[MEDIA]
Watched the trailer three times now. Cinematically it looks beautifully shot. Probably not much of an in-depth story, but I don’t think I’ll mind watching hornets for a few hours! Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat.com mobile app
Every use of CGI that I've seen thus far to depict aircraft in flight has been a failure. The aircraft look magnificent but do not fly realistically. "Pearl Harbor" and "Red Tails" were both laughable in this respect. At least the makers of "Dunkirk" largely avoided CGI to use real aircraft. I have no doubt that CGI can be realistic if it is allowed to be, but until it is, I will avoid any film that makes large use of CGI in its flying sequences.
Love it! F/A-18 makes a logical choice as it's on the tail end of its career just like Maverick...I'm sure it will still reign supreme.
Lifestyle and genetics— you can only control one. Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat.com mobile app
Per reports, all the flying in this film is supposed to be real, with the obvious exception of any flying F-14 scenes. Regarding the Tomcat, I know that they painted a static one to match the original film version for some scenes. https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/19/top-gun-maverick-action-real-deal-sequel-favours-stunts-cgi-10425043/
Most of the F-14s were chopped up to prevent the Iranians from ever getting their hands on the parts. Mostly just in museums and airparks now.
Took me a second view to notice the F14 at the very end... How common is it that a pilot would fly a jet like that without gloves? Seemed odd to me seeing that...
Chinese money and influence on display. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/07/20/asia-pacific/top-gun-sequel-appears-remove-japanese-taiwanese-flags/#.XTNz8PJKjIV
Some photos of the F/A-18s used for production taken at NAS Oceana: https://theaviationist.com/2019/05/16/second-previously-unseen-u-s-navy-f-a-18e-in-top-gun-maverick-color-scheme-spotted-at-nas-oceana/ So how does this work financially? Does the studio pay the Navy to fly the jets for filming and actual fighter pilots use it as an opportunity to log more hours? I'd imagine the movie studios would want to do things their way in terms of reshooting scenes and whatever else, but the Navy probably would dictate that part more than anyone else...
Depends on what the USN wants to do. In this case, I am betting the Navy is doing it for free for the added publicity. Recruiting took a huge jump after Top Gun, and they are probably hoping for something similar. They needed a two seater, too, so you could see Cruise pretending he is the one flying the aircraft. There is a huge tradition of the armed forces participating in the making of movies for the publicity. Final Countdown comes to mind, where they nearly lost an F-14 when a fake Zero turned the wrong way. Only scared those of us who knew what nearly happened.
I'm guessing the storyline involves a new high tech aircraft replacing the Hornets and it can go very high altitudes...
The studio pays the military for fuel, maintenance, flight hours, and other fees, (such as meals and transportation). We have good figures for what each of these cost. My squadron did the flying for Hunt For Red October. There were some things they wanted us to do in the air that were not approved. Those things were then done in the studio. Couple examples: when lowering a man down the hoist to the submarine, they wanted us to rock the helo and slam the guy into the side of the sub. We wouldn’t do that. They also wanted us to fly in crummy weather to make it look dangerous. All flying was done on a crystal clear day in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. They added the crummy weather in later. BTW, the flying was tedious.
