Did they ever say who "the enemy" was? - Top Gun: Maverick (2022) Discussion

[–] Sandman81 (1509) 2 years ago

They never said who the enemy was. And they very deliberately went out of their way to be as unspecific as possible. And that is a part of the beauty of this movie and the original. They don't tell us to much, we don't want to know too much. Just let us know what's going on, and we'll go along for the ride.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4647) 2 years ago

That's not part of any kind of beauty, it's a detriment, because the exposition scenes lack verisimilitude. In real life the pilots would be told what country they're flying into and what model of fighter jet they have to worry about. Repeatedly referring to them as simply "the enemy" and the jets as simply "fifth-generation" comes across as contrived; real people don't talk that way. It's like when someone in a movie or TV show goes to a bar and orders "a beer," or when they refer to a particular car as something like, "late model gray sedan." You know they do stuff like that for reasons that have nothing to do with creating believable dialog, but rather, because of sponsors and such. In this case, it seems they didn't want to offend any particular country, which is asinine.

In the original movie, like I said, it was obvious that the enemy was Russia, because they called the enemy jets "MiGs," which pretty much anyone who was conscious of the world around them in 1986 knew was a Russian airplane.

reply

[–] JestersDead (485) 2 years ago

Russia sells jets to other countries, just as the UK and the USA does.

The enemy in the film is obviously not Russia. Probably Iran or N Korea.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4647) 2 years ago

There's nothing obvious about it, since they never said who "the enemy" was, never provided a good look at a single person from "the enemy" country, nor did we hear any of them speaking. That's the opposite of "obvious," i.e., ambiguous.

"Russia sells jets to other countries, just as the UK and the USA does."

the first Su-57 entered service with the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS)[N 2] in December 2020.

It wasn't even in service yet when this movie was filmed, yet you think they were already being sold to other countries?

Russia Completes Delivery of 24 Su-35 Fighter Jets to China
China is the first foreign buyer of the Russian-made Su-35 fighter jet.
https://thediplomat.com/2019/04/russia-completes-delivery-of-24-su-35-fighter-jets-to-china/

The Su-35S entered service in 2008 and China was their first foreign buyer 11 years later. It's an improved derivative of the Su-27 from 1988, so not exactly the latest generation even in 2008. Do you still think it's even remotely plausible for anyone but Russia to have Su-57s in 2019?

reply

[–] JestersDead (485) 2 years ago

It's obviously not Russia. Doesn't require deep analysis to reach that conclusion. Russia already has enriched uranium so what would be achieved by bombing them, other than starting WW3.

Also, the film is a work of fiction and no doubt takes artistic licence in many respects. It might be implausible, but it is feasible that Russia, or even China, has sold these fighter jets, no matter how unlikely.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4647) 2 years ago

"It's obviously not Russia."

Already refuted.

"Doesn't require deep analysis to reach that conclusion. Russia already has enriched uranium so what would be achieved by bombing them, other than starting WW3."

I already said as much in my OP. Once again:

"Furthermore, if "the enemy" is supposed to be Russia, why are they worried about a uranium enrichment plant? The former Soviet Union / Russia has had nuclear weapons since 1949. And how do they just prance on into Russia and destroy a uranium enrichment plant without it starting a war?"

That doesn't make it obvious that it's not Russia, that just indicates bad writing since Russia is the only country that had Su-57s in 2019, ones not even officially in service yet, no less.

"Also, the film is a work of fiction and no doubt takes artistic licence in many respects."

When you screw up basic facts about the world in a movie that has a real-world setting, that's known as bad writing.

"It might be implausible"

Implausible is always a problem in works of fiction. A rule of thumb is that audiences can accept the impossible (if explained/noted as part of the premise), but not the implausible. A common example of this is: the audience can accept that there's an antimatter bomb (not currently possible to build) in a safe, but the audience isn't going to accept that the hero can simply correctly guess the 16-digit combination to the safe (implausible).

"but it is feasible that Russia, or even China, has sold these fighter jets, even if it probably hasn't happened."

No, it isn't feasible. Feasible and implausible are mutually exclusive. If Russia didn't even have them in service until the end of 2020, the idea that they were already selling them to other countries is absurd. As of the time of this article they hadn't sold any yet:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/russias-new-su-57-stealth-fighter-receives-interest-foreign-buyers-199203

They expect to make a whopping 22 of them by 2024 and Russia is first in line:

Moscow has made it clear that Russia is to be first in line for the advanced aircraft

And:

Russia First

Even if customers are lined up, it isn’t clear when potential buyers could actually take delivery of their shiny new planes. It was only late last year that Russia received its first serial-produced Su-57 fighter with the first-stage engine. Additionally, the first Su-57s with the advanced second-stage engine would be assembled in 2022.

The top priority is to supply the Su-57 aircraft to the Russian Defense Ministry before foreign orders would be sold.

reply

[–] JestersDead (485) 2 years ago

Every film ever made is factually incorrect or implausible in some way, if you apply enough forensic dissection.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4647) 2 years ago

I doubt that. Implausibilities and factual errors aren't hard to avoid.

reply

[–] Galactus03 (4377) 2 years ago

Don't fucking watch movies like this than. A movie like this can only be so realistic if they mention the name of the enemy or not. You would find something else to complain about if they said who it was or not.

reply

[–] Who (5146) 2 years ago

No, but I appreciated having the mission explained early on. In Top Gun, we knew the enemy but the mission was vague. They all just yelled “there are migs somewhere!!” and scrambled.

I assumed the enemy was Iran or North Korea.

reply

[–] TheArgentinian (7109) 2 years ago

If it were an original movie, I'd say that it's PC to not name the enemy. But because they didn't do it either in the first TG, then I'm cool with continuing the tradition.

reply

[–] TandyMan (11120) 2 years ago

I thought it was Iran.

reply

[–] ShogunofYonkers (77574) 2 years ago

I took the enemy to be North Korea but who knows?

reply

[–] TandyMan (11120) 2 years ago

It's definitely one of those two, given the terrain presented, the limited history of the country disclosed, and the potential threat to the world at large.

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (38427) 2 years ago

I thought it was Scotland 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

reply

[–] blue1981 (7833) 2 years ago

The enemy in the first movie was not mentioned either.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4647) 2 years ago

In the first movie they called the enemy planes "MiGs" many times and they had a red star insignia, which means the enemy was Russia/USSR, as you'd expect in a movie made during the Cold War.

reply

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) 2 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mikoyan_MiG-29_operators

As for the red star, that's pretty much all communist countries.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4647) 2 years ago

"As for the red star, that's pretty much all communist countries."

No, it isn't. Among countries with MiGs in 1986, it is Russia and a few other former Soviet republics, e.g., Belarus, Tajikistan, Hungarian Soviet Republic.

reply

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) 2 years ago

No, it isn't. Among countries with MiGs in 1986, it is Russia and a few other former Soviet republics, e.g., Belarus, Tajikistan, Hungarian Soviet Republic.

As for the RED STAR, that's pretty much all communist countries.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4647) 2 years ago

Your non sequitur is dismissed.

See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_aircraft_insignia

Scroll down and find all the countries that use, or used, a red star as a military aircraft insignia and had MiGs in 1986.

reply

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) 2 years ago

That would also include North Korea.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4647) 2 years ago

No:

The North Korean People’s Air Force operates a number of MiG-29s, estimated at about forty airframes in total. Interestingly, the initial airframes that Pyongyang secured likely came from an October 1986 visit to the Soviet Union by Kim Il Sung. During that visit, Moscow agreed to supply North Korea with their first MiG-29s — at the time one of the Soviet Union’s most advanced fighters.

Top Gun release date: May 16, 1986

reply

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) 2 years ago

So? Do you know how fiction works?

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4647) 2 years ago

First you tried to claim:

"As for the red star, that's pretty much all communist countries."

I told you you're wrong; it's Russia/USSR as I said in the first place. Then you repeated your false assertion, with some all caps no less:

"As for the RED STAR, that's pretty much all communist countries."

I told you you're wrong again, and you decided that North Korea is just the ticket:

"That would also include North Korea."

I told you you're wrong again, and now you're saying:

"So? Do you know how fiction works?"

LOL!

In any case, your non sequitur is dismissed and since you're fresh out of arguments, your tacit concession that "the enemy" in the first movie was obviously Russian/Soviet, is noted.

reply

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) 2 years ago

I told you you're wrong; it's Russia/USSR as I said in the first place.

Then you posted a link which supported what I said. Did you check it yourself? Russia is not remotely the only country to use the red star. It's a communist symbol.

I told you you're wrong again,
I told you you're wrong again,

Yes, you TOLD me, but not only did you not provide a single argument, you actually proved yourself wrong with that link. Which I will happily post again here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_aircraft_insignia

Have a look through that, why don't you. Also, the red star used in Top Gun was a design not used by any country - it was not the Russian red star. It resembles most closely that of Vietnam, if anything.

In any case, your non sequitur is dismissed

A non sequitur is an argument which has no relevance whatsoever to the topic. Using fancy terms does not make you look intelligent if you misapply them.

and since you're fresh out of arguments,

Holy projectionist, Batman! I am literally the only one who has been using any arguments here. All you have been doing is to say "you're wrong" and "I told you you're wrong".

your tacit concession that "the enemy" in the first movie was obviously Russian/Soviet, is noted.

How did you get "Russia" from "North Korea"?
I feel I need to remind you again that the enemy country does not have to be a REAL country. Everything points to it being completely fictitious, not least because the markings do not belong to any existing country - neither in the original Top Gun nor in Maverick.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4647) 2 years ago

"Then you posted a link which supported what I said. Did you check it yourself? Russia is not remotely the only country to use the red star. It's a communist symbol."

At this point you're just a bald-faced liar. The link I posted showed past and present military aircraft insignia, and the only non-Russian/Soviet one you could find, in which the primary design element is a red star, was North Korea, so you replied, "That would also include North Korea," which I easily refuted because they didn't have MiGs when Top Gun was released.

"Yes, you TOLD me, but not only did you not provide a single argument, you actually proved yourself wrong with that link. Which I will happily post again here:"

Your second bald-faced lie is dismissed.

"Also, the red star used in Top Gun was a design not used by any country - it was not the Russian red star. It resembles most closely that of Vietnam, if anything."

Are you blind? It was a red star in Top Gun. The star in Vietnam's insignia isn't red. It also has additional design elements that go beyond a trivial solid-color circle around the star. Also, LOL at you trying to have it both ways, i.e., you now say that it doesn't match any country's insignia, yet suggested North Korea as a match. It's not an exact match for North Korea either, obviously, plus they didn't even have MiGs at the time, while Russia/USSR obviously did.

"A non sequitur is an argument which has no relevance whatsoever to the topic."

A non sequitur isn't an argument at all. It's anything that doesn't logically follow from anything which preceded it, and you do it like it's your job.

"Using fancy terms does not make you look intelligent if you misapply them."

Your non sequitur is dismissed, Slow Doug. And since you've [ironically] established that the term "non sequitur" confuses you, here's an explanation: since I haven't misapplied the term "non sequitur," your assertion that I have can't possibly logically follow from anything I've typed. Your bald-faced lies above are non sequiturs as well, obviously.

"Holy projectionist, Batman! I am literally the only one who has been using any arguments here. All you have been doing is to say "you're wrong" and "I told you you're wrong"."

Your bald-faced lie / non sequitur is dismissed. "I told you you're wrong" was in a summary of previous posts where I'd already proven you wrong.

"How did you get "Russia" from "North Korea"?"

This is yet another non sequitur from you. Your laughable North Korea suggestion was already refuted.

"I feel I need to remind you again that the enemy country does not have to be a REAL country. Everything points to it being completely fictitious, not least because the markings do not belong to any existing country"

It's said to be a MiG and a red star is the primary design element of the insignia, as it is/was for Russia / some Soviet Republics. It was released in 1986 when Russia/USSR was considered the primary enemy of the US. So in reality, everything points to it being Russia/USSR except for a plain, solid-colored circle around the red star, a yellow one no less, which goes along with the color scheme of the USSR flag. You can backpedal if you want and say that, based on the addition of a circle, it was supposed to represent a completely fictional country, but your original claims of "pretty much any communist country" and "North Korea" are utterly absurd.

reply

[–] Mustang (5449) 2 years ago

The red star as depicted on the Top Gun mig 28 is like the North Korean red star.

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/topgun/images/6/6f/B10.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140809194612

https://imageio.forbes.com/specials-images/imageserve/60d1179def4eab1790123d4d/0x0.jpg?format=jpg&crop=1000,469,x0,y63,safe&width=960

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4647) 2 years ago

No, it isn't, and North Korea didn't have any MiGs when Top Gun was released, which I've already cited in a previous post. The red star on the MiGs in the original movie isn't an exact match for any known military aircraft insignia, but it's nothing more than a Russian/Soviet red star insignia with the addition of a plain, solid-colored yellow circle around it.

Also, it was depicted as being the latest technology, i.e., not much was known about it and it did something the MiG expert woman didn't even think was possible for it to do, so it's highly implausible that anyone other than Russia/USSR would have it at the time, let alone some pissant country like North Korea.

reply

[–] Mustang (5449) 2 years ago

North Korea have had Migs for a long time! It's not an exact match as far as insignia but it is pretty damn close.

It's a moot point anyway given the "Mig" in Top Gun is just an American F-5 from a Top Gun Aggressor unit.

Given the first film was made in the mid 80's and there was a lot of tension in the Gulf area of the Middle East I would say that the fictitious country would be Middle Eastern.

In regards to the new film, I am going the Middle East as well. As others have stated Iran were the only other country to use F-14's. So Iran has the latest Russian aircraft? Plausible, not to mention they could be flown by Russian pilots anyway. As per the Vietnam war.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4647) 2 years ago

"North Korea have had Migs for a long time!"

Again:

The North Korean People’s Air Force operates a number of MiG-29s, estimated at about forty airframes in total. Interestingly, the initial airframes that Pyongyang secured likely came from an October 1986 visit to the Soviet Union by Kim Il Sung. During that visit, Moscow agreed to supply North Korea with their first MiG-29s — at the time one of the Soviet Union’s most advanced fighters.

Top Gun release date: May 16, 1986

"It's not an exact match as far as insignia but it is pretty damn close."

It's closer to Russian/Soviet, since it's just an added plain circle, and it's even yellow, which goes along with the Soviet flag colors (mostly red, with a little yellow). For North Korea you'd have to delete the white field, the segmented red circle, and the segmented blue circle, then add a yellow circle, which makes it no longer match up with the color scheme of their red, white, and blue flag. Plus, Russia/USSR makes sense, since MiGs are their technology and they were the primary enemy of the US at the time (and throughout the Cold War in general). North Korea was nothing. It's only in recent years that the media has tried to hype them as some sort of threat, including in that laughable remake of Red Dawn from 2012.

"It's a moot point anyway given the "Mig" in Top Gun is just an American F-5 from a Top Gun Aggressor unit."

That doesn't matter. In the movie's universe they were noted as being MiGs.

"Given the first film was made in the mid 80's and there was a lot of tension in the Gulf area of the Middle East I would say that the fictitious country would be Middle Eastern."

What's the point of trying to make it fit some random country when it's already a near perfect fit for Russia/USSR? Also, the only Middle East country that has a plain-red-star-based military aircraft insignia is Afghanistan, and we were friendly toward them at the time, and Russia was their enemy.

"In regards to the new film, I am going the Middle East as well. As others have stated Iran were the only other country to use F-14's. So Iran has the latest Russian aircraft? Plausible, not to mention they could be flown by Russian pilots anyway. As per the Vietnam war."

It isn't plausible. Russia supplies its own military with new aircraft designs before selling to anyone else, which is why they still haven't sold any Su-57s to anyone. If you think it's Russian pilots in an inexplicably snowy Iran and inexplicably working together militarily in 2018/2019 while inexplicably not simply supplying Iran with nuclear weapons, then that's two enemies, not one.

There is no country that's a good fit for "the enemy" in this new movie. Russia is the only one that has those planes, but they've had uranium enrichment plants for ages. Iran doesn't have those planes and has also had uranium enrichment plants for a long time. Furthermore, a country merely building a uranium enrichment plants doesn't justify the use of military force against them. The new movie is just a case of bad writing.

reply

[–] Mustang (5449) 2 years ago

You stated "Migs". You aren't doing very well with the argument you have created.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4647) 2 years ago

"You stated "Migs"."

What are you talking about?

Edit: Are you talking about North Korea having MiG-15s? If so, you need to pay attention to context. In the first movie, the enemy MiGs were the latest technology, not relics designed in the 1940s. They called them "MiG-28," only one number off from the real-world MiG-29, which entered into service in Russia in 1982. They were obviously intended to be the fictional counterpart to the MiG-29, and since they didn't have any real MiG-29s to use for filming, they called their dressed-up-as-MiGs Northrop planes "MiG-28."

"You aren't doing very well with the argument you have created."

Your non sequitur is dismissed, and since you have no further arguments, your tacit concession is noted.

reply

[–] Mustang (5449) 2 years ago

You've been defeated over and over.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4647) 2 years ago

Your non sequitur is dismissed and your tacit concession remains noted.

Also:

Comical Irony Alert

reply

[–] Mustang (5449) 2 years ago

You're entire argument is a mess and non nonsensical.

Happy trolling to you.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

Don't feel bad, he is a well known ignorant person on here. He thinks Sandy Hook was a hoax. That should tell you all you need to know about him.

Your non sequitur is dismissed and your tacit concession remains noted.

This is literally all he knows how to say.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4647) 2 years ago

"Don't feel bad, he is a well known ignorant person on here."

Comical Irony Alert

"He thinks Sandy Hook was a hoax."

No, I know that Sandy Hook was a hoax, and you being duped by a story full of plot holes (plot holes are unique to works of fiction) and zero physical evidence means you're credulous as the day is long.

"This is literally all he knows how to say."

So says the dim bulb in a thread for which a cursory glance at it "literally" proves him wrong.

This simple case of cause and effect is too complicated for you it seems:

Cause: Someone posts something which doesn't logically follow from anything I posted.

Effect: I dismiss their non sequitur.

Cause: Someone replies to an argument with nothing but non-arguments.

Effect: I note their tacit concession.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

Your non sequitur is dismissed and your tacit concession remains noted.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4647) 2 years ago

Your non sequitur is dismissed and your tacit concession is noted.

Also: Monkey see, monkey do.

Also: Since you already lost the Sandy Hook argument weeks ago, and you've just firmly established that you're nothing but a shit-poster, you won't be cluttering up my notifications page with pure foolishness anymore. You're now on ignore.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

Your non sequitur is dismissed and your tacit concession is noted.

reply

[–] Mustang (5449) 2 years ago

Yeah I made the mistake of not reading his other posts in this thread and others before getting involved.

He is determined to cling to a stupid position no matter what.

Some things are so simple they are difficult to explain to people as stupid as this poster is.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4647) 2 years ago

Your non sequitur is dismissed and your tacit concession remains noted.

reply

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) 2 years ago

The enemy is obviously not Russia, precisely because of what you write in your last paragraph.

Iran is the obvious inspiration for the enemy country here, because 1) the US takes an active interest in preventing Iran from going nuclear and 2) Iran has Tomcats. Iran doesn't have any 5th gen fighters, but it claims it does.

That said, the enemy country is probably not supposed to actually be Iran, but a fictitious country only based on it. Iranistan, or something.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4647) 2 years ago

"The enemy is obviously not Russia"

There is no country that it's "obviously not," due to contradictory information in the movie. However, to this day, no one has Su-57 planes except for Russia. Even Russia didn't have them officially in service yet when this movie was filmed, but they've had working prototypes since 2010.

It's bad writing either way. If they are going to make "the enemy" be a fictional country then they should have invented a fictional plane for the fictional country to use, rather than one that looks like an Su-57. Even then, the premise is bad, because the idea of a country in 2018/2019 that fits the following parameters...

- Doesn't already have nuclear weapons
- Has fifth-generation fighter jets
- Is an enemy of the United States

... actually existing in anything resembling a real-world setting, lacks credulity.

reply

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) 2 years ago

There is no country that it's "obviously not," due to contradictory information in the movie.

One thing which is clear, and never contradicted, is that the enemy is not yet nuclear. Russia, however, is the nuclearest of all potential enemies, so it is *very* obviously not Russia. And the last time Russia flew American planes was WWII.

However, to this day, no one has Su-57 planes except for Russia.

Which is neither here nor there. Su-57 is not a plane mentioned in the movie, regardless of what those planes look like. In the original Top Gun, they used an F-5 as a stand-in for a completely fictional Mig-28. What makes you think that the planes you see in Maverick are supposed to be Su-57s?

Even Russia didn't have them officially in service yet when this movie was filmed, but they've had working prototypes since 2010.

So how can you use this as an argument for the enemy being Russia, then?

It's bad writing either way. If they are going to make "the enemy" be a fictional country then they should have invented a fictional plane for the fictional country to use, rather than one that looks like an Su-57.

They did make a fictional plane. A fictional plane which resembles an Su-57. When creating a fictional plane, it is almost certainly going to look ridiculous unless you base it on an existing craft. So what would be the best candidate for this fictional plane? Obviously it would be an existing design not yet in service anywhere.

Even then, the premise is bad, because the idea of a country in 2018/2019 that fits the following parameters...

- Doesn't already have nuclear weapons
- Has fifth-generation fighter jets
- Is an enemy of the United States

... actually existing in anything resembling a real-world setting, lacks credulity.

Iran fits that bill almost perfectly. I say almost, because Iran only claims to have 5th gen fighters. They are also the only enemy that isn't nuclear, and which the US very, very keen on preventing from going nuclear.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4647) 2 years ago

"One thing which is clear, and never contradicted, is that the enemy is not yet nuclear. Russia, however, is the nuclearest of all potential enemies, so it is *very* obviously not Russia. And the last time Russia flew American planes was WWII."

That is never stated at all. It can only be inferred if you assume good writing, which obviously isn't a good assumption at all for this movie.

"Which is neither here nor there. Su-57 is not a plane mentioned in the movie, regardless of what those planes look like. In the original Top Gun, they used an F-5 as a stand-in for a completely fictional Mig-28. What makes you think that the planes you see in Maverick are supposed to be Su-57s?"

Because people who know planes have identified it, based on its appearance, as an Su-57. The planes portraying "MiG-28s" in the original movie didn't look like any real-world MiG, so that's not an analogous situation, obviously. There are tons of things in movies which aren't specifically identified in the movie by name; countless cars, planes, helicopters, guns, TVs, telephones, radios, wristwatches, etc. Does that mean they can't be identified just by looking at them? Is the "General Lee" not a second-generation Dodge Charger just because they never said on The Dukes of Hazzard that it was?

"So how can you use this as an argument for the enemy being Russia, then?"

I didn't say it was Russia. I said, "There is no country that it's 'obviously not,' due to contradictory information in the movie." In other words, no country matches all the information in the movie. But either way, Russia is the only country that had working planes that looked like that in 2018/2019 (and they're still the only country today), even if they didn't officially go into service until late 2020.

"They did make a fictional plane. A fictional plane which resembles an Su-57. When creating a fictional plane, it is almost certainly going to look ridiculous unless you base it on an existing craft. So what would be the best candidate for this fictional plane? Obviously it would be an existing design not yet in service anywhere."

It doesn't only "resemble" an Su-57. It has the same shape which is as identifiable as any other specific make/model of airplane. An example of a fictional plane is the "Darkstar," which doesn't have the same shape as any real-world make/model of airplane.

Not officially being in service is irrelevant, because as I already said, Russia has had working prototypes since 2010.

"Iran fits that bill almost perfectly. I say almost, because Iran only claims to have 5th gen fighters. They are also the only enemy that isn't nuclear, and which the US very, very keen on preventing from going nuclear."

They don't have Su-57s, nor do they claim to. Also, show me where in Iran that ever has that much snow at sea level.

reply

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) 2 years ago

That is never stated at all. It can only be inferred if you assume good writing, which obviously isn't a good assumption at all for this movie.

No, you are quite wrong: you can only infer that it is NOT if you assume a complete lack of intelligence behind the writing. The whole plot hinges on PREVENTING a country from GOING nuclear. OF COURSE the country isn't already nuclear. This much is obvious to an infant.

Because people who know planes have identified it, based on its appearance, as an Su-57.

That's not an argument. The "MiGs" in Top Gun were readily identifiable as F5s, and yet in the movie they were not F5s. Just like Han Solo's ray gun is actually a Mauser broomhandle. IT'S A MOVIE. Things and people are not necessarily meant to be what they appear. By your logic, you would have to conclude that, "hey, I know that guy - that's not Pete Mitchell, that's Tom Cruise!"

The planes portraying "MiG-28s" in the original movie didn't look like any real-world MiG, so that's not an analogous situation, obviously.

Also not an argument. The F5 was chosen because it was the plane in the American arsenal that most closely resembled a MiG. They didn't have the benefit of the same CGI as Maverick did, that's why they made do.

There are tons of things in movies which aren't specifically identified in the movie by name; countless cars, planes, helicopters, guns, TVs, telephones, radios, wristwatches, etc. Does that mean they can't be identified just by looking at them? Is the "General Lee" not a second-generation Dodge Charger just because they never said on The Dukes of Hazzard that it was?

Is it important to the plot? Sometimes things are meant to be precisely what they are. Sometimes they are supposed to be something very different. Sometimes it doesn't matter one way or the other. But your insistence that "it looks like X, therefore it MUST be X" - in a flippin' MOVIE - is patently absurd.

I didn't say it was Russia. I said, "There is no country that it's 'obviously not,' due to contradictory information in the movie." In other words, no country matches all the information in the movie. But either way, Russia is the only country that had working planes that looked like that in 2018/2019 (and they're still the only country today), even if they didn't officially go into service until late 2020.

'
But NOT IN SERVICE. The fighters in the movie were IN SERVICE. And then there's the fact that in the movie, the enemy has TOMCATS in service. Russia never did. However, Iran does. So that's still naught for Russia, and point for Iran.

It doesn't only "resemble" an Su-57. It has the same shape which is as identifiable as any other specific make/model of airplane.

So what? The same is true for the F5 in Top Gun.

An example of a fictional plane is the "Darkstar," which doesn't have the same shape as any real-world make/model of airplane.

Not so - the SR-72 Darkstar was designed by Lockheed Martin's SkunkWorks, and it looks very similar to the concept art of their actual proposed SR-72 back in 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_SR-72

Not officially being in service is irrelevant, because as I already said, Russia has had working prototypes since 2010.

Sorry, you don't get to pick and choose. If it can be in service in the movie even though it is not, then it can also be in service in other countries as well - even if in the real world it is not.

They don't have Su-57s, nor do they claim to.

The movie never claims they were Su-57s. But even if it did, IT'S A MOVIE. It doesn't matter if Iran doesn't have Su-57s in REAL LIFE, because THIS IS A MOVIE. Russia doesn't have them either, except as prototypes. And from its inception, Russia fully intended the Su-57 for EXPORT. This means - and I cannot believe I have to spell this out for you - that in an alternate reality where the Su-57 is IN SERVICE, it would NOT be exclusive to Russia.

Also, show me where in Iran that ever has that much snow at sea level.

IT'S A MOVIE. Iran has snowy landscapes inland, but for expediency - because hours of uneventful flight doesn't make for good cinema - Maverick has the mountains placed near the coast. So what if they have snow at sea level? Regardless of the inane nitpicks you have to disqualify Iran, they are nothing compared to the HUGE problems with the enemy being any other country. And besides, I didn't say it was Iran - I specifically said it was NOT Iran, but based on Iran. So this is a version of Iran that has snow at sea level. All year round if it makes you happy. But the plot - preventing the enrichment of uranium - and the presence of Tomcats are dead giveaways.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4647) 2 years ago

"No, you are quite wrong"

Your non sequitur is dismissed.

"you can only infer that it is NOT if you assume a complete lack of intelligence behind the writing."

Your false dilemma fallacy is dismissed. Something not necessarily being inferred doesn't mean that something is being inferred to "NOT" be the case.

"The whole plot hinges on PREVENTING a country from GOING nuclear. OF COURSE the country isn't already nuclear. This much is obvious to an infant."

You're making stuff up. The plot hinges on destroying an unsanctioned uranium enrichment plant. Since you think this makes it obvious that it isn't Russia, then by your own reasoning, it's also obvious that it isn't Iran, since Iran already has three uranium enrichment plants which have been known about for many years.

"That's not an argument."

Yes, it is.

"The "MiGs" in Top Gun were readily identifiable as F5s, and yet in the movie they were not F5s."

That's because they were stated, in the movie, to be something else, obviously. Them being stated to be MiGs in the movie precludes them from being F5s in the movie, obviously. On the other hand, nothing stated about the "fifth-generation fighters" in this movie preclude them from being Su-57s.

"Just like Han Solo's ray gun is actually a Mauser broomhandle."

Again, stated (and shown) to be something else. You need to familiarize yourself with the concept of "like reality unless noted." I said, "There are tons of things in movies which aren't specifically identified in the movie," and you reply with two things that are specifically identified in movies, i.e., a "blaster" and a "MiG-28"? LOL at that. That they are identified in the movie as something else, as well as being dressed up as something else, is a noted departure from reality, obviously.

"Also not an argument. The F5 was chosen because it was the plane in the American arsenal that most closely resembled a MiG."

Your non sequitur is dismissed. See above.

Iran has already been excluded by your own reasoning. See above.

"So what? The same is true for the F5 in Top Gun."

See above.

"Not so -"

Yes, it is so. I wouldn't have said it if it weren't so, obviously.

"the SR-72 Darkstar was designed by Lockheed Martin's SkunkWorks, and it looks very similar to the concept art of their actual proposed SR-72 back in 2016."

Is that a joke? A concept does not constitute a real-world make/model of airplane, obviously. It will become one only once it is manufactured and flies under its own power.

"Sorry, you don't get to pick and choose. If it can be in service in the movie even though it is not, then it can also be in service in other countries as well - even if in the real world it is not."

What are you talking about? "In service" is just something on paper. A working machine can be used regardless of whether it's officially in service or not. Only Russia had them when the movie was filmed, and that's still the case today, and is expected to be the case for years to come.

"The movie never claims they were Su-57s."

They intentionally made the CGI models look like Su-57s and didn't note them as not being Su-57s. The only thing they called them, "fifth-generation fighters" is consistent with them being Su-57s. Like reality unless noted.

"But even if it did, IT'S A MOVIE."

Your laughable attempt to handwave away problems with your position with the old "IT'S A MOVIE" cliche, in ALL CAPS no less, is dismissed.

"And from its inception, Russia fully intended the Su-57 for EXPORT."

They intended them for themselves first, and to this day they haven't sold a single one to anyone else. I suggest you read the whole thread; I've already gone over this.

"This means - and I cannot believe I have to spell this out for you - that in an alternate reality where the Su-57 is IN SERVICE, it would NOT be exclusive to Russia."

Like reality unless noted, not to mention how laughably far-fetched such an "alternate reality" would be, even if it were properly noted as being an alternate reality.

"IT'S A MOVIE."

Your non sequitur is dismissed.

"Regardless of the inane nitpicks you have to disqualify Iran, they are nothing compared to the HUGE problems with the enemy being any other country."

This is comically ironic, since Iran has the same "HUGE" problem that you say Russia has. See above.

reply

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) 2 years ago

Your non sequitur is dismissed.

I think you need to look that term up.

Your false dilemma fallacy is dismissed. Something not necessarily being inferred doesn't mean that something is being inferred to "NOT" be the case.

The false dilemma was all on you. You ASSUME bad writing because you refuse to follow the remarkably easy-to-follow logic of the movie.

You're making stuff up. The plot hinges on destroying an unsanctioned uranium enrichment plant. Since you think this makes it obvious that it isn't Russia, then by your own reasoning, it's also obvious that it isn't Iran, since Iran already has three uranium enrichment plants which have been known about for many years.

Iran's nuclear programme - including its efforts to enrich uranium on their own - have been subject to international pressure, sanctions, sabotage, and yes, air strikes in the past decades up to the present.

That's because they were stated, in the movie, to be something else, obviously. Them being stated to be MiGs in the movie precludes them from being F5s in the movie, obviously. On the other hand, nothing stated about the "fifth-generation fighters" in this movie preclude them from being Su-57s.

So why didn't they straight up call them Su-57s? There is no conceivable reason why they wouldn't, if that's what they were meant to be. Even if that was what they were meant to be, however, that still doesn't mean Russia. Like, at all.

Again, stated (and shown) to be something else.

Han's ray gun was never stated to be anything. So by your logic, it's a Mauser broomhandle with some stuff affixed to it.

"There are tons of things in movies which aren't specifically identified in the movie," and you reply with two things that are specifically identified in movies, i.e., a "blaster" and a "MiG-28"?

"Blaster" is a general term just like "gun". Han's blaster is a one of a kind, yet it's not the only weapon referred to as a "blaster". A blaster is what a blaster does, and in none of the movies was it ever stated that it wasn't a Mauser broomhandle engineered into a blaster. Of course it wasn't, but YOU have to allow for that possibility if you don't want to be a hypocrite.

Your laughable attempt to handwave away problems with your position with the old "IT'S A MOVIE" cliche, in ALL CAPS no less, is dismissed.

Because you don't have a counter to it. Movies aren't reality, something you clearly have a problem accepting.

They intended them for themselves first, and to this day they haven't sold a single one to anyone else. I suggest you read the whole thread; I've already gone over this.

To this day THEY HAVEN'T ENTERED SERVICE ANYWHERE EITHER. In the MOVIE, they have entered service. So why can't you accept that in the movie they may have been exported as well? You allow for a departure from reality on their service, but you are completely pig-headed on your insistence that the movie MUST folow reality as far as their export is concerned. I am beginning to worry about your mental wellbeing.

Like reality unless noted, not to mention how laughably far-fetched such an "alternate reality" would be, even if it were properly noted as being an alternate reality.

Then, by your logic, they are NOT Su-57s. Because it was not noted that they were Su-57s, and it was certainly not noted that Su-57s had entered service.

This is comically ironic, since Iran has the same "HUGE" problem that you say Russia has. See above.

Except it doesn't. Iran has never had any nukes. No one worries about Russia's enrichment of uranium, because they already have huge stockpiles of nukes. But Iran's enrichment programme, however, is very much a concern for the US. So not only is there not a "huge" problem with this country being based on Iran (or even actually being Iran), it's actually not a problem at all. The only reason you keep digging your hole ever deeper is because you don't want to admit that your argument has been blown out of the water: you just don't want to be wrong. Well, tough tittie, because people can see you are wrong whether you admit it or not.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4647) 2 years ago

"I think you need to look that term up."

Your non sequitur is dismissed. Also: Comical Irony Alert.

"The false dilemma was all on you."

Your non sequitur is dismissed.

"You ASSUME bad writing because you refuse to follow the remarkably easy-to-follow logic of the movie."

Even if that were true (it isn't), it wouldn't be an instance of a false dilemma. So you managed to pack two non sequiturs into one sentence. Consider them both dismissed out of hand.

"Iran's nuclear programme - [...]"

"Efforts"? They've been successfully enriching uranium for many years. This is one of the reasons why the writing is bad, i.e., a country having a functional uranium enrichment plant isn't any cause for military action in and of itself:

There is no basis in international law to use military force against a country just because it has a nuclear program.

And go ahead and provide citations showing that a US airstrike against an Iranian uranium enrichment plant has ever happened.

"So why didn't they straight up call them Su-57s? There is no conceivable reason why they wouldn't, if that's what they were meant to be."

Is that a joke? There is a blatantly obvious reason, i.e., not wanting to offend any particular country. We already know for a fact they kowtowed to China by changing the patch on the back of Maverick's jacket.

"Even if that was what they were meant to be, however, that still doesn't mean Russia. Like, at all."

Yes, it does. For the umpteenth time, Russia is the only country that has, or has ever had, Su-57s.

"Han's ray gun was never stated to be anything."

Reading Deficiency Alert. Again, it was called a "blaster," and we see how a blaster operates in the Star Wars universe, and it doesn't fit the definition of a real-life firearm, which precludes it from being a firearm, obviously. Additionally, the entire setting of the Star Wars universe ("a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away) precludes it from being a Mauser of any kind, obviously.

"So by your logic, it's a Mauser broomhandle with some stuff affixed to it."

Your non sequitur is dismissed. See above.

""Blaster" is a general term just like "gun"."

So? We can see from the way they work onscreen that they are fundamentally a different technology than what we commonly call a "gun" (firearm), some type of technology that isn't even known to exist in real life.

"Han's blaster is a one of a kind, yet it's not the only weapon referred to as a "blaster". A blaster is what a blaster does, and in none of the movies was it ever stated that it wasn't a Mauser broomhandle engineered into a blaster."

Again, the setting alone, as stated in plain text right at the beginning of the movie, precludes it from being a Mauser. That's about as blatant of a noted departure from reality as you can get.

"Because you don't have a counter to it."

No one needs a "counter" to a non-argument, obviously. "It's a movie" is merely stating the obvious; it's not an excuse for bad writing.

"Movies aren't reality"

Thank you, Captain Obvious. What of it?

"something you clearly have a problem accepting."

Your non sequitur is dismissed.

"To this day THEY HAVEN'T ENTERED SERVICE ANYWHERE EITHER."

Yes, they have, CAPTAIN CAPS LOCK. They officially entered service in December 2020.

"In the MOVIE, they have entered service."

LOL at you making stuff up. Just because something is being used doesn't mean it has officially entered service. Elements of the US military, for example, were using the Colt AR-15 before it officially entered service:

United States Army Special Forces personnel filed battlefield reports lavishly praising the AR-15 and the stopping-power of the 5.56 mm cartridge, and pressed for its adoption.

Notice they had battlefield reports before it was even officially in service. How is that possible? It's possible because you don't understand that being officially in service is just something that happens on paper.

"So why can't you accept that in the movie they may have been exported as well?"

Negated by your fabricated-out-of-whole-cloth premise. See above.

"Then, by your logic, they are NOT Su-57s. Because it was not noted that they were Su-57s, and it was certainly not noted that Su-57s had entered service."

Your non sequitur is dismissed. See above.

"Except it doesn't. Iran has never had any nukes."

Utterly irrelevant. The concern in the movie is that "the enemy" is merely building a uranium enrichment plant. Therefore it doesn't make sense that it's Iran because Iran already has three uranium enrichment plants. Furthermore, it's bad writing in general, because, again: "There is no basis in international law to use military force against a country just because it has a nuclear program."

"The only reason you keep digging your hole ever deeper [...]"

Your non sequitur is dismissed. Also: Comical Irony Alert: Part II

reply

[–] Kowalski (76313) 2 years ago

LEAH REMINI

reply

[–] johnmiller (3940) 2 years ago

No, and they're not going to. If the movie was made today, they might have gone with Russia. But, not when the movie was made, around 2019. This mirrors the first movie, where the enemy was also unnamed.

reply