Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
My dad ran into a similar issue, except for him his career was something of a casualty of the Army restructuring it's MI elements. They slashed a number of positions at the General and Colonel level right when he was up for promotion, and yes. Politics matter at that level. My dad seems to have a reputation for getting to job done, but that doesn't always make friends and someone who didn't like him much ended up weighing in on who got the post he was up for.
My father wrote a guy up for gross negligence early in his career. 20 years later that guy ended up moving into his building and being his boss. My father was denied a well earned promotion out of sheer pettiness. There's more to that story, but this probably isn't the place
Elbows wrote: If we're being picky...at least since 9/11 the US military has been desperately short of combat pilots almost consistently. (Same has occurred in the past ten years with almost every special forces branch). So even if they don't like you, you'd probably be sticking around to fill a seat.
It would not be believable for him to be operational pilot at that age, but perhaps somehow plausible if he was instructor or in some other role where his exceptional experience would be sought after.
Or maybe he is in reserve. I don't remember, does USN have flying reserve like USAF/ANG?
I quite like Top Gun, and this looks OK. Should pass a couple of hours on a wet afternoon. As for baddies, there’s always Iran, North Korea, or that old favourite, an ex-Soviet republic.
Elbows wrote: If we're being picky...at least since 9/11 the US military has been desperately short of combat pilots almost consistently. (Same has occurred in the past ten years with almost every special forces branch). So even if they don't like you, you'd probably be sticking around to fill a seat.
It would not be believable for him to be operational pilot at that age, but perhaps somehow plausible if he was instructor or in some other role where his exceptional experience would be sought after.
As that's where he ends up at the end of the first movie, I think that is almost certainly a given.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
So I have a prediction based on that F-14 shot and the high-altitude helmet that appears in a couple of the shots; IRL, in the 80’s, the US developed an anti-satellite weapon that could be launched from an F-15 in a high-altitude ballistic trajectory (basically light the afterburners and point it at the sky). So I’m going with them using that idea, but with the weapon being tied to the F-14 and Maverick being the only old bastard left who can fly a Tomcat for the critical mission, yadda yadda.
Do I win an internet cookie if I’m right?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Other options for that shot would a) be a flashback for sometime between the original film and now or b) some kind of “flying off into the sunset” for the ending (either real or dream sequence).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/20 21:09:27
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
Yeah, that would be pretty logical. "Hey we need a suicidal pilot to drive a F-14...it's the only plane with engines powerful enough to get near-space and fire this special fancy missile...where will we find a suicidal old F-14 pilot?" Pretty....lazy, but yeah that's a solid guess.
Actually sounds exactly like the kind of stunt that would be put into a Tom Cruise action flick It's just the right mix of contrived, nonsensical, and desperately needing validation
Oh, something worth mentioning...did Goose's kid ever go into Naval Aviation? He'd literally be old enough to be a pilot/RIO too at this point, so that could be another super-obvious/rather formulaic insert into the film.
Surely Tom Cruise will be finding himself alone in a sea of young, modern, blah blah blah pilots. He'll begrudgingly take one under his wing, become a begrudging father figure. Come to see the promise in the young next generation....sacrifice himself (potentially) for a mission that only he can do, etc. There are so many formulaic options for this movie to slowly trudge across.
Would love to be wrong, but...I think we're pretty safe guessing the nature of the plot. We might have to compile a Top Gun: Maverick Bingo Card before it releases.
Elbows wrote: Oh, something worth mentioning...did Goose's kid ever go into Naval Aviation? He'd literally be old enough to be a pilot/RIO too at this point, so that could be another super-obvious/rather formulaic insert into the film
That's what the rumours and Wikipedia say - "Top Gun: Maverick takes place 34 years after the events of the original film and pits legendary Captain Pete "Maverick" Mitchell as the new flight instructor of Top Gun, in which he guides Bradley, Goose's son, who seeks to become an aviator much as his father was" (and that Miles Teller is playing Bradley Bradshaw).
When your wrinkles are visible through both a helmet and cockpit glass, you probably shouldn't be sitting in that seat again.
I also have no idea who they could be having dogfights with. What made-up conflict with a nation that actually has fighter aircraft are they proposing?
I didn’t realise that this is being directed by the guy who did Oblivion and Tron Legacy, interesting. I thought Oblivion was a perfectly competent sci-fi film (if not revolutionary) and (perhaps an unpopular opinion) I really like Tron Legacy; I think it’s a really fun film and, more importantly, quite well done as a genuine sequel to the original. Also, both films look amazing. This makes me hopeful for something slightly more than just a trashy nostalgia trip. Only slightly more though!
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
I really liked both Oblivion and Tron Legacy! Two of the modern Tom Cruise movies I have liked the most are Oblivion and Edge of Tomorrow.
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."
Rob Lee wrote: The original was basically a US Navy advert and only got made on the approval of the US Navy. Not to mention it was a cheese filled sausage fest. The only good thing about it was the F-14s. Given the plot of the new one (Maverick teaches Goose's son how to be an aviator like his father - according to wikipedia), I don't hold much hope for this one either.
and an awful lot of the "good scenes" involved models composited onto the background or just really clumsy compositing (looking at you, "inverted" sequence.)
I'll pass on this one.
The only goodish Cruise film I've seen was Edge of Tomorrow, only because I lost track of how many times his character died. Each death was a sweet, sweet, delicate morsel.
I'm OVER 50 (and so far over everyone's BS, too).
Old enough to know better, young enough to not give a ****.
That is not dead which can eternal lie ...
... and yet, with strange aeons, even death may die.
I like that Tom Cruise has become so unsettling to movie goers that he no longer has romantic interests in movies where they kiss. The last time he kissed a woman on screen was when he kissed the lady mummy against her will to death.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Alpharius wrote: You hate Tom Cruise but...continue to go to his movies?
Ok!
I enjoy the suffering he puts on the screen. The succulent image of a man who knows he ruined his career, and there is no fixing it. A man who realizes that what he really wants isn't the millions in his bank account, but the respect and admiration that comes from being a master of his craft. A man who has true talent at what he does, but has become so abhorred by so many that it just doesn't matter. He'll never have what he truly desires and he knows it and it makes him miserable to the point the sequel to his own pop classic feels more like a lament for his lost opportunity than a true sequel. Really, I'm just waiting for him to star in his own biopic as himself, complete with an open ended ending where he's sailing around Fiji in a giant yacht and still miserable because it's fancy as feth but it's not what he wants.
Alpharius wrote: You hate Tom Cruise but...continue to go to his movies?
Ok!
"Keep going to his movies ..."
3 movies in 30-something years is "keep going to his movies"? That's 3 out of howeverthegakmany. Um, ok. Keep moving those goalposts. Currently Philadelphia is your in-goal zone.
I didn't even "go to see" Edge of Tomorrow.". I saw it on cable.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/04 22:53:10
I'm OVER 50 (and so far over everyone's BS, too).
Old enough to know better, young enough to not give a ****.
That is not dead which can eternal lie ...
... and yet, with strange aeons, even death may die.
