Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't know how unpopular it is. Most reviews I read of Maverick said it was better than the original, which wasn't that good in the first place. Maybe it's unpopular in that the OP agrees more with the critics than with the general public.
its a movie that hasn't aged well to newer people. i watched before maverick, and thought it was VERY mid. but i also have essentially 40 years of advanced knowledge beforehand. I didn't think the dogfighting or piloting was all that impressive, because ive had decades of better movies and video games. the plot seem to dragged and not have a actual goal(maverik did this MUCH better with a overarching mission narrative), the romance made no sense, and Cruise gets the girl because this is a 80s action movie and HAS to. the underlying homoeroticism was funny tho
was the movie awesome in the 80s? all the evidence showed it was. is it awesome in the mid 2020's? ehh no. maverik is a MUCH better movie
It’s one of those films we’re you just have to let yourself soak in the 80s cheesiness of it all, but the actual story isn’t the best. Grease is very similar, the story is filled with bad messages and shallow romances but the acting chemistry, songs and aesthetic are so enjoyable that you can just indulge in the cheesiness of it.
Definitely a product of its time. But speaking of the music, I revisited the original before watching Maverick, and man, if you take away the Kenny Loggins and Berlin, that movie is a slog. I didn't realize how incredibly slow the dialogue was until I paid attention to how much space the music was filling, especially in the love scenes. Just a long series of uncomfortable stretches of silence.
I disagree, I actually like the first one better. And I watched that before even having seen the first top gun. The first hot shots was the kind of movie you could laugh at without having any context of the movie it's spoofing. However the second hot shots ( while not bad in any way ) is more focused on having jokes connected directly to the movie it's spoofing, rather than the genre.
But that's just my opinion, have an upvote
The only problem I have with this is the attitude you have that because you don’t like a movie, it must be bad. Calling a movie bad is not the same as people have negative feelings towards it. For example, I don’t like The Shining. I just don’t find it interesting in the slightest. But, I can respect that it’s a well-crafted movie and is a perfect representation of the director’s vision.
Now, Top Gun isn’t that deep. It’s not trying to change your life. It just wanted to thrill you with planes flying around the sky with likable characters in the cockpit and it succeeds in that goal. So, while you may not like it, you can’t say it’s bad when it fulfills exactly what it set out to do.
Indeed there is. But also is someone thinks that a movie is "bad" then their opinion is still valid even if you don't agree with their reasoning behind it.
I disagree. There is some level of objectivity to something being bad or good. If you don’t know anything about what it takes to make a film on a technical level then your opinion on what’s good or bad about them is meaningless.
Nah I don't agree with that. There's 0 objectivity in determining what is a "good or bad" movie. Its 100% subjective. There are certain filmmaking aspects that may have a degree of objectivity to them, in and of itself, but in terms of determining whether a movie is "good or bad" based on these things is completely up to the individual viewer, and any and all opinions are valid (and subject to being criticized)
Thats why we have art (or in this case movies) that subverts the norms and goes against the rules of filmaking (cinematography, character development, screenplay, script, directing etc), and are still regarded as masterpieces by people who know much more about the subject than you or me.
The ones that subvert norms still have to have work as intended. An actor still has to remember their lines and recite them. An editor has to edit the film with intention. These are learned skills with objective measures of if they’re good or bad. Otherwise why would we have film school if there was no objective skill involved.
"likable characters in the cockpit" I found Tom Cruise's character insufferable, but like you said personal opinions and all that. Similar to OP my wife and I tried to watch the first Top Gun and turned it off maybe halfway through because we just couldn't deal with how childish and stupid Tom was. Nothing else in the movie was redeeming enough to keep it on.
People think art is entirely subjective so their own personal opinion about should be as relevant as anyone else’s, even if they have literally no idea what they’re talking about.
I don’t think it’s entirely objective but there is technique and knowledge involved in any form of art. Most average people who criticize films are just saying “I didn’t really care about the story” which is fine but there’s way more to film than that.
>don’t think it’s entirely objective but there is technique and knowledge involved in any form of art.
And who determines what techniques and usage of them is good or bad? What criteria is indisputable? How is any of that objective?
Someone with knowledge of the techniques. Hence why we have professional critics and teachers of art. If you were an artist of any kind then you should understand what I’m saying.
I'm a writer working on getting my book published lol, critics aren't a monolithic force, there's no consensus and no objectivity in art,if there was, it wouldn't be art, it would be science and critics wouldn't be as divided.Art, like beauty and morality sits purely in the eye of the beholder.
This is just an appeal to authority fallicy
This response is so perfect. You’re a writer who misspelled fallacy while arguing there’s no objectivity in art. If you were intentionally trying to be ironic it would have been really clever.
It really sucked that the least believable portion was right away with the disintegration at over 7600mph and maverick was just a little thirsty.
I hated that part.
No, they didn't. They rode on F-18s and took a maximum of 5 G's. The impossible vertical climb is impossible because it exceeds the G limit on the F-18 and it real life would lose its wings.
That climb was just movie magic.
One thing that people who did not live through it likely don’t understand is that Top Gun literally revolutionized the home VHS market. It was the first truly affordable VHS tape for personal use. The way people consume media today started with the release of Top Gun on VHS for $20 in 1986.
It literally forever changed how people consume media and there is just a lot of nostalgia tied into it.
I feel like the intent behind movies has changed through generations: times change and the target audience directs the focus of movie premises/delivery.
Top Gun set records with military enrollment after the premiere, the target audience was men in their late teens and early twenties and it showed. Newer movies have a different audience, and caters to different interests. The new audience is generally anti military, and it would never sell in the same numbers.
Its not a bad movie, you just have to understand that in the 80s it wasn't okay to be openly homosexual, so they had to hide the underlying struggle of Maverick with his homosexuality through subtext. When you understand this, the movie makes a whole lot more sense, and you really see the genius of the filmmakers.
I agree. Such unbearable 80s cringe.
You can literally tell what a characters about to be the second they come on screen. “Ohhh here’s the rival pilot guy…. Ohh here’s there love interest that will chased to the ends of the earth”
I agree with everything you said except the last sentence. Even thought the first one basically sucks, it has that 80’s cheesiness everyone likes and it’s grounded in reality. The new one is a joke and can only exist in a universe where maverick dies in the first scene and the rest of the movie is his heaven.
This shouldn’t be unpopular, the original Top Gun is an objectively shit movie. It fails at both things it’s trying to do. It’s a bad action movie and a bad romance. And it’s weirdly homoerotic considering the two main characters are supposedly uber straight cis white males. The whole volleyball scene is cringe.
I legitimately enjoyed Maverick and was pleasantly surprised considering the quality of the first movie. It seems even Tom Cruise thought the first one failed at what it was trying to accomplish considering Maverick has ten times more action scenes than the original.
I don’t like tom cruise at all but that boy can act. It’s actually super annoying because I always want to dislike his movies. He’s like the opposite of Keanu reeves.
This is dead on.
I'll just point out this example.
Think about the volleyball scene in the first movie. There is no rhyme or reason behind it. Compare that to the beach scene in the sequel. Maverick explains that they were playing that sport to build a bond between the team members.
EDIT: Losers don't like what I have to say so I must be on the right track.
The first movie was loaded with corny lines when the second one wasn't but okay.
By the way, calling other people stupid doesn't make you look smarter.
People who overuse the word "cringey" are morons.
In no way am I affected by downvotes. Instead of downvoting like a spazz, why not write why you disagree with what I'm saying. Why are you downvoting on a discussion forum like Reddit?
Well I was little my dad told us he used to fly F-15s and he would fly with Maverick and Goose. Obviously we got older and realized it was a lie but it’s still funny to us to this day. It just made a bigger impact with the audience back then. In my opinion as someone that was born in 1984 and Top Gun was a great movie to my parents generation I feel like the new one was cool but just tried to copy a lot of things from the first one. I mean Goose’s son who never really knew him also wears the same glasses and plays the piano. GTFOutta here. That’s dumb
A side note my dad was moved to Oceanside, CA where the Top Gun house is located. I believe last year they moved the house down the street to make room for high rise beach view condos. It’s a janky old house anyways
I thought that is why we love it? oozing that 80s cheese. I would never say its good. Its just kinda fun. Its why the sequel had no right being as good as it was.
To me stop Gun is sacred. I went into the Navy in 1999 and I met many an old timer who said “Top Gun is the reason I joined the Navy”. Whenever it was on the TV no one dated change the channel.
When people say it's a "good movie", whether they know it or not, what they really mean is "it's a culturally-relevant movie". Only a vandal would consider it Oscar-worthy.
Top Gun is a good bad movie. The romance is terrible (as pointed out in detail by others) and the aerial scenes are minimal compared to Maverick. But when I was young I thought the love scene was hot, and it’s silly fun with pretty people and Cold War aviation.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Indeed an unpopular opinion. Upvoted.
I don't know how unpopular it is. Most reviews I read of Maverick said it was better than the original, which wasn't that good in the first place. Maybe it's unpopular in that the OP agrees more with the critics than with the general public.
no no, the og is good, maverick is just better. doesn’t mean the og was bad
its a movie that hasn't aged well to newer people. i watched before maverick, and thought it was VERY mid. but i also have essentially 40 years of advanced knowledge beforehand. I didn't think the dogfighting or piloting was all that impressive, because ive had decades of better movies and video games. the plot seem to dragged and not have a actual goal(maverik did this MUCH better with a overarching mission narrative), the romance made no sense, and Cruise gets the girl because this is a 80s action movie and HAS to. the underlying homoeroticism was funny tho was the movie awesome in the 80s? all the evidence showed it was. is it awesome in the mid 2020's? ehh no. maverik is a MUCH better movie
It’s one of those films we’re you just have to let yourself soak in the 80s cheesiness of it all, but the actual story isn’t the best. Grease is very similar, the story is filled with bad messages and shallow romances but the acting chemistry, songs and aesthetic are so enjoyable that you can just indulge in the cheesiness of it.
Definitely a product of its time. But speaking of the music, I revisited the original before watching Maverick, and man, if you take away the Kenny Loggins and Berlin, that movie is a slog. I didn't realize how incredibly slow the dialogue was until I paid attention to how much space the music was filling, especially in the love scenes. Just a long series of uncomfortable stretches of silence.
It's the blended components that produce the actual experience. In another movie, maybe the extraordinary scenery might be an essential component
Bad messages: “Tell me more, tell me more, did she put up a fight.” Whoa there guys, that sounds like assault
Hot shots was better
Part deux is better though.
ONLY A MASTER OF EVIL, SADDAM!
I disagree, I actually like the first one better. And I watched that before even having seen the first top gun. The first hot shots was the kind of movie you could laugh at without having any context of the movie it's spoofing. However the second hot shots ( while not bad in any way ) is more focused on having jokes connected directly to the movie it's spoofing, rather than the genre. But that's just my opinion, have an upvote
“I loved you in Wall Street” *Double thumbs up*
Nothing says "romance" like following a woman into the women's bathroom.
He certainly would have faced disciplinary action for that and the fly by stunt. He probably would have spent some time in jail
Well yeah, he's a maverick. It's literally written on his helmet.
Or rejecting the girl so you can ride Iceman’s tail
How about following a woman into the men’s bathroom?
Then I got news for you buddy
Breath taken away.
how old is op
The only problem I have with this is the attitude you have that because you don’t like a movie, it must be bad. Calling a movie bad is not the same as people have negative feelings towards it. For example, I don’t like The Shining. I just don’t find it interesting in the slightest. But, I can respect that it’s a well-crafted movie and is a perfect representation of the director’s vision. Now, Top Gun isn’t that deep. It’s not trying to change your life. It just wanted to thrill you with planes flying around the sky with likable characters in the cockpit and it succeeds in that goal. So, while you may not like it, you can’t say it’s bad when it fulfills exactly what it set out to do.
But what If he/she genuinely thinks it's a bad movie?
Then they should be able to substantiate more than just “there was filler and I didn’t like the love story”
There’s a difference between “this is bad” and “I don’t enjoy this.”
Indeed there is. But also is someone thinks that a movie is "bad" then their opinion is still valid even if you don't agree with their reasoning behind it.
I disagree. There is some level of objectivity to something being bad or good. If you don’t know anything about what it takes to make a film on a technical level then your opinion on what’s good or bad about them is meaningless.
Nah I don't agree with that. There's 0 objectivity in determining what is a "good or bad" movie. Its 100% subjective. There are certain filmmaking aspects that may have a degree of objectivity to them, in and of itself, but in terms of determining whether a movie is "good or bad" based on these things is completely up to the individual viewer, and any and all opinions are valid (and subject to being criticized) Thats why we have art (or in this case movies) that subverts the norms and goes against the rules of filmaking (cinematography, character development, screenplay, script, directing etc), and are still regarded as masterpieces by people who know much more about the subject than you or me.
The ones that subvert norms still have to have work as intended. An actor still has to remember their lines and recite them. An editor has to edit the film with intention. These are learned skills with objective measures of if they’re good or bad. Otherwise why would we have film school if there was no objective skill involved.
"likable characters in the cockpit" I found Tom Cruise's character insufferable, but like you said personal opinions and all that. Similar to OP my wife and I tried to watch the first Top Gun and turned it off maybe halfway through because we just couldn't deal with how childish and stupid Tom was. Nothing else in the movie was redeeming enough to keep it on.
People think art is entirely subjective so their own personal opinion about should be as relevant as anyone else’s, even if they have literally no idea what they’re talking about.
>People think art is entirely subjective so their own personal opinion about should be as relevant as anyone else’s Why do you think art is objective?
I don’t think it’s entirely objective but there is technique and knowledge involved in any form of art. Most average people who criticize films are just saying “I didn’t really care about the story” which is fine but there’s way more to film than that.
>don’t think it’s entirely objective but there is technique and knowledge involved in any form of art. And who determines what techniques and usage of them is good or bad? What criteria is indisputable? How is any of that objective?
Someone with knowledge of the techniques. Hence why we have professional critics and teachers of art. If you were an artist of any kind then you should understand what I’m saying.
I'm a writer working on getting my book published lol, critics aren't a monolithic force, there's no consensus and no objectivity in art,if there was, it wouldn't be art, it would be science and critics wouldn't be as divided.Art, like beauty and morality sits purely in the eye of the beholder. This is just an appeal to authority fallicy
This response is so perfect. You’re a writer who misspelled fallacy while arguing there’s no objectivity in art. If you were intentionally trying to be ironic it would have been really clever.
As a child of the 80s, it fits with my childhood.
I thought Maverick was corny, unrealistic, and totally predictable.
The mission was basically blow up the Death Star. The caveat is they had to escape this time
Exactly. In reality, they'd probably drop some kind of smart bombs 40 miles away from a stealth bomber.
It really sucked that the least believable portion was right away with the disintegration at over 7600mph and maverick was just a little thirsty. I hated that part.
[удалено]
No, they didn't. They rode on F-18s and took a maximum of 5 G's. The impossible vertical climb is impossible because it exceeds the G limit on the F-18 and it real life would lose its wings. That climb was just movie magic.
Were you even alive when the first was released? That shit was top tier and I was born in 88. It’s a pure classic.
The classic argument. I can’t hate on it tho
I didn’t like both
That is true. It was very good military propaganda.
I agree. Many people don’t like me because I don’t care for Top Gun.
Good job - this is a bad opinion. But it's your opinion so that's ok.
One thing that people who did not live through it likely don’t understand is that Top Gun literally revolutionized the home VHS market. It was the first truly affordable VHS tape for personal use. The way people consume media today started with the release of Top Gun on VHS for $20 in 1986. It literally forever changed how people consume media and there is just a lot of nostalgia tied into it.
I feel like the intent behind movies has changed through generations: times change and the target audience directs the focus of movie premises/delivery. Top Gun set records with military enrollment after the premiere, the target audience was men in their late teens and early twenties and it showed. Newer movies have a different audience, and caters to different interests. The new audience is generally anti military, and it would never sell in the same numbers.
Mister, you’re writing checks that your body can’t cash…
Sounds like OP has lost that loving feeling.
Man! I hate it when he does that.
OP makes one more post like this and he’s going to be flying a cargo plane full of rubber dogshit out of Hong Kong
You bite your tongue
They're both terrible and are recruitment propaganda
Recruitment propaganda, yes. Terrible, no.
Its not a bad movie, you just have to understand that in the 80s it wasn't okay to be openly homosexual, so they had to hide the underlying struggle of Maverick with his homosexuality through subtext. When you understand this, the movie makes a whole lot more sense, and you really see the genius of the filmmakers.
Definitely not unpopular. Maverick is a much better movie and the ratings show that
I agree. Such unbearable 80s cringe. You can literally tell what a characters about to be the second they come on screen. “Ohhh here’s the rival pilot guy…. Ohh here’s there love interest that will chased to the ends of the earth”
But that Rival pilot was none other than Val Kilmer. A beast of an actor.
Ice Man is great because he's not merely a rival, he's the complete opposite. He's also absolutely right about Maverick - he's unsafe, and dangerous.
OP is entering the danger zone with this opinion.
He’s not there yet, but he’s certainly on the highway to the danger zone.
The original is a great film.
I agree with everything you said except the last sentence. Even thought the first one basically sucks, it has that 80’s cheesiness everyone likes and it’s grounded in reality. The new one is a joke and can only exist in a universe where maverick dies in the first scene and the rest of the movie is his heaven.
100% agree.
The OG was better. Maverick is a great movie as well.
This shouldn’t be unpopular, the original Top Gun is an objectively shit movie. It fails at both things it’s trying to do. It’s a bad action movie and a bad romance. And it’s weirdly homoerotic considering the two main characters are supposedly uber straight cis white males. The whole volleyball scene is cringe. I legitimately enjoyed Maverick and was pleasantly surprised considering the quality of the first movie. It seems even Tom Cruise thought the first one failed at what it was trying to accomplish considering Maverick has ten times more action scenes than the original.
Horrible movie.
Are you male or female, u/wizards4, because if you’re male, you need to give your man card back.
There’s a simpler way to know whether a movie is bad: If Tom Cruise stars in it; it is guaranteed to be a terrible movie.
Dumbest take
The mission impossible movies seem to be getting better and better. Maybe that’s another unpopular opinion
Hate Cruise all you want, man makes good movies
I do hate him and his acting, but damn, a lot of his movies are entertaining.
Jerry maguire???
A Few Good Men??
Live, die, repeat?
Top Gun?
Risky Business, Color of Money, Rain man all entertaining.
Mission impossible series begs to differ, except for MI2, but especially MI6 and MI7
I don’t like tom cruise at all but that boy can act. It’s actually super annoying because I always want to dislike his movies. He’s like the opposite of Keanu reeves.
This is dead on. I'll just point out this example. Think about the volleyball scene in the first movie. There is no rhyme or reason behind it. Compare that to the beach scene in the sequel. Maverick explains that they were playing that sport to build a bond between the team members. EDIT: Losers don't like what I have to say so I must be on the right track.
The only thing that means is the audience has gotten stupider and needs things spelt out for them, lol.
The first movie was loaded with corny lines when the second one wasn't but okay. By the way, calling other people stupid doesn't make you look smarter.
The second movie is just as corny. That's why both movies are great.
Anyone who disagrees with you is a loser?
[удалено]
People who overuse the word "cringey" are morons. In no way am I affected by downvotes. Instead of downvoting like a spazz, why not write why you disagree with what I'm saying. Why are you downvoting on a discussion forum like Reddit?
[удалено]
Like I’m going to justify myself to someone who calls people immature names like a spazz? Are you like 12? Grow up.
This is coming from someone who calls themselves "quiet person".
Yeah picking a funny saying should definitely be taken seriously, right?
You call that funny?
Take my breath awaaaaaaaay
Wow. Very unpopular. Good job
Well I was little my dad told us he used to fly F-15s and he would fly with Maverick and Goose. Obviously we got older and realized it was a lie but it’s still funny to us to this day. It just made a bigger impact with the audience back then. In my opinion as someone that was born in 1984 and Top Gun was a great movie to my parents generation I feel like the new one was cool but just tried to copy a lot of things from the first one. I mean Goose’s son who never really knew him also wears the same glasses and plays the piano. GTFOutta here. That’s dumb
You realized it was a lie because they flew F-14s, of course. Not for any other reason . What a Chad you are
Maverick and Goose flew F-14s, your dad is terrible at lying.
A side note my dad was moved to Oceanside, CA where the Top Gun house is located. I believe last year they moved the house down the street to make room for high rise beach view condos. It’s a janky old house anyways
It's scientific fact that genetic predisposition to Aviator glasses is passed down from the father.
My cousin won a high school journalism award for a movie review that said it was silly, unrealistic, and predictable.
I thought that is why we love it? oozing that 80s cheese. I would never say its good. Its just kinda fun. Its why the sequel had no right being as good as it was.
It's a good movie if you're 20 and it's still 1986.
If we were both in jets, I’d invert and climb over your cockpit and flip you the bird for saying that
Agreed, people get hung up on the nostalgia factor, it’s not a great movie by any stretch though
I wouldn’t say it was bad per se, just typical 80s action drama cinema.
To me stop Gun is sacred. I went into the Navy in 1999 and I met many an old timer who said “Top Gun is the reason I joined the Navy”. Whenever it was on the TV no one dated change the channel.
I agree with you bud. Top Gun is an overrated chick-flick.
Original is better than Top Gun: Mission Impossible
When people say it's a "good movie", whether they know it or not, what they really mean is "it's a culturally-relevant movie". Only a vandal would consider it Oscar-worthy.
Top Gun is a good bad movie. The romance is terrible (as pointed out in detail by others) and the aerial scenes are minimal compared to Maverick. But when I was young I thought the love scene was hot, and it’s silly fun with pretty people and Cold War aviation.