Talk:Top Gun: Maverick

Some recent edits
I recently made some additions within the following text area, roughly: "Rooster dislikes Hangman's cavalier and arrogant attitude, while Hangman criticizes Rooster's cautious flying. Maverick reunites with former girlfriend, and bar owner, Penny Benjamin, to whom he reveals that he promised Rooster's dying mother that Rooster would not become a pilot. Rooster, unaware of the promise since Maverick does not want Rooster's mother blamed, angrily resents Maverick for dropping his Naval Academy application—impeding his military career—and blames him for his father's death. Hangman unexpectedly arrives, coming in time to shoot it down, and the planes return safely." Too, I took immense, clunky paragraphs and separated them into smaller, more readable ones. My changes, which didn't exceed 700 words, were reverted, without sufficient reason, I thought. I hope people don't mind if I restore all my changes, none of which is a bad thing, to my knowledge, and all of which add to knowledge of the film, or readability of the article, I believe. Thanks. 47.149.210.180 (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please wait until you obtain consensus before restoring. Here are your proposed changes in bold:
 * A cavalier attitude is nearly synonymous with arrogance.
 * There's no need to specify Penny's occupation either; it's irrelevant and doesn't come up again.
 * The statement, "since Maverick does not want Rooster's mother blamed", is awkward phrasing and unnecessary. It also turns a simple sentence into a long-winded statement.
 * Same with "coming in time". That might be the worst offender.
 * None of these are necessary, nor do they significantly improve the text, which is a concern when the plot summary already sits at 658 words. Any expansion at this stage should be absolutely necessary. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Discussing: "cavalier" sometimes means "carefree", not always "arrogant"; we do see Maverick at the bar a lot, so seems right to tie Penny to that; "since Maverick does not want Rooster's mother blamed" is something Maverick explicitly says, and helps explain/establish Maverick's noble intentions and tragic suffering from Rooster's unjustified hate; and "unexpectedly" is also true, since there was no plan for Hangman to come save them, it's a pleasant last-minute surprise. Is any of this convincing? Thanks. 47.149.210.180 (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The top definition of cavalier is to dismiss something with disdain, and the #1 synonym is "arrogant". We ought not concern ourselves with possible alternative interpretations; the most common is what matters. The fact that Maverick frequents the bar (which I believe is only twice in the film) doesn't matter one lick to the plot summary, since the bar is never mentioned (and rightfully shouldn't be). Mentioning the part about shielding Rooster's mother would require cutting something else out or at least some serious trimming. We already spend two sentences on the topic, and we mention that Rooster is "unaware" of the promise. That's plenty for a plot summary. "Unexpectedly" is not really needed, but if you really want to add something, I'd compromise there. Hangman was on standby, and that text originally read "Hangman arrives from standby in time..."I don't plan to continue defending my position on the other points. I think you understand by now where I stand. Unless others weigh in or the proposal changes, this may be my last post in this thread. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The top definition of cavalier is to dismiss something with disdain, and the #1 synonym is "arrogant". We ought not concern ourselves with possible alternative interpretations; the most common is what matters. The fact that Maverick frequents the bar (which I believe is only twice in the film) doesn't matter one lick to the plot summary, since the bar is never mentioned (and rightfully shouldn't be). Mentioning the part about shielding Rooster's mother would require cutting something else out or at least some serious trimming. We already spend two sentences on the topic, and we mention that Rooster is "unaware" of the promise. That's plenty for a plot summary. "Unexpectedly" is not really needed, but if you really want to add something, I'd compromise there. Hangman was on standby, and that text originally read "Hangman arrives from standby in time..."I don't plan to continue defending my position on the other points. I think you understand by now where I stand. Unless others weigh in or the proposal changes, this may be my last post in this thread. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Cast
From the archive I see there was some prior discussion around some of the other cast members being included in the infobox. However, it didn't seem there was any established consensus, and I see anon editors are re-adding what I'm seeing are co-stars to the infobox. I've trimmed the infobox back to the primary "stars", and re-sorted the cast section based on the opening credits (with anyone not listed in the opening credits left wherever they were prior to my edits). Opinions welcome, not sure what WP:PAG applies here but I truly doubt they want every single person listed in the infobox. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Is this accurate?
The film became the highest-grossing film of Cruise's career on June 17, 2022, after crossing $800 million worldwide.

Tom Cruise has been acting for decades. Shouldnt we include inflation to count for how much the movie made? 2600:100F:B136:6A3F:0:2C:1E3D:7B01 (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * This is the source you're referring to, and at the time of printing, it was not taking inflation into account. It's a moot point, however, since the film went on to earn nearly $1.5 billion. I don't see a need to update it, but if you really want to, we could certainly locate an updated source and rephrase. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

One of the best films of the 2020s?
A number of anonymous IPs have added text describng this film as "one of the best films of the 2020s". They have been reverted by myself, @MicrobiologyMarcus, @Shadow311, and @TompaDompa. Can any of the anon IPs (User Talk:73.88.2.76, User Talk:90.249.99.122, User Talk:2601:441:8285:1D0:E912:DC55:A6AB:E29) explain their rationale for adding this stuff? Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Want to jump in and say that I’m sure there have been plenty of reliable and secondary sources showing that critics have called it as such, so it’s especially important to consider the phrasing. We, as an encyclopedia can’t call it the best, we don’t hand out awards. We can be careful in our descriptions saying that others have. microbiology Marcus (petri dish·growths) 17:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * On the face of it, declaring it as such when the decade is not even halfway through is outright ridiculous. For all we know, the best 100 films of the 2020s have yet to be released. This is blatant superlative-chasing. Even disregarding that, "one of the best [whatever]" is not typically WP:LEAD material, and this is not an exception. TompaDompa (talk) 10:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ...And looking at the sources, the data is derived from IMDb, which is an immediate showstopper. TompaDompa (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Aircraft production - 5th Gen adversaries missing
The article mentions both the Darkstar and Tomcat aircraft production, however omits the adversary 5th Generation fighters (described as Su-57s, though I don't recall being called as such in the movie) despite bring a crucial part of the plot. Can anyone please add a subsection about the production of these important adversaries? Thanks and regards, DPdH (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)