TOP GUN - MUCH more professionally made. A real director
Tony Scott was a good director, especially when it came to the style and visual aspect of filming. However, he didn't have a whole lot of substance. His films were always about the spectacle and not so much the people. He was like a more intelligent and talented Michael Bay.
with real, known actors who can act.
Louis Gosset Jr had been an Oscar winner just a couple of years prior to this film (back when it was an elite award and not the flavor of the month fiasco it's turned into). Jerry Levine and Larry B Scott were very good young actors who had other notable roles in Hollywood at that time. Jason Gedrick was essentially channelling Mark Hamill's Luke Skywalker in the best possible way - and he did extremely well. It was a natural and convincing performance as the young hero.
Outside of Cruise and Kilmer, much of Top Gun's cast were either unknowns or vanished shortly after (McGillis, Edwards, Skerrit etc) into small films or TV shows (remember Meg Ryan only had a cameo).
Furthermore, the actors may have been of a higher standard in Top Gun, but none of them were likeable. For example, Tom Cruise's Maverick continually puts the careers and lives of those around him at risk due to his flagrantly selfish behavior. Why? Because he want's to prove that he's "the best".
Compare and contrast that to Iron Eagle. Doug Masters puts
his life and future career at risk to save his father. As does Gosset Jr and everyone who's helping him.
And a real story, not just some video game fantasy.
What exactly is Top Gun's story? Bunch of guys one upping each other in a flight school for a 2 bit trophy? Iron Eagle is the one with a story. But that's where both film's become different from each other. Iron Eagle is
meant to be a fantasy - it was likely written as a reinvention of Star Wars but with planes on earth. Top Gun is based in realism, but doesn't have much of a plot.
In Iron Eagle the protagonist's father is shot down and condemned to death in three days in a foreign land. His son thus attempts to rescue him. This means there is a) everything at stake b) an emotional centerpoint for the main character's actions and c) something that keeps the story going as you know they only have a limited time to get him out.
Top Gun's story is so lacking in an emotional base that they have to contrive a character's death out of nowhere (Goose) in a wild attempt to suck some cynical melodrama from the viewer and convince you that what you're watching actually has some meaning or depth - and that you're not just watching a 90 minute music video. Top Gun is just a bunch of pumped up douchebags flying planes and not much else.
Cultural impact. Top Gun hands down. Everyone still loves this movie. Who will remember who directed Iron Eagle, if they remember the movie at all?
Top Gun was a cultural phenomenon in the 80s. Its a product of that era - almost a symbolism for it. It's a real Hollywood movie. But I think it encapsulates the more excessive themes of that decade rather than the best parts of it. I also believe it's kind of a gimmick movie, in the same vain as Dirty Dancing etc. It was an iconic movie, not necessarily a good one. I mean, Star Wars Trilogy, E.T., - those were real culturally significant films, and profound ones, too. Top Gun was more shallow and all about the visuals and style.
Iron Eagle was never going to have any cultural impact because it's not full of stereotypical movie leads and clichéd plot points. It was just meant to be a simple film.
It's no wonder the REAL USAF refused any role in this film, and had to film it in Israel instead.
That's probably a good sign.
The Army/Navy/Air Force only support movies that kiss their ass and make them look good. Top Gun was essentially one giant Navy commercial.
Iron Eagle had a group of teenagers infiltrating a USAF base - fooling their officers, doctoring flight plans and generally getting around top secret clearance and entry points on the way to skyjacking two F-16s and using them to level Iran's military. It was really fun, original and entertaining to watch.
Who wants to watch stuff that has to get approved by armed forces in a movie for being realistic? Films of this type concerning jet planes etc are meant to be the oppostite and portray things generally not adhering to normal standards and situations. It's called escapism.
Top Gun could be enjoyed by adults, both men and women. Iron Eagle was made purely for teenage boys.
Iron Eagle can be enjoyed by anyone with taste. It's well written & directed, has an interesting and engaging premise, a great soundtrack, good characters and acting, and the most spectacular and skillfully choreographed flight scene in cinema history (the chase through the desert canyons between the cessna and motorcycle).
Top Gun is generic Hollywood trash - albeit its guitar anthem and F-14 jet make it an extremely entertaining movie. That shouldn't get in the way of the fact that TG was a template for all the crappy blockbusters you see nowadays, especially the Michael Bay directed ones. They're all shot and structured in the same way as Top Gun - with an emphasis on style and predictable, dime a dozen characters.
I've seen tons of movies just like Top Gun. However, I've yet to see a movie replicate the endearing charm and simplicity of Iron Eagle - a forgotten 80s classic of action-adventure cinema.
He was my C.O. in Nam. CIA listed him as MIA but the V.A. ID'd his M.O. and put out an APB.
reply
share
ericjg623
12 years ago
"Jason Gedrick was essentially channelling Mark Hamill's Luke Skywalker in the best possible way - and he did extremely well. It was a natural and convincing performance as the young hero."
Yeah, because teenagers know how to fly F-16's, and can easily defeat an entire foreign Air Force just by listening to (mostly lame) music on their Walkman. Face it, he was a cartoon character. The old Wile E Coyote/Road Runner shows were more realistic.
"What exactly is Top Gun's story? Bunch of guys one upping each other in a flight school for a 2 bit trophy?"
Two bit trophy? Apparently you don't know much about Naval Aviation. Just to get IN to Top Gun meant you were one of the best in the world. To win that trophy put you in more elite company still. Top Gun was sort of like the Olympics for fighter pilots. To sneer at that trophy is like sneering at an Olympic medal.
" Iron Eagle is the one with a story."
I'll grant that it had a story. A completely ridiculous story!
"Top Gun's story is so lacking in an emotional base that they have to contrive a character's death out of nowhere (Goose) in a wild attempt to suck some cynical melodrama from the viewer and convince you that what you're watching actually has some meaning or depth - and that you're not just watching a 90 minute music video."
I guess you are unaware that the F-14 was a rather dangerous plane to fly, and that deaths in training (such as Goose's) were far from uncommon. Also, the accident itself was VERY realistic. Further, his death showed the real level of teamwork that Navy crewmembers have, Maverick was the pilot, but he absolutely depended on Goose in combat situations. And the emotional impact of his death was real, since we had already seen how close he and Maverick were, plus just a bit earlier, we had just been introduced to his wife and kid, meaning we saw him as a real person, not the cartoon characters that were in Iron Eagle.
"Top Gun is just a bunch of pumped up douchebags flying planes and not much else."
If you think Navy pilots are "Douchebags" (such a cliched term), then you don't know a damned thing about the REAL US military.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's no wonder the REAL USAF refused any role in this film, and had to film it in Israel instead.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"That's probably a good sign."
No, it's a sign the Air Force knew this thing was a load of crap, and wanted nothing to do with it.
"The Army/Navy/Air Force only support movies that kiss their ass and make them look good. Top Gun was essentially one giant Navy commercial."
Well, if it made Naval Aviation look exciting and glamorous, that's because Naval Aviation IS exciting and glamorous. And also hard work and dangerous. And EXTREMELY competitive. It simply told the truth about what being a Navy pilot was like. Iron Eagle's plot was just a joke.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Gun could be enjoyed by adults, both men and women. Iron Eagle was made purely for teenage boys.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Iron Eagle can be enjoyed by anyone with taste."
The taste of a pre-pubescent kid who plays WAY too many video games.
" It's well written & directed, has an interesting and engaging premise, a great soundtrack, good characters and acting, "
Aside from Gosset Jr. (who apparently ruined his career with this movie, since he went on to "Star" in the even worse Iron Eagle sequels and very little else), this film was pure amateurism. The story, the writing, and virtually everything else was, at best, of the quality of a mediocre rock video.
"and the most spectacular and skillfully choreographed flight scene in cinema history (the chase through the desert canyons between the cessna and motorcycle)."
Actually, as I have a pilot's license (and have flown the exact same kind of plane used in that scene), and some of my friends at the time had motorcycles, we could have filmed that scene ourselves with a couple of video cameras.
"Top Gun is generic Hollywood trash"
Hardly. It was one of the most memorable movies of the 80's. There have been some that have tried to use the same formula (Navy Seals) but none had anything like the same impact.
"I've seen tons of movies just like Top Gun."
Oh? Name them!
"However, I've yet to see a movie replicate the endearing charm and simplicity of Iron Eagle - a forgotten 80s classic of action-adventure cinema. "
Forgotten for a good reason. Aside from the actual flying scenes, which weren't half-bad, this movie was memorable mainly for how utterly ridiculous the whole thing was.
reply
share
Hendry_William_French
12 years ago
Face it, he was a cartoon character
Not really. Masters cared about his father and did everything he could to bring him home. He was likable, endearing and someone who younger viewers in particular could look up to. His character had far more worth and development than Cruise's Maverick did in Top Gun.
Two bit trophy? To sneer at that trophy is like sneering at an Olympic medal.
Is there really a trophy? I thought that was made up?
I wasn't referring to its worth so much. I'm just saying it's lame that half the time they're chasing a trophy, and it just gets so tedious. It feels like nothing is at stake - hence why they pull the death of goose out of their ass to make us not notice the whole thing is a waste of time.
I'll grant that it had a story. A completely ridiculous story!
It wasn't supposed to be a plausible story, though. It was intended to be a western adventure type movie following themes present in Star Wars etc. It's ridiculous if you don't have a sense of imagination or suspension of disbelief. You have to realize the themes of the film and not take it so seriously.
. The story, the writing, and virtually everything else was, at best, of the quality of a mediocre rock video.
There is no doubt it was written for a younger audience than Top Gun. Iron Eagle contains intentionally hammy dialogue in places and some over the top themes, yet still I find it very enjoyable. This is simply down to the tone of Iron Eagle being so infectious, carefree and enjoyable. It takes good writing as well as good acting to make you care and root for the characters up on screen.
In Top Gun I found it almost impossible to get behind Maverick and his desire to "be the best" through breaking rules and dangerous flying - because it was all at the expense of his fellow aviator's careers and even lives - and he didn't seem to even care. There's a scene where Goose basically begs Maverick to stop being so reckless because he has a family to look after. Maverick gives him his word - then breaks his promise soon after. This is the epitome of what's wrong with Top Gun - it has no emotional core. Iron Eagle does.
Actually, as I have a pilot's license (and have flown the exact same kind of plane used in that scene), and some of my friends at the time had motorcycles, we could have filmed that scene ourselves with a couple of video cameras.
You can fly a plane but you're not a highly skilled film maker. Can you write, edit and direct a scene to follow the same fluency and pace as the one in the movie? Can you structure the scene to follow a narrative that's conductive to the rest of the movie and its principal character? Do you have an expensive budget and a world class production crew to work with?
. It was one of the most memorable movies of the 80's. There have been some that have tried to use the same formula (Navy Seals) but none had anything like the same impact.
By using the same formula I mean a basic template of: shooting, writing, directing and character style. Many movies, especially big budget summer ones, follow Top Gun's basic make up to a tee. It may not be the exact same premise, but they're regurgitating its formula because it's a successful one that brings in the box office. Granted, Top Gun was the only one to do it well and succeed big time, but it was still the prototype movie that destroyed modern Hollywood event movies.
Oh? Name them!
90% of summer blockbusters from the 90s to present day. These include movies starring Will Smith, movies directed by Michael Bay (in particular) or anything revolving around a hero trying to prove he's the best ie practically everything.
Iron Eagle is hard to rip off because you actually have to dedicate more time to writing the story, detailing the characters and producing appropriate dialogue for its themes and subject matter. Hollywood is too lazy, though, so its go-to movie would be Top Gun as its easy to repackage and re-sell cheap products.
We Brake For Nobody
reply
share