Now let me preface this by saying that Top Gun Maverick on it's own, in isolation, is a great fun Macho Action Blockbuster. It's got great Aeriel combat scenes. Fun characters. And emotional moments.
But TGM is also the kind of movie where it's enjoyment is dependant on the image of our protagonists being the absolute and unquestionable good guys.
And while the central Mission in TGM was always a bit iffy it wasn't that much of a problem in 2022.
But now given the current events between Iran and USA. The Central Mission of our good guys going into a Sovereign Nation to destroy their Nuclear Facilities unprovoked seems a lot more questionable. Especially now that we know that such actions usually cause a very strong reaction. And this Mission probably resulted in a very severe response which caused a lot of additional destruction of property and loss of life.
Again. Not saying the movie still isn't fun and enjoyable. It's just that the characters now come off as way less of a good guys then they did before. To me atleast.
And the movie in retrospect seems to be justifying actions like the one taken Iran.
'But now given the current events between Iran and USA. The Central Mission of our good guys going into a Soverign Nation to destroy their Nuclear Facilities unprovoked seems a lot more questionable. **Especially now that we know such actions usually cause a very strong reaction**'
Haven't human beings known that long before 2022 anyway? Either you're very, very young or very, very uninformed.
14
Accomplished_Store77Mar 25, 2026
-4
>Haven't human beings known that long before 2022 anyway? Either you're very, very young or very, very uninformed.
We've known it sure. But a scenario going from a Hypothetical conversation to real world actions I personally believe adds more relevance to it.
-4
truckturner5164Mar 25, 2026
+4
Yes, but we've had hypotheticals turn real long before 2022.
4
airchrysalis1Q84Mar 25, 2026
+13
Ariel combat is no joke. She looks delicate but if you mess with her she can drag you to the depths.
13
OreoSpeedwaggonMar 25, 2026
+11
"Ariel Combat" would make a pretty badass roller derby skater name.
11
OreoSpeedwaggonMar 25, 2026
+20
Judging whether or not a fictional movie from a few years ago along with its characters aged well based on current events that aren't actually depicted in the movie is a pretty bold take.
20
Accomplished_Store77Mar 25, 2026
-12
As opposed to the idea that older movie can never be judged on modern sensibilities or moralities?
Or modern recontextualization of depicted events in a fictional movie?
-12
superjaywarsMar 25, 2026
+6
Wait till you learn who helped funding it
6
Askim22Mar 25, 2026
+3
Jerry Bruckheimer?
3
boondogleMar 25, 2026
+8
wait till you check out literally any movie involving US protagonists and "foreign enemies" (russians, generic middle easterners, chinese, etc.), or any TV show reputation-laundering and normalizing police and 3 letter agencies... this part of american propaganda has been going on for decades
8
cabose7Mar 25, 2026
+1
Columbo is my friend, Columbo would never hurt me.
1
Accomplished_Store77Mar 25, 2026
-7
I know. And I don't think they haven't aged very well either.
But TGM a lot of people seem to ignore this particular aspect of it in favor of entertainment.
And for me atleast this is something worth talking about.
-7
IDidntKillMyWife1Mar 25, 2026
+2
I mean it was criticized at the time of release too
2
Alarmed_Umpire_8711Mar 25, 2026
+9
Not that deep bro they made the enemy non-descript for a reason
9
Constant_ReturnMar 25, 2026
+3
Yeah, but c'mon - everybody knows.
3
Accomplished_Store77Mar 25, 2026
-4
The point isn't who the enemy is. The point is the actions of our protagonists are questionable.
-4
ChaosmangoMar 25, 2026
+5
I mean the same could be said about any fictional war-/military-mission-movie ever. Why especially this one?
And yea I loved the part where Ariel just bombed the shit out of the foreign base and went "It's mermaidin' time"
5
Accomplished_Store77Mar 25, 2026
-2
>I mean the same could be said about any fictional war-/military-mission-movie ever. Why especially this one?
Because usually illegal Military acts in movies aren't celebrated like in TGM.
Usually when Militaries in movies do something like this they are the bad guys.
-2
ChaosmangoMar 25, 2026
+1
I see it as the opposite.
Any hollywood military movie, that comes to mind, where the USA are the protagonists, does the exact same thing.
Unless the movie is making it a point, to critique war/military or focus on a different side, like in The Covenant.
But then again, those types of movies usually do not (need to) include the Pentagon, hence less "influenced" to celebrate such actions.
1
_Goose_Mar 25, 2026
+6
Oh man I get you OP! Toy Story also didn’t age well. Haven’t seen a signs of a single toy becoming sentient when we’re not watching. You’d think there were some signs of that right?
6
Accomplished_Store77Mar 25, 2026
I'm assuming this was an attempt at humor.
Did not work for me personally.
0
_Goose_Mar 25, 2026
+9
I wasn’t trying to make you laugh. Just trying to show you what your post looks like to an outsiders perspective.
9
Accomplished_Store77Mar 25, 2026
+2
Well in that case it still didn't work.
Because I'm talkin about a movie with real world parallels and your talking about Toy Story for some reason.
2
Vanquisher1000Mar 25, 2026
+2
In the movie, the decision to attack the site had been made higher up the chain. The characters in the movie were tasked with carrying out the strike.
As Tom Skerritt's character put it in the original movie: "We don't make policy here, gentlemen. Elected officials, civilians do that. We are the instruments of that policy."
2
shitposts_over_9000Mar 25, 2026
+2
Since the 1960s there has been an overwhelming supermajority of nations that have signed various nuclear non-proliferation treaties and funding the IAEA.
Iran has been flying in the face of the international community on this for decades, and with their near 50 year history of international terrorism and what they have been doing for the last decade since Obama paid them off made intervention a matter if when not if.
The least "aged well" part of the movie was portraying the Su-57s as a more capable platform than it has proven to be in recent years.
2
SaulsAllMar 25, 2026
+1
>But now given the current events between Iran and USA. The Central Mission of our good guys going into a Sovereign Nation to destroy their Nuclear Facilities unprovoked seems a lot more questionable.
But that was last year, and "no one" seemed to have a problem at the time. The current action would be like if Maverick got the entire navy to go back and bomb the nearby village as retaliation for shooting at us during the bombing run.
1
CountJohn12Mar 25, 2026
+1
Maverick didn't blow up a school
1
FunklesteinMar 26, 2026
+1
Have you ever tried to suspend your disbelief and just enjoy a movie?
I mean how can a puppets nose grow like that just because he lied?
1
hyperpuppy64Mar 25, 2026
-4
The movie is military propaganda. That was bad when it came out, it’s bad now. Just because the movie is entertaining doesn’t erase that context.
-4
Accomplished_Store77Mar 25, 2026
+2
I understand that. It's just easier to ignore when it's just random Military propaganda and less easier to ignore when it now has some very similar real world parallels.
2
patricksaurusMar 25, 2026
+4
Is it your position that propaganda never makes for good art? Because there is a whole body of scholarship that disagrees with that premise.
4
thegloriousporpoiseMar 25, 2026
-5
Thank you. My wife and I thought we were going insane being the only people to think this.
-5
RovingHomer33Mar 25, 2026
Only thing from that movie that didn't age well is how the final mission is just another 'trench run' without much originality.
0
xotoramesMar 25, 2026
Great take. I'm looking forward for your recontextualization of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Lots of problems to unpack there.
0
Accomplished_Store77Mar 25, 2026
+1
That movie doesn't need recontextualization. It's already very problematic by modern standards.
Some could argue it's already been recontextualized found to have aged even worse than when it first came out.
1
Wealth_and_TasteMar 25, 2026
-4
You're going to get downvoted and bombarded with comments saying "Its not that deep" and "It's just a popcorn flick" but you are absolutely correct. The american military has helped to fund every war movie for decades, even the "anti-war films". They all end up boosting military recruitment, and give the american war machine a positive image.
-4
Vanquisher1000Mar 25, 2026
+5
The Department of Defense doesn't fund movies, and if they ever did, they don't now - that's a misconception.
As I understand it, what happens is that when a production wants military assistance, like access to assets or personnel, they will submit a script to the relevant entertainment or media liaison office. Not every movie gets approved - *Crimson Tide* and *Independence Day* are two examples. If the script is approved, the production gets access to assets like installations and equipment, but *the production still has to pay for their use.* They don't get to use things for free. For *Top Gun: Maverick,* the production paid over $11k per hour of flight time for the Super Hornets when they were flown to get footage for the movie.
>Filmmakers reimburse the Pentagon for any aircraft unless they’re already being used in a previously scheduled training exercise or the flight can be counted toward the pilot’s required time at the controls. In 2018, when much of the filming for *Top Gun: Maverick* was conducted, the going rate for the jets was $11,374.
Source: [Top Gun Maverick Cost: US Navy Fighter Jets Were $11,374 an Hour - Bloomberg](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-26/tom-cruise-s-fighter-jet-rides-paid-us-navy-up-to-11-374-hourly)
As far as I know, there is no rule that says you can't make a movie that depicts the US military in a negative light. Just don't expect them to help if you ask.
37 Comments