Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Top Gun: Maverick - YouTube Version (Patreon)

Published:
2022-11-06 13:00:07
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Content

No Sync Required Version: https://cinebingers.ca/IjCo4IJX38 - For Patreon tier "Bingers on The Wall" or higher.

Files

Previews only

Top Gun: Maverick | Canadian First Time Watching | Movie Reaction | Movie Review | Movie commentary

Full length/Unedited: https://www.patreon.com/Cinebinge https://www.instagram.com/cinebingechannel/ Merch: https://www.cinebinge.ca BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/cinebinge.bsky.social Simone & George are reacting to Top Gun: Maverick for the first time! Canadians React! 00:00 - Intro 01:28 - Top Gun: Maverick 37:26 - Discussion Welcome to Cinebinge, we are watching Top Gun: Maverick for the first time! Subscribe | Like | Share | Comment Early Access & Full Reaction available on Patreon! #moviereaction #topgun #moviereview Instagram: @cinebingechannel Instagram: @simone.swan Movie Reactions: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLN1ts9cZbHakYDfILlxWOp8Rwm60i6s31 The Witcher Reactions: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLN1ts9cZbHakPpBOOSyThaEu9GBs7h5af Squid Games Reaction: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLN1ts9cZbHakSIA0kJIJkUmcxmms0m_Q0 Band of Brothers: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLN1ts9cZbHanBD7cksu-blgCyxZOJrgT0 Blind Playthrough: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLN1ts9cZbHan3qPNF7wNbOvo653VjhxOR

Comments

Ironclad Nomad

Mach is the object speed divided by speed of sound.

mojo shivers

Definitely a case of under promising and over delivering. I wasn’t expecting anything from this sequel. I just thought it would appeal to my sense of nostalgia and would be a serviceable film. It turned out to be one of the best films of the year. A worthy sequel and just a good action film in its own right. Jennifer Connelly’s character was the “Admiral’s daughter” Maverick got in trouble for sneaking around with that he mentions in passing in the original film sometime before the events of that film.

Erwin Quiachon

A huge difference between the two movies in the way Tom Cruise and Val Kilmer's characters are portrayed in each. The fist movie was a fantasy movie for the audience because combat was a fantasy at the time that movie was released in 1986. The second movie is set today, when combat and death is the reality of the last 30 years, no longer fantasy. Val Kilmer and Tom Cruise are are able to express that reality and loss in their scene together by the way that they deliver only a few lines of dialogue. The arrogance is replaced by the scars of reality from the last 30 years of actual combat.

Michael_AP

That thumbnail is disturbing 🤡 The mach number (speed) is not directly related to G-force. No matter if you are doing 5 km/h or 50000 km/h the G-force is the same (only the normal force coming from the earth gravitational pull). It's changes in speed or direction that gives the G-force. The harder you accelerate or descellerate the higher the G-force. If you increase speed slowly then you are only subjected to a tiny G-force - even if you accelerate to Mach 10 as they "show" here in the movie. In fighter jets or race cars it's the violent manoeuvring during high speed that is the cause of the high G-forces. The tighter you turn during high speed the higher the G-force. The higher the speed is at similar turn radius the higher the G-force... so in that respect speed is one of the elements that gives the high G-force.

AC10

Boom. YouTube version down. Now I can shower and prepare for the full length version and all its awesomeness...

AC10
>>95076134

"because combat was a fantasy at the time..." Fantasy is a weird word to use there imo. Only a fantasy if the audience was completely ignorant to two world wars and many other deadly horrible wars in the 1900s leading up to 1986. I get what you are saying. The younger generation watching the 1st movie did not live through WW2. I just see this comment open to being read in very different ways.

Michael_AP

May I suggest to you two to react to something very very different (as it's not a movie or a TV-series - but just a short clip on YouTube)..... It has to do with the start of this movie when they test-fly the Mach 10 plane...... You could try it out and record your reaction, and if you don't like it you can just discard it.... but I'm sure you both will find this interesting and it can make a good reaction video and the clip is only 4½ minutes long where you don't need editing so it's an easy job ;( The clip is Jeremy Clarkson (famous from the UK TV-show: Top Gear). Here he is in a show called "Speed" and it's about the plane: SR-71 Blackbird. I won't reveal more but I promise it will blow your mind - and this is the real deal, not just a movie fantacy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogJSRa5cukc There are longer and more factual clips but this could be a good intro to the marvel of what really is possible. I really hope you will try this one out and let us see your reactions :)

AC10
>>95078232

I wanted to explain that but you did a much better job. Thanks. I think the car thing is the easiest for everyone to relate to. Accelerate from 0 to 100kmh you feel greater than 1g. The faster the car, the faster the acceleration from 0 to 100, the higher the g force you feel. Cruising in the same car at a steady 100kmh down a straight highway you feel the same 1g as you do sitting still. Lateral Gs you feel in the turns. Although I dont have the scientific knowledge to understand why the Gs in the turns feel so much stronger than the acceleration Gs. A small change in direction feels much stronger than a similar small change in velocity. I'm sure I have read why somewhere some time but I dont remember or understand it.

Dave Gaskin

I like to think that Bowie playing in the background of Jennifer Connelly’s first scene is a little nod to Labyrinth. :)

AC10

George asked about why they fly planes to a certain speed limit... Yes you are correct about seeing what the capability of the plane is. What they were showing here specifically was a new plane in the Research and Development stage. Testing the limits of what the plane can handle before something breaks is quite literally how they learn how to make a new plane more capable than the ones that came before. Basically in R&D they take all the knowledge they gained from every other plane that has ever flown, all the scientific data, and make a best guess as to what it will take to achieve mach 10 for example. If the fastest any plane has been before was mach 8 then they dont have all the data needed to build a plane for mach 10. They take an educated guess, build a prototype, and test it. When something breaks they found the weakest point. They analyze why it broke and how they can make it not break the same way next time... and build another prototype and test it again. If everything goes well each test will reach closer and closer to the end speed goal until eventually they reach it. Test some more and make more changes for reliability and repeatability and endurance of the parts... And then you have a final design ready for production. Testing planes to the limit like this is mostly R&D for a new planes development stage. After the design is final the only real practical reason would be to keep the pilots, and the planes, ready and able to fly like that when the time comes in a mission. In todays world a lot of r&d testing like this can be done in computer simulations. But a computer simulation is only as good as the data you give it. It can take all the data gathered from mach 8 and slower and make really accurate models of what would happen when you fly the same plane faster... But the simulations are just that. A computers best guess made by calculating the data you gave it. Real world prototype testing like this is the only way to gather that "unknown/never been done before" data. All new planes today (and basically every new generation of everything built today) still do real world testing like this. It's usually top secret military level testing that is not shown public... but it happens every day. This movie showed a small peak behind the curtain for the audience to see. I know.. I know.. information overload. Hard to explain with less words. This is just a tiny part of the amazing, incredible story of the prototype engineering world some people get to live in.

joe shmoe

i dont hate the first top gun but i certainly wouldnt say i liked it. this sequel has no business being this good

Erwin Quiachon
>>95081296

The plane depicted in the movie looks like it's supposed to be the SR72, which Lockheed is supposed to unveil soon, if they haven't already. I also noticed the skunk logo on the stick when Maverick is flying, which seems to imply that he's making a fortune for Lockheed as the test pilot who can't be killed. I've heard that the real 72 will only fly at about Mach 7. The reason they want the 72 to fly so fast is because it's supposed to be used for surveillance/spying. They would use the 72 to take pictures like a satellite, but the higher speeds allow the 72 to move into position faster than any satellite. The higher speeds also make it easier to avoid missiles.

AC10
>>95078860

Omg.. I have watched almost every video I could find on that beautiful, unimaginable plane. How have I never seen this one? I agree. It is a short, sweet, quick taste that is perfect to spark someone's curiosity to watch one more video just a little longer. Thanks for sharing.

Brendan Rafferty

Mach is the speed of sound Mach 10 would be the 10 times the speed of sound

Oscar Diggs

"With a history of high speed passes over 5 air control towers and one admiral's daughter..." This and one other line by Meg Ryan are the basis for including Jennifer Connelly. As someone who saw the Hot Spot, I can say that finding any reason to include Jennifer Connelly is always the right choice.

hurryupmode

Great delivery, nice story. that said... there's not an insignificant bit of this film that smacks of a glorified advertisement for Lockheed/Raytheon/Northrop Grumman. That's where the budget came from.

Erwin Quiachon
>>95095862

The story is also put together from pieces of "The Right Stuff", "The Natural", "Star Wars", and "The Godfather Part 3". But, still entertaining and iconic in it's own way. Just typical corporate manufacturing of entertainment.

Rob Church

Do you think you guys might react to/put on the list "Barbarian" 2022? It's a new horror movie that has been getting a lot of reactions and stars Bill Skarsgard, Georgina Campbell and Justin Long and I think you both would absolutely love it. I know October just ended but this is a pretty big hit and I think it's really great.

Texas Anla'Shok

Bob's callsign comes because Tom Cruise always has a Bob somewhere in his movies.

john paul

react to JFK (1991) now and upload on November 22. Anniversary of his assassination

Jeff I.
>>95122599

I second this request! I watched it on a whim since I'm a fan of Zach Cregger (writer/director), and it was surprisingly good overall. Without spoiling, I found the overall plot/story a bit cliche, but it's a story that is told in a very unique way and all the characters are great.

Erwin Quiachon

"The Right Stuff" (1983) would be a good follow up to Maverick. The Right Stuff features Chuck Yeager, who was the real life Maverick. Chuck Yeager is still considered the greatest test pilot and the greatest fighter pilot who ever lived. Yeager was the fist human being to fly faster than Mach 1. Yeager also shot down 5 enemy airplanes in one day during WWII while flying the P51 Mustang, which is the same model Tom Cruise is restoring and flying at the end of Maverick. Ed Harris is also featured prominently in The Right Stuff as John Glenn.

Skinny_Obelix

Funny how George makes all the Independence Day references not knowing Bob is the son of Bill Pullman, the President in Independence Day

AC10
>>95127465

"The Right Stuff" (1983) Seconded. Great movie.

Adam Wetstein

The movie that ushered in right wing propaganda as a winning forumla

Erwin Quiachon
>>95156155

I don't buy that. The right wing has been bitching about the U.S. Military being "woke" for the last two years.

Casey Moe

This movie is so much better than the original. The flight scenes are simply spectacular. Yet not one word about what happened to Charlie (Kelly McGillis’ character). Not a sentance; not a word. Nothing.

BlackOpsElf

If you liked this, especially for the suspense, you need to see Midway (2019).

BlackOpsElf
>>95195835

Oh, and in the original, the enemy was supposed to be North Korea, the iconography on the wings matches. In this one, its a modified NK marking with a bird in the middle instead of a red star.