SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Tom Cruise arrives at the "Top Gun: Maverick" World Premiere on May 04, 2022 in San Diego, California. (Photo by Axelle/Bauer-Griffin/FilmMagic)
War Inc. Steps Up to Take Its Bows in Top Gun
Entertaining? Yes. But also a certified fresh start for the military industrial complex, which gets a starring role.
Jun 03, 2022
I'll admit it. Top Gun: Maverick was pretty entertaining. Between the arbitrary sports montages and impressive air stunts, there lies a sympathetic plot centered around the personal relationship between Tom Cruise's "Maverick" and Miles Teller's "Rooster."
The sequel picks up right where the original left off, sending a clear message about the importance of a strong, active military.
And it seems like audiences agree, with the blockbuster movie grossing $160 million in its first four days in the U.S. alone and enjoying a 99 percent audience score on the movie review site Rotten Tomatoes.
But if you look past the silver screen relationship between Maverick and Rooster, Top Gun: Maverick is, at its core, an unapologetically pro-military industrial complex film. The Washington Post reported that the film received support from the Pentagon itself "in the form of equipment--including jets and aircraft carriers--personnel and technical expertise." In exchange for its help, the Navy even retained the power to veto things it didn't like in the script.
Meanwhile, to defense contractors, the new Top Gun is certified fresh as a ticket to rehabilitation. Northrop Grumman celebrated the film by publishing a piece detailing their director of business development's journey to being an extra in the original Top Gun. On LinkedIn, the CEO of Lockheed Martin James Taiclet boasted about going to the early premiere of the film, along with the VP of Skunk Works, Lockheed's advanced development program. But Taiclet isn't just an avid Tom Cruise fan, he is a collaborator on the project. In the same post, Taiclet wrote that Skunk Works "partnered with Top Gun's producers to bring cutting-edge, future forward technology to the big screen."
The opening scene features Maverick test-flying a hypersonic jet nicknamed "Darkstar," a sleek black jet that observers believe is meant to resemble Lockheed's experimental "SR-72" program. It was confirmed earlier this month that Lockheed Martin partnered with Skunk Works to design that plane, with director Joe Kosinski revealing that details of the plane were taken "out of real experimental aircraft." Lockheed's SR-72 has been in production since the early 2000s and is currently slated to roll out sometime around 2030.
The mission, should Maverick choose to accept it, is to fly F-18 jets to destroy a secret uranium enrichment bunker in a rogue state. While contemplating the viability of the mission, Cruise's character remarks that the mission "would be a cakewalk for the F-35," though it is ultimately ruled out. References to the F-35 like this are scattered throughout the film, despite the F-35 program's 845 design errors, cyber vulnerabilities, $1.3 trillion sustainment costs, and mission capability rates at just over 55 percent.
No, talking about sustainment costs won't get Maverick invited to dinner with the admiral, but the broader point is that films like Top Gun: Maverick allow defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of the F-35, to paper over these failures by casting it in such a heroic light.
The sequel picks up right where the original left off, sending a clear message about the importance of a strong, active military. The indeterminate, unknown enemy leaves it up to the audience's imagination as to where the mission even takes place. North Korea? Iran? Russia? Take your pick. Top Gun: Maverick's "choose your own adventure" military foe is easily digestible to American audiences who grew up in a country with 750 bases, counterterrorism operations in upwards of 80 countries, and frequent preemptive drone strikes.
Let's face it, Top Gun: Maverick gives the impression that projects like "Darkstar" are the only things preventing America from teetering on the brink of collapse at the behest of its nameless enemies. In this fictitious world, only with a dash of American military might and a sprinkle of characteristic Hollywood charisma can we continue to live in peace.
Only, it isn't quite fictitious, given that this depicts the reality of consensus thinking in Washington. The original Top Gun helped America get over its Vietnam complex, rehabilitating the military in the public square. As American audiences crammed in to see Maverick's flying antics 36 years ago, naval aviator applications reportedly increased by 500 percent. The sequel aims to recreate that, brushing aside the failures in Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya in the interim years to serve unabashedly as an infomercial for a romanticized version of the military, its contractors, and their mission.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Responsible Statecraft
I'll admit it. Top Gun: Maverick was pretty entertaining. Between the arbitrary sports montages and impressive air stunts, there lies a sympathetic plot centered around the personal relationship between Tom Cruise's "Maverick" and Miles Teller's "Rooster."
The sequel picks up right where the original left off, sending a clear message about the importance of a strong, active military.
And it seems like audiences agree, with the blockbuster movie grossing $160 million in its first four days in the U.S. alone and enjoying a 99 percent audience score on the movie review site Rotten Tomatoes.
But if you look past the silver screen relationship between Maverick and Rooster, Top Gun: Maverick is, at its core, an unapologetically pro-military industrial complex film. The Washington Post reported that the film received support from the Pentagon itself "in the form of equipment--including jets and aircraft carriers--personnel and technical expertise." In exchange for its help, the Navy even retained the power to veto things it didn't like in the script.
Meanwhile, to defense contractors, the new Top Gun is certified fresh as a ticket to rehabilitation. Northrop Grumman celebrated the film by publishing a piece detailing their director of business development's journey to being an extra in the original Top Gun. On LinkedIn, the CEO of Lockheed Martin James Taiclet boasted about going to the early premiere of the film, along with the VP of Skunk Works, Lockheed's advanced development program. But Taiclet isn't just an avid Tom Cruise fan, he is a collaborator on the project. In the same post, Taiclet wrote that Skunk Works "partnered with Top Gun's producers to bring cutting-edge, future forward technology to the big screen."
The opening scene features Maverick test-flying a hypersonic jet nicknamed "Darkstar," a sleek black jet that observers believe is meant to resemble Lockheed's experimental "SR-72" program. It was confirmed earlier this month that Lockheed Martin partnered with Skunk Works to design that plane, with director Joe Kosinski revealing that details of the plane were taken "out of real experimental aircraft." Lockheed's SR-72 has been in production since the early 2000s and is currently slated to roll out sometime around 2030.
The mission, should Maverick choose to accept it, is to fly F-18 jets to destroy a secret uranium enrichment bunker in a rogue state. While contemplating the viability of the mission, Cruise's character remarks that the mission "would be a cakewalk for the F-35," though it is ultimately ruled out. References to the F-35 like this are scattered throughout the film, despite the F-35 program's 845 design errors, cyber vulnerabilities, $1.3 trillion sustainment costs, and mission capability rates at just over 55 percent.
No, talking about sustainment costs won't get Maverick invited to dinner with the admiral, but the broader point is that films like Top Gun: Maverick allow defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of the F-35, to paper over these failures by casting it in such a heroic light.
The sequel picks up right where the original left off, sending a clear message about the importance of a strong, active military. The indeterminate, unknown enemy leaves it up to the audience's imagination as to where the mission even takes place. North Korea? Iran? Russia? Take your pick. Top Gun: Maverick's "choose your own adventure" military foe is easily digestible to American audiences who grew up in a country with 750 bases, counterterrorism operations in upwards of 80 countries, and frequent preemptive drone strikes.
Let's face it, Top Gun: Maverick gives the impression that projects like "Darkstar" are the only things preventing America from teetering on the brink of collapse at the behest of its nameless enemies. In this fictitious world, only with a dash of American military might and a sprinkle of characteristic Hollywood charisma can we continue to live in peace.
Only, it isn't quite fictitious, given that this depicts the reality of consensus thinking in Washington. The original Top Gun helped America get over its Vietnam complex, rehabilitating the military in the public square. As American audiences crammed in to see Maverick's flying antics 36 years ago, naval aviator applications reportedly increased by 500 percent. The sequel aims to recreate that, brushing aside the failures in Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya in the interim years to serve unabashedly as an infomercial for a romanticized version of the military, its contractors, and their mission.
From Your Site Articles
I'll admit it. Top Gun: Maverick was pretty entertaining. Between the arbitrary sports montages and impressive air stunts, there lies a sympathetic plot centered around the personal relationship between Tom Cruise's "Maverick" and Miles Teller's "Rooster."
The sequel picks up right where the original left off, sending a clear message about the importance of a strong, active military.
And it seems like audiences agree, with the blockbuster movie grossing $160 million in its first four days in the U.S. alone and enjoying a 99 percent audience score on the movie review site Rotten Tomatoes.
But if you look past the silver screen relationship between Maverick and Rooster, Top Gun: Maverick is, at its core, an unapologetically pro-military industrial complex film. The Washington Post reported that the film received support from the Pentagon itself "in the form of equipment--including jets and aircraft carriers--personnel and technical expertise." In exchange for its help, the Navy even retained the power to veto things it didn't like in the script.
Meanwhile, to defense contractors, the new Top Gun is certified fresh as a ticket to rehabilitation. Northrop Grumman celebrated the film by publishing a piece detailing their director of business development's journey to being an extra in the original Top Gun. On LinkedIn, the CEO of Lockheed Martin James Taiclet boasted about going to the early premiere of the film, along with the VP of Skunk Works, Lockheed's advanced development program. But Taiclet isn't just an avid Tom Cruise fan, he is a collaborator on the project. In the same post, Taiclet wrote that Skunk Works "partnered with Top Gun's producers to bring cutting-edge, future forward technology to the big screen."
The opening scene features Maverick test-flying a hypersonic jet nicknamed "Darkstar," a sleek black jet that observers believe is meant to resemble Lockheed's experimental "SR-72" program. It was confirmed earlier this month that Lockheed Martin partnered with Skunk Works to design that plane, with director Joe Kosinski revealing that details of the plane were taken "out of real experimental aircraft." Lockheed's SR-72 has been in production since the early 2000s and is currently slated to roll out sometime around 2030.
The mission, should Maverick choose to accept it, is to fly F-18 jets to destroy a secret uranium enrichment bunker in a rogue state. While contemplating the viability of the mission, Cruise's character remarks that the mission "would be a cakewalk for the F-35," though it is ultimately ruled out. References to the F-35 like this are scattered throughout the film, despite the F-35 program's 845 design errors, cyber vulnerabilities, $1.3 trillion sustainment costs, and mission capability rates at just over 55 percent.
No, talking about sustainment costs won't get Maverick invited to dinner with the admiral, but the broader point is that films like Top Gun: Maverick allow defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of the F-35, to paper over these failures by casting it in such a heroic light.
The sequel picks up right where the original left off, sending a clear message about the importance of a strong, active military. The indeterminate, unknown enemy leaves it up to the audience's imagination as to where the mission even takes place. North Korea? Iran? Russia? Take your pick. Top Gun: Maverick's "choose your own adventure" military foe is easily digestible to American audiences who grew up in a country with 750 bases, counterterrorism operations in upwards of 80 countries, and frequent preemptive drone strikes.
Let's face it, Top Gun: Maverick gives the impression that projects like "Darkstar" are the only things preventing America from teetering on the brink of collapse at the behest of its nameless enemies. In this fictitious world, only with a dash of American military might and a sprinkle of characteristic Hollywood charisma can we continue to live in peace.
Only, it isn't quite fictitious, given that this depicts the reality of consensus thinking in Washington. The original Top Gun helped America get over its Vietnam complex, rehabilitating the military in the public square. As American audiences crammed in to see Maverick's flying antics 36 years ago, naval aviator applications reportedly increased by 500 percent. The sequel aims to recreate that, brushing aside the failures in Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya in the interim years to serve unabashedly as an infomercial for a romanticized version of the military, its contractors, and their mission.
From Your Site Articles
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.