Top Gun: Maverick Trailer (Review & Commentary)
Transcribed directly from an audio recording
The full second trailer was just released online this morning and I’m extremely excited. I look forward to seeing this film in June two days after my birthday. Ironically enough, the first Top Gun came out in theatres a month before I was born in 1986. What amazes me the most about this sequel thirty four years later is the fact that Tom Cruise is still an A level star who acts and produces some of the best action films we’ve ever seen. Tom Cruise continually raises the bar for stunt-based action in his films and in my opinion, is the last true “film star” of our time. What I appreciate the most about Tom Cruise is the fact that he continually strives to entertain the audience, upping his performance with each subsequent film. He has expressed many times in interviews that his main intention is to deliver an enjoyable product to the audience as his top goal. He has spoken about finding ways to up the ante in each film and to deliver a grander and larger stunt package each time out. I’d say that he’s succeeded. For anyone who has paid close attention to the Mission Impossible series, you will know that each new film features a grander main stunt. We have six films out in that series with two more in the making and each and every time, we the audience, get to witness a new death-defying stunt that is performed by Tom Cruise be it him running down one of the largest buildings in the world or him holding his breath for over six minutes or most recently flying a helicopter himself in a fabulous helicopter chase sequence.
If I read correctly, since the first Top Gun, Tom Cruise has earned his pilot’s license, not only in helicopters but airplanes. There are rumours that Tom Cruise even flew the fighter jets in this film. If this is the case, this simply shows his excellence in the performing arts. When he completed the original film over thirty years ago, he was briefly trained on flight and piloting and now it appears he’s actually the guy in the driver’s seat. Personal controversy aside, I am a huge fan of Tom Cruise but more importantly, I’m a fan of the fact that his main goal is to entertain the audience in whichever way possible. His tireless dedication to the craft of entertainment by understanding what the audience wants to see has earned him many box office successes. He deserves all the credit and I’m glad he’s still on top. In my opinion, Tom Cruise simply gets better and better with each film. I honestly can’t think of a film of his I don’t enjoy. He has a long list of classics in the eighties and nineties, but honestly, I think his recent films within the past few years have highlighted his talents as an actor and a film star. Films like American Made and the Mission series are prime examples of his epic work.
This also led me to think about sequels getting released well after their original film, sometimes twenty or thirty years later. Some fans insist that producing sequels years after the original is completely unwanted and unnecessary. I respectfully disagree with this appraisal. In my opinion, I think if done well, the sequels at times, are better than their original film. When a film is released twenty or thirty years later, the audience has time to digest many other films and pieces of entertainment, and what’s left is usually a strong element of nostalgia. Some fans may not even remember the original film well but have a memorable feeling about watching it years ago. Having a sequel come out years later gives the audience a chance to revisit the original classic and to evaluate it in contemporary times. It allows you to ask yourself, how has this film held up? Is this as good as I remember it? When a new sequel comes out, the filmmakers have new tools and ways of filmmaking at their disposal which hopefully translates into an upgraded version of the classic original film premise.
Recently, the Blade Runner sequel was a great example of how a sequel thirty years later could be enjoyable and successful. The audience had time to savour the feelings of the original over the past thirty years and then the sequel came out and provided an enjoyable continuation and update to the beloved premise of the original, including the return of the original cast. Sometimes sequels are produced too quickly and this can cause a feeling of saturation with the audience. I’m not opposed to quickly produced sequels if the quality remains intact, but often, quickly produced sequels are engineered swiftly to capture a monetary gain based on the positive reception of its predecessor. Halloween 5 is a great example of this. This film came out only a year after Halloween 4 was in theatres and fans can agree that the quality was less than desirable. It even came out in a similar time frame to the home release of Halloween 4 effectively becoming competition for itself. Generally speaking, I’m a fan of seeing a sequel every two to three years, as long as the quality remains intact and the sequels are produced with the audience in mind as opposed to dollars in mind. Franchises like James Bond or Star Wars are prime examples of series in which a sequel produced every two or three years is desirable. Three years seems to be the sweet spot for sequels in popular franchises. Anything less than two years can be problematic. Solo: A Star Wars Story is a prime example of sequel fatigue, especially after the polarizing reception of Episode 8. I think fans needed a little bit of space and were not prepared to see a Star Wars film each year. Marvel has also suffered from this type of fatigue as well. Even though each film in the franchise has been a box office success, I think most fans can agree that seeing three or four Marvel films in one year can get a little cumbersome. Even though these films produced high numbers at the box office, I wouldn’t be surprised if they could have generated a bit more with some space in between their release. Lately, comic book films have seen a massive surge which caused a huge saturation in the market with similar premised films. I’m glad that films like Joker have found new ways to present a comic book film that isn’t familiar or predicated on the standard comic book formula.
In conclusion, I am a fan of sequels twenty or thirty years later, given the right context. It allows the audience to reexplore the original classic and to explore their feelings of nostalgia. By producing sequels this way, the audience doesn’t get a saturation of formula or concept which is a good thing. Hopefully, new technology and ways of filmmaking have encouraged filmmakers to produce more robust and finer refined sequels years later. Are you a fan of sequels? How often do you like to see a new sequel? As always, I’m interested in your thoughts.
