Opinion: Why Top Gun: Maverick Works

By Erin Free

Top Gun: Maverick is a rarity on a couple of fronts: it’s a sequel that equals (and arguably betters) its original, and it’s a film just as successful at the box office as it is with critics. The film has just roared past the billion dollar mark in ticket sales, and there are a whole bunch of reasons why Top Gun: Maverick has been so successful: its technical achievements are extraordinary; it effectively harks back to the original film without aping it, boasting a newfound maturity to match its now seasoned audience; there’s enough emotional punch to make it really resonate; it’s exciting and funny; and the heart-breaking reunion scene between Tom Cruise’s Maverick and Val Kilmer’s Iceman is like a guys’ version of Beaches tightened into one single scene.

And though it doesn’t get everything right (the failure to even name-check Kelly McGillis’ Charlie from the first film is disappointing, while the decision not to involve Meg Ryan beyond a few flashbacks is a minor narrative misstep considering that the film focuses on her son, played by Miles Teller), Top Gun: Maverick is a rock-solid follow-up to a much loved but not exactly brilliant original. It’s also certainly the best of the so-called “legacy sequels”, most of which have divided audiences and disappointed at the box office.

Why has Top Gun: Maverick been such a success? The film’s triumph hinges on the obvious but still ingenious decision to place Tom Cruise right at the centre of the film. This might in retrospect seem like the only route that the film could have taken, but this line of thinking certainly wasn’t applied to “legacy sequels” like Blade Runner 2049, the latest Star Wars trilogy, or the now largely forgotten Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. Those films all made the decision to sideline the main characters of the original films in favour of developing new characters. This was arguably to the detriment of the new films. Sure, maintaining the original film’s central characters as leads can just as easily breed legacy sequel failure (The Matrix Resurrections, The Terminator: Dark Fate) as it can success (the new Halloween trilogy; the divisive T2: Trainspotting; TV’s Cobra Kai), but it’s generally the road best taken.

For instance, while there’s much to like about the most recent Star Wars trilogy, there’s also a lot not to like, and most of it revolves around the use (and misuse) of the series’ “legacy characters”. The only thing that sucked more than the fact that Luke Skywalker wasn’t even in Star Wars: The Force Awakens was that when he did finally appear, he turned out to be a grumpy, weird recluse. And killing Han Solo in the first film of the trilogy? Yeah, thanks for that. Obviously, the very sad passing of actress Carrie Fisher meant that the character of Princess Leia couldn’t be expanded, but would that have happened anyway? Looking at the thrust of the series, probably not…especially when there were so many younger, fresher and far less interesting characters to focus on.

While the new characters in the latest Star Wars trilogy are all good, they really should have been the supporting players to Luke, Leia and Han, and not the stars of the show. Should the original characters be marginalised just because they’re old? Why sideline them in their own story? Would anyone seriously argue for one single second that Poe Dameron is a more compelling character than Han Solo? Lucasfilm cooked up a whole kinda-crappy film with a young Han Solo (did anyone think that was a good idea?) but couldn’t even give the real Han Solo a decent amount of screen time in his own sequel? Good move, guys and girls. And is it any coincidence that the thing most people really loved in the first season of The Mandalorian was the appearance of Luke Skywalker?

It was the same for Blade Runner 2049. While an artful, stylish, imaginative sequel, audiences just spent most of their time waiting for Harrison Ford to finally appear as Rick Deckard despite the best efforts of Ryan Gosling to make his new character of Officer K equally compelling. Now, most people have likely forgotten that there was ever a sequel to Blade Runner at all. Oliver Stone, meanwhile, has made some strange decisions during his career, but his dumbest by far was ignoring the iconic character of Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) in favour of new kid on the block Jake Moore (Shia LaBeouf) in the execrable Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. Perhaps a symptom of Hollywood’s long history of ageism and continued faith in youth and what’s new, this resistance to focusing on the characters that made the original films great has hobbled many a legacy sequel. One of the main reasons that audiences love a film is because they love the characters, but so many makers of legacy sequels have missed this very simple fact.

Perhaps thanks in part to the monumental ego of Tom Cruise, this was not allowed to happen with Top Gun: Maverick. In the hands of a weaker, less commercially savvy actor/producer, the character of pilot and now flight instructor Pete “Maverick” Mitchell could easily have been sidelined, watching anguished from a control room while his young charges have all the fun…and what a truly shithouse film that would have been. And while Top Gun: Maverick can certainly be accused of ageism itself (“I’m old and I’m fat and I look age-appropriate,” says Kelly McGillis, who was not even asked about appearing in the sequel), the film absolutely gets it right when it comes to Tom Cruise and Pete “Maverick” Mitchell. He is no supporting player, standing aside to “usher in a new generation” or “pass the baton”! In fine form, Maverick beats his young students while training them in the sky; he shucks down and joins them in a game of shirtless beach football; and then leads them in the film’s final thrilling air-strike. In Top Gun: Maverick, The Cruiser’s Pete “Maverick” Mitchell – as the film’s subtitle instantly and unmistakably heralds – is the star of the show, and that’s exactly the way it should be. Hopefully, Top Gun: Maverick might inspire the creatives behind Hollywood’s future legacy sequels to do a little course correcting…

Top Gun: Maverick is still going strong in cinemas now. Click here for our review.