After many years, top gun has finally gotten a sequel, top gun Maverick,
a sequel to the 1986 action film that has come out.
And it is raising concerns initially raised after the first movie that
the close relationship between movie producers and
the military might not be the best thing.
But first,
let's give you a little bit of the trailer so you know we're talking about.
>> Captain Pete Maverick Mitchell, you were here at the request of Iceman.
He seems to think that you have something left to offer the Navy.
With all due respect sir, I'm not a teacher, I just wanna manage expectations.
>> Good morning aviators, this is your captain speaking.
>> Tend to push show me what you're made of.
>> Having any fun yet Top Gun Maverick.
>> Okay, so it finally came out.
I I think they like many movie studios,
the makers of Top Gun Maverick were banking on there being nostalgia for
this past project and it turns out they were really, really right in this case.
Over the weekend, it made $160.5 million four day weekend.
$300 million dollars worldwide.
So, already a success.
It is the biggest memorial day opening weekend ever since Pirates of
the Caribbean at World's End which earned 100 and $53 million.
Really did that $153 million.
But here's the issue, like with many movies featuring military hardware,
planes, vehicles, those sorts of things.
This was not done independently of the military.
There was a partnership there in fact they worked with the Department of Defense.
As many movie producers do.
Top Gun Maverick received support from the DoD in the form of equipment.
They got jets and aircraft carriers, personnel,
people who could provide technical expertise.
And this was authorized by the DoD Entertainment Media Office,
which assists filmmakers telling military stories.
Now the Department of Defense,
Entertainment Media Office sounds a little bit dystopian.
It sounds like something you'd hear about in China.
The right not bothered by this notably.
But the dude, this is not new.
They've been working with Hollywood for like a century.
The army, Navy, Air Force marines and Coast Guard all have these liaisons in LA.
That work with movie studios.
They did it in this sequel just as they did it in the original Top Gun,
back then they were provided $1.8 million.
And in exchange the DoD provided four aircraft carriers,
two dozen F-14 Tomcats, F-5 Tigers and F-4 Skyhawks.
And they provided pilots to pilot them as well.
Now Caroline the issue here isn't just that they get access to the hardware or
whatever.
It's that then the military can weigh in,
they get script approval and how the military is actually presented.
What sort of lenses provided on it or the conflicts that we engaged in abroad,
is only gonna be allowed if they believe it's in the interests of the military,
which well, you want to have that equipment.
So I guess maybe you'll give that allowance for the script.
That means that over time, as people see all these movies, they will get a very
biased view of the military by the very nature of these partnerships.
>> Yeah, absolutely.
I have to say I'm a little torn on this one just because I am such a movie buff
and we all know what happened to movie theaters during the pandemic.
So, it does make me feel good that this is making a lot of money and
people are going back out to the theaters.
But yeah, on the other hand, the connections between Hollywood and
the military industrial complex are absolutely entrenched.
And, I really encourage viewers to look into this.
There's a lot of really interesting articles online.
We unfortunately have don't have too much time to talk in depth about it.
But these ties are so historical and
go back to the very beginning of the film industry in the early 20th century.
But the problem now with things like Top Gun, is that the United States and
the United States military is so unilaterally powerful in the world.
And we don't necessarily have one common enemy that we are super
threatened about of course, there's the war in Russia,
there is China, but we are military really is unparalleled.
So, for things like World War Two when they were making anti Nazi films.
You could argue that those were really important to defeat fascism.
But as our enemy specifically after the Vietnam,
whereas our enemy becomes more intangible and we don't really have one.
You have to ask yourself,
yeah what is the point of this constant military propaganda?
And just finally, I really do think that this type of propaganda,
this military equipment in movies that is designed not only to show the power of
the US military but also make it look really cool.
This energy trickles down into police departments across the country.
It absolutely does.
Police departments are outfitted with military grade uniforms.
And I really do think this culture of this propagandistic militarized
culture has absolutely everything to do with movies like Top Gun and
the trickle down effect they have in society.
>> Yeah, look I personally I haven't watched it yet.
I'm not particularly interested not because of the military propaganda thing
just because I wasn't really that interested in the first top gun.
But I like saving private Ryan.
I like movies with the military in it.
I watched the marvel movies.
They often have a bit of that.
So that's not really a reason.
But I will say we don't have time to dive into this.
I might cover it more on the damage report tomorrow.
I just saw an analysis of this by media matters.
But the right is like super excited about top gun doing well.
They see this as like a repudiation of like woke movies with their
diversity hires and all of that.
Now, finally, somebody's making a movie for red blooded men, strong American men.
I would just raise one concern to the right though.
Did you watch that trailer?
It's a female pilot that's like sort of at the heart of this.
Like, I'm just saying, I'm just saying.
Maybe it's a little bit more woke than you think.