Just Val Kilmer and Cruise? - Top Gun: Maverick (2022) Discussion

[–] blindfolded (1630) 3 years ago

I didn't mind, the story didn't really need them.

Oh well.

reply

[–] Thebigm76 (18) 3 years ago

There could easily have been a scene or scenes involving Meg Ryan considering the history between maverick and her son

reply

[–] blindfolded (1630) 3 years ago

There could've easily been one, but it was just as easy to not have one. Just because we can doesn't necessarily mean we need to or should. According to the director, it was about looking forward, not always looking back. There was plenty of that already.

In fact, killing off Meg Ryan's character was an interesting wrinkle in the promise Maverick made her regarding Rooster.

Again, story didn't suffer without them.

reply

[–] Sidha108 (2688) 3 years ago

Maybe they will save them for a 3rd film to bring it full circle.

reply

[–] TerraFirma69 (2269) 3 years ago

Agreed, it would have been perfect to have Kelly as his wife in the movie.

Him making out with her on the bike just like in the original.

Maybe another lovemaking scene too, that would have been hot.

reply

[–] blindfolded (1630) 3 years ago

But I understand why Kelly isn't there. Movie audiences would much rather prefer to see present-day Jennifer Connelly on screen rather than present day Kelly McGillis.

It may be sad, but it's true.

Just because we can doesn't mean we should, and the movie doesn't really suffer from it.

reply

[–] melissah1982 (883) 3 years ago

Agree. I also want to add that I found it interesting that they made Maverick have this adult Peter Pan persona. He doesn't get married and doesn't have children because he knows the pain they are left with if something happens to you. He had to watch Goose's wife and child grieve and he just didn't want to put anyone in pain like that. So he just stayed to himself. He never was going to marry Charlie. I never got that from the first movie. It always came off as a fling. She even moved away at the end of the movie. and yea, it is Hollywood, people rather have Jennifer Connelly. But in story, it made perfect sense on why he was alone and 'left behind' at the beginning of the movie.

reply

[–] CG23Sailor (82) 3 years ago

Have you seen Kelly lately?
Times hasn't been kind to her in the Hollywood looks department.
She looks her age.

Tom Cruise would look like he's making out with his grandmother.

reply

[–] TerraFirma69 (2269) 3 years ago

My comment was very much tongue in cheek, I doubt anyone thinks she would be suitable for this movie.

If I was going to genuinely suggest she be a part of it I would have looked her up first and that would have stopped me in my tracks for certain lol.

reply

[–] MrEdofCourse (33) 3 years ago

I didn't mind not seeing any of them, but I liked the way they made Hondo seem like as if he had been with Maverick for so long that I had to look it up to see if he was in the original.

reply

[–] melissah1982 (883) 3 years ago

yea. The other actor/character I was confused about was 'Warlock'. I thought he was 'Sundance'. I would have loved to have seen Clarence Gilyard Jr. return. I didn't realize until last Monday he was in Top Gun. I loved him in Walker, Texas Ranger. I had to go back onto IMDB and figure out who was who. I think it would have been cool to see him in Warlock's role in the sequel. But it's all good.

reply

[–] melissah1982 (883) 3 years ago

I think what I love most about this movie is that they didn't try and shoehorn every single actor in for the sake of a cameo. They did enough of fan service in other ways but they really did try to stick to the story they were telling instead of adding a whole bunch of extra scenes just to say 'hey! it's so and so!'. Kelly McGillis really had no business in the story. She was already moving back to Washington at the end of the first movie and would be almost retired by now in her job.

I could possibly agree with Meg Ryan coming back. Perhaps her being there would have added to the conflict between Rooster and Maverick. Her debating on telling him WHY Maverick did what he did setting Rooster back. But it was just cleaner/easier/cheaper to reveal that information the way they did in the movie.

Overall, I was glad they got Val Kilmer to come back; it was a great moment, and that's really all they needed in the grand scheme of the story.

reply