.'

They even mention Tanhauser Gate.