Top Gun: Maverick shouldn’t be an excuse to do Top Gun 3

Top Gun: Maverick is bonafide proof that the world still has the need for speed. However, its success shouldn’t simply be an excuse to greenlight Top Gun 3, lest we lose its legend. 

The original Top Gun, helmed by Tony Scott, catapulted Tom Cruise to unprecedented movie stardom in 1986. It was the perfect ‘Murica rocks cocktail: a cheeky stick jockey trying to be the best and get the girl; never-before-seen aerial photography taking audiences to the Danger Zone; pesky, obvious Russians; and a bunch of guys being dudes.

The ’80s were a notable decade for sequels, whether it was the four Nightmare in Elm Street follow-ups or Beverly Hills Cop 2, Back to the Future Part II, Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom and The Last Crusade, The Empire Strikes Back, and Aliens.

So, it’s not surprising that Paramount Pictures was interested in a Top Gun sequel before it even opened. Yet, despite flying into commercial Valhalla and being in constant demand, it took 36 years for Top Gun: Maverick to make it to the big screen – and that’s where the franchise should be grounded.

Miles Teller in talks with Tom Cruise about Top Gun 3

Top Gun: Maverick’s box office haul is nearing $1.2 billion worldwide. Once it hits that mark, it’ll be nearing the top 20 of the all-time ranking.

Any movie that makes a decent amount of money is always going to generate some discussion about a sequel. This isn’t like any other movie: it’s overshot every single projection, dominated multiplexes even amid new releases, and maintained Avatar-level audience numbers. It’s also Cruise’s first billion-dollar movie, amazingly.

Confirming everyone’s suspicions, Teller confirmed he’s been speaking to Cruise about the shape of another Top Gun movie. “That would be great, but that’s all up to TC,” he said.

“It’s all up to Tom. I’ve been having some conversations with him about it. We’ll see.”

Top Gun 3 needs one thing above all else: heart

Top Gun: Maverick has five major strengths, individually mighty but necessary in tandem: the radiant star power of Tom Cruise; its game-changing aerial cinematography; an immensely likable, charismatic younger cast; Jennifer Connelly lighting up every scene; and old-school, uncynical heart.

That latter essence is crucial, as it’s what carries the sequel in its most powerful moments, like Maverick’s final conversation with Val Kilmer’s Iceman. Their interaction is steeped in years of mutual appreciation and its nuances are unspoken. Tears are shed, but the laughs they share don’t work because of our anticipation to see them together – it’s because they’re genuine.

Heart is always what drives the conflict at the centre of the movie: Maverick holding onto Goose’s memory so tightly he can’t allow Rooster (Teller) to fly the nest, no matter if he falls, flies a steady course, or soars too close to the sun. Again, Rooster’s resentment is woven into the film’s emotional fabric, as is Maverick’s fear.

These dynamics are inextricably tied to the original Top Gun, and the sequel not only develops them, but completes them. Maverick learns to let go, Rooster escapes his dad’s spectre and goes full-throttle, and the pair end up in each other’s arms.

So, what would Top Gun 3 even be about?

Top Gun revolved around mysterious tensions in the Indian Ocean with unnamed enemies. They were clearly meant to be Russians or North Koreans.

Top Gun: Maverick, in director Joseph Kosinski’s own words, was never about “geopolitics” and features a third-act mission “with a nameless, faceless power.” The bad guys are still clearly modelled on Russians or North Koreans.

With Maverick nurturing a paternal bond with Rooster, flying over the sunset with Connelly’s Penny, and assumedly continuing a decorated tenure as a Top Gun instructor, where does a sequel go? Do we formally recognise a global threat rather than a not-so-anonymous rogue state?

Top Gun left Maverick with the world ahead of him; grief to handle, a woman in his life, a cushy spot at Top Gun. It was a solid foundation for a sequel, even decades later, while Top Gun: Maverick has an earnest, happy-ended finality to it. To further its story after sticking the landing could be hazardous.

Glen Powell, who plays Hangman, even referenced a conversation with Cruise in an interview with IndieWire about a possible sequel. “There’s no reason in just adding another movie to the filmography of the world, if it doesn’t contribute or beat the original,” he said.

Other than an eager young cast and new bars set for action photography, is there a reason to go back other than financial gain? Could Top Gun really rally moviegoers without Cruise as its headliner? Is there a good enough story for a third chapter, or should we try to establish another iconic IP?

Complain as I might about Top Gun 3, I’ll say this to Cruise: if you decide to, I’ll ride in this life with you and I won’t let go ’til the end.