Top Gun 2??

What's this, please?? It's like Top Gun only with helicopters instead of planes... and the plot is mostly the same as is the pseudo-heroic "America-we-love-you" attitude!


Welcome, my friend, to the 1980's and early-1990's.

Release the War of the Worlds series!


Despite what one of the reviewers of the movie said, this movie is technically pretty good. He/She says Blue Thunder and Airwolf is much better, but I don't think so. In terms of just seeing attack helicopters, this one kicks @$$. Where else are you going to see so many Apaches in action?? These are real helicopters that exist in the real world, and they suffer causalties like you'd expect in a combat situation. To make a helicopter indestructable like Airwolf or Blue Thunder, I don't think they'll fly quite so fast and swift. But they're both "one of a kind" aircrafts and fictional, I suppose we can let go. Not to say that air-to-air combat with Apaches is really all that realistic either. But in theory its possible. But with so many Apaches buzzing around in this movie, the "flyboy" in me was appeased.

As for story and plot, well yeah its pretty much Top Gun' script. Except Cage didn't have the box office draw of Tom Cruise. Otherwise its pretty darn similar:
- Hero goes to special flight school
- Hero's in love with colleage/teacher
- Hero has a special place in Flight Instructor's heart
- The entire batch of new grads is call to duty soon as they graduate
- Except for the hero's aircraft, almost everyone else get shot down.

If Top Gun didn't exist, then the cheese factor might have been less. But being this close to something that's already a success, then it seems cheesey and overdone. Of course if this was a spoof like "Hot Shots" that's another story. But alas, its meant to be this way.


I only disagree with two points.

1)Iceman's(Val Kilmer's) jet got shot up bad, but he was not shot down in the end of Top Gun.

2)Was Tom Cruise really that much of a box office draw in 1986? By that point he had done seven movies, and the only ones that may have a draw factor, would probably be Legend and Risky Business.Cage had the likely more "draw" with Valley Girl, The Cotton Club, Raising Arizona, and Moonstruck.

Tom Cruise totally had a name by the time he did Top Gun, but I think it was Gun's success that really gave him his box office draw.


days of thunder was top gun 2 - exactly the same story - only with cars


How old are you? Because that's not the way I remember it at all.

Here's the thing you have to remember about Cruise: Risky Business was more than just a movie, it was a phenomenon. Don't underestimate the popularity of this movie (and its star) at the time! Consider Cruise's age and career to that point. He was 21 years old and in the very early stages of his career. This was his first leading role! 1983 saw the release of this picture along with the less-popular Cruise vehicle All the Right Moves. The combination of these two releases established Tom Cruise as the new "it" guy. And he was just 21 years old.

Nick Cage, on the other hand, had a dramatically different career. Early on, he focused on eccentric parts, in small productions. 1987 saw the release of two landmark movies in Cage's body of work: Raising Arizona and Moonstruck. Both were successful pictures that garnered critical acclaim, but if they established anything in particular about Cage as an actor- it was his eccentricity. And there he languished for eight years. Cage first became an accepted A-List star in 1995 with the release of Leaving Las Vegas (at age 31). Past that point, Cage made a curious decision. He starred in eight consecutive big-action pictures. In my opinion, this period established the Nicolas Cage we know today.

Now, you could examine the two men's careers more deeply and decide for yourself, or you can look at this (from the actors' IMDb pages):

Cruise's paycheck:
Risky Business (1983) $75,000
Top Gun (1986) $2,000,000

Cage's paycheck:
Leaving Las Vegas (1995) $240,000
The Rock (1996) $4,000,000

That should make it pretty clear.


"Risky Business (1983) $75,000
Top Gun (1986) $2,000,000

Leaving Las Vegas (1995) $240,000
The Rock (1996) $4,000,000

That should make it pretty clear."

Interesting, because for openers, it doesn't make anything clear at all. Second, money made for a movie is no indication of how good a person is or what kind of name they have, it's only an indication of how stupid someone was to pay as much as they did and how badly an actor may have wanted a part, or, conversely, how badly a producer wanted the actor.


Why are you arguing with me? We seem to agree, basically.

you said:
"Second, money made for a movie is no indication of how good a person is or what kind of name they have, it's only an indication of [...] how badly a producer wanted the actor.

Well, the reason producers want a particular actor (at any price) is because they draw an audience. Post-Risky Business, Cruise drew an audience, and was paid accordingly.

Meanwhile, Cage did not really have box office appeal until The Rock, and even then he was heavily assisted by the star of that movie, Sean Connery (who, it should be noted, banked $15,000,000 for that movie).

Anyway, I realize this is a board for one particular Cage movie (which I watched on TV earlier today), not for the actor himself. But I was responding to a poster above who thought that Top Gun made Tom Cruise's career. Make sense?


"It's like Top Gun only with helicopters instead of planes..."

I guess, if you mean it's about some guy that flies a machine, you're right.

You didn't see this movie, did you?


By the way, I've just spent 15 minutes or so perusing your posts on other IMDb boards. Good stuff in there. Are you a farker*, by chance?



i know. isn't it awesome. some people say "fire birds" is better than "top gun". it really is a great film.


No way is this film better than Top Gun.

Its that man again!!