Top Gun: Let it Breathe!
A little silly today: a comparison of the "Danger Zone" introductions of the two Top Gun movies (1986 and 2022) and PLEASE, let the shots breathe!
When I first saw Top Gun: Maverick (on Blu-Ray via a library rental), I had a moment where I had to confirm that I'd rented the correct movie. And then I wondered why the modernized opening credits didn't grab me as hard as the original's. I would love to credit the YouTube video that helped me realize why, but I can't find it anymore so I'll work with some similar ones that don't illustrate things quite as well.
Side-by-side (both audios, original speeds): https://youtu.be/NGRzqkMyTHs
Minor Items
Here are a few issues that I'm pretty sure are not the reason why I bounced off the new version, but can't have helped.
Timing
I'm sure that the cinematographers were working under tight restrictions on what they could film and when they could film it, but the lighting is so much more dramatic in 1986. The shots are dawn (or sunset?) which gives this yellow tinge to the jets as they taxi, and then make the afterburner flames extra-visible.
One Engine Good, Two Engines Better?
The F-35 is a nice-looking airplane (one reason why Lockheed-Martin won over the notoriously ugly X-32), but when you want to emphasize power the F-14 simply has twice the charisma.
 |
| *Flicker* |
 |
| *Whoosh!* |
Pick a Plane
Both films are a little loose with which aircraft they focus on during the intro, but the new film shows two F/A-18s on the catapults, then an F-35 bringing its engine to full power, and then an F/A-18 catapult shot. Again, I'm sure there were limits imposed on the cinematographers, but it's distracting.
 |
| Wait, where'd that F-35 go? |
 |
| Found it! |
Let it Breathe!
This is the big one. The original credit sequence is approximately four minutes long, while the new one is only three. So there really is less there there. The current trend in cinema is fast cuts, and that shows in the reduced time and less-exciting (to me) sequence in the new movie. We don't have a moment to appreciate what we're seeing (fast jets are cool!) before the next shot comes and we have to assimilate that. In military terms, the movie is inside our OODA loop.
For me the key example of this is the transition from the instrumental section into Danger Zone. In both cases, an airplane is tensioned on the catapult and runs up the engines to afterburner. The holdback bar breaks, the plane shoots forward, and Danger Zone starts.
In 1986, this takes 8 seconds as the F-14's engines rev up, the flames get longer, and the exhaust petals shape the flame. We meditate on this for 3 shots, with the fourth a focus on the nose gear in the catapult and the guitar starts up. In 2022, the same beats (engine to nose gear) take only 4 seconds and we get 4 pre-launch shots!
The video I originally watched (and can't find) showed both movies side-by-side and actually stopped the playback on Maverick to let the original catch up. This emphasized how much faster the new movie was. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but it's hard for me to revel in "fast jets go fast" if the shots don't last long enough to appreciate them.
Conclusion
Both movies are fun and flawed in their own ways. I've found that for 1986 I tend to skip everything that isn't flying because that's the movie I'm here for. The intro in the 2022 movie makes a point of more realism: the signals from the handling crew actually correspond to the actions of the planes (they don't in 1986) and they actually show some poor aviator's bolter (missed landing where they have to take off and try again), which I'm sure they're just thrilled is immortalized.
If you have any comments, please reach out to me at blog@saprobst.com or this page is cross-posted at LinkedIn and you can leave a comment there.
Comments
Post a Comment