Big news today. Paramount announced that it has greenlit Tom Cruise’s latest vanity project, Days of Thunder 2 (that title is not confirmed). It is enough to make you imagine the baritone voice of movie trailers from long ago that all seemingly began with, “in a world where” and then followed with “one man” blah blah blah. One would argue that Tom Cruise lives for just this kind of situation.
But there is a lot to suss out here. So let’s break it down.
To start, Tom Cruise is not Tom Holland. At this point, without production having even begun, Cruise is 64 years old. No matter how much he works out or does whatever else he does to stay young, Cruise will still, in fact, be rather old to be a competitive driver.
Go ahead, make the argument that Brad Pitt also did not bring youth with him to 2025’s F1. That is absolutely on point and tough to dismiss. The best this piece can do is to mention that Pitt was 59 when shooting began on the global hit. Is five years a huge difference? Eh, one could argue either way, and really, apparently age doesn’t matter when propping up massive celebrities in Hollywood.
However, consider that Robert Duvall, who played crew chief Harry Hyde in the original Days of Thunder, was 58 when they started filming. In no way should we expect Cruise’s character Cole Trickle to suddenly be manning the pit box in this sequel, as it would go against everything in the Tom Cruise formula.
And speaking of the formula, Jerry Bruckheimer is set as one of the producers, taking on the same responsibilities he had for the first one. Tony Scott, who directed the first one, passed away in 2012, and the aforementioned Duvall left terra firma in 2026. So there are some gaps, not incidentally, the likelihood that Nicole Kidman will probably not be involved, though one might hope that Michael Rooker can reprise his Rowdy Burns character.
Set to helm the project, Jonathan Levine, still in talks, comes from more dramatic and comedic ilk. With films like 50/50, Warm Bodies, The Night Before, Snatched and Long Shot on his resume, Levine appears to put together solid pieces but certainly not ones showcasing action-movie chops.
His star is rising at the moment because the buzz on his yet-to-be released Mr. Irrelevant: The John Tuggle Story is echoing loudly. The firm follows the life of John Tuggle, drafted by the New York Giants with the last pick of the 1983 draft. He played the 1983 season on special teams, for the most part, and never played again after being diagnosed with cancer in 1984. He passed away shortly thereafter, Aug. 30, 1986. This seeming tear-jerker, following in the mold of Brian’s Song, should be a lovely piece of film-making and yet makes Levine seem like such a strange choice to put in the director’s chair.
And that is the problem with his whole deal, the question of what Cruise is trying to get the audience to connect with. Tony Scott had action-movie bonafides, and as clunky as DoT was (and it has serious issues), Scott made it seem like things were happening, even if they were absurd. That being noted, the beach scene where Trickle and Burns wear down their rental cars racing to see the NASCAR commissioner was beautiful silliness.
The problem with adding a sequel to DoT is that, where Top Gun crushed it at the box office in 1986, DoT was mid. Yes, it was successful, making double its budget, but it did not hit the high notes of other Cruise projects and became more of a niche film than one that captivated the populace.
Perhaps the hope is that Cruise can do for NASCAR what Pitt did for F1. After all, with an estimated budget of $300 million (ye gods), the film made close to $700 million and also encouraged people to sign up for Apple TV for free viewing and F1 coverage in the US.
Trying to replicate the success of F1, the same screenwriter is attached to DoT2, Joseph Kosinski (who also directed F1). Kosinski should have been tasked to direct, considering he was the one behind Top Gun: Maverick, which earned $1.4 billion and is slotted to take on a Miami Vice update.
So with Kosinski, Cruise and Bruckheimer, it seems like everything should be aligned to make a big-budget, blockbuster, brain-off NASCAR movie, which feels like exactly how these types of projects go nowadays. Cruise and company do not need to make a deep character study of what it is to be a NASCAR driver, or to create a work of art that is gritty and attempt at meaningful. They need only hit the usual character notes and fill in the rest of the movie with the required spectacle.
The question that arises from such a project is whether or not NASCAR can provide the same kind of environment that made F1 so attractive. Ovals versus circuits. Closed cockpit versus the Halo. Etc. The story won’t be what matters; how the spectacle gets sold will, and that one will be on NASCAR as much as it is on the team trying to bring DoT2 to life.
As a writer and editor, Ava anchors the Formula 1 coverage for the site, while working through many of its biggest columns. Ava earned a Masters in Sports Studies at UGA and a PhD in American Studies from UH-Mānoa. Her dissertation Chased Women, NASCAR Dads, and Southern Inhospitality: How NASCAR Exports The South is in the process of becoming a book.
I could see this working, in a disposable popcorn movie kind of way. The obvious template is the Top Gun sequel. I get the original Days of Thunder was a mediocre performer at the box office. But, despite NASCAR’s recent woes, it is a better known sport nationally than it was back then, when it was just transitioning from regional passion to national prominence.
Cruise is obviously a lunatic, but he is a lunatic who knows how to make a blockbuster movie, and has always looked much younger than he is. I’d guess we get him as an aging hot shoe who must step away from driving because reasons (maybe a long term issue tied to his injury in the first movie. CTE would be the low hanging fruit here).
Cruise runs a few races at the beginning, he mentors a young driver (again, because reasons), and absolutely, it would be epic if Michael Rooker had a major role, possibly as an outlaw owner who is out of touch with the times, based loosely upon Richard Childress.
It’ll never be The Godfather or Casablanca, but it could be a fun couple of hours to watch, and could make a tidy profit. Certainly better for the sport than Talladega Nights or the idiotic “reality show” that is the Cleetus MacFarland NASCAR experience. Just fix the terrible editing from the first movie, eliminating stuff like the green Skoal car getting hit, then magically becoming the green Quaker State car as it wipes out.
The real burning question….will John C. Reilly have a major role?
If Rooker is available, have Tom and Michael be team owners as competing owners. They could have someone young that is out of control and then an older driver that needs to retire but no one wants to tell him. Then Rooker can try to take the young driver but they realize that they need to stick with the Cruise team and use the older driver as a mentor.