Top Gun and the Alternate Universe of Military Propaganda

[Mina]

The new Top Gun is a lot of fun. However, it's also standard-issue military propaganda. It takes all sorts of liberties with the truth in order to present a compelling narrative... and those untruths, not coincidentally, support the agenda of ever-growing military spending.

For those who haven't seen it, the plot involves the US sending in six F-18's to blow up a uranium enrichment plant in an unnamed country (probably Iran). This requires a white-knuckle low-altitude bombing run ripped straight from the first Star Wars movie, and then a harrowing dog fight with the enemy's fifth-generation fighter jets.

Now, imagine how that mission would play out in real life. Probably, we'd just outsource it to an ally like Israel. But if we did it ourselves, we'd likely use some combination of unmanned drones, cruise missiles, and smart bombs dropped from B-2 stealth bombers above the reach of enemy air defenses. There'd be little risk to any American service members.

But even if, for some reason, we had to send in a low-altitude manned bombing run, picture what that dog fight with the fifth-generation fighter jets would look like. It wouldn't be like in the movie, where our fighter bombers are outclassed and only the sublime skills of a great fighter pilot save the day. We'd have total air superiority. Right now, even Russia has only three fifth-generation fighter jets, and none of those are in service. Iran has zero, and only about 40 4th-generation fighters (while the US has 187 operational fifth-generation fighters, and well over 1,000 4th-generation ones). We also have mid-air refueling that allows us to deploy these pretty much anywhere. So, even if a country like Russia happened to have all three of its fifth-generation fighters in service, and near the target, they'd be vastly outnumbered and outclassed by the US forces they faced.

I get why these liberties with the truth are taken. The real story would be boring, since there'd be no jeopardy for our side. But I think it also appeals to the military (which cooperates in making these movies), because they like the budgetary implications of creating the illusion that the US is in a tight arms race with potent adversaries, and the lives of our service members depend on taking huge chunks of your paycheck to cover the purchase of even more shiny new military hardware. So, such movies create alternate universes where rogue states have both fifth-generation fighters and elite air defenses, and our naval aviators are in harm's way.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Mina,

The new Top Gun is a lot of fun. However, it's also standard-issue military propaganda. It takes all sorts of liberties with the truth in order to present a compelling narrative... and those untruths, not coincidentally, support the agenda of ever-growing military spending.

For those who haven't seen it, the plot involves the US sending in six F-18's to blow up a uranium enrichment plant in an unnamed country (probably Iran). This requires a white-knuckle low-altitude bombing run ripped straight from the first Star Wars movie, and then a harrowing dog fight with the enemy's fifth-generation fighter jets.

Now, imagine how that mission would play out in real life. Probably, we'd just outsource it to an ally like Israel. But if we did it ourselves, we'd likely use some combination of unmanned drones, cruise missiles, and smart bombs dropped from B-2 stealth bombers above the reach of enemy air defenses. There'd be little risk to any American service members.

But even if, for some reason, we had to send in a low-altitude manned bombing run, picture what that dog fight with the fifth-generation fighter jets would look like. It wouldn't be like in the movie, where our fighter bombers are outclassed and only the sublime skills of a great fighter pilot save the day. We'd have total air superiority. Right now, even Russia has only three fifth-generation fighter jets, and none of those are in service. Iran has zero, and only about 40 4th-generation fighters (while the US has 187 operational fifth-generation fighters, and well over 1,000 4th-generation ones). We also have mid-air refueling that allows us to deploy these pretty much anywhere. So, even if a country like Russia happened to have all three of its fifth-generation fighters in service, and near the target, they'd be vastly outnumbered and outclassed by the US forces they faced.

I get why these liberties with the truth are taken. The real story would be boring, since there'd be no jeopardy for our side. But I think it also appeals to the military (which cooperates in making these movies), because they like the budgetary implications of creating the illusion that the US is in a tight arms race with potent adversaries, and the lives of our service members depend on taking huge chunks of your paycheck to cover the purchase of even more shiny new military hardware. So, such movies create alternate universes where rogue states have both fifth-generation fighters and elite air defenses, and our naval aviators are in harm's way.

You have to be ten years old to enjoy movies these days. The thing to do is retain the ability to go there in your mind. Do not ask any questions about the plot or the movie will be spoiled. You have to just be in the moment, accept what is given and enjoy the entertainment.

If you can't just 'be 10,' you can't enjoy 99.9% of movies.

I am beginning to wonder if air fighters will be completely obsolete, replaced with drones. We just sent some drones to Ukraine that are essentially a remotely guided flying missile. They can launch easily from a tube, fly around for 25 minutes, sending real time video and detection images to the controller, and when a target is chosen, be directed to slam into it.

With a little imagination and downsizing, this technology could be used to replace soldiers save lives and defeat enemy armies.

There could be essentially guided bullets going after individuals.

What if a mother drone flew to a selected region, and then released tens, hundreds, even thousands of little killer drones?

An opposing force could be decimated without risking a single life.

 

[Mina]

You have to be ten years old to enjoy movies these days.

I saw a good video essay based on essentially that point. It compared older versions of Star Trek (earlier movies and series) to the JJ Abrams version. Even though they're all the kind of genre material that gets branded as kid stuff, the way the characters behave really has become more childlike over time, as the material is increasingly aimed at dumb children.

The video essay looked at a moment in an earlier movie, with conflict between Kirk and Spock bubbling under the surface. Spock was trying to be strictly calm and rational, and Kirk was doing his best to keep simmering anger under control, such that you could hear the tension in his voice, but he avoided raising it or saying anything unprofessional, and continued to try to establish his point by the force of his argument. And then the essay compared that to the Abrams Trek, with Kirk and Spock losing their cool like a couple of junior high kids and then beating on each other.

The video essay made the point that isn't an aberration, but standard behavior in modern movies, where there are almost no grown-ups. Characters are pure id, and act like members of their ten-year-old audiences shoved into the bodies of adults.... as if it was understood that the audience wouldn't really understand how real grown-ups act. And that shows up in Star Trek also in the plot lines, which no longer are about scientific or moral ideas, nor do they hinge on things like strategy and negotiation, but instead they're just one action set piece after another.

You can really see it with the change in acting styles, too. The departing generation of actors were often about hinting at strong emotions from behind a facade of control, like mature people in the real world. Alec Guinness, Anthony Hopkins, Ian McKellan, Patrick Stuart, Maggie Smith, Judie Dench, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Tom Hanks, and Jeremy Irons are all good examples. But in most modern performances, there's no such facade -- no attempt to behave in a mature manner. It's all right there on the surface, as with a child, and you can even see individual actors migrate from the subtler earlier approach to the overgrown kid approach within their own careers -- for example, comparing 1970's Al Pacino to the modern scenery-chewing shouty Pacino.

 

[Concart]

Hello Mina,



You have to be ten years old to enjoy movies these days. The thing to do is retain the ability to go there in your mind. Do not ask any questions about the plot or the movie will be spoiled. You have to just be in the moment, accept what is given and enjoy the entertainment.

If you can't just 'be 10,' you can't enjoy 99.9% of movies.

I am beginning to wonder if air fighters will be completely obsolete, replaced with drones. We just sent some drones to Ukraine that are essentially a remotely guided flying missile. They can launch easily from a tube, fly around for 25 minutes, sending real time video and detection images to the controller, and when a target is chosen, be directed to slam into it.

With a little imagination and downsizing, this technology could be used to replace soldiers save lives and defeat enemy armies.

There could be essentially guided bullets going after individuals.

What if a mother drone flew to a selected region, and then released tens, hundreds, even thousands of little killer drones?

An opposing force could be decimated without risking a single life.

This post made me chuckle, because my ability to 'just be 10' is unparalleled. I enjoyed the movie, because although it was by and large taken scene by scene from the original, the telling made sense this time, and felt more fully fleshed out. But of course the entire thing is ridiculously over the top. I'm seeing Jurassic World on Thursday, same thing. I always thought it was funny that raptors can reach speeds of 60 miles per hour but just can't ever seem to catch Jeff Goldblum. Oh well, I love me some dinosaurs.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The new Top Gun is a lot of fun. However, it's also standard-issue military propaganda. It takes all sorts of liberties with the truth in order to present a compelling narrative... and those untruths, not coincidentally, support the agenda of ever-growing military spending.

For those who haven't seen it, the plot involves the US sending in six F-18's to blow up a uranium enrichment plant in an unnamed country (probably Iran). This requires a white-knuckle low-altitude bombing run ripped straight from the first Star Wars movie, and then a harrowing dog fight with the enemy's fifth-generation fighter jets.

Now, imagine how that mission would play out in real life. Probably, we'd just outsource it to an ally like Israel. But if we did it ourselves, we'd likely use some combination of unmanned drones, cruise missiles, and smart bombs dropped from B-2 stealth bombers above the reach of enemy air defenses. There'd be little risk to any American service members.

But even if, for some reason, we had to send in a low-altitude manned bombing run, picture what that dog fight with the fifth-generation fighter jets would look like. It wouldn't be like in the movie, where our fighter bombers are outclassed and only the sublime skills of a great fighter pilot save the day. We'd have total air superiority. Right now, even Russia has only three fifth-generation fighter jets, and none of those are in service. Iran has zero, and only about 40 4th-generation fighters (while the US has 187 operational fifth-generation fighters, and well over 1,000 4th-generation ones). We also have mid-air refueling that allows us to deploy these pretty much anywhere. So, even if a country like Russia happened to have all three of its fifth-generation fighters in service, and near the target, they'd be vastly outnumbered and outclassed by the US forces they faced.

I get why these liberties with the truth are taken. The real story would be boring, since there'd be no jeopardy for our side. But I think it also appeals to the military (which cooperates in making these movies), because they like the budgetary implications of creating the illusion that the US is in a tight arms race with potent adversaries, and the lives of our service members depend on taking huge chunks of your paycheck to cover the purchase of even more shiny new military hardware. So, such movies create alternate universes where rogue states have both fifth-generation fighters and elite air defenses, and our naval aviators are in harm's way.

That's a lot of both extrapolation and projection, Mina.

Interesting that you flip the RW antisemitic script by stating that Israel works for us and not vice-versa.

Agreed the premise of a manned mission is more Hollywood than reality. Agreed we'd be more likely to use tech to destroy a target.

The reason such movies are made is to make money. LOTS of money as Top Gun: Maverick is proving to do - https://www.indiewire.com/2022/06/top-gun-maverick-box-office-second-weekend-1234730747/

Most box-office reporting this weekend focuses on the unquestionably stunning results for Tom Cruise’s sequel. Through 10 days of domestic play, it’s grossed $190 million ($357 million worldwide). A second-weekend drop of only 32 percent portends that it will go much, much higher and has the potential to become the highest-grossing 2022 release.

This is why Hollywood investors don't throw as much money into "art films" or touching dramas about poor starving kids in Africa. Most people pay $30 a head to be entertained, not lectured.

 

[Concart]

I saw a good video essay based on essentially that point. It compared older versions of Star Trek (earlier movies and series) to the JJ Abrams version. Even though they're all the kind of genre material that gets branded as kid stuff, the way the characters behave really has become more childlike over time, as the material is increasingly aimed at dumb children.

The video essay looked at a moment in an earlier movie, with conflict between Kirk and Spock bubbling under the surface. Spock was trying to be strictly calm and rational, and Kirk was doing his best to keep simmering anger under control, such that you could hear the tension in his voice, but he avoided raising it or saying anything unprofessional, and continued to try to establish his point by the force of his argument. And then the essay compared that to the Abrams Trek, with Kirk and Spock losing their cool like a couple of junior high kids and then beating on each other.

The video essay made the point that isn't an aberration, but standard behavior in modern movies, where there are almost no grown-ups. Characters are pure id, and act like members of their ten-year-old audiences shoved into the bodies of adults.... as if it was understood that the audience wouldn't really understand how real grown-ups act. And that shows up in Star Trek also in the plot lines, which no longer are about scientific or moral ideas, nor do they hinge on things like strategy and negotiation, but instead they're just one action set piece after another.

You can really see it with the change in acting styles, too. The departing generation of actors were often about hinting at strong emotions from behind a facade of control, like mature people in the real world. Alec Guinness, Anthony Hopkins, Ian McKellan, Patrick Stuart, Maggie Smith, Judie Dench, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Tom Hanks, and Jeremy Irons are all good examples. But in most modern performances, there's no such facade -- no attempt to behave in a mature manner. It's all right there on the surface, as with a child, and you can even see individual actors migrate from the subtler earlier approach to the overgrown kid approach within their own careers -- for example, comparing 1970's Al Pacino to the modern scenery-chewing shouty Pacino.

Yes and no. But mostly yes. There have been some excellent character driven theatrical movies (The Power of the Dog was brilliant) but most character driven stories are now done for the small screen. If you haven't already, take a look at 'Night Sky'. TV now allows for character development over a long period of time instead of just 2 hours. Breaking Bad was perhaps the most compelling story I have ever watched. Anyway, you're right when it comes to movies, but there are so many good shows on TV now that I don't even have time to watch them all. That's where the actors are going when they want a truly in depth character to play.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yes and no. But mostly yes. There have been some excellent character driven theatrical movies (The Power of the Dog was brilliant) but most character driven stories are now done for the small screen. If you haven't already, take a look at 'Night Sky'. TV now allows for character development over a long period of time instead of just 2 hours. Breaking Bad was perhaps the most compelling story I have ever watched. Anyway, you're right when it comes to movies, but there are so many good shows on TV now that I don't even have time to watch them all. That's where the actors are going when they want a truly in depth character to play.

An interesting point and agreed. When offered so many excellent choices people tend to gravitate to the familiar. To what satisfies them most.

Obviously Top Gun: Maverick is fulfilling that need for more people than the excellent 2013 "12 Years a Slave" which, to date, has only made about half of what Maverick has grossed in less than two weeks.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2024544/
Gross worldwide
$187,733,202

 

[Mina]

Interesting that you flip the RW antisemitic script by stating that Israel works for us and not vice-versa

The particular scenario the movie is dealing with, involving nuclear facilities in Iran, did in fact occur, and it was Israel that carried out the attack on those, though allegedly with US support behind the scenes.

Most people pay $30 a head to be entertained, not lectured.

Understood. But this isn't like a movie where a giant purple space goblin snaps his fingers and kills half of all life, or where little people go on a hike to throw some jewelry into a volcano. This potentially has more problematic cultural impact, in that the particular liberties they're taking to tell an entertaining story also will tend to generate public enthusiasm for increasing our already absurd levels of military over-spend. That's why the military is quick to cooperate with this kind of production, but not anything that's skeptical of war or critical of the Pentagon.

 

[archives]

Point is taken above, that is movies purpose, to entertain, and in trying times, escapism sells, and profit is the goal

This is one of the reasons Scorsese dislikes the current rage of fantasy movies, doesn’t see them as real film, don’t even attempt to depict any sense of reality, nor require any artistic effort to make. Then again, he is a product of the auteur era

Secondly, I always get a kick out of Hollywood portraying military life, few films come close to getting it right, not just like the situation you described, but the simple things, like basic training

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The particular scenario the movie is dealing with, involving nuclear facilities in Iran, did in fact occur, and it was Israel that carried out the attack on those, though allegedly with US support behind the scenes.

Understood. But this isn't like a movie where a giant purple space goblin snaps his fingers and kills half of all life, or where little people go on a hike to throw some jewelry into a volcano. This potentially has more problematic cultural impact, in that the particular liberties they're taking to tell an entertaining story also will tend to generate public enthusiasm for increasing our already absurd levels of military over-spend. That's why the military is quick to cooperate with this kind of production, but not anything that's skeptical of war or critical of the Pentagon.

Agreed Israel bombed a facility in Iran. Claiming they did it as a puppet of the US is the conspiracy theory part.

Soooo, you support censorship "for the children"? Have you even served in the military? Most JPP members haven't. There are a couple of retired veterans on JPP with myself as one of them. You'll notice that not a single JPP political extremist gives a shit about that fact because it conflicts with their preset notions about the US military.

 

[Mina]

Agreed Israel bombed a facility in Iran. Claiming they did it as a puppet of the US is the conspiracy theory part.

I didn't claim they were a puppet. That's your word. I'm not interested in playing along with your straw man.

Soooo, you support censorship "for the children"?

Wingnuts have such a pronounced tendency to put question marks at the end of statements. Why not just phrase it as an actual question?

Have you even served in the military?

I've worked with the military, but if you're asking whether I've actually been a member of the military, no. I'm one of those whose people whose paychecks are docked to cover the cost of your retirement income.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Point is taken above, that is movies purpose, to entertain, and in trying times, escapism sells, and profit is the goal

This is one of the reasons Scorsese dislikes the current rage of fantasy movies, doesn’t see them as real film, don’t even attempt to depict any sense of reality, nor require any artistic effort to make. Then again, he is a product of the auteur era

Secondly, I always get a kick out of Hollywood portraying military life, few films come close to getting it right, not just like the situation you described, but the simple things, like basic training

Agreed that few films get it right, but that's the same for all things. I tend to irritate my wife when watching a movie about the military or, more often, aviation, I'll shout "BULLSHIT!" at the screen.

The reason most Marines love the boot camp part of Full Metal Jacket is because of the realism R. Lee Ermey brought to the role. Without him, the movie would have been "something close" like Louis Gossett Jr's role in "An Officer and a Gentleman" or John Wayne's Sgt. Stryker in "Sands of Iwo Jima".

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093058/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084434/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041841/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I didn't claim they were a puppet. That's your word. I'm not interested in playing along with your straw man.

Wingnuts have such a pronounced tendency to put question marks at the end of statements. Why not just phrase it as an actual question?

I've worked with the military, but if you're asking whether I've actually been a member of the military, no. I'm one of those whose people whose paychecks are docked to cover the cost of your retirement income.

You seemed to imply it in the OP with your comment "we'd just outsource it to an ally like Israel".

Do you support censoring military movies or anything else you don't like?

Thanks for blaming me for your paycheck losses. It's been a loooong-standing Democratic Party tradition to look down on the military and blame anyone who serves as being part of the problem, not part of the solution.

BTW, the next time a white person says to a black person "I understand" and a Leftie has a conniption over it, I'll remind them of this conversation.

 

[Mina]

You seemed to imply it in the OP with your comment "we'd just outsource it to an ally like Israel".

That doesn't make them our puppet. If I outsource work, the description for whoever does it is generally "contractor" not "puppet."

Do you support censoring military movies or anything else you don't like?

No, why, do you?

Thanks for blaming me for your paycheck losses

Not blaming you. Just giving you an opportunity to thank me for my service. I hope you're enjoying my earnings in your idleness.

 

[archives]

Agreed that few films get it right, but that's the same for all things. I tend to irritate my wife when watching a movie about the military or, more often, aviation, I'll shout "BULLSHIT!" at the screen.

The reason most Marines love the boot camp part of Full Metal Jacket is because of the realism R. Lee Ermey brought to the role. Without him, the movie would have been "something close" like Louis Gossett Jr's role in "An Officer and a Gentleman" or John Wayne's Sgt. Stryker in "Sands of Iwo Jima".

]

Off topic, but did it, or is that just the way some like to remember it nostalgically. Heard from friends depicting both sides

Was not in the Marines, Army, but did cross training with them in AIT, and Specialty training, and a lot of them were helpless, weren’t taught to think for themselves, had to wait for someone to tell them directly what or how to do something. Ready the daily SOP’s were funny, unless it was spelled exactly, they always got it wrong

 

[Dutch Uncle]

That doesn't make them our puppet. If I outsource work, the description for whoever does it is generally "contractor" not "puppet."

No, why, do you?

Not blaming you. Just giving you an opportunity to thank me for my service. I hope you're enjoying my earnings in your idleness.

Ahh, thanks for the clarification. So now the Israelis are just hitmen for hire? Not puppets, but contractors. LOL

No, I'm against censorship in general. Restricting by age appropriate is good but a decision best left to experts, not rich politicians or Hollywood moguls.

You accused me of being the reason your paycheck is less. That's fine. Democrats have been spitting on the US military since the Sixties. I'm used to it.

 

[Mina]

Ahh, thanks for the clarification. So now the Israelis are just hitmen for hire? Not puppets, but contractors.

You do love your straw men, don't you?

You accused me of being the reason your paycheck is less.

You're just one of millions of such reasons. The share going to you, specifically, is microscopic. The share going to military retirees, altogether, is significant. I get that you have the customary military persecution complex, so feel free to nail yourself up on that cross and enjoy hanging out. After all, you need some way to pass the time while living off my earnings, right?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Off topic, but did it, or is that just the way some like to remember it nostalgically. Heard from friends depicting both sides

Was not in the Marines, Army, but did cross training with them in AIT, and Specialty training, and a lot of them were helpless, weren’t taught to think for themselves, had to wait for someone to tell them directly what or how to do something. Ready the daily SOP’s were funny, unless it was spelled exactly, they always got it wrong

I've bounced around a lot. Was an Army brat for 20 years including JROTC, ended up in the Marine Corps simply because they guaranteed me flight training when the Army did not. Got RIF'd and went with 300 other pilots to the Navy. Got RIF'd again at the end of the Cold War and ended up retiring out of the Naval Reserve about 6 years later. Now I'm in the Civil Air Patrol and learning how the Air Force does it. LOL

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You do love your straw men, don't you?

You're just one of millions of such reasons. The share going to you, specifically, is microscopic. The share going to military retirees, altogether, is significant. I get that you have the customary military persecution complex, so feel free to nail yourself up on that cross and enjoy hanging out. After all, you need some way to pass the time while living off my earnings, right?

You really hate being called on your hyperbole, don'tcha, Mina? "we'd just outsource it to an ally like Israel".

Meh. Now you know why I never vote for Democratic Presidents. They hate the military by have no problem sending them into harm's way.

 

[Phantasmal]

The new Top Gun is a lot of fun. However, it's also standard-issue military propaganda. It takes all sorts of liberties with the truth in order to present a compelling narrative... and those untruths, not coincidentally, support the agenda of ever-growing military spending.

For those who haven't seen it, the plot involves the US sending in six F-18's to blow up a uranium enrichment plant in an unnamed country (probably Iran). This requires a white-knuckle low-altitude bombing run ripped straight from the first Star Wars movie, and then a harrowing dog fight with the enemy's fifth-generation fighter jets.

Now, imagine how that mission would play out in real life. Probably, we'd just outsource it to an ally like Israel. But if we did it ourselves, we'd likely use some combination of unmanned drones, cruise missiles, and smart bombs dropped from B-2 stealth bombers above the reach of enemy air defenses. There'd be little risk to any American service members.

But even if, for some reason, we had to send in a low-altitude manned bombing run, picture what that dog fight with the fifth-generation fighter jets would look like. It wouldn't be like in the movie, where our fighter bombers are outclassed and only the sublime skills of a great fighter pilot save the day. We'd have total air superiority. Right now, even Russia has only three fifth-generation fighter jets, and none of those are in service. Iran has zero, and only about 40 4th-generation fighters (while the US has 187 operational fifth-generation fighters, and well over 1,000 4th-generation ones). We also have mid-air refueling that allows us to deploy these pretty much anywhere. So, even if a country like Russia happened to have all three of its fifth-generation fighters in service, and near the target, they'd be vastly outnumbered and outclassed by the US forces they faced.

I get why these liberties with the truth are taken. The real story would be boring, since there'd be no jeopardy for our side. But I think it also appeals to the military (which cooperates in making these movies), because they like the budgetary implications of creating the illusion that the US is in a tight arms race with potent adversaries, and the lives of our service members depend on taking huge chunks of your paycheck to cover the purchase of even more shiny new military hardware. So, such movies create alternate universes where rogue states have both fifth-generation fighters and elite air defenses, and our naval aviators are in harm's way.

Tom Cruise can’t make money in any other type of movie? He acting sucks, so it has to be costly action movies.