Cruise and Kilmer returning and they're looking to cast a younger actor as Goose's son. Could be big, doing this feels like it's right in Cruise's wheelhouse right now. The trailer should get a good reaction once people hear the theme. The original adjusts to 440 million

$40m OW if it's good.

It could hit $60 mil OW. I think it could match the Mission Impossible films.

I guess performing like an MI film would make the most sense, and I'm not sure how high the ceiling is for a Tom Cruise film in the modern day, a lot of people are just out on him. But with the first film getting to the 14th all time in its day it shows there is upside for the jet planes thing as a blockbuster. Plus it seems like with these nostalgia reboots the music takes it to another level and with Danger Zone, Take My Breath Away and the score this has an abundance to choose from. I also think even with people who don't care about remember the original Top Gun (like me), some things about it like Goose's death and Maverick-Ice rivalry are iconic

Minimum 50m OW

I don't think aerial fighting as the basis for a film is in demand anymore. Cruise is still a draw in this type of role but this one will really need to lock in on the nostalgia of the first. Going to be tough matching the original's soundtrack.

Anyone remember the Top Gun NES game? Trying to refuel in mid-air, was very tough!

This type of film is risky. They could try to be nostalgic too much and make it too 80s-infused, or go completely new with new songs and it might just work. A bad result could make everyone look silly because critics will have such an easy reason for failure. I hope it does well. Not $200m well, but $120m or so. Enough to show that it wasn't a mistake to greenlight it but not well enough for them to get idiotic ideas of making a third.

The original feels kind of forgotten and I don't think the modern moviegoing public have any interest in military jets.

$40m OW at most.

Older females haven't forgotten it.

I don't think its forgotten. It still is reasonably beloved so I could see it opening over $50m and end up around $125-$140m.

I do get a sense it is a bit forgotten, or at least not cared for by a new generation. I expect a lot of modern day wankers to think the "need for speed" line comes from the game.

Yeah it will certainly attract over 35s mainly. Cant see it having all that much of an attraction to millenials.

What I hope they DO NOT do is try to find a young hot guy to be the "modern day Maverick" solely to try and get the millennial interest. That would degrade the film so much.

Seems I spoke too soon. Miles Teller, Glenn Powell, and Nicholas Hoult are up for a part in it. If Powell gets it, they'll definitely try to make him the modern day hunk to Cruise's 80s pretty boy.

I predict they'll go with Miles Teller, who is kind of ugly, so Tom won't feel insecure or like he's being replaced as the hottest guy in the movie. I doubt he would let them cast a young actor who's actually smoking to be the counterpart to him because it would make 50something Tom look old and dusty in comparison. No way Tom would be ok with that. Even now part of his appeal is 'super handsome charming movie star'.

I don't think any 3 of those fits the "hunk" label, but sure Powell is closest to it, he's also the worst actor of the three.

This is just so past its time, even more than Wall Street 2 was back in 2010.

Hard to predict but can't imagine anybody under 50 giving a shit about this unless it's awesome in its own right.

Whats the difference aside from the uber self-seriousness of the 80s public?

Wall Street 2's decline wasn't that bad considering it replaced its main character with LaBouef, looked mediocre as hell and was a completely unnecessary and unasked for sequel. Original only made 100 mil adjusted, second was about 62 mil adjusted. I think the genre is not the easiest sell, the original Wall Street had Sheen and Stone coming off Platoon, was a December film with the Best Actor winner, and was good and still wasn't one of the top 20 films in its year. Even Wolf of Wall Street which was as entertaining as a Wall Street movie could be and had DiCaprio in a "I'm a huge fucking star" role was successful but not a super hit or anything (128 mil adjusted). It's actually his 2nd lowest grossing film of this decade other than J. Edgar

Good points. Wall Street is iconic of its time and much like Clueless in the 90s - it captured the cultural zeitgeist but was never as a big a hit as it felt like.

Kind of like Wolf of Wall Street. It's been pretty influential among young men, seems like one of the films that will be iconic from this decade.

I have no clue. I always thought it was odd Tom Cruise wanted to do a years-later sequel, even after Tony Scott's suicide. The first film is a pop-culture classic for sure, but it feels completely of its time: the music, the style, the brand of patriotism, Cruise as a young movie star, etc.

It will be interesting to see how it is advertised, what type of aerial spectacles and stunts are featured, etc. I presume, maybe wrongly, this will be a straight action film, foregoing the sentimental, Officer and a Gentleman-esque elements of its predecessor.

I am also fascinated to see Val Kilmer in it and how he reprises the Iceman role. Is he going to be flying, too? Cruise is famously a well-preserved and hyper-fit specimen at age 55, but Kilmer is on the complete opposite of the spectrum. Complete opposite. Anyone else see The Snowman?

I am surprised Hollywood has never flirted with the idea of Michael Douglas reprising his Romancing the Stone/Jewel of the Nile role.

Will Cruise be an active duty naval officer still? If so, he would be the highest ranking admiral (assuming 30 years of service) still flying planes.