Topgun 3d

[SUBS17]

Topgun the movie is going 3d.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx-mUxk82B4...player_embedded

[IslandBoy77]

Well, I guess that's what happens when people with too much money & time on their hands get bored... As much fun as some of the flying sequences are, over all, the movie is pretty lame. I mean: using Tigersharks as the new "Mig"? Give me a break! Now, if they were to have made a NEW Top Gun with decent CGI and got rid of that lame-ars* love story, THEN maybe they'd be heading in the right direction. They could even have a plausible enemy in someone like China, North Korea or Iran. I always seriously doubted that Russian pilots were really as poor as TG suggested.

[Ian Warren]

And i was always told i was TO AGGRESSIVE .. SUBs .. Just keep poking till someone says OUCH !

[Charl]

You know... this is going to be one time that the Youtube comments are going to be worth reading:
****SPOILER ALERT!******
Goose dies.

[Ian Warren]

QUOTE (IslandBoy77 @ Jan 8 2013,2:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

using Tigersharks as the new "Mig"? Give me a break! Now, if they were to have made a NEW Top Gun with decent CGI

TO AGGRESSIVE , only four Tige .. tiger , ... whats a shark ... stock standard F5/T-38 and as for CGI .. only for the Vietnam vets ..

QUOTE (Charl @ Jan 8 2013,4:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

****SPOILER ALERT!******
Goose dies.

OH GOD ! not Bruce ... I mean Goose ... not Goose .. Jeez ya think he was breakin his over the scene .. what ever happened to ER then

[IslandBoy77]

QUOTE (Ian Warren @ Jan 8 2013,5:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

and as for CGI .. only for the Vietnam vets ..

I think you're thinking LSD, Ian.

[Ian Warren]

QUOTE (IslandBoy77 @ Jan 8 2013,5:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you're thinking LSD, Ian.

LSD .. a Dock Landing Ship .. very seldom used in Vietnam

[SUBS17]

QUOTE (IslandBoy77 @ Jan 13 2013,2:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I guess that's what happens when people with too much money & time on their hands get bored... As much fun as some of the flying sequences are, over all, the movie is pretty lame. I mean: using Tigersharks as the new "Mig"? Give me a break! Now, if they were to have made a NEW Top Gun with decent CGI and got rid of that lame-ars* love story, THEN maybe they'd be heading in the right direction. They could even have a plausible enemy in someone like China, North Korea or Iran. I always seriously doubted that Russian pilots were really as poor as TG suggested.

When Topgun was made the Cold war was still happening so the F5s were the most ideal aircraft at the time to play the Mig28. The West had very little opportunity to use Russian aircraft unless they were stolen or aircraft used by pilots that defected. Funny thing after the movie Topgun it was rumored that an F-15 pilot thought he could beat a Tomcat any day so a fight was arranged and bets were made, the F-15 pilot lost. Another incident happened around that time where a P3 Orion was chased by Soviet SU27s that were brand new so the P3 crew flew near a Carrier and a pair of F-14s were sent up. The SU27s wound up with the F-14s behind them very quickly and so stopped harrassing the P3 crew. There was talk of a sequel to Topgun being made but unfortunately the Director of the original Topgun died. As for me I'll watch the movie again but I think Skyfighters is a better movie since it has better dogfight scenes and CGI sucks only way and best way to make a Dogfight movie is use real aircraft with cameras fixed to them.

[chopper_nut]

I was too young to see it at the cinema back in 87 so I'd definately be keen to see it on the big screen. Yeh it was a bit cheesy but its pretty cool if you just take it for what it is. For the record, CGI still blows in aviation films.

[IslandBoy77]

I agree that the original Topgun was made with the era in which it was set as the backdrop: no argument there. But even back then, I remember feeling that the "badness" of the Russians was on the wane, and players like China & North Korea were already "poking their heads up" in the collective consciousness. Since I was thinking better to do a "new" Topgun rather than waste the money on the old, different foes to fit today would be in order. I sorta agree that aircraft CGI isn't what it should be yet - but I think it's a lot closer than what people might give it credit. Part of the problem, I believe, is having a credible "backdrop" to the CGI aircraft that makes them believable. While Stealth is a bit gung-ho and almost as cheesy as Topgun, I felt that the CGI there, particularly in certain scenes (the "camel-hump" refuelling sequence, for example) were passably quite good. I don't agree that slapping cameras on real aircraft is the coup de grace for action sequences: often it looks like a camera strapped on an aircraft. Additionally, one is often very limited to the number and type of aircraft available, the skill of the pilots, legal restrictions - the list is long. I know - it's very hard to achieve that "real aircraft in a real environment" look in CGI, but I, for one, am prepared to give up some of that in exchange for authenticity / flexibility in other respects (not the least of which is being able to create as many aircraft of any type instead of being hamstrung due to all manner of things). I also think one can actually get great enjoyment out of a CGI-based movie if one accepts that the CGI and its limitations are there, and instead enjoy the extra freedom, richness and flexibility that it brings.

[Charl]

Remember: no CGI in Topgun...

QUOTE (IslandBoy77 @ Jan 9 2013,11:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't agree that slapping cameras on real aircraft is the coup de grace for action sequences: often it looks like a camera strapped on an aircraft.

Ehh?? what would you have it look like, then?
There's always something that detracts in aviation CGI, I very nearly left Pearl Harbour to its own devices, it was like an arcade game.

I also wonder why movies with aircraft in them, are doomed to have no plot whatsoever.
Do the producers believe we the audience are satisfied with the fast-moving pictures, then? maybe we are...

[Ian Warren]

Well not long before TOPGUN was THE FINAL COUNTDOWN ... i want to see that in 3D .. not for the jet whooshing past but to see the jaw off Japanese drop 'Twice' in 3D as first saw the Tomcats ... and also to hear the 'DONG' as his jaw hits the deck as the two returning fighters catch the wires on the Nimitz

[IslandBoy77]

QUOTE (Charl @ Jan 9 2013,11:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Remember: no CGI in Topgun...
Ehh?? what would you have it look like, then?
There's always something that detracts in aviation CGI, I very nearly left Pearl Harbour to its own devices, it was like an arcade game.

I also wonder why movies with aircraft in them, are doomed to have no plot whatsoever.
Do the producers believe we the audience are satisfied with the fast-moving pictures, then? maybe we are...

Ah, I'm glad you mentioned Pearl Harbour - love those big blobs of camera gear strapped to the slickly-painted (oh, how realistic...) aircraft. What - they didn't have the budget to clone those out? I agree that a certain amount of the CGI aircraft sequences were gag-able - but not so much due to the lack in CGI, I'd warrant, but more due to NOT having the right people onboard who knew how to make a dogfight look realistic. Mind you, stick Ben Affleck in anything and it's credibility goes south immediately.

I also agree that most of the "flying / fighting" movies I've seen over the decades seemed to lack in the story department. Having said that, I was just saying to my wife last week that I'd love "them" to make a good-old "boys movie" without all the cruddy love-mush in the background messing it up.

The other thing I'd like to see movie makers do is not stretch the bounds of credulity so far. It's a given that the bulk of people who watch movies aren't trained pilots. It's also a given that most movies stretch things in order to make for better entertainment (eg hearing explosions in space). But so often, in order to generate a more "energetic" story (or whatever excuse "they" dream up for stretching reality-law things), movie directors / makers will sacrifice obvious stuff on the alter of "yeeha". Judging from some of the footage of real-world aerobatics / antics I've seen on YouTube, there is still plenty of scope for interesting manoeuvrings and feats that are still "wow" yet don't actually break any laws of physics (eg that classic YouTube vid of the "drunken pilot" stealing the Cub).

I suppose my real beef with strapping cameras on aircraft would be as follows:
1) Often the cameras are visible: that's just barf material
2) Due to the fact that they are using real aircraft and all the restrictions (both practical, financial and legal that such implies) the producers are automatically constrained in what they can & can't do
3) As previously noted, largely due to cost, the number, variety and authenticity of the real aircraft being used is very limited (eg Pearl Harbour with the nice, shiny zeros, having to shoot with only a handful of aircraft that have different variants when there should be none and then trying to make it look like there are a lot more aircraft in the sky that there really are)

One of my all-time fav films is the Battle of Britain. But, as with all movies that involve aircraft (and I've read a bit of background on the various problems they had during filming) the action sequences just come off as severely lacking. For myself, I'd trade the real-world aircraft, as nice as they are, for really nicely-done fleets of CGI aircraft of the correct types (eg HE-111s with the proper engines, not those Spanish-built "replicas") - that would be far more immersive and enjoyable.

[SUBS17]

QUOTE (IslandBoy77 @ Jan 14 2013,1:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I suppose my real beef with strapping cameras on aircraft would be as follows:
1) Often the cameras are visible: that's just barf material
2) Due to the fact that they are using real aircraft and all the restrictions (both practical, financial and legal that such implies) the producers are automatically constrained in what they can & can't do
3) As previously noted, largely due to cost, the number, variety and authenticity of the real aircraft being used is very limited (eg Pearl Harbour with the nice, shiny zeros, having to shoot with only a handful of aircraft that have different variants when there should be none and then trying to make it look like there are a lot more aircraft in the sky that there really are)

Cameras are definately not visible in Topgun or Les Chevaliers du Ciel. A director would be better off using a combination of actual aircraft and CGi to get the best out of the movie if it involves the need for actual aircraft and with Military support a movie could be made cheaper in some cases if it was done the right way.

Besides check out this movie, this rocks and it was made after Topgun maybe a Topgun part 2 would involve Superhornets since thats what they use now days. I also think the Cold war is a better setting for such movies since now days dogfighting is more shoot the missile by pushing the button or fly the drone lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eO2_nn_zAc

And heres the full movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAyvPv5PbUw

[Ian Warren]

Ya really gotta love those fighter jock music vids .. just so well done

[IslandBoy77]

Thanks for the YouTube links - I stumbled across a couple of similar ones from that same movie yesterday when I was having a YouTube "click fest". The camera angles are significantly better and more interesting than Topgun, so that was good. I agree that one could do a mix of real and CGI - poss the problem there would be the CGI model not matching the real deal. Would there be any cost benefit to doing that way, I wonder? Sure, if the CGI isn't fantastic, one is going to be able to tell that the aircraft is CG, but surely it would be cheaper to have a team of guys create 3, 4 or 5 super-detailed CG models that don't require fuel or special permissions (as well as risk)? I believe CG is technically at a point where it could be done in large measure - all comes down to the skill of the animators and their real-world pilot "handlers". Perhaps, since I'm not a pilot, my take on this is quite different - I don't feel the need to have to use real aircraft & pilots if an overall better result can be had with "fake" aircraft? And by better I mean in terms of the overall result taking into account things as per what I've already mentioned, not necessarily that the aircraft look 100% real / authentic. 95% would suit me fine...

[SUBS17]

In order to film a good flight scene with a jet fighter the director needs input from a military adviser otherwise the whole thing will look laughable and unrealistic. Mistakes in past dogfight scenes are proof of that such as ID4 where a Hornet was carrying a drag chute. I believe using real aircraft is the best way but it isn't necessary nowdays to send the actors up in the jets unlike Topgun where all of them except Val Kilmer had to fly in the F-14s. Because you can do that inside a set but the actual scenes will look way better than using CGi and the other thing is how the aircraft appear when they fly etc. And also what buttons/instruments they push as they are flying can make a movie lose its credibility if people actually know that the actor is pushing the wrong button/lever, it looks alot better when its done the right way. And then theres movies like stealth where the dogfight scene was quite unrealistic with the SU37s, IRL those SU37s would have been shot down in seconds with something like that. And considering the budgets of such movies using real aircraft probably works out cheaper in some cases.

[Ian Warren]

QUOTE (SUBS17 @ Jan 10 2013,11:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the director needs input from a military adviser otherwise the whole thing will look laughable and unrealistic.

Now I do wonder who the military adviser was in 'Apocalypse Now' was ... It could have been General Westmoreland but i don't think so

[HamiltonWest]

Top Gun 3D
Blu-ray 3D
Pre-order: Releases 6 Mar 2013
http://www.mightyape.co.nz/product/Blu-ray...p-Gun/21014323/

[Ian Warren]

QUOTE (HamiltonWest @ Feb 26 2013,8:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Top Gun 3D
Blu-ray 3D

Ian Warren 3D , Brought new camera , cant afford Top Gun 3D - Blu-ray 3D Sunnies .. stick with my COOL cheapo's