Top Gun and the Alternate Universe of Military Propaganda

[Monad Portal]

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.

Should we have just spent 40 billion + on the ukraine situation?

 

[BidenPresident]

The US kills Iraqis. The US kills its own people. Failure to understand this will continue the bloodshed.

 

[Mina]

Should we have just spent 40 billion + on the ukraine situation?

Yes.

 

[Monad Portal]

Yes.

but TOP GUN is the propaganda.

allrighty then, corrupt war machine 'sperg.

 

[leaningright]

Lol…I’ve been waiting for someone to bring up Topgun. I never cease to be amazed at how the difference in tastes of certain movies runs so much along party lines.

Here is a review written by a neighbor … who happens to teach English and World History at the local public school:

TOP GUN: MAVERICK, the sequel to the 36 year old original TOP GUN, is soaring as it rakes in millions and millions of dollars, breaks box office records, and is giving Tom Cruise the most successful movie of his long career.

Sometimes though, a movie is more than a movie. It serves as a gauge to tell us how we the American people are feeling, and TOP GUN is saying a lot.

For me personally, I could have done without some of the language, although it was “mild” by Hollywood standards; but I can absolutely see why this movie is resonating with so many Americans and is doing particularly well in “red states” and with the over 40 crowd.

It’s a throwback to the way movies used to be made with real planes and practical special effects rather than computer generated this and that. It looks and sounds like a movie from a different time while somehow still modernizing itself for the 21st century without sacrificing the integrity of its roots.

It’s not pushing some “woke” political message. It’s pro-America. It features men unapologetically acting like men and not constantly being put in their place for it.

I think TOP GUN: MAVERICK has given Americans something some didn’t even realize they were craving. I can only hope that it will serve as a wake up call for Hollywood and an indicator that the tastes and feelings in this country may be ever so slightly moving in a different direction. Then again, it could be just a movie.

And then there is this: This article makes it plain that the movie wasn’t anti-Americana enough to be considered a “good movie” by the author of the article. “America’s cry for help” indeed … https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/06/03/tom-cruise-top-gun-maverick-00036897

 

[Mina]

Lol…I’ve been waiting for someone to bring up Topgun. I never cease to be amazed at how the difference in tastes of certain movies runs so much along party lines.

Here is a review written by a neighbor … who happens to teach English and World History at the local public school:



And then there is this: This article makes it plain that the movie wasn’t anti-Americana enough to be considered a “good movie” buy the author of the article. “Americas cry for help” indeed … https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/06/03/tom-cruise-top-gun-maverick-00036897

I thought it was a "good movie" in the sense of being a lot of fun (which I pointed out in the very first sentence of my top post). The direction was competent, the acting was good, it had strong pacing, it developed its themes well, the special effects were great, the cinematography used around the aerial scenes was top-notch, and it made clever use of nostalgia without falling into the wall-to-wall-fan-service rut that may reboots hit. Even the writing was above average for an action movie, when it came to things like characterization (even if the plot of the mission itself was silly).

But, a movie can be good in that artistic sense, and yet still problematic. Ever seen "Triumph of the Will"? It's an outright masterpiece of filmmaking. It has been hugely influential in terms of its visuals. Lots of modern directors have lifted whole set pieces from it (like the awards scene from the end of the first Star Wars movie). "Birth of a Nation" is another good example. As a technical and artistic achievement, it's an indispensable step in the evolution of filmmaking. Half the "language" of modern film was pioneered in that movie, including things like tracking shots, cross-cutting, dramatic close ups, etc.

Those are not just "good movies" but great ones, when it comes to how effective they are in doing what they set out to do. Unfortunately, what "Triumph" sets out to do is to romanticize Hitler and the Nazis and make their militarism seem like it's heroic and beautiful. And what "Birth" sets out to do is turn the KKK into a heroic force for good while denigrating Black people.

The latest Top Gun is nowhere near that bad.... or that good. It's not as problematic or skillful. But it does, to a lesser extent, combine good filmmaking with a bad objective.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You're welcome. I find that most ignorant people don't recognize the way that being condescended to is a favor, in that it can inspire them to educate themselves. But your thanks suggests you're the exception and can understand the good turn I've done you. My pleasure.

I'm not a Democrat. Democrats, and particularly Democratic politicians, are nearly as desperate to be seen fluffing the egos of military people as Republicans are. But I'm not that way. I tell it like it is. That's one of the luxuries of not being a politician.

Indeed. That's great news. However, unfortunately there are periods of backsliding, and I hope we can avoid those as much as possible.

You're free to claim whatever you like but your claims and words define who you really are.

Democrat or not, is there any doubt you voted for every Democratic President you could? I was a registered Republican ever since I could vote until Romney. After that, the Republican party proved it wasn't finished becoming Theocratic Federalist nutjobs so I started voting strictly Libertarian.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Lol…I’ve been waiting for someone to bring up Topgun. I never cease to be amazed at how the difference in tastes of certain movies runs so much along party lines.

Here is a review written by a neighbor … who happens to teach English and World History at the local public school:



And then there is this: This article makes it plain that the movie wasn’t anti-Americana enough to be considered a “good movie” by the author of the article. “America’s cry for help” indeed … https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/06/03/tom-cruise-top-gun-maverick-00036897

I haven't seen it yet but understand the concept of an exciting and satisfying Rah-Rah movie. That was seen by many JPP members when the original came out the summer of '86. As part of a volunteer CAP thing I happened to talk to several people leaving the movie. Among North Texans, those who saw both liked the second a bit more.

 

[Mina]

You're free to claim whatever you like but your claims and words define who you really are.

What defines what I am, when it comes to a political party, is whether or not I'm registered with that political party. I'm not a registered Democrat and never have been. I have pointedly chosen not to join that party.

Democrat or not, is there any doubt you voted for every Democratic President you could?

Yes, there is.

 

[leaningright]

I haven't seen it yet but understand the concept of an exciting and satisfying Rah-Rah movie. That was seen by many JPP members when the original came out the summer of '86. As part of a volunteer CAP thing I happened to talk to several people leaving the movie. Among North Texans, those who saw both liked the second a bit more.

I’ve never actually stayed awake through the first one but will take my wife to this one next Thursday if nothing bends or breaks. She’s excited to see it as she loved the first one.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

What defines what I am, when it comes to a political party, is whether or not I'm registered with that political party. I'm not a registered Democrat and never have been. I have pointedly chosen not to join that party.



Yes, there is.

Yeah. I don't support them either. LOL

Okey-dokey.

Meanwhile, Top Gun: Maverick is obviously fulfilling a need in the American psyche because it's kicking ass at the box office: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1745960/
Budget
$170,000,000 (estimated)

Gross US & Canada
$308,043,218

Opening weekend US & Canada
$126,707,459 May 29, 2022

Gross worldwide
$569,643,218

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I’ve never actually stayed awake through the first one but will take my wife to this one next Thursday if nothing bends or breaks. She’s excited to see it as she loved the first one.

It's streaming on Netflix. Watch that if you can then watch the Quentin Tarantino version in the movie "Sleep With Me". LOL

It's intercut with another scene but goes to the end.

 

[Mina]

Meanwhile, Top Gun: Maverick is obviously fulfilling a need in the American psyche because it's kicking ass at the box office:

I suppose. What I find more interesting are the super hero movies, since there are just so damned many of them that do so well. Like even this year, there are two of them, already, that have earned more than Top Gun. There's something very odd going on in the global psyche that has kept that a dominating box office presence for 14 straight years. It seems like every year there are at least three or four of them in the top 20.

 

[leaningright]

I suppose. What I find more interesting are the super hero movies, since there are just so @$#&% many of them that do so well. Like even this year, there are two of them, already, that have earned more than Top Gun. There's something very odd going on in the global psyche that has kept that a dominating box office presence for 14 straight years. It seems like every year there are at least three or four of them in the top 20.

Teens through 35 or so are fueling these numbers I’m thinking (don’t ask for a link like someone always does cause all I got is the gold chain) … it’s anecdotal I know but I haven’t missed one of these movies since they came out with Iron Man in 2008. The crowd is mostly in that age range from what I can tell. My son is 19 and his group of college friends are treating these movies like people treated the Star Wars movies in the 70’s. I don’t look for their popularity to diminish with people in that age range.

They’ll lose a few of us old geezers as they include more and more woke stuff in these films (I haven’t quit ‘em but many of my friends and peers have) but we’ll be dead soon. They’re really good shows and with shows like Big Bang Theory making it ok for comic book readers to come out of the closet … the sky is the limit for the people making these movies.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I suppose. What I find more interesting are the super hero movies, since there are just so damned many of them that do so well. Like even this year, there are two of them, already, that have earned more than Top Gun. There's something very odd going on in the global psyche that has kept that a dominating box office presence for 14 straight years. It seems like every year there are at least three or four of them in the top 20.

They seem to fill a niche in the national culture. During the Great Depression comedies were very popular. In the Navy on deployment, comedies and action movies were popular. Using those as a gauge, there seems to be a correlation between stressful times and a desire for funny or empowering movies. Ever notice that a lot of popular late 60s-early 70s movies all had the hero die at the end? Hombre (1967), Easy Rider (1969), The Cowboys (1972). It correlated with the mood of the nation in the Vietnam and Watergate era.

Are you trying to assert that Top Gun: Maverick correlates to Triumph of the Will?

 

[Callinectes]

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.

Now, imagine how that mission would play out in real life. Probably, we'd just outsource it to an ally like Israel.

Why do you think it was Iran? Everyone I've talked to who has seen it says its russia itself, (I haven't seen it) specifically because of the 5th gen fighters. First, russia wouldn't sell technology like that to iran (yet, anyway), and second, if Israel thought this was a matter of urgency, IMHO they would act unilaterally like they did in 1981 against the iraqi nuclear reactor under construction at the time. I will concede that the russkies might supply a contingent of 5th gen fighters to iran (piloted by russians, of course) if iran was doing something off the books for russia that was very important to those evil bastards. Also if they just wanted to test these planes in combat. Little known fact: many, if not most of the air-to-air victories scored by the North korean MIG-15 fighters against the new American F-86 Sabers, were flown by experienced russian and chinese pilots.

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.

The B2 is a great aircraft, unfortunately and ironically, it's stealth technology might be too valuable to sacrifice, and is too slow and sluggish to defend itself in that environment. As for drones, 2 strikes against them: can't carry enough ordnance, and can't dogfight. Cruise missiles MIGHT work, but they couldn't be sea launched, so you're back to some more manned bombers, preferably a few B1 Lancers which can't dogfight either, but they're probably almost as fast as the Su-57 Felon, maybe faster, so they might stand a chance just running away. The F/A-18 can carry 17,750 pounds of air to ground ordnance, put that ordnance on target, and in the hands of a good pilot, dogfight it's way to safety with good odds of survival.

With that kind of trivia sloshing around in my head, I can suspend disbelief for a couple hours to enjoy a movie without thinking once about the political message and the military/industrial complex.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

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.

Good thing I didn't waste my money to watch it...

 

[cancel2 2022]

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

Obviously you've never seen Eyes Wide Shut, Last Samurai, Jerry McGuire, Valkyrie or Minority Report.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Good thing I didn't waste my money to watch it...

I think Israel has plans to bomb Iranian nuclear installations but they don't have modern refuelling capabilities like the KC-46 yet and has to rely on ancient Boeing 707 tankers aka KC-135.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I think Israel has plans to bomb Iranian nuclear installations but they don't have modern refuelling capabilities like the KC-46yet and has to rely on ancient Boeing 707 tankers aka KC-135.

I think Israel would make a deal with like Bahrain or the UAE to fly in their strike planes, refuel them, then hit Iran if that were the case. The Gulf States and the Saudis pretty much hate Iran with a capital HATE. If they can make a deal that gets Iran whacked and they can't be blamed for it, I'd bet they'd make that deal in a nanosecond.