Tooj 17 Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 A sequel to Tom Cruise-starring iconic '80s film Top Gun is on the cards with the star reprising his role. It was the film that made Cruise an overnight sex symbol with his role as rookie pilot Maverick in 1986. "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," a source told The Sun. It's certainly a change of tune from the star as he didn't want to be in a sequel shortly after the first film. At the time he priced himself out of starring in one with an amount of money deemed "unaffordable" by the studio. There had been a script written for Top Gun 2 back then which would have seen Maverick as an instructor at the academy with a cocky female, not unlike himself as a younger man, joining the team. Whether they will keep that story for the newly planned follow up remains to be seen. The original film also introduced Val Kilmer as Ice Man and featured Kelly McGillis as Cruise's love interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 Don't know why this springs to mind... Let me explain to you the kind of man Maverick is. He's a man who knows that when you put another man's cock in your mouth, you make a pact. A bond that cannot be broken. He's a man so dedicated that he will get down on his knees and put that cock right in his mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WubbleUC 0 Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 Fuck that shit! Absolutely no need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM4 0 Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 Mega weepage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sima 0 Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 (edited) The Cruiser would never do this, no matter how bat-shit crazy he is. Edited July 21, 2008 by Sima Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 11098 Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 One of those things where you'd love to see more, but you know, balls to bone, they won't get close to getting it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howay 12496 Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Oh no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus 0 Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 "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," a source told The Sun. Oh my how original..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 2 Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Is it me, or does Hollywood churn out nothing now apart from sequels, prequels, remakes, and woefully formulaic Superhero films? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Is it me, or does Hollywood churn out nothing now apart from sequels, prequels, remakes, and woefully formulaic Superhero films? There's the odd gem that comes out but you're not a million miles from the truth there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 (edited) Is it me, or does Hollywood churn out nothing now apart from sequels, prequels, remakes, and woefully formulaic Superhero films? Did it ever not? I think the big change though (a bit like computer and PC games) is cost, and that with films now it is possible to bomb at the cinema and still make a fortune through DvD sales. That probably hasn't helped. Top Gun 3: Misserick is now at the Top Gun school as an instructor - and this time it is she who has to deal with a cocky new black transgender pilot who is her mother (!!!!). Edited July 22, 2008 by Fop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 (edited) Is it me, or does Hollywood churn out nothing now apart from sequels, prequels, remakes, and woefully formulaic Superhero films? Did it ever not? I think the big change though (a bit like computer and PC games) is cost, and that with films now it is possible to bomb at the cinema and still make a fortune through DvD sales. That probably hasn't helped. Top Gun 3: Misserick is now at the Top Gun school as an instructor - and this time it is she who has to deal with a cocky new black transgender pilot who is her mother (!!!!). Aye, not anymore though. Edited July 22, 2008 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Is it me, or does Hollywood churn out nothing now apart from sequels, prequels, remakes, and woefully formulaic Superhero films? Did it ever not? I think the big change though (a bit like computer and PC games) is cost, and that with films now it is possible to bomb at the cinema and still make a fortune through DvD sales. That probably hasn't helped. Top Gun 3: Misserick is now at the Top Gun school as an instructor - and this time it is she who has to deal with a cocky new black transgender pilot who is her mother (!!!!). Aye, not anymore though. I dunno, it always largely made whatever made money. Be that musicals or westerns or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 (edited) Is it me, or does Hollywood churn out nothing now apart from sequels, prequels, remakes, and woefully formulaic Superhero films? Did it ever not? I think the big change though (a bit like computer and PC games) is cost, and that with films now it is possible to bomb at the cinema and still make a fortune through DvD sales. That probably hasn't helped. Top Gun 3: Misserick is now at the Top Gun school as an instructor - and this time it is she who has to deal with a cocky new black transgender pilot who is her mother (!!!!). Aye, not anymore though. I dunno, it always largely made whatever made money. Be that musicals or westerns or whatever. Even if that were the case that's a bit different to what you were saying, i.e. it was always thus (regarding the making sequels, prequels, remakes, and woefully formulaic Superhero films bit). It certainly used to make films that weren't derivative and not only in its pioneering days when it was obvious that would be the case. The way its long been set-up with the studios means that it basically has to make blockbusters that bring the lolly in but Hollywood seemed to be able to do that and still make great movies far more often. Edited July 22, 2008 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 who will they be bombing this time - it was the Libyans last time IIRC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Films used to run and run when there was no way to watch at home. A success could pull them in at the cinema for years, you didn't need a sequel when the original could make just as much given another cinema run. With home video, the demand for new product at the cinema went through the roof. I think there's just as much quality coming out as there ever was, maybe even more, but with the turnover required to give the public eight or nine prestige releases a week it's only to be expected that some of that is going to be rehashed ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Films used to run and run when there was no way to watch at home. A success could pull them in at the cinema for years, you didn't need a sequel when the original could make just as much given another cinema run. With home video, the demand for new product at the cinema went through the roof. I think there's just as much quality coming out as there ever was, maybe even more, but with the turnover required to give the public eight or nine prestige releases a week it's only to be expected that some of that is going to be rehashed ideas. Would you say there's as much quality coming out of Hollywood as there ever was though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Is it me, or does Hollywood churn out nothing now apart from sequels, prequels, remakes, and woefully formulaic Superhero films? Did it ever not? I think the big change though (a bit like computer and PC games) is cost, and that with films now it is possible to bomb at the cinema and still make a fortune through DvD sales. That probably hasn't helped. Top Gun 3: Misserick is now at the Top Gun school as an instructor - and this time it is she who has to deal with a cocky new black transgender pilot who is her mother (!!!!). Aye, not anymore though. I dunno, it always largely made whatever made money. Be that musicals or westerns or whatever. Even if that were the case that's a bit different to what you were saying, i.e. it was always thus (regarding the making sequels, prequels, remakes, and woefully formulaic Superhero films bit). It certainly used to make films that weren't derivative and not only in its pioneering days when it was obvious that would be the case. The way its long been set-up with the studios means that it basically has to make blockbusters that bring the lolly in but Hollywood seemed to be able to do that and still make great movies far more often. It's all true but the "superhero" bit, which depends on how pedantic you wish to be. The rest is a bit "when I were a lad we used to walk up hill both ways"; commercial pressures certainly do produce different issues now, but to say that it wasn't the case previously at all, right back to the earliest times (and even pre-movie things), is pretty blinkered. It's much like computer game history (only they've had a much shorter lifespan), but even back in the days of genuine bedroom hits, there were still the generic, the sequel and the blatant copy. Movies have been the same, one of the big issues at the moment (especially with "superheros") is the relative ease and power of computer generated special effects. Meaning Spiderman can now be done in a way that couldn't be dreamed of in the 80's, except in something like a comic book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Films used to run and run when there was no way to watch at home. A success could pull them in at the cinema for years, you didn't need a sequel when the original could make just as much given another cinema run. With home video, the demand for new product at the cinema went through the roof. I think there's just as much quality coming out as there ever was, maybe even more, but with the turnover required to give the public eight or nine prestige releases a week it's only to be expected that some of that is going to be rehashed ideas. DvD's have made a big impact, much bigger than video every did really, once they realise that mass volume cheap(ish) DvD sales could make a so so movie that did nothing at the cinema a decent profit maker over a couple of years (much more so than straight to video films ever did). But you've just got to look at things like Westerns to see it's been going on for as long as the movie industry to a significant degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Is it me, or does Hollywood churn out nothing now apart from sequels, prequels, remakes, and woefully formulaic Superhero films? Did it ever not? I think the big change though (a bit like computer and PC games) is cost, and that with films now it is possible to bomb at the cinema and still make a fortune through DvD sales. That probably hasn't helped. Top Gun 3: Misserick is now at the Top Gun school as an instructor - and this time it is she who has to deal with a cocky new black transgender pilot who is her mother (!!!!). Aye, not anymore though. I dunno, it always largely made whatever made money. Be that musicals or westerns or whatever. Even if that were the case that's a bit different to what you were saying, i.e. it was always thus (regarding the making sequels, prequels, remakes, and woefully formulaic Superhero films bit). It certainly used to make films that weren't derivative and not only in its pioneering days when it was obvious that would be the case. The way its long been set-up with the studios means that it basically has to make blockbusters that bring the lolly in but Hollywood seemed to be able to do that and still make great movies far more often. It's all true but the "superhero" bit, which depends on how pedantic you wish to be. The rest is a bit "when I were a lad we used to walk up hill both ways"; commercial pressures certainly do produce different issues now, but to say that it wasn't the case previously at all, right back to the earliest times (and even pre-movie things), is pretty blinkered. It's much like computer game history (only they've had a much shorter lifespan), but even back in the days of genuine bedroom hits, there were still the generic, the sequel and the blatant copy. Movies have been the same, one of the big issues at the moment (especially with "superheros") is the relative ease and power of computer generated special effects. Meaning Spiderman can now be done in a way that couldn't be dreamed of in the 80's, except in something like a comic book. Lucky I wasn't saying that then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 who will they be bombing this time - it was the Libyans last time IIRC Eeeran innit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 who will they be bombing this time - it was the Libyans last time IIRC YRI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Films used to run and run when there was no way to watch at home. A success could pull them in at the cinema for years, you didn't need a sequel when the original could make just as much given another cinema run. With home video, the demand for new product at the cinema went through the roof. I think there's just as much quality coming out as there ever was, maybe even more, but with the turnover required to give the public eight or nine prestige releases a week it's only to be expected that some of that is going to be rehashed ideas. Would you say there's as much quality coming out of Hollywood as there ever was though? Certainly a lot better than the 80's. Probably better than the 90's too. The 70's is always going to be hard to beat because it marked the death of the studio system as it was, and it took a while for the company men to regain control of their directors and for the ad-men to understand what the hipper audience demand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Films used to run and run when there was no way to watch at home. A success could pull them in at the cinema for years, you didn't need a sequel when the original could make just as much given another cinema run. With home video, the demand for new product at the cinema went through the roof. I think there's just as much quality coming out as there ever was, maybe even more, but with the turnover required to give the public eight or nine prestige releases a week it's only to be expected that some of that is going to be rehashed ideas. DvD's have made a big impact, much bigger than video every did really, once they realise that mass volume cheap(ish) DvD sales could make a so so movie that did nothing at the cinema a decent profit maker over a couple of years (much more so than straight to video films ever did). But you've just got to look at things like Westerns to see it's been going on for as long as the movie industry to a significant degree. But the studios are making more sequels, prequels, remakes and superhero films than ever before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now