Yeah - I was wondering what was up with the U-2 or SR-71 pressurized suit…
1 Like
The one question I have about that suit is… why in the name of gods there’s lights on the INSIDE of the helmet?!
I mean… what will you be able to see from withitn it?
I know it’s just to show Mr. Cruise face so we know it’s actually him flying the plane because he does all of his stunts yadda yadda… but still…
Miles Teller is playing Goose’s son. So having him there would be expected, actually.
Aside from the fact that at his age he probably wouldn’t have learned how to work an AWG-9, would he?
As for helmet lights, that has been around for decades because otherwise the camera can’t see the actor’s face. If you’ve ever watched something where you can’t see their face for extended periods, you lose interest. You need to see a face to be invested.
Same reason in the first film they didn’t wear their masks or ripped them off regularly, because the eye strip wasn’t enough. Or in historical flicks they tear the face guard-equipped helmets off as soon as they can justify it.
4 Likes
Yeah…I’ve always wondered how many actors tripped over something because the couldn’t see beyond the face plate. 
…I think there will be a scene where he is learning the AWG-9 by playing DCS…
Re pressure suits: I can’t remember what plane it was but back in the Cold War, at least one of the carrier jets used as interceptors flew a high profile requiring the aircrew to wear pressure suits. When I was deployed on CV-67 in 1986-88, our ready room still has the plugs in the floor next to the chairs where aircrew in pressure suits could plug into air…I guess to keep them cool. The plugs were no longer hooked up to anything, but they were still there.
4 Likes
And not a single deviation from realism in any of them!
…
…getting lightheaded again…I think I pulled my sarcasm muscle…
4 Likes
Yeah, maybe- but let’s face it… once you have easily identifiable coloured helmets that necessity kinda disappear.
Personally I prefer authenticity over helmet’s light but alas- it’s Top Gun 2. Time to shut off the brain and enjoy the cinematics.
What saddens me a bit is that my late father would have been much more excited by this than I am now.
2 Likes
I was wondering about what the aircraft might be. The reflection on the helmet made me think of those “modernized” F-117 cockpit photos that circulated.
Except, the cockpit section we can see that the canopy mates to does not match the:
F-117
F-22
F-35
F-18 Legacy or Super
F-14
F-16
SR-71
F-15
U-2
So what is this, some Hollywood experimental design?
2 Likes
Methink you got it- would be simpler to make one up.
My real question would be… why?
Why give an old and possibly skilled but… old… guy that never went above Captain control of such a plane?
-=Fun facts=-
And beside that… Ed Harris face… O.O
Did they cut him with a boxcutter?
Those wrinkles are etched in his face… wow.
And beside that…
Tom Cruise is now older in real life than Tom Skerritt’s Viper was in the original Top Gun…
Also it seems Goose’s son is quite angry at Maverick?
Got something from hs father though…
Totally love that they re-painted his modern helmet like the original.
What if that F14 sequence at the end of the trailer is part of a recurring nightmare Maverick has?
Or Goose’s son?
1 Like
He’s just…old!
Not everyone ages like Silvio Berlusconi, you know… 
2 Likes
Oh good lords, please. He simply bathe in chemicals…
He’s more plastic than human now…
2 Likes
Jennifer Connelly sells it for me.
Wheels
Talking about age:
Not only are quite some of the dudes in the original movie also too old for their rank (Viper for example), I must admit Tom Cruise has aged pretty well, too. He definitely looks younger than Tom Skerritt did back then. He might pass as mid 40ish, although he is… 57!
1 Like
Meeeh… I’m mid 40ish and well I look better than that.
He does look better than Tom Skerrit in Top Gun for sure.
3 Likes
Aurora?
also
2 Likes
Well… We all kind of have… Maybe he’s a computer flight sim whizz kid and jumps in the tomcat like we all would given even the slightest whiff of a chance 
“Video not available in your country”.
I don’t mean you need to see their faces so you know who’s talking, I mean people need to see them to watch them emote. Very few actors are good enough at body language that with vocals and motion alone you can get the full effect of what they’re trying to convey, especially in moments with no dialogue
.
Anthony Daniels was quite good, but he had the advantage of playing a nervous robot and not a person. Yet you’ll notice the evil Empire mostly had masks so you couldn’t see and didn’t care about them, while all the Rebels had their faces fully visible so you did. The Imperials whose faces you could see invariably looked aloof, sneering, or angry, to make sure you understood they were the bad guys.
If you can’t see their anger, their fear, their excitement, their hope…you wind up being disconnected from them. That’s fine for a war movie cast where they’re all largely faceless and dying left and right, but not for a regular film where you’re supposed to invest in the character’s emotions.
That’s because you’re Italian. The ideal type for Americans is Peter from “The Family Guy”. By that standard I’d say Cruise is doing OK for himself.
7 Likes
I admit I laughed really loud at that. Thanks mate. 