In the original version Superior gun, the enemy really isn’t important to the overall story. The story of Maverick (Tom Cruise) is the centerpiece of Superior gun and his relationships with Iceman (Val Kilmer) and Goose (Anthony Edwards). The same can be said of Top Gun: Maverick and director Joseph Kosinski explain why the enemy remains unnamed.
The enemy is not confirmed in ‘Top Gun: Maverick’
After 30 years, Maverick returns to TOPGUN Academy to train a group of pilots for a dangerous mission. Their mission is to destroy a uranium enrichment plant, which is in the middle of the canyon. It is unconfirmed who is working on the plant as this antagonist is only referred to as “the enemy”.
While the mission is an important part of the climax of Top Gun: Maverick, director Joseph Kosinski focused more on developing the character of Maverick. There’s more emotional resonance between his new relationship with Penny (Jennifer Connelly) and his bond with Rooster (Miles Teller). There is not even an explanation of what the “enemy” intends to do with the uranium.
Director Joseph Kosinski Explains Why ‘The Enemy’ In ‘Top Gun: Maverick’ Remains Anonymous
In an interview with Indiewire, Top Gun: Maverick director Joseph Kosinski explains why he wanted to keep “the enemy” unnamed. The director says he didn’t want to make a film about politics. He wanted to give the film the same spirit as the original and keep it about “friendship” and “sacrifice”.
“We didn’t want to make it a film about geopolitics,” Kosinski said. “It’s a competition film. It’s a film about friendship, about sacrifice. It’s a rite of passage story. It’s all of those things. It’s not a film about the current state of world events, which, by the way, have changed so much since we made the film. If we had even decided [a country when we made it], it would probably have been obsolete. The idea has always been to make the enemy faceless and nameless.
Kosinski also made sure to set the final mission in an environment that people wouldn’t be able to recognize, thus not allowing people to infer which country or villain they’re up against.
“That’s why in designing this third act, I placed it in a world that wasn’t identifiable as, I think, one of the places people guess,” Kosinski added. “I liked the idea of placing it in a snowy area, so we shot it in the Cascade Mountains of Washington State to also reverse the Superior gun aesthetic, to get away from the San Diego sunsets and turn it on its head. For me, it was an exciting way to really change the feeling of the movie and make it feel like we were somewhere far away. I know people look at the F-14 [enemy fighter jets] or the fifth generation fighter jets or the landscape and try to piece it together, but it’s really nowhere.
Will there be a ‘Top Gun 3?’
Top Gun: Maverick has now earned over $1 billion worldwide, so it would make sense for Paramount to consider potential sequel options. The manager says he’s not sure if a Top Gun 3 will happen, but it’s all up to Cruise.
“It took Tom 36 years to agree to do this one! It’s up to him,” Kosinski said. “He’s the one you have to convince. That’s how this project started, with Jerry and I going to Paris to talk to Tom about it. It’s all about history. It’s all about emotion. If we can find a way, a journey for Maverick to come back and be with these young pilots and find something, maybe it could happen. I think for now we should just enjoy having that one.
Top Gun: Maverick is currently in theaters.
RELATED: ‘Top Gun: Maverick’: Tom Cruise Gave Stunning Response to Miles Teller Falling Sick During Filming