Tony Scott Confirms That ‘Top Gun 2′ Is Moving Forward

Published 5 years ago by , Updated February 15th, 2014 at 4:27 pm,

The world has changed significantly since Maverick (Tom Cruise) and Iceman (Val Kilmer) pledged to always be each other’s wingman in Top Gun and director Tony Scott plans for the sequel, Top Gun 2, to reflect that.

Scott spoke recently to Hit Fix and confirmed that he and producer Jerry Bruckheimer are prepping for a Top Gun followup – which Tom Cruise is willing to return for – but was mum on the subject of whether or not Maverick would be back as well.

Some 24 years have passed since Top Gun hit theaters and Scott has plans for Top Gun 2 to examine the changes that have occurred in the U.S. Air Force since. Scott’s approach was in part inspired by his encounter with a fellow who operates unmanned aircraft (a.k.a. drones) for the Air Force – an incident that has motivated the filmmaker to travel to Fallon, Nevada so that he may learn more about the computer experts and technicians that have begun to replace fighter pilots.

Paramount wants Christopher McQuarrie (Wolverine2) to write the script for Top Gun 2, which would presumably incorporate the “unmanned aircraft controlled by party-happy computer geeks” angle that Scott is talking about. Does that mean that the sequel will enter Stealth territory and revolve around malfunctioning computer equipment – or possibly even renegade A.I.? The idea didn’t work out so well in that Rob Cohen-directed box office bomb, to put it mildly.

Tom Cruise Top Gun 2 Tony Scott Confirms That Top Gun 2 Is Moving Forward

Tom Cruise in ‘Top Gun 2′ – yes or no?

The notion of a Top Gun movie that does not involve Cruise as Maverick might go over better nowadays than it would have, say, ten years ago. Even so, we’re not sure how excited everyone is by the prospect of Top Gun 2, regardless of whether or not Cruise returns. The first Top Gun is still an entertaining watch (even if, stylistically speaking, it’s firmly rooted in the 1980s), but the film did not exactly end on a note that set up or begged for a sequel.

Scott told Hit Fix that Top Gun 2 won’t be his next project, but that it could be the one right after. The filmmaker also says he neither wants to remake or reboot the original Top Gun but hopes to do “a new movie.” That’s something to be happy about… right?

Are you excited by the prospect of Top Gun 2?

Source: Hit Fix

TAGS: Top gun 2
Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. Just give us lots of aerial dog fights.

    • “TOP GUN” was about the Navy, not Air Force and the guys flying the Predators, Global Hawks, etc. in the Air Force are not computer geeks they are Rated Pilots who want to come home each night to their families instead of deploying into the desert. Many of which are former F-16 and F-15C pilots. If they are doing a sequel then we will be watching F-18s flown by the Navy and possibly the new F-23, but if we are watching Predators flying around in circles then I will pass on seeing this one, rather just watch Tom Cruise jump up and down on Oprah’s couch.

      • Correction to AFC5P… the possible new aircraft would be a variant of the F-35, not F-23 (unless that’s what the Navy will re-tag it to). And I agree, the UAV’s pilots are far from geekdom.

      • I completely agree…

      • F-35B/F-35C.. F-23 was naver put into production, and if it had been, it’d of been air force.

  2. Hey, writers …. Goose was Maverick’s wingman. Come on, a trip to Wikipedia will tell you that.

    And I point this out because the legendary Anthony Edwards played Goose. The icon that from “ER”. He is 1,000 times cooler than Val Kilmer.

    • After Goose dies Iceman becomes his wingman!
      “I’ll be your wingman anytime.” No wikipedia needed,just love for the movie. :)

      • thanks for putting him in his place Stephanie LOL.

        • Do you guys even know what a wing man is? If you went to wiki and they described Goose as his wing man then they are completely wrong. Goose was what we called the back seater in F-14s, a RIO (Radio(or radar) Intercept Officer) not wing man. A pilots wing man is the pilot of the second aircraft in a two man attack formation. You have the lead pilot and the secondary or “wing man” that followed close to help intercept targets. 14 years in Naval aviation speaking here so you can take it to the bank.

      • FYI, it was not Gooses death that precipitated Icemans offer to be Mavericks wingman, it was his success at overcoming his fears at the end and engaging the enemy successfully that precipitated this event. Gooses death while tragic had no bearing on Icemans affection for Maverick.

      • Sorta right. He says that after the mission. But Iceman wasn’t Mavericks wingman.

      • Well just to let uu all know goose was not his wingmman because a wing man is another aircraft by your wing representing your back up hence maverick leaves his wingman to go solo plz know what ur talkin about b4 commenting

    • Goose wasn’t Maverick’s wingman ’cause they fly in the same plane! Goose was Maverick’s wizzo (WSO). The pilot of another plane that looks out for Maverick is technically his wingman, and in this case Iceman is definitely his wingman, not Goose.

      • Technically speaking, Goose was Maverick’s wingman because he helped him pick up Charlie by singing You’ve Lost that Love and Feeling which according to the Bro-Code is the definition of a wingman.

        • Guys – I was just referencing the famous “You can be my wingman any time” exchange between Maverick and Iceman. That’s all. 😛

    • Goose was Mavericks Radar Intercept Officer (RIO)

      A wingman is something totaly different.

    • Goose aka Anthony Edwards was Maverick’s RIO and died ejecting from the plane so can’t come back for this movie. And the Navy flies F/A-18’s, F/A-18 Superhornets aka Rhino’s, and soon to be F-35 JSF or Joint Strike Fighter. By the way Fallon, Nevada is the home of TOPGUN or the Navy’s Fighter Weapons School. And the Navy doesnt use drones yet. So please talk about something else cause the Air Force wasnt even in TOPGUN.

    • Goose was NOT Maverick’s wingman. Goose was the RIO (Radar Intercept Officer) or GIB (Guy in Back) to some pilots. In fact, at the end of Top Gun, Maverick WAS in fact Iceman’s wingman until the bogie got behind Maverick and he “hit the brakes” and flew right by him. BLAMMO!

    • Goose was Mavericks RIO (backseater) not his wingman.

    • Dr Greene, we TOP GUN fans and fighter jets’ buffs beg to differ. Goose was Maverick’s RIO (Radar Intercept Officer), who rode tandem in the 2-seater cockpit on the same plane. The writers were correct; Iceman WAS Maverick’s wingman (or vice versa according to Iceman in the final scene after they landed on the carrier).

      A wingman is a partner fighter plane (fighter planes always fly in pairs) which flies cover to the lead fighter plane and will provide protection for the lead fighter plane’s flanks and rear in case they are attacked by enemy planes, hence the phrase “you never leave your wingman, no matter what!”…

      Just my 2 cents’ worth…

    • Actually, No, Goose was not Mavericks wingman, he was his Radio Incercept officer aka Guy In Back. (RIO/GIB). Wingman is in another aircraft.

  3. AAHHHH!!!! Kill it with fire!!

    • Agree.

  4. As long as we’re fact-checking, I’ll point out that Top Gun is about the Navy, not the Air Force. :)

    • It is indeed about the Navy…nice catch Ghostrider…fyi I’m doing a fly by.

  5. I would like to point out that “Anthony” started his sentence with a lower-case “t”.

  6. Throw script fire pit. Bonfire.

  7. i dont feel like watching a movie just drone and A.I. planes

    i want action

  8. Unless there is a Pilot in the Cockpit, please don’t bother. Kid’s playing Video Games with a Drone doesn’t have the same impact. It’s impersonal. Without a Pilot, it’s kind of pointless. -Stark

  9. I just wanted to say that I love how every one above me was just arguing about who maverick’s wingman was. It just entertained me so much in my boredom at work. Btw I don’t see a need for it and I would like to know the person responsible for asking for this movie LOL

  10. This film should have F-22 planes in it. Not a movie just about drones.
    I miss the F-14 Tomcats some of the best fighter planes ever made.
    They were indeed a Russian migs worst nightmare.

  11. The film should revolve around the transition of manned to unmanned fighters… and this can create a lot of tension and introspection about technology and war. Near the end of the movie Patton, Gen Bradley lamented that the Germans were working on “wonder weapons” “Long-range rockets, push-button bombing. . .weapons that don’t need soldiers”. Patton responds with “wonder weapons? My God I don’t the wonder in that Killing without heroics. Nothing is glorified, nothing is reaffirmed.
    No heroes, no cowards, no troops. no generals.
    Only those that are left alive
    and those that are left. . .dead. I’m glad I won’t live to see it.”

  12. IMO – Tony Scott is foolish if he goes through with this plot line.
    He sits next to a hungover airman for couple hours and now he’s going to risk tens of millions on a movie about some Air Force geeks? I’ll pass.

    Listen up Tony – I work in Naval Aviation and the era of fighter pilots is far from over. The AIR FORCE is the only aviation service flying drones and they fly them along with with piloted attack jets. The drones provide recon and targeting, with limited air-to-ground support, but they DO NOT and WILL NOT ever replace piloted aircraft. The NAVY (several of you pointed out the writers mistake about this) still flies real fighter jets, they fly F-18 Super Hornets now instead of the F-14 Tomcats that were in Top Gun. I do have to say Top Gun is a great movie, although it is dated due to the music.

    The F-18/EA-18 two-seat Growler is the most lethal aircraft in the world and it’s a Navy jet. We also have women officers flying it in combat. Why don’t you make a movie about that, and the tensions involved?

  13. Why can’t we have a movie with both Air Force drones and Naval aviators? The premise could be some scientist has come up with a way to replace pilots, with the reason being saving lives. Someone steals the technology and now the Navy and Air Force sends their best to stop these drones. I can see some very good aireal combat techniques being used.

  14. I hear Mark Trundle may be picking up the role of Maverick for a fee of $20k

  15. Happy to hear this…if there ever was a film that I would like to see a sequel 2…this is the one!!! Go Maverick…Go Iceman (hope Val Kilmer is exercising and eating right in preparation)

  16. Should be great. The male romantic lead is possibly gay and certainly annoying. The female romantic lead is an avowed lesbian. And the source of comic relief was killed off. Another must miss Cruise film.

  17. No way top.gun 2 can be about the Air Force. Naval aviator’s are the best out there.Ask am air force pilot to land on a moving airport in the middle of the ocean at night and he’d quiver at the thought. Maybe they should make the movie about how billions are being wasted on am inferior aircraft and that some engineering updates and design corrections to the tomcat would have been much better and by far cheaper than developing the lightning. That would be a great movie.maverick in one of the last remaining tomcats kicking the the f35’s rear end ask over

  18. If tom cruise is in the movie “maverick” can return as an instructor at TOP GUN, not as a main character though. He can basically be a like VIPER was I’m the the first movie but with more scenes.

    • I don’t think Tom Cruise’ ego would allow him to take a secondary role.

    • If Cruise did return as the head of Top Gun (which is no longer at Mirimar in San Diego), he’d probably only return in a cameo appearance and that’s it. Kind of like Arnold Shwartzeneger did a cameo in Stallone’s first “The Expendables”.

  19. The new Top Gun would be interesting but I wonder if Tony Scott and Jerry Bruckheimer would consider making a movie about the SKUNK WORKS now there would be super cool technology not to mention those were the guys that started AREA 51 and builds jets like the SR71 F117 F16 and F35 talk about a myriad of technology including stealth that would make that a cool movie!

    Think about Tony/Jerry

  20. Colin Eggsfield should be Maverick, he reminds me of a young Tom Cruise

  21. You gotta have Tom Cruise as Maverick. You just gotta!!!

  22. I’m looking forward to Top Gun 2. Top Gun is my favorite movie and was glad to read it wont be a remake but a new movie. Hope it works out.

  23. The new top gun wouldn’t be good with out tom cruise!! He must be in the movie as some kinda of role like viper! The use of uav’s wouldnt be the right move for the movie either peiple want to see pilots in the planes having dogfights and the suspense of if they are going to be shot down, not whether a unmanned plane would be shot down. Come on Jerry and Tony you guys have made some incredible movies over the years, i believe you guys can make another top gun just as good as the first!!

  24. Yes!! Live and still watch the original TOP GUN!! Bring Cruz and Maverick back!!!!

  25. This can’t be true, Tony Scott committed suicide in LA back in 2012!

  26. I vote Nicole kidman plata his wife in the next Top Gun movie. That will bring in the crowds.

  27. Am I excited? Totally! But if Tom Cruise isn’t in it as an instructor, I’m not going. And I’d like to see Goose’s kid somehow incorporated. :)