Will this be the film that sinks Cruise? - Top Gun: Maverick (2022) Discussion

[–] HarlemEagle42 (17850) 3 years ago

No.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8238) 3 years ago

You think not?

reply

[–] HarlemEagle42 (17850) 3 years ago

Correct.

reply

[–] Satan2016 (25567) 3 years ago

Idiot! Metascore 81!! IDIOT!!!

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

He's judging a movie by its trailer. "Idiot" is putting it lightly.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8238) 3 years ago

Try re-reading what the OP is saying then you might understand that some friggin' metascore score is utterly irrelevant...

Although it is quality that you call me an idiot whilst clearly failing to do so and comprehend what it actually says 😂.

reply

[–] Ldlamb (642) 3 years ago

Well, looks like it’s being pretty well received.

reply

[–] fc31 (5477) 3 years ago

I think that is a discussion we should have after the movie is out.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8238) 3 years ago

Why? We can make judgement based upon his appearance in the trailers.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (7262) 3 years ago

That's exactly what someone on the Paramount payroll would say. ;)

reply

[–] hootiehome (462) 3 years ago

Lukewarm on this. More excited for MI:7.

reply

[–] Joogle83 (4486) 3 years ago

i understand but the Box office is staggering i need you see it if is to survive

reply

[–] TandyMan (11119) 3 years ago

If that embarrassing trainwreck Magnolia doesn't sink Cruise nothing will.

reply

[–] bjensen4 (1281) 3 years ago

97% on Rotten Tomatoes...ummm I don't think so...

He's still got another Mission Impossible on the books and bet you he does another Jack Reacher as well.

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 3 years ago

It is unlikely another Reacher will get made. MI I heard will be 2 movies and he has another Live,Die.Repeat movie.

reply

[–] sslssg (34322) 3 years ago

he has another Live,Die.Repeat movie.

Oh god, why? That movie was great as a one off. It does not need a sequel.

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 3 years ago

Who would turn down seeing Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt in a movie?

reply

[–] sslssg (34322) 3 years ago

So let them be in a different movie together. That movie does not need to be a series.

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 3 years ago

I doubt the producers of that can get them to do any more than one more movie.Both to busy on other stuff.

reply

[–] Joogle83 (4486) 3 years ago

I may disagree with Tom Cruise Scientology but the dude has entertained me also I'm looking forward to this hoping it gives the box office a much-needed boost if is to remain the dude has entertained me, why do you people get a hard-on on wanting people to fail, that's jealousy i sense

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8238) 3 years ago

You're angle is all wrong. For more information please re-read the OP.

Thanks.

reply

[–] Satan2016 (25567) 3 years ago

Nobody reads your deranged rants!

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8238) 3 years ago

Love how YOU posted this in a REPLY to another poster's reply 😂 LOL!

#lackingselfawareness

reply

[–] Ripkens25 (2032) 3 years ago

You’re obviously trolling. This movie will not only remind everyone why Cruise is in a category by himself when it comes to movie stars, it will also almost single-handedly breathe life and a pulse back into the moviegoing experience.

You should stop your jealous trolling, and simply tell him: Thank You.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8238) 3 years ago

Again, please re-read the OP instead of simply posting drooling garbage.

I made a very specific point about Tom Cruise. The actor. Now.

If you want to address that fine, otherwise keep your sycophantic nonsense for an appropriate thread.

Thanks 👍

reply

[–] Ripkens25 (2032) 3 years ago

I think YOU need to re-read the original post.

Pertaining to the original post: I DON’T think the trailer looks bad, and I DO think the movie will reassert just how great a movie star TC is.

Pertaining to the original post....I DO think the movie will also help bring the masses back to the theaters.

Your crutch seems to always be...referring people back to your original post. That is weak. All subsequent posts have fallen within the context of the OP.

Troll.

Next....

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8238) 3 years ago

That's because the OP literally says:-

According to the trailer this will be absolutely garbage. But that aside, what about Tom Cruise?

But sadly you seem unable to grasp exactly what that means having given me three gushing paragraphs about what a great film it's going to be.

I am not asking whether this film is going to be any good or not.

reply

[–] Ripkens25 (2032) 3 years ago

Every reply in this thread has fallen within the loosely-defined context of your vague-ass “what about Tom Cruise?” question.

What about Tom Cruise? His performance in this movie will reaffirm his movie star power.

What about Tom Cruise? His performance and star power will bring many people out to the theaters.

Does that spoon-feed things for you a bit better?

reply

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 3 years ago

lmao OP says "trailer aside" before specifically talking about things in the trailer.

He's made himself invincible to conversation. You can't be on topic with OP because OP already contradicted himself XD

According to the trailer this will be absolutely garbage. But that aside, what about Tom Cruise?

He looks pretty cringeworthily, self parodying in this. I mean - redoing the motorbike scene

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8238) 3 years ago

I'm talking specifically about how Tom looks in the trailer rather than the trailer itself or how the film would be.

Given that - as you pointed out - I said "trailer aside", only an absolute buffoon (or someone being deliberately facetious) would fail to understand such a simple point...

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8238) 3 years ago

Jeez, I asked you to knock off the sycophantic behaviour but you just help yourself eh?

Given that I may as well be trying to discuss whether Tom finally looks knackered here literally with a potato (given the excruciating comprehension failure) I'll simply leave you with Tom and Alan photos.

Alan:-
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E9Y0ELzXoAQFM6s?format=jpg&name=large

Tom:-
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnAHkYOWAAAey2l.jpg

You can decide who you'd rather share a Toblerone with...

Good luck to you Sir 👍

reply

[–] Joogle83 (4486) 3 years ago

you can disagree with what an Actors believe (Unless its dehumanizing minorities or there just pervs Ie Gina Craprano & Kevin Spacey) and see their films , the only time you should root for failure is oppressors like Trump & Putin and extinction levels events like Covid-19 & World War 3 not actors making films or athletes making plays

wanting to fail cuz he looks funny tom is ageless man bad assessment

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8238) 3 years ago

It's not a question of "wanting" Tom to fail, it's a question of whether he now finally looks too knackered to be playing this kind of part. Father time catches up with everyone in the end...

Otherwise, I'm kind of shocked that we seem to have gone full Donald Trump here 🤔.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

"And he's gone even more full on Toblerone Alan Partridge, looking very much the jowly hamster."
You're forgetting that Alan Partridge was the full-on box office JUGGERNAUT after that time in his life in the 1990s, and Cruise is much fitter than him anyway. Maybe WE should wonder what that has to say about YOU, "FootOfDavros".

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8238) 3 years ago

Interesting. I always say to people that you can't make any comment criticising the performance of any professional sportsman / woman unless you personally have reached the absolute pinnacle of their sport...

Alan:-
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E9Y0ELzXoAQFM6s?format=jpg&name=large

Tom:-
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnAHkYOWAAAey2l.jpg

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Um, you DO know that Steve Coogan (Alan Partridge) was wearing prosthetics and a fat suit for his "Toblerone-eating" phase in that series of Alan Partridge, right? And it was back in the early 2000s, right? So younger Steve Coogan was more likely FITTER than Tom Cruise is now!

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8238) 3 years ago

Mind-Blown-Meme-gif

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

I doubt it. The film has been delayed long enough that any box office failure can be blamed on covid. No one will be punished if the movie stinks.

reply