pesco at December 4th, 2013 15:46 — #1
mujokan at December 4th, 2013 16:04 — #2
She never hesitated to become the fated one.
brainspore at December 4th, 2013 17:16 — #3
Fox will serve in an "acting capacity" until a permanent person is confirmed for the job by the Senate.
If they wanted someone in an "acting capacity" they should have just gone with Kelly McGillis.
nickyg at December 4th, 2013 18:12 — #4
Honestly, anything that reenforces the overall awesomeness of Top Gun gets a thumbs up in my book. As a kid when it came out, Goose's death was a freaking BIG DEAL MAN. And of course, peeping at snippets of the "Take My Breath Away" love scene as it was being fast-forwarded by Mom, well, just awesome.
brainspore at December 4th, 2013 18:20 — #5
On the other hand, if it weren't for that movie then maybe our country wouldn't have fetishized fighter jets enough to sink so many hundreds of billions of dollars into the Joint Strike Fighter program.
oldsma at December 4th, 2013 18:25 — #6
Or fetishized Tom Cruise.
brainspore at December 4th, 2013 18:27 — #7
At least they were able to keep the total programmatic budget for Eyes Wide Shut under a Trillion dollars.
anonkopimi at December 4th, 2013 18:32 — #8
REAL feminism means our women can be just as deeply amoral murdering fascists as men!
AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!
gyrofrog at December 4th, 2013 18:45 — #9
I blame the movie for the disappearance of civilian airplane models from hobby store shelves. (EDIT: never saw it, though.)
tre at December 4th, 2013 19:35 — #10
this is the difference between equality and liberation
nickyg at December 4th, 2013 20:13 — #11
What the hell are you, a communist?
luther_blissett at December 4th, 2013 20:21 — #12
I remember the summer it came out the Navy setting up recruiting tables in the cineplex lobby.
gijoel2001 at December 4th, 2013 20:36 — #13
She better be careful. Cause she's in the Danger zone.
rocketpj at December 4th, 2013 20:38 — #14
My god I hated that movie. Not at first, but the hate grows every year.
No reflection on the actual person, who is probably brilliant, but the movie character was complete bullshit. A male sex fantasy disguised as a female role model.
gellfex at December 4th, 2013 21:13 — #15
Different from most mainstream female film roles in what way? Seen any Angelina Jolie movies lately? For that matter most male roles are male sex fantasies too.
Forget it Jake, it's Hollywood.
nelsie at December 4th, 2013 21:22 — #16
I always wondered why a qualified astrophysicist would be working for the Navy. Maybe she just wasn't any good at astrophysics?
nelsie at December 4th, 2013 21:26 — #17
Oh, yeah? How many male characters are only in the plot to be (a) rescued by the protagonist, and (b) given to the protagonist as a reward for getting through the plot? A damn smaller proportion than female characters.
nelsie at December 4th, 2013 21:30 — #18
Yeah, no, fetishising fighters has been going on a lot longer than that. Check out the history of the development of the F-18 sometime, or the F-111.
jeremiahblatz at December 4th, 2013 22:00 — #19
Given the US government's penchants for endless wars, unaccountable secrecy, and surveillance, I'd say we're speeding merrily along on the highway to the Danger Zone.
rocketpj at December 4th, 2013 22:51 — #20
Or (and Top Gun fits this one all too well) sexed by the protagonist as a way to work out his own issues. Her issues, goals and desires, if she has any, are mere wallpaper to the Maverick's own crisis of manliness. Once he has had a proper shag he is once again on the path back to alpha manliness.
It is Hollywood, but at the time there was a lot of fuss and braying about how she was a role model for young women because she was a smartypants scientist (whose big entrance started with sexy nylons and heels). And despite her brilliance, she risked her career and all that she had worked for just to get a little Tom Cruise penis.
I say again, total bullshit character. I'm sure the real person is much more interesting.
next page →