- Joined
- Nov 3, 2016
So, here is my write-up about TGM. I decided to write up my point of view here and see what you guys think, and also because I think I'd get banned on TVT for daring to criticize wokeness anyway. The points are from @LightDragonman1's post, I'll use quotes instead of the screencaps for easier reading.
The unnamed country's nuclear program is established as a threat to the United States and its allies near the beginning of the movie. Since Western countries, including the US, usually try to solve such problems diplomatically, one can just assume that all attempts at this have failed, leaving force as the only remaining option. It is a perfectly legitimate action to take against a rogue state that poses a threat to the lives of your country's citizens. The primary task of a nation is to protect the lives and interests of its citizens, and it is generally accepted in international politics that states can and will do this at the expense of other countries' citizens. In fact, one could argue that the US is trying to limit collateral damage as much as possible here by choosing a surgical strike over a full-blown invasion.
"Do we have a right to do this?" In spite of the pacifistic rhetoric of organizations like the United Nations, the US de facto has a right to do this because it is acting in the interest of its citizens. In real life, countries do this all the time, but usually in more subtle ways. In fact, a country risks looking like a joke on the international stage if it doesn't act in such a manner. Germany is good example of this.
Concerning "US supremacy": I don't live in the US and I am not an American myself, but I thank my lucky stars that we live under US supremacy rather than Russian or Chinese supremacy. US supremacy is integral to the survival of democracy, human rights, and free trade all over the world, and this is also in the interest of American citizens who can reap the benefits of this supremacy, mostly from the trade it enables with other countries. A free, democratic country like the US defending its interests can only be considered bad under lofty, pacifist standards.
Additionally it has to be said that a trope being "right-wing" does not automatically make it bad. Right-wing does not equal nazi.
Fighteer was clearly wrong.
Now for Fighteer's parrot Redmess:
I won't adress the rest, at that point it's just Fighteer ignoring arguments of other topers and sticking to his excuses for being angry at the movie.
Like the first Top Gun, the film is just as much about the characters as it is about planes. Just look at Maverick's interactions with Rooster. As far as Rooster is concerned, I would consider Maverick's role in that relationship to be similar to that of Viper (who was played by Tom Skerritt) in the first film. While Maverick in the first film was a hotshot who had to learn to be a bit more level-headed, Rooster here has the inverse problem in that he plays everything a tad too safe. It strikes a perfect balance with the first movie and seems well thought-out to me.
Sorry, I have to get into the politisperging to counter Fighteer's politisperging.
The unnamed country's nuclear program is established as a threat to the United States and its allies near the beginning of the movie. Since Western countries, including the US, usually try to solve such problems diplomatically, one can just assume that all attempts at this have failed, leaving force as the only remaining option. It is a perfectly legitimate action to take against a rogue state that poses a threat to the lives of your country's citizens. The primary task of a nation is to protect the lives and interests of its citizens, and it is generally accepted in international politics that states can and will do this at the expense of other countries' citizens. In fact, one could argue that the US is trying to limit collateral damage as much as possible here by choosing a surgical strike over a full-blown invasion.
"Do we have a right to do this?" In spite of the pacifistic rhetoric of organizations like the United Nations, the US de facto has a right to do this because it is acting in the interest of its citizens. In real life, countries do this all the time, but usually in more subtle ways. In fact, a country risks looking like a joke on the international stage if it doesn't act in such a manner. Germany is good example of this.
Concerning "US supremacy": I don't live in the US and I am not an American myself, but I thank my lucky stars that we live under US supremacy rather than Russian or Chinese supremacy. US supremacy is integral to the survival of democracy, human rights, and free trade all over the world, and this is also in the interest of American citizens who can reap the benefits of this supremacy, mostly from the trade it enables with other countries. A free, democratic country like the US defending its interests can only be considered bad under lofty, pacifist standards.
Military discipline in Western countries, especially the US, is not as strict as you may believe as combat situations require a certain flexibility in order to adequately respond to rapidly changing circumstances. "Getting results" is more important at the end of the day than rigidly following protocol, procedure and regualtion to the letter. If you did the latter and lost the battle, you should rethink your approach. Also, "endangering personnel"? When Rooster pulled that stunt with Maverick during the training flight, when they would spiral closer and closer to the ground, Maverick desperately tried to get him to stop.
Additionally it has to be said that a trope being "right-wing" does not automatically make it bad. Right-wing does not equal nazi.
Where does Maverick do this? Granted, following Charlie to the ladies' room in the first movie wasn't the best possible action, but all he wanted was talk, not to grab tittis. Apart from that, there was no scene where he did something similar. In TGM, I see no instance of Maverick acting in such a manner with Penny. This is actually the one question I want to log onto the TVT forums for and ask Fighteer what the hell he means.
Point already adressed: Flexibility in military operations.
Point already adressed: International relations. Yes, it is officially frowned upon, but a necessary evil and your nation would actually look like a clown if it didn't do it.
This actually got adressed by another troper:
Fighteer was clearly wrong.
Now that's rich. At which point did woke "entertainment" ask for critical thinking from its audience? The whole time, people who have criticized woke entertainment for destroying old characters and forgoing good cinematography and writing in favor of the message, they were shouted down and called istaphobes. The entire problem with woke entertainment is that it fails to entertain: most people don't want to exit the theater feeling worse than they did when they went in.
Now for Fighteer's parrot Redmess:
Yes, it is anti-woke, and its success proves that moviegoers prefer anti-woke over woke. The average moviegoer is not a film critic and does not want to be bothered by woke narratives. Going back to Fighteer's "hallmark of the movement": Wokeness is a toxic ideology that wants people (most often white, heterosexual and/or male) to feel bad about who they are, often about things they were born with and have no control over, while extolling other groups who similarly had no such control. It should come as no surprise that people are angry or resentful about what basically constitutes an attack on the very core of their being.
I won't adress the rest, at that point it's just Fighteer ignoring arguments of other topers and sticking to his excuses for being angry at the movie.
