danger zone

So... "Top Gun 2," huh?

Of course, it won't be called "Top Gun 2" - it'll be one of those Title: Subtitle sequels. "Top Gun: Something-Plane-Related."

Here's my question: Does anyone give a shit?

Granted, this could easily be one of those "oh, right, you live in a different world than most people" moments - but as far as I've ever seen "Top Gun" has for a long time been up there with "Dirty Dancing" or "Young Guns" in the pantheon of 80s nostalgia-trip movies where the remaining appreciation is entirely ironic; i.e. people remember it mainly to goof on it for the cartoonish misrepresentation of the Air Force, the cheeseball score and soundtrack, the furiously-sincere pouting from Crusie and Kilmer and the comically-blatant homoeroticism. Hell, I honestly doubt that most people under-20 are even AWARE of it... unless maybe their parents or older siblings showed it to them.

Am I missing something? Is there really a big enough contingent of people out there for whom "Top Gun" is still this big, important piece of the culture - and who're really eager to find out what's going on "now" with Maverick?

Apparently, all it takes is ONE: The "cute" part of the story is that this is essentially a "fanboy" project - David Ellison, son of ridiculously-wealthy Oracle Corp founder Larry Ellison, is a film school grad and aviation-afficionado (he produced and acted in "Flyboys," which was basically Top Gun in WWI) and HE'S the one leaning on Jerry Bruckheimer to make TG2 happen - though, as that linked-article pointed out, they've first got to figure out what the make the movie about now that the Air Force is less dedicated to dogfighting and more about precision-bombing.