Talk:Top Gun/Archive 1

Reported Cancellation of the Sequel

The article states that Paramount have canceled the sequel. However there has been nothing reported since November 2012. There is no report online stating that Paramount have pulled the sequel completely. Just 'reported' stories that Top Gun 2 has collapsed. I think the part of the sequel on the article needs rewording as there is no reliable source stating it's been officially cancelled, Last thing that was reported was a piece in the New York Times which states it's in limbo, Nothing was set in stone, nor was it stated it was officially canned. They just don't know what to do with the project so it's been sidelined indefinitely for now. 91.125.187.212 (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preamble

Certain details are incorrect. Chronology is a bit confused. This article is a halfway decent first draft but hardly better. The writing style seems to vaccilate between diligent academic and high school dropout. There are terms used long before they are explained. The end of the plot section is very poor and misleading. There are grammatical mistakes galore and the punctuation, written in a kind of 'hey we'll just wing it' style, is horrendous. The main article is 4138 words. For these 4138 words there are 203 commas which is just obscene. Dawn Steel is mentioned once but it's never explained who she is in relation to the movie. And so forth. If you write 'NAS' without explaining what it means and then start using 'Naval Air Station' instead then you haven't even proofread your own article. 'The soundtrack does also include' - that's a legit construction? You haven't proofread this at all. There's a lot of material here but the article is a chore to read. And it's 'Top Gun', not 'TOPGUN'. It needs a LOT of work. This article appears to be at least four and possibly closer to five years old but most likely even older. As such there's no excuse. Tagged CU and CE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.5.131.105 (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paramount ride(s)

There is also a suspended rollercoaster named 'Top Gun' at Paramount's King's Island, near Mason, Ohio. -Graptor

---In trivia it says; Top Gun is also the name of a popular ride at several Paramount Parks (a Vekoma SLC and Arrow Suspended). Then in Success it states: Theme Park Ride Since 1993, Paramount's Great America (located in Santa Clara, California) has been home to an inverted roller coaster called "Top Gun" based off of the movie. Should we delete it from tivia and write all the theme park notes in the success section? Smerk 04:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

F-14 retiring

The US Navy is retiring the F-14 this month[1]. I'm not sure what bearing that has on this article, however to future generations it will make the movie seem (more) dated considering it is based around planes no longer in service. --Dan East 06:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Area 88 Reference

I figured with the similarities this would be brought up, but Area 88 is older than Top Gun. It can't be likely Top Gun had any influence on Area 88 when comic came out years before and the OVA a year before Top Gun.

Actually, I came here to ask how exactly "Mickey Simon" can be a reference for Val Kilmer's character, Tom 'Iceman' Kazanski. Since Area 88 is older and the "reference" is tenuous at best, I'm going to remove it.-Sarfa 18:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misc

I corrected the inaccurate, horribly inflated Navy recruiting numbers (500%) as a result of the film (how could basic training handle so many extra people?). Actual statistics show only a 10% increase. The cited source obviously did some fuzzy math or just pulled numbers out of his ass, because he sure didn't call us.

Before one can attribute that 10% increase to the film, one would need to look at the year-over-year increases of the surrounding years. Is 10% higher than the average annual increase at the time? If it is not, then one could argue that is film had no measurable impact on recruiting. -Sarfa 22:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. Also, the military generally puts goals for recruitment out. 1986's goals are significantly higher in 1986 than they were in the years previous, and remained high for a few years after before dropping back down to pre-1986 numbers. It's speculation whether or not this had anything to do with the movie. http://www.cnrc.navy.mil/documents/CNRCStats.doc

Well, it is widely reported that "Top Gun" had some effect on Navy recruitment. I imagine the 500% number was put in as a joke, so it is good that the other figure was put back. 10% is what I have read.

Popular Culture

The bit about Revenge of the Nerds makes no sense, as it was filmed 2 years before Top Gun was. Erego, I'm getting rid of it.

I'm not sure that an indoor firing range in Michigan can really be called a pop culture reference. Unless someone objects, I would like to remove that addition. -Sarfa 21:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.D. in scrubs says to Dr. Cox "i'm ur wingman maverick" dnt know the episode tho, so cnt add it

I've added a link/reference to the BBC 1 sit-com 'My Life in Film', as the third episode is basically Top Gun set in a driving school.--HDC7777 09:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Topg0000.png

Image:Topg0000.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TV Guide error?

All your TV guides have a summary naming the female civilian instructor, Charlotte "Charlie" Blackwood (Kelly McGillis) an astrophysicist which is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.11.133 (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Side number 403

This link [http://www.fast-rewind.com/topgun.htm Top Gun Movie -The 80s Rewind «] comes back bad. Junior McCain 14:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fire at former set

The piano has not been destroyed in the fire at Kansas City BBQ. Here is an article for reference, this has been stated on the local newspaper website as well: [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.169.131 (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quote Header in "Plot"

This quote (regarding kill ratios in Korea) has little to do with the movie and should be changed or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stamford Raffles (talk • contribs) 04:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel Gossip

I'm removing the "sequel" section which is all a) all hollywood gossip with no citations or even a hint of where the info comes from b) basically content-free anyways c) in broken english and d) dated "just recently"?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.95.198 (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Humerous"

Someone please fix this spelling error. It isn't letting me. 68.98.153.229 (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was the name of that Film?

I remember watching parts of a Comedy Movie that spoofed Top Gun but I don't know the name. The best description that I can provide by memory is that the main character "Dogfights" by rapidly slapping the Cockpits of enemy planes with the Wings of his Aircraft. --Arima (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh never mind. I just found out it was Hot Shots!

Japanese "Top Gun" movie: The Best Guy

The Japanese made a version of "Top Gun," called "Best Guy". Here's a link that describes it: http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/detailview.html?KEY=DSZS-7015

Also, in the article, the name of the photographer of the group photo is misspelled. It's Baranek, not Baranak. I took the photo. It was misspelled by the Defense Visual Information Center, but they corrected it.

Dave Baranek 72.205.30.152 (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by DBaranek (talk • contribs) 01:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On-tape ads

The Top Gun VHS tapes had the Top-Gun themed Pepsi commercial. I believe this was the first time an ad had been placed on a tape.

The UK version I have doesn't have that advert. Maybe it was only on VHS releases in certain locales? --81.107.39.205 11:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got it on my tape at home... Of course I don't have a VHS player that works anymore... --Trashbag (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is. The choice of a the new generation. --Trashbag (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Top Gun (film) → Top Gun — [The Top Gun film is the primary use of the term, the (film) suffix is not required.] --Exxolon (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Top Gun has redirected here for a year and a half with no problem, and based on pageviews this is the primary topic by a factor of at least 5:1 over anything else on WP. Station1 (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is the article the most readers will be looking for. As Station1 points out above, this has already been considered the primary topic for a while. This move simply corrects the article name to conform to the primary topic guideline. Jafeluv (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Clear primary topic. Kanguole 23:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removal of actors today and my reversion thereof

If you have ever watched this movie, you know that the redlinks were in the movie and given acting credits at the end of the movie. The majority of these redlinks were true USN naval aviators who were assigned to the movie. IMDB does list the Admiral and he does have a speaking role. Based this and IMDB, I am reversing today's edit. Morenooso (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Casts lists inb WP aritciles are generally not intended to be in any way exhaustive. As redlinks, these "actors" are more than likely non-notable, and unlikely to ever have articles written about them. If they aer listed in IMDB, they aren't really needed here at all. - BilCat (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree strongly. This is not an "all-inclusive" list. Not all the non-speaking actors are listed nor the total rolls from the end credits. As per your talkpage and other articles I follow, redlinks in articles are important because they connonate the importance of what the redlink possibly make in differentiating the article. This was and is a fine article before your visit and very heavy handed edit with an improper deletion along with "sloppy" edit summary. I respect that you do great work in other articles. Please continue to do but respect too the work of this article, the editors who have contributed to it and page patrollers like me who support it Morenooso (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Film articles' "Cast" sections are not meant to be indiscriminate in listing all cast members. Since this is an encyclopedic article, we should identify the major cast members. Red links should only exist if there is potential to convert them into blue links. I agree with BilCat that the actors are non-notable, so we should not have red links about them. Could another approach to the "Cast" section be to write a small paragraph talking about how USN naval aviators were in the film, citing a reliable source? We could mention Admiral T.J. Cassidy as the high-ranking name in the bunch. Erik (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MiG28 goof?

Is the naming of it the MiG28 really a 'goof' when it's suggested it's actually been done deliberately so that there wouldn't be a real MiG28 to compare with the aircraft in the movie? --81.107.39.205 22:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a slightly related note, I noticed that when the MiG-28 opens fire on Iceman it shows a shot of an external rotary cannon, like that seen on the A-10. However, the F-5E has no such external weapon, and indeed it would make no sense for a modern jet fighter to have such a setup where it would increase drag - Masterblooregard 23:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

did u also know, IT'S JUST A MOVIE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.255.133 (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you all know that it was not an F-5 but rather a modified Air Force T-38 that was used as the agressor vehicle in the movie to simulate the fictional mig-28. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.210.161 (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "MiG-28s" were intentionally given that name, as stated at the top of this section, to preclude direct comparison with any real aircraft or air force. They were played by three F-5E Tiger IIs and one F-5F Tiger II, not T-38s as stated immediately above. I was a Topgun instructor when the movie was filmed and would like to make several other additions to the article. I would also like to get my book, TOPGUN DAYS (ISBN: 9781616080051), cited as a reference because it provides information of interest to people who view the article. Dave "Bio" Baranek, bio@topgunbio.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.30.117 (talk) 01:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Casting of Aircraft

Does anyone else think the casting of aircraft and OR commentary is inappropriate in an article about the movie, not the school? --Mmx1 21:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The aircraft used in the movie (for MiGs) are F-5 and T-38's, which were actually the operational aircraft of Top Gun at that time. Top Gun owned exactly 3 A4F aircraft, which were down for repairs most of the time (hangar queens). [Erroneous -- see below.] The vast majority of A4F sorties flown for Top Gun at that time were done in conjunction with VF-126 Bandits, who were across the tarmac in another hangar. A4Fs were used because, despite not being super-sonic machines, they could turn "inside" an F-14 and dog fight more effectively. [Erroneous -- see below.] During the year prior to the movie's production, some of the pilots at VF-126 were involved in home movies shot from the back seat of their TA-4Js, while they were out on ACM missions. (They were trying to get their footage on "That's Incredible" a popular TV series at the time. Obviously the whole thing mushroomed). The flyers involved shall remain nameless, but they were more involved in the conception of the movie than they will admit to. Duke Cunningham (XO at the time for VF-126) was NOT one of them, but typically takes credit for it. The general plotline follows (somewhat) the personal life of one of these pilots, who was indeed "first in his class at Top Gun", and who (despite some very human emotional issues) went on to relative sucess in the Navy (he's retired now), indeed returning to be a trainer at Top Gun, and other flight schools. The movie's script writers did change the romantic "female interest" from one of the enlisted gals to a civilian contractor, at the request of the base admiral (see the documentary on the current DVD version).

Top Gun/VF-126 (Fighter Weapons School), after 1986, was able to get real MiGs to fly their sorties with.

My biggest complaint about the technical end of the movie, is they were unable to use the real footage of the flat spin that the Fighter Weapons school used to show in training. It's pretty scary, even from a distance.

Although there is discussion concerning the validity of Cunningham's claim to be the inspiration for the Top Gun movie, some of the aerial maneuvers presented in the movie (such as the use of the speed break to gain position) are well published maneuvers by Cunningham during his combat experience in Vietnam. Combine that with the fact that Cunningham was a Top Gun instructor pilot gives some credence to his claim. The fact that producers deny his association may just relate to royalty issues more than fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.137.134 (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several factual errors in the above. No T-38s were used to film "Top Gun." The two-seat black jets were F-5Fs. Differences compared to the T-38 include: the F-5F had more powerful engines and a wing leading edge extension. There are others. VF-126 was a different squadron, not another name for Topgun (NFWS), which is implied by the slash. Also, Topgun's A-4 aircraft weren't hangar queens, they flew in the movie. VF-126 did not fly the A-4s to film the movie. As noted in the book RED EAGLES, real MiGs were available well before 1986. Thanks. Dave "Bio" Baranek, bio@topgunbio.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TopgunBio (talk • contribs) 01:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

propaganda?

Is there a good reason for Top Gun to be in the American Propaganda Films category? Veatch 18:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm late, but it was made specifically to encourage people to join the military. Oc t ane ^{[improve me?]} 07.01.09 2254 (UTC)

You mean like ordered by US military or specifically US Navy to be made? Who else would like "to encourage people to join the military"? The movie may be a little bit overly patriotic, but your (own) statement is pure BS, and definitely not NPOV! Prove me wrong! Real propaganda films are not made by independent film producers like in this case!--Towpilot (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that "Top Gun" was made "specifically to encourage people to join the military" is false. It was made to make money, period. The TV show CSI is a good example: it was not made to make people become CSIs, yet many people have become CSIs after watching it. Dave "Bio" Baranek, bio@topgunbio.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.30.117 (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

/* propaganda? */ Well the movie was made with us navy support they lend the movie a few of there F-14's and when the military get involved with a film they usually expect a quid pro quo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah- the quid quo pro in this case was money- lots and lots of it. The Navy didn't give anything away; Paramount had to pay for it all. Solicitr (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of 68.80.73.64's edits

I reverted User:68.80.73.64's recent edits. Some of them are worthwhile and I will restore them. However, my main concern is the editor's uncited changing of characters' names. We have no way of knowing whether "Pete" is short for "Peter", or "Tom" is short for "Thomas". (For example, most women known as "Betty" have "Elizabeth" on their driver's licenses, but not necessarily.) The credits don't help, since they only list characters' callsigns or first names. Without such sources, we must go only by the names that appear within the film itself. YLee (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the reverts, for the reasons given. - BilCat (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason for the reverts is that the editor is apparently unaware that Wikipedia mandates the use of logical quotations. I personally think it's a mistake, but we must go by the manual of style. YLee (talk) 04:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the trick that Maverick used

The trick which lets following jets fly right by. Is it a known Air combat manoeuvring? If it is then I think it's worth being mentioned. But I can't find any info about it. Please help. --Mato Rei (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We called that maneuver a "pitch pulse." The term "air combat maneuvering" (ACM) was a general term used by the US Navy and Marine Corps for close-in maneuvering. The US Air Force used ACM and basic fighter maneuvering (BFM) slightly differently than the Navy, as I understand. Dave "Bio" Baranek, bio@topgunbio.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.30.117 (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or in layman's terms..."slamming on the brakes!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.211.20 (talk) 01:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese propaganda

Is it worth mentioning that the Chinese government used Top Gun footage as part of a montage for the Chinese military?

I don't have a specific source but I know the incident got onto CNN, and it was a bit of an embarrassment for the Chinese Gov.

Should that incident be mentioned at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.134.55 (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remake and Reboot

Pixar Animation Studios, O Entertainment and Reel FX Creative Studios were working together on a planned CGI Computer-animated 3D feature film remake of Top Gun to set to released on Christmas, 2018, directed by John A. Davis, distributed by Walt Disney Pictures and It was produced using off-the-shelf software (messiah:studio and LightWave 6) by O Entertainment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.77.172 (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in article.

I'd like to point out a couple of errors in the plot synopsis. I didn't want to just go in there and make changes to someone else's article, so I figured I'd post them here and give the author the chance to correct them him/herself.

1 - Maverick shoots down three MiGs in the end battle scene, not five. A total of six MiGs were involved ("We've got four on our tail. That makes six of them."); Maverick shot down three, Iceman shot down one, and the remaining two retreated (bugged out).

2 - The US did not "assign odd-numbered designations to Soviet aircraft;" in fact the US didn't assign *any* designations. These were assigned by the Russians themselves, and they were not limited to odd numbers. Some examples are: Tu-16, Tu-22, Su-22, Su-24, An-126, An-24, Yak-36, Yak-38, just to name a few. What the US *did* assign to Soviet/Russian aircraft were names, with the first letter typically referring to the type of aircraft: C for cargo, F for fighter, B for bomber, H for helicopter, etc. Examples: Mig-29 "Fulcrum," Su-27 "Flanker," An-74 "Coaler," Mil-24 "Hind," Ka-50 "Hokum," Tu-160 "Blackjack." It is true, of course, that there is no fighter designated MiG-28.

Crazed actor 15:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the designations are NATO designations.--Buckboard 09:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please go ahead and make the changes. There are probably a few errors in the plot section, as that is the only part that has not been extensively worked on. Forever young 15:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it's not specifically an error, I've cleaned up the 'Return to Top Gun' heading by removing some extremely technical information regarding aircraft carriers (Most of which consisted of abbreviations and only semi-relevant historical information). DarkMasterBob 05:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The trivia article contains an inaccuracy. The cockpit of an F-14 does have a tendency to "hang" in position when in a flat spin, as shown in the movie. When it's in a flat spin there is a pressure bubble over the top of the aircraft which keeps the cockpit relatively close. Correct procedure is to wait to make sure that it's clear before hitting the ejection, which Goose didn't do. All of this detailed in technical discussions on the special edition extras. As such it should be edited out. 71.205.236.49 07:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe at least three Radar Intercept Officers were killed by ejecting into the canopy in real life. In a flat spin, the jet does not have much if any forward momentum, thus the canopy will simply blast upwards. In the small amount of time between canopy jettison and ejector seat firing, the flat-spinning jet has not yawed enough to clear the canopy. I believe I read this in "F-14 Tomcats in Action", a Signal book. 96.28.79.173 (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Correct procedure is to wait to make sure that it's clear before hitting the ejection..." and that would be incorrect. Once the ejection is initiated, the canopy jettison and seat ejection are automatically sequenced. One cannot jettison the canopy, pause and initiate the seat ejection once the canopy is clear of the aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Box office success

I think using money to talk about a success is complete non sense (inflation), ticket sales should be used : 47,651,400 tickets sold in the USA. http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm?adjust_yr=1&p=.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.220.166.253 (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which Aircraft Carrier?

Does anybody know which aircraft carrier was used in the Top Gun movie?

The ship is supposed to be the USS Enterprise, CVN-65 - the CAG wears an Enterprise cap when he's talking to Maverick. The final credits thank Enterprise, Carl Vinson and Ranger. I gather that most scenes were shot aboard Ranger, but I don't know anything definitive. BobThePirate 16:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the DVD making of featurette, they say that it is the Enterprise. Rick Rossovich 03:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the flight-deck material was shot aboard Enterprise off the California coast. Some interiors, including the CIC scenes, were shot aboard Ranger tied up in San Diego. Solicitr (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack #1 for 5 weeks

The Top Gun soundtrack is one of the most popular soundtracks to date, reaching #1 on The Billboard Top Pop Albums chart for five weeks.[citation needed]

This statement was also made on the soundtrack page, with no source there. I found a citation at [3], but the site doesn't look particularly reliable. I then went to the Billboard Hot 200 charts (they don't have a Top Pop Albums chart -- at least for 1986 online), but I only found 4 weeks for the album at #1: August 2, August 9, September 20, and October 11. It's a little confusing since the Aug 2 Billboard position says its previous week position was #1, but the July 26 Billboard chart lists it as #4. The 80s xchange site lists the album as entering July 26. --Mysekurity 23:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

Why does the plot need to be so descriptive? We definately do not need a blow for blow retelling of the movie. Its also the wrong place to be quoting and bolding dialogue.

Oh hush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.146.152.124 (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's highly relevant to note that the reason given to Maverick for the classified nature of his father's death was that it occurred 'on the wrong side of the line' i.e. Laos, Cambodia or other prohibited airspace.97.73.64.152 (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)97.73.64.142 (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone undid my edit in the plot. I am almost certain that Hollywood died in this movie but the plot summary says that he ejected safely. I distinctly remember hearing the line "we lost Hollywood" but I haven't seen the movie in years. Can someone double check this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.217.78.113 (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Info

The statement "Also, Maverick's love interest in the film was originally intended to be a female enlisted member of the Navy, but due to the US Department of Defense prohibition of fraternization between officer and enlisted personnel, her position was changed to be that of an outside contractor." is false. That regulation was not passed until the late 90's... this movie was made in the 80's. Plus the link is bad and, as thus, further proving that this info is false. Any senior member of the military can vouch for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.139.83.70 (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? That regulation had been around since forever when I was in the Navy, long before Top Gun was made. I suspect you're thinking of the revised sexual harassment rules which were implemented after the Tailhook scandal; but those explicitly govern relations between the sections, whereas non-fraternization rules apply regardless of gender. Officers and enlisted men aren't permitted to socialize, and haven't been since about John Paul Jones.Solicitr (talk) 01:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, they aren't? In the state in the world most proud of its democracy, they aren't? --2001:A61:21FF:1C01:ED24:428F:F87F:35D2 (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VHS / DVD Quality/ Status & Content

As I recall this used to be one of the prime movies used in stores to show off the TVs and VHS/DVD players. How high up on a listing of such movies would Top Gun rank? (any one ever done such a ranking) IF you buy this as a DVD or Blu-ray disk - how much and what content do you get as bonus features?- that would be a nice add to the article. Wfoj2 (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you would be bonkers to shell out on the DVD. It is a piece of shite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.194.62 (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't Wikipedia have a bio about Lt Mitchell?

It's not like he doesn't meet notability requirements.2001:569:72C0:BC00:B8BA:FE04:E454:2E87 (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poor proof reading in the opening text of film

In the opening text that explains how the Fighter Weapons School came about, it says "insure" but this should be "ensure". Seven Pandas (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stinger

How can Stinger be a CAG? He's ranked or ranks as a Commader which too junior for that position.2401:7400:4003:A14B:B0B3:5D2:59EF:BAB2 (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because from the post WWII-era through the mid-80s, USN CAGs were senior Commanders (O-5). From the mid-80s on, the CAG became a Captain's (O-6) billet (Super CAG). Top Gun was made during the end of the O-5 period for CAGs, so this is correct. See Carrier air wing#Carrier Air Group/Carrier Air Wing Commander for more information. BilCat (talk) 09:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Maverick launching alone - he had Merlin as his RIO but no other plane went to assist IceMan after Hollywood is shot down

Above correction 2600:1007:B13B:2C9E:E803:373A:EB73:DA7D (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 June 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved because consensus exists pointing that the film is the Primary Topic (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 18:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Top Gun → Top Gun (film) – To distinguish it from the franchise's page Top Gun (franchise). It is usually normal to assume that the franchise itself is the prima topic, and the appropriate changes should be made. Zvig47 (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zvig47 Not objecting, but it's been moved before (though a long time ago), so might not be uncontroversial. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion seems to use WP:INCOMPLETEDAB, which is very rare on Wikipedia, and the OP's attempts to convert the destination name to a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT have already been reverted twice, so this is clearly not completely uncontroversial. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking more, this definitely needs a full RM. (As an aside, I see Top Gun (franchise) now exists.) -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move - No evidence presented by proposer that this film is not the ~~prima~~ primary topic. BilCat (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – this franchise page has yet to exist, and no indication has been proven that the franchise page would be the primary topic over this article. That could be created at Top Gun (franchise). —El Millo (talk) 07:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, move franchise to base name.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per Facu-el Millo and BilCat - FlightTime (open channel) 21:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As of right now, I don't really think the franchise article is necessary. The sequel, soundtracks and video games are, as far as I can tell, all mentioned in the first movie's article. Seems like a WP:CFORK to me. Aside from that, there's really only two very notable topics here, and it's the first movie and its sequel. Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Two feature films with related merch and minor film adaptation games does not mean it's a franchise. Revisit when there's a TV series or multiple direct-to-video series. Note Creed (film series) redirects to Rocky (franchise) AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 03:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It took me a while to find it, but we had an article on the film series that was deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top Gun (film series). I don't remember much about it, but my recollection is that it wasn't much different than the new franchise article. We'll have to have an admin check it out. BilCat (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. People who know about the Top Gun film hardly know there is a Top Gun franchise (is there?). Neocorelight (Talk) 10:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Two films hardly makes a "franchise". The 1986 is still clearly the PT. Natg 19 (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The page "Top Gun" should refer to the military institute; nothing is lost by renaming the page about the Top Gun film to "Top Gun (film)." Coulson Lives (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The primary topic for "Top Gun" is clearly the 1986 film. The military program does not have as much real world notability as the film. Natg 19 (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above. The original film is the primary topic, and the hatnote at the top of its page definitely suffices. -- Wikipedical (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Two films 35 years apart doesn't make a franchise and certainly isn't the most commonly sought information (compared to Star Wars, for example). Keep as hatnote. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support no clear primary topic over the generic meaning, Top Gun: Maverick (2,922,587 views though recent) compared with 1,298,510[[4]] for this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comparing Top Gun views to Top Gun: Maverick views is incorrect, because Top Gun: Maverick would never be at Top Gun and WP:RECENTISM applies as well. Top Gun views should only be compared to those article that could or would be at Top Gun where they to be the primary topic. —El Millo (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're comparing one subject with another that has a different title. This is invalid. Primary topic arguments should be about subjects that have the same names. Neocorelight (Talk) 02:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no clear evidence that the franchise is the primary topic over the film. I honestly think there is no need for a franchise article. there is only two films. Note we do the same thing for a much bigger franchise (film wise) Toy Story. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 23:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Since the franchise article has been mentioned here, please note that it is up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top Gun (franchise). BilCat (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.