The Mandela Effect

[starkind]

Nothing compares to sonic 2 jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[unsunghero]

Saw Top Gun yesterday, first movie in a long time. Was ok, it was over-hyped by my family IMO

I thought it was pretty formulaic. I was predicting everything ahead of time and was right about all of it. Plot was pretty basic. The last action parts were pretty seat gripping intense and well-done. I’ve heard the navy actually donates their planes and carriers to use for those movies because they cause a spree of young people joining the navy, so they are almost like recruitment promotional movies for them. I was joking with the girl I was with that it’s kind of a weird message to send to possible recruits though: “Join the Navy, your admiral is going to be a dickhead, so just disobey their orders and do what you think is right”. That is definitely NOT how the military wants their soldiers to operate

In regards to not sidelining this topic, I do like sci-fo so I may try to check out this Mandela movie, but I don’t know how to see it. I used to pirate stream them with putlocker but those sites have been shut down pretty well. I have Amazon prime and Netflix so if it’s on either of those I could catch it that way

[Jibartik]

Top gun is sci fi if you think about it as propaganda they wanted to hold off on releasing until the war started in real life.

[starkind]

Old Top gun was great.

If new top gun has cool new well done footage of cool real planes in it. It did it's job. It's not supposed to be cerebral.

[unsunghero]

Originally Posted by starkind [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Old Top gun was great.

If new top gun has cool new well done footage of cool real planes in it. It did it's job. It's not supposed to be cerebral.

You’re right and it does. The air dog-fight scenes are absolutely top-notch and intense

It’s basically them trying to fight in old planes against 5th generation hi-tech planes and being completely out-geared by enemy tech (which is a bit unbelievable for the USA but like you said it isn’t a cerebral movie). Also having to do what almost seems like a suicide mission considering the amount of anti-aircraft missiles the enemy has

[Danth]

Originally Posted by unsunghero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I’ve heard the navy actually donates their planes and carriers to use for those movies

They were doing that all the way back in the 40's and 50's. It was more common back then than it is now because hollywood movies tended to be more pro-military back then. For what should be obvious reasons the U.S. military generally won't support films it sees as anti-military.

If the admiral is a jerk and the pilots get treated like dirt it's basically accurate to life. Pilots are expensive to train and always limited in number but for some reason the armed forces continue treating them like they're disposable. It fuels their exodus to civilian jobs which generally already pay better for less injury risk. The Navy may have known this is an issue and wants to get it some publicity in a deniable manner (ie, nobody wants to put his own job on the line). The original "Top Gun" film was used in part to try to raise public awareness (and hence, get people yelling at Congress) of the faults with the F-14. The scene where the RIO dies is basically true-to-life; the plane suffers a compressor stall and engine flame-out, the pilot instinctively but incorrectly tries to fight it with the stick instead of with opposite pedal, the plane rapidly enters an unrecoverable flat spin and they're left with no option but punch out. A number of real F-14 crews were injured or killed in similar fashion, and for a number of years Congress didn't want to fund any remedies like engine replacement.

There are also a couple of brief but very neat shots of a rolling scissors towards the end of the first film. As with the above, it is not directly explained for people who don't know what they're seeing. If the new film has similar tidbits, it might be worth a watch.

Danth

[unsunghero]

Originally Posted by Danth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They were doing that all the way back in the 40's and 50's. It was more common back then than it is now because hollywood movies tended to be more pro-military back then. For what should be obvious reasons the U.S. military generally won't support films it sees as anti-military.

If the admiral is a jerk and the pilots get treated like dirt it's basically accurate to life. Pilots are expensive to train and always limited in number but for some reason the armed forces continue treating them like they're disposable. It fuels their exodus to civilian jobs which generally already pay better for less injury risk. The Navy may have known this is an issue and wants to get it some publicity in a deniable manner (ie, nobody wants to put his own job on the line). The original "Top Gun" film was used in part to try to raise public awareness (and hence, get people yelling at Congress) of the faults with the F-14. The scene where the RIO dies is basically true-to-life; the plane suffers a compressor stall and engine flame-out, the pilot instinctively but incorrectly tries to fight it with the stick instead of with opposite pedal, the plane rapidly enters an unrecoverable flat spin and they're left with no option but punch out. A number of real F-14 crews were injured or killed in similar fashion, and for a number of years Congress didn't want to fund any remedies like engine replacement.

Danth

Oh interesting

The admiral is going over the mission objectives with Maverick (Tom Cruise) and finishes and Maverick adds “and get out alive, right?” Because the admiral didn’t include that

He just kind of sits back and says “the pilots know the risks”. It felt like a bit of a callous exaggeration still

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by unsunghero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh interesting

The admiral is going over the mission objectives with Maverick (Tom Cruise) and finishes and Maverick adds “and get out alive, right?” Because the admiral didn’t include that

He just kind of sits back and says “the pilots know the risks”. It felt like a bit of a callous exaggeration still

Spoiler me the enemy with better tech please.

[Danth]

Originally Posted by unsunghero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

(which is a bit unbelievable for the USA but like you said it isn’t a cerebral movie).

It isn't as unbelievable as you might assume. The F-22 is pushing near to thirty year old tech at this point, the F-18E family was never intended to be especially forward-looking*, and the F-35 isn't really a fighter in any conventional sense of the word, it's more akin to a modern version of the 60's era F-105. There is in fact a real threat of some other air forces matching or surpassing the U.S. in some areas in coming years.

*The F-18E originated as something of an emergency stopgap because during the 90's several different families of Navy aircraft were fast approaching the end of their fatigue lifespans with no replacement funded or planned. Hence the Navy needed planes, it needed them fast and cheap-ish, and it needed them to be able to do several jobs tolerably well. The F-18E exceeded all expectations and proved a rousing success, but it was still really meant as a gap-filler, not the next word in technological development.

Danth

[unsunghero]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Spoiler me the enemy with better tech please.

They do a great job of never saying. Pilots are all wearing full high tech helmets, no language is spoken, no ethnicity shown. Target is enriching uranium somewhere cold so maybe they want you to assume Russia but they never put any other country on blast…unless they did and I missed it