📼 trailer for top gun maverick

hey, it’s the ape of the emerald city here!

i’ll be taking over from the ape of omaha on the weekend to talk about movies, music, politics, or whatever might interest you on a sunday. today, let’s talk about top gun and why its sequel, top gun maverick, works.

🎞 legesequels

this is not a term that’s typically used, but i’ve seen some people call films like this one “legesequels” (legacy+sequel)

• pretty much like a soft reboot but with original cast members from a film that released a few decades ago

• the most recent jurassic world, matrix ressurection, ghostbusters afterlife …

these films are part of a trend where studios try to bank on nostalgia and name recognition to get people in theatres. but, a vast majority of them have gotten mixed to negative reviews. the reason being, primarily, that they don’t seem to go beyond the surface level approach of : let’s make something that makes people nostalgic but is a modernized version of the original. in theory, this should work, but in most cases audiences want something that feels new or at least developed

🛩 top gun maverick

then, how did top gun maverick do?

• 99% audience score on rotten tomatoes

• strong box office presence compared to other recognizable sequels

now, a less skilled director may want to distance him/herself from the campiness of the original film. the shirtless ball games at the beach, the locker room atmosphere, the corny love scenes … but top gun maverick somehow incorporates the campy, even cheesy elements into its plot in a way that actually makes sense and advances the story. it also never dwells on nostalgia filled moments in a way that says : hey audience, remember this? the original was good right?

the key factor for its success is that it doesn’t shy away from the original but also doesn’t rely on it

🙏 closing comments

all of this is just one ape’s opinion, but I would love to hear what you think. until next week, happy trading - i’ll be back with a topic that ape-peals to you!