What actually make Top Gun a lot more popular than Iron Eagle and Stealth?

What actually make Top Gun a lot more popular than Iron Eagle and Stealth?

  • The combat scenes are much better

    Votes: 6 22.2%

  • The main actress and actor are better looking

    Votes: 3 11.1%

  • F-14 is a more popular aircraft

    Votes: 4 14.8%

  • The story is better

    Votes: 9 33.3%

  • Pure Luck

    Votes: 1 3.7%

  • Soundtrack!

    Votes: 4 14.8%
  • Total voters
    27
As memory serves, volleyball teams are separated by a net. Shirts, skins, uniforms, none would seem to matter in this case since the opposing teams don't mix. And in the movie, weren't they on a beach? Not exactly groundbreaking for men to be on a beach sans shirts.
 
Orionblamblam said:
UpForce said:
No need to joke, this has been openly debated and subsequently even acknowledged at least since Quentin Tarantino's "take" on the subject in 1994. The subtext is basically iconic by now; not to say that it's the be all and end all of the thing. Notable nonetheless since it's not an entirely superficial contemplation on the mechanics and modes of bonding; just very silly. It is of course fairly common that highly gendered structures and representations become caricatures of themselves, intentionality or level of self-consciousness aside, and thus unavoidably subversive. Examples of extremely cheesy military recruitment music videos and contemporary shirtless bodybuilder parades abound, mostly from the usual "traditionalist" suspects.
Click to expand...


Umm. An important thing to note regarding the responses of Our Cultural Betters:
1 - A scene of young attractive women in an advanced state of undress playing volleyball: "I'm offended! That's for the Male Gaze! Unrealistic beauty standards!!!"
2 - A scene of young attractive men in an advanced state of undress playing volleyball: "Ur gaaaaay."

Military men play sports, and often do so shirtless. It ain't gay, it's just sports. Sometimes bonding, sometimes competition, often just for the entertainment of it. But some people are *obsessed* with seeing things in the worst or weirdest light, or at least in the way best calculated to ruin it for others.
Click to expand...

Uh... I... I... agree uh with you. Gasp. Excuse me. This will take a few minutes to process...

:)
 
Desertfox said:
Foo Fighter said:
When a unit DOES sports there is only one way to identify teams, Skins or Shirts.
Click to expand...
We use darks and whites all the time... also that does not matter one bit for volleyball, heck players on the same team in pro volleyball wear different color shirts.

Also no one in Top Gun was wearing shirts.
Click to expand...

"no one in Top Gun was wearing shirts"? You were obviously watching a different movie - entirely.
 
edwest3 said:
Orionblamblam said:
UpForce said:
I won't even get into womens' beach volleyball attire, figuratively or literally:
Click to expand...

That may be for the best. I don't know what you look like, but with the standard presumption of "forty-plus doughy nerdy male," yeah, best to not try that sort of thing. Nobody wins.

mindbleach.jpg


Now, "Jennifer Connelly in volleyball attire," well, that's a *whole* different ball game.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I've looked everywhere. Where can people get this stuff?
 
Dilandu said:
Orionblamblam said:
- A scene of young attractive men in an advanced state of undress playing volleyball: "Ur gaaaaay."

Military men play sports, and often do so shirtless. It ain't gay, it's just sports. Sometimes bonding, sometimes competition, often just for the entertainment of it. But some people are *obsessed* with seeing things in the worst or weirdest light, or at least in the way best calculated to ruin it for others.
Click to expand...
So the suggestion of homoerotic undertones is automatically "bad thing" for you? That would "ruin it for you"? Aren't you trying to follow all stereotypes of American right-winger a bit too heavy?
Click to expand...

Hey, I already agreed with him. Don't make me defend him... OK, you asked for it. There are people here who want to put certain things in a bad/weird light because they can't deal with people having a good time in a movie as anything other than people having a good time in a movie.

Whew... I think I have to lie down. That was stressful...
 
edwest3 said:
There are people here who want to put certain things in a bad/weird light because they can't deal with people having a good time in a movie as anything other than people having a good time in a movie.
Click to expand...
I disagree. It's not about spoiling other people good time; it's about viewing the movie from different points of view, finding different aspects. If someone's ability to enjoy the movie is limited to "everyone should completely agree to his view", and he/she could not stand the mere notion that other peoples find something else - well, here we came into weird and narrow view area.
 
edwest3 said:
I've looked everywhere. Where can people get this stuff?
Click to expand...


Check your local Amazon Department Store. You'll usually find it in the aisle between the high-caliber fully semi-automatic AR-16's with the shoulder thing that goes up, and the six-packs of honest uncorrupted politicians.
 
Dilandu said:
I disagree. It's not about spoiling other people good time;
Click to expand...

Often enough it is. And often enough they come right out and tell you. Rian Johnson and his "subversion of expectations," Taika Waititi's and his "ruin your mythos," often and repeated claims that such-and-such character or movie is goign to make the male fans cry/sad/angry.

it's about viewing the movie from different points of view, finding different aspects.
Click to expand...

Ah. You mean how "Muppets Take Manhattan" was *really* about Epstein Island, or how "Empire Strikes Back" was a devastating takedown of the Green New Deal, or how "The Little Mermaid" laid the philosophical groundwork for Brexit and "My Little Pony" was one long argument against abortion?

Yeah, people can see different things. And sometimes people see things what ain't there. That doesn't make them edgy or innovative, it makes them *wrong.*
 
Last edited:
Orionblamblam said:
edwest3 said:
I've looked everywhere. Where can people get this stuff?
Click to expand...


Check your local Amazon Department Store. You'll usually find it in the aisle between the high-caliber fully semi-automatic AR-16's with the shoulder thing that goes up, and the six-packs of honest uncorrupted politicians.
Click to expand...

"... six-packs of honest uncorrupted politicians." Oh, that hurt...


:)
 
Orionblamblam said:
Dilandu said:
I disagree. It's not about spoiling other people good time;
Click to expand...

Often enough it is. And often enough they come right out and tell you. Rian Johnson and his "subversion of expectations," Taika Waititi's and his "ruin your mythos," often and repeated claims that such-and-such character or movie is goign to make the male fans cry/sad/angry.

it's about viewing the movie from different points of view, finding different aspects.
Click to expand...

Ah. You mean how "Muppets Take Manhattan" was *really* about Epstein Island, or how "Empire Strikes Back" was a devastating takedown of the Green New Deal, or how "The Little Mermaid" laid the philosophical groundwork for Brexit and "My Little Pony" was one long argument against abortion?

Yeah, people can see different things. And sometimes people things what ain't there. That doesn't make them edgy or innovative, it makes them *wrong.*
Click to expand...

I've already phoned the Guinness people about me agreeing with you a second time.

Key wrong words: It's edgy (usually meaning offensive), it's innovative (usually meaning 'we don't care if even most people don't like it') and 'breaking down barriers,' meaning it promotes some current 'very important to us' cause.

And then there is the boring, predictable addition of the subversive element to movies where no such thing was intended. I go to movies to enjoy myself. That's it. Others, it appears, are dying to find hidden meanings and subtexts and to invent other trivia.
 
Top Gun was made of 3 things:

1. Good scenes with planes
2. Bad scenes with planes
3. Scenes with no planes

When I met my significant other she impressed by saying it was her favourite film.

Many years and two kids later we went to see Top Gun: Maverick

Afterwards she finally explained. Top Gun had given her the template for the ideal relationship.

"HUH? NOT PLANES!?"

People see what they want.
 
Mike Pryce said:
Top Gun was made of 3 things:

1. Good scenes with planes
2. Bad scenes with planes
3. Scenes with no planes

When I met my significant other she impressed by saying it was her favourite film.

Many years and two kids later we went to see Top Gun: Maverick

Afterwards she finally explained. Top Gun had given her the template for the ideal relationship.

"HUH? NOT PLANES!?"

People see what they want.
Click to expand...

I have a friend who was a script editor at a major Hollywood studio. He explained the moviemaking process to me. Movies are selected to appeal to a specific type of person. If a studio decides to produce a comedy buddy movie that revolves around baseball, they know, in advance, who the target audience is and the elements that need to be in that movie to appeal to that specific audience and sell movie tickets. Before the movie is released, it is screened to a selected group of average people in exchange for their comments. Hollywood has a hundred years of experience doing this. So no, the goal is not to create a "see what you want to see" movie but one that most appeals to the target audience.

Those who want to see subversion in movies will see what they want and interpret it how they want.
 
When the original 'Attack of the 50 ft woman' was released, the target audience didn't quite match the audience that still watches it as a prime example of a movie so bad, it became a joy to watch for some people (occasionally helped by the intake of mind-altering substances).
Not because of a conscious intent for subversion, but simply because of a different point of view.
 
Arjen said:
When the original 'Attack of the 50 ft woman' was released, the target audience didn't quite match the audience that still watches it as a prime example of a movie so bad, it became a joy to watch for some people (occasionally helped by the intake of mind-altering substances).
Not because of a conscious intent for subversion, but simply because of a different point of view.
Click to expand...

Bad movies so bad that they're good? Attack of the 50 Foot Woman is still as bad as it ever was. As I wrote earlier, movies are reflective and resonant with an actual, existing culture. At the time that movie was made, giant spiders, giant ants and even giant women fit into the whole 'giant creatures' concept. Looking back at it involves those who have no concept of the entirety of the time it was made. It becomes a curiosity from a time contemporary viewers know little about.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
edwest3 said:
Desertfox said:
Foo Fighter said:
When a unit DOES sports there is only one way to identify teams, Skins or Shirts.
Click to expand...
We use darks and whites all the time... also that does not matter one bit for volleyball, heck players on the same team in pro volleyball wear different color shirts.

Also no one in Top Gun was wearing shirts.
Click to expand...

"no one in Top Gun was wearing shirts"? You were obviously watching a different movie - entirely.
Click to expand...
I know this is entirely against the grain but I watch films for escapism. Simple view for a simple life. I hear people drone on about stuff all over the place and wonder why they invest so much energy into something that takes a couple of hours out of the day. Perhaps I am the whack job but I merely want a couple of hours out. As it is I had a medical consultation. Back in uni doing the Nursing degree course a Psyche nurse suggested that the best way to just have a break is to go and watch a film, so I did this on the way home. Why not after all and frankly I cannot be bothered with all the mock psyco babble that goes on around anything basically. Seek out the company of your fellow man and you must be gay, so joining the army is gay? If I could I would have a drink about now but I can't so it will have to be tea. Bugger. Crap, did I just say that in a public place?
 
Looking forward to seeing the new Top Gun Movie.

The original Top Gun movie’s “high concept” nature, especially the combination of aerial footage and sound track with “enough” plot and a young Tom Cruises undoubted film star charisma, proved irresistible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Irony Eagle stretches the suspense of disbelief so much that you’d have to be an 80s teenager to enjoy it.
 
The Navy had Top Gun and Top Gun: Maverick. The Air Force gave us Iron Eagle?! I think the AF owes us another movie (Stealth doesn't count). I've always thought a contemporary movie in the vein of the Right Stuff should be made. Call it Test Pilot ( a descriptive and simple two word title). As a test for the viability of the concept just edit all of the Chuck Yeager scenes from the Right Stuff together and you got it all. Exciting flying scenes, love story, and a climatic hero's journey in the flight of the NF-104A!
 

Attachments

  • shepard.jpg
    shepard.jpg
    20.9 KB · Views: 19
Being a USMC avionics tech in my 20s in the 1980s, I enjoyed Iron Eagle as a "mindless fantasy romp"... while clearly recognizing the utter impossibility of most of the various events and plot devices.
 
Dynoman said:
The Navy had Top Gun and Top Gun: Maverick. The Air Force gave us Iron Eagle?! I think the AF owes us another movie (Stealth doesn't count). I've always thought a contemporary movie in the vein of the Right Stuff should be made. Call it Test Pilot ( a descriptive and simple two word title). As a test for the viability of the concept just edit all of the Chuck Yeager scenes from the Right Stuff together and you got it all. Exciting flying scenes, love story, and a climatic hero's journey in the flight of the NF-104A!
Click to expand...

The Air Force would rather do stuff like this.

1654706912975.png
 
Top gun is a better movie overall, better sound, aerial scenes (which are enormously impressive then and now, one of Hollywood’s most underrated work), higher pedigree director. Also though top gun does a great job establishing who Maverick is as a character early on and why he’s worthy of the audience’s attention. Top Gun is a movie that’s more story (things that happen to a character and how they change as a response to them) Iron Eagle is more plot (a series of events that happen largely external)
 
Desertfox said:
Because while it is amazing it also has the most anticlimactic ending in history of film, not even GoT Season 8 compares. All that build up and then... nothing.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Hollywood was not prepared for "alternate history" back then. Now, of course, it is.

A few years ago I posted my ideas about a remake of "The Final Countdown," not only updating it to the USS Ford and including the entire carrier group, not just the carrier, but turning it into a two-parter:
Part 1
Part 2
 
Orionblamblam said:

A few years ago I posted my ideas about a remake of "The Final Countdown," not only updating it to the USS Ford and including the entire carrier group, not just the carrier, but turning it into a two-parter:
Part 1
Part 2
Click to expand...
If one wants a different spin on the The Final Countdown Story/theme, try the Axis of Time trilogy by John Birmingham
51UtfBQk75L.jpg
51pnLE16kEL._SY346_.jpg
51pyn7w-ucL.jpg


Which is supposedly being made into a television series:

scenestr.com.au

John Birmingham's 'Axis Of Time' Trilogy Is Being Developed For The Small Screen By 'Occupation' Filmmaker Luke Sparke

The 'Weapons Of Choice' TV series will be based on John Birmingham's 'Axis Of Time' trilogy.
scenestr.com.au scenestr.com.au
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom