over Hangman for the mission based on personal considerations, do you think? To me it seemed a questionable choice. Had Rooster missed his shot I think Maverick would have been open to charges of favoritism.
Is there such thing as a "charge of favoritism?" What does a charge of favoritism look like? How does one prove a charge of favoritism?
Maverick was given full autonomy and responsibility for selection.
If there was a conflict of interest, then Rooster wouldn't have been considered by Cyclone in the first place.
If Rooster proved to be the weak link in a failed mission, Maverick’s judgement would be questioned in the after-action review and it would have only been natural for leadership to wonder if Maverick’s judgement was colored by their personal ties. Maverick was a father figure to Rooster, after all.
Personally, I think Maverick believed Rooster could do the mission successfully and wanted to repair their relationship but, if he were being honest, would concede that Hangman was objectively the better choice.
It was deemed a nearly impossible mission from the getgo, even before selection. So I don't believe there would've been many "what ifs" as far as blame.
Like I said, Maverick was given full autonomy and authority on that aspect of the mission.
Think of it this way: Iceman had some "favortism" in selecting Maverick in the first place, no? Cyclone even says as much, but conceded that it was the decision made by the person who was authorized to make that decison.... so be it, for better or worse.
Thanks. Yes, I agree that Iceman’s selection of Maverick was also influenced by their personal relationship — to the disapproval of admirals Simpson (Cyclone) and Cain and probably others.
shareI seem to remember Maverick saying something when he announced the team that it was his personal choice.
shareYes, Maverick clearly had the right to pick Rooster. I just wonder if he thought Rooster was, objectively, the best choice. I suspect he was influenced by personal considerations.
shareI got the feeling that he did actually feel that Rooster was the best choice. After all, they made quite the big deal about him pulling his academy application and risking his entire relationship because he didn't feel he was ready. That gives basis to believe that he wouldn't have put him on the team if he didn't think it was right.
I know it's a bit of movie magic, but somehow he knew Rooster would pull through in the end.
A feel-good narrative required Rooster’s selection, I agree. But I think the movie left room to question whether Maverick let personal considerations override his judgement. He seemed to recognize he might have difficulty being objective the moment he saw Rooster pictured among the 12 candidates and again when he spoke with Iceman.
shareBoth Rooster and Hangman had their weaknesses. The movie did a good job of establishing both. Rooster would overthink things and have that hold him back as he was too cautious, but Maverick could work with that. Hangman had the reputation for hanging his wingman out to dry, and partially seen as a threat to Maverick's authority. Even the earlier seen at the bar establishes the issue with Hangman bouncing Maverick as well as later scenes where Hangman is out of line.
In the end, Rooster has "growth" as he makes moves on the mission without thinking, ultimately saving Maverick's life. Hangman has a presumed similar growth as he supports the decisions and mission followed by ultimately saving them both, but his decisions and actions in his final act are hidden so the act becomes a surprise. Nonetheless, it's him who comes to the rescue contrary to the expectation of the character.
MrEd, Yes, I agree that both Rooster and Hangman had flaws and showed personal growth. While I don’t think Maverick would have selected Rooster if he didn’t think him capable, I suspect he felt he owed Rooster a shot after previously setting him back in his career and wanted to repair their personal relationship.
share
I agree with mostly everything MrEdofCourse and Techto are posting here, EXCEPT:
I don't agree that Hangman showed any growth. He was a lot like Iceman in the original, almost TOO much like Iceman. Like Ice, Hangman was an arrogant jerk at times and ALWAYS a trash-talker, but was never a bad guy at heart.
I base this on his private reaction to the mission's success. Even though he'd been excluded and was forced to listen helplessly while his rival(s) got all the glory, he still rejoiced privately in their victory.
The worst thing he did was to rile up Rooster. It was a jerk move, but could be seen as a legitimate test of Rooster's temperament, an obviously mission-critical trait.
Still, Maverick was completely justified in benching him as a backup (a role which he also performed to perfection) based on his independence. Maverick benched a maverick, in other words.
I do agree though that Rooster learned to trust his instincts and not overthink, which led to one of my favorite moments when Maverick tries to ream him for coming back, only to be reminded that "this is what you TOLD me to do."
But what I think is really interesting about this thread is: we'll never know whether nepotism played a tole. In fact, I believe Maverick himself will never know to what extent he was making a personal decision, favoring and/or trying to mend fences with Goose's son (exactly as Admiral Iceman told him to do).
I think the question misses a fundamental fact: Maverick's feelings for Rooster would PREVENT him from picking him for the mission.
It's why he interfered w/his career, and set him back 4 years.
His feelings are (mostly) protective, and a nod to his late Mom. The idea is to keep him AWAY from danger.
The only way to break through that would be to acknowledge that, In Spite Of All That, he really *was* (finally) "ready."
So, to repeat: nah. Doesn't make sense, with what the movie describes to us.