It's a trailer dude. Let's check out the film first! Then we may begin the true judgement upon Del Toro (a SPANISH director making this Americanized film), as we have in the past: he's contributed a good deal to film that is both good and bad.

Also, he helped with the writing, so I wouldn't jump to the "blame the writers" crap. If it sucks, blame the man himself because he has his hands in a lot of it. And he continues to use Ron Perlman in his films, which is a plus because he's used Perlman even before we knew who he was. Or Del Toro for that matter.

Ultimately I look forward to seeing his movies, even if they're not all greats. He wrote all the Hobbit films, though maybe that misses the mark with you, as well.

I'd recommend Cronos, Devil's Backbone, and Pan's Labyrinth. Those are great flicks, though on the horror side of the spectrum.

And ultimately, let's be clear on this writer/director/producer: Not a run of the mill American jockey.

Glenn Ford also appeared in these films in ascending order from 1939 until 1941
*(Imagine the film titles as thoroughbred quarter horse names and his character's names,that of their jockeys in the big race, with a seasoned announcer at the microphone lathering-on the color for the listening audience)

Texas
jockey-Tod Ramsey

So Ends Our Night
J-Ludwig Kern

Blondie Plays Cupid
J-Charlie

The Lady in Question
J-Pierre Morestan

Babies for Sale
J-Steve Burton/Oscar Hanson

Men Without Souls
J-Johnny Adams

Convicted Woman
J-Jim Brent

My Son Is Guilty
J-Barney

Heaven with a Barbed Wire Fence
J-Joe Riley

ANNNNND, they're OFF!

Saw her on a full-sized bus-stop advert for JOckey in San Fran back in 97-98'??...Romanian HARDBODY, she grew up and got kinna scary!!!

Your sift inspired me! If we're talking 90s videogame classics, did you know that Rocket Jockey is being remade at this very moment?

http://theindiemine.com/six-shooter-games-launches-sprocket-junkie-beta/

Indeed it is. It's known as the "Space Jockey". Everything is related >> ^MonkeySpank:

Anybody else thinks this is somehow related to the big cannon monster in the original Alien movie? The jury is still out, but I sure hope so.
Edit: Yes, it looks like it. Pause at 2:12-2:13 and you can see the same cannon guy. This is gonna be awesome!

Anybody else thinks this is somehow related to the big cannon monster in the original Alien movie? The jury is still out, but I sure hope so.

Edit: Yes, it looks like it. Pause at 2:12-2:13 and you can see the same cannon guy. This is gonna be awesome!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Prometheus, ridley scott, trailer, space jockey, space, scifi, alien universe' to 'Possible spoiler, Prometheus, ridley scott, trailer, space, scifi, alien universe' - edited by chilaxe

You're a mean one, Mark Sidran
You really are a heel,
You're as cuddly as a cactus, you're as charming as an eel, Mr. Sidran,
You're a bad banana with a greasy black peel!

You're a monster, Mark Sidran,
Your heart's an empty hole,
Your brain is full of spiders, you have garlic in your soul, Mr. Sidran,
I wouldn't touch you with a thirty-nine-and-a-half foot pole!

You're a foul one, Mark Sidran,
You have termites in your smile,
You have all the tender sweetness of a seasick crocodile, Mr. Sidran,
Given a choice between the two of you I'd take the seasick crocodile!

You're a rotter, Mark Sidran,
You're the king of sinful sots,
Your heart's a dead tomato splotched with moldy purple spots, Mr. Sidran,
You're a three decker sauerkraut and toadstool sandwich with arsenic sauce!

You nauseate me, Mark Sidran,
With a nauseous super "naus"!,
You're a crooked dirty jockey and you drive a crooked hoss, Mr. Sidran,
Your soul is an appalling dump heap overflowing with the most disgraceful
Assortment of rubbish imaginable mangled up in tangled up knots!

You're a foul one, Mark Sidran,
You're a nasty wasty skunk,
Your heart is full of unwashed socks, your soul is full of gunk, Mr. Sidran,
The three words that best describe you are as follows, and I quote,
"Stink, stank, stunk"!

POSSIBLE SPOILER WARNING BLAH

when i first started reading about prometheus and how ridley scott always wondered about the space jockey and wanted to explore that, i was so excited.. but then HE GOES OFF THE FUCKING DEEP END with the plot!! i'm hoping it really, REALLY doesn't matter...

42 - 43 second mark you can see the alien space jockey, that the expedition team found in the first movie

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^SDGundamX:
I know it is being nitpicky, but the reason Padilla could challenge was because he was an American citizen who had been designated by the president as an enemy combatant. You're right, they don't have to try every enemy combatant. I'm trying to find the actual court decision, but I could have sworn that it wasn't just a one-off thing for Padilla--the courts decided that any American has the right to challenge being put on the list in court.
As a fellow nitpicker, I don't mind when someone picks a nit. I don't contest any of what you say here. I actually thought that it went without saying that it hinged on Padilla's citizenship, and wasn't some sort of one-off decision.
>> ^SDGundamX:
As the video notes, al-Awlaki's family was indeed in the process of challenging it when the killing took place. I think that places the President in an awkward position from a legal standpoint. It'll be interesting to see where this goes if the family pursues this (sues for wrongful death or something), though I agree with you it seems like the odds are stacked in favor of the courts supporting the Presidential powers.
I don't see how they thought they might win such a challenge. All Al-Alwaki had to do was provide aid and comfort to the enemy, and it's over. And, well, his big thing was putting Al Qaeda recruitment videos on YouTube, so I'm thinking the government just plays one of those, and the case is over.
But in any case, his status when he was killed was still that of an enemy combatant. Now that he's dead, I suspect his legal status is no longer that of an enemy combatant, so there's nothing to challenge. And I suspect there's some Latin name for this, but I don't think courts are allowed to render something a crime by retroactively changing the legal status of things.
For example, say two people are getting a divorce, and the husband takes some jointly owned property with him when he moves out. Now suppose that when the divorce gets finalized, the court awards that property to the wife. The courts can't say "and it always was hers to begin with, so now we're charging you with larceny for taking it when you moved out".
You'd need to do something like that in order to make this killing a criminal act.
A wrongful death suit might fly though. But that's a civil suit, not a criminal charge.
But seriously, all this stuff is wrong. The President shouldn't have unilateral authority to declare people combatants and non-combatants. It should be uniformed members of the military of the nation we've declared war on. Everything else should be law enforcement, including chasing after terrorists.
The courts aren't going to make all that happen by fiat. That has to be a legislative effort, or it's just going to keep on going like this.


The trouble is it doesn't quite work to lump things as either law enforcement or uniformed soldiers at war. That works only in as far as it makes sense to pursue criminals through domestic and foreign law enforcement, or to make war on foreign nations refusing to enforce the rule of law. Due to myriad political bramble bushes, there are many nations like Pakistan and Yemen who claim much broader borders than those in which their actual loyal police officers can safely operate. When criminals hide in the tribal regions of Yemen and Pakistan, even willing and co-operative governments in Pakistan and Yemen are unable to enforce the law on the criminals we want prosecuted. Do we just leave those criminals be then? Do we declare uniformed soldier on soldier war against the governments in Pakistan and Yemen? Do we demand they restart the aborted civil wars that have left their tribal regions effectively autonomous independent nations?

In my opinion the tribal regions in places like Yemen and Pakistan are effectively not sovereign parts of those nations. It's not politically expedient to declare that, but it is the way Pakistani and Yemeni governments have been handling and treating the regions all along. They are for all intents and purposes independent nations, which merely pay lip service to being a part of Pakistan or Yemen while jockeying internally for a stronger position for themselves. I see American policy as effectively stepping in and treating those tribal regions as independent nations, rather than as Yemeni or Pakistani territory. Thus America is at open war with these tribal regions for their support of Al-Qaida jihadists.

Every theory is a conspiracy theory, including the official US theory. It's really semantics.

the bitter truth is that there is a contraction of resources in the world, due to overuse and growing population. That lack of resources, combined with climate change, will produce a lot of suffering in the world to come.
Whether 9/11 was an inside job or it wasn't...either way the US and many many insanely powerful multinationals used the opportunity to jockey and solidify their positions respective to resources in the world. And a lot of money was made.

Of course, as we're seeing, the US has overplayed it's hand.

I'll take a drive to BEVERLY HILLS
Just before dawn
An' knock the little jockeys
Off the rich people's lawn

You know even those numbers are lies, NR. For chrissakes, the liars switched from "jobs created" to "lives touched" late last year.

Sorry Dudes, I know you mean well, but you are defending the indefensible. Obama has failed, just like those of us who know socialism (or semi-socialism) fails knew he would. Couldn't care less that the moonbats hate him for not being Marx enough, His Earness has failed.

Government jobs are not real jobs as they do not reflect market needs. With government, when 30 desk jockeys can replace 300, the other 270 stay on board for the ride (and pensions). No wonder we're headed for Greece.

Here's a RADICAL idea: let people keep more of their own money, across the board. Recognize it's not the government's money, even if it prints the sh1t.

Another wonderful side effect of letting people keep the lion's share of what they earn: you get a properly-restrained government too small to rape and plunder in the name of "social justice" or any other bullsh1t of the day.

And lay off Herb Hoover, moonbats, he was an unwilling or ignorant ally of yours.

wiki:

Franklin D. Roosevelt blasted (Hoover) for spending and taxing too much, increasing national debt, raising tariffs and blocking trade, as well as placing millions on the dole of the government. Roosevelt attacked Hoover for "reckless and extravagant" spending, of thinking "that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible."[54] Roosevelt's running mate, John Nance Garner, accused the Republican of "leading the country down the path of socialism".[55]

Ironically, these policies pale beside the more drastic steps taken under Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration later as part of the New Deal. Hoover's opponents charge that his policies came too little, and too late, and did not work. Even as he asked Congress for legislation, he reiterated his view that while people must not suffer from hunger and cold, caring for them must be primarily a local and voluntary responsibility.

Even so, New Dealer Rexford Tugwell[56] later remarked that although no one would say so at the time, "practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."




>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^quantumushroom:
And yet here we are with our current SCAMULUS not helping at all.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-s-eco
nomists-stimulus-has-cost-278000-job_576014.html
I'm calling FOUL, Keynes! You hear me? KEEEEYYYYNNNEEEEEESSSS!

That article says it created 2.4 million jobs. Its main point was that if you take the number of jobs it's estimated to have created, and divide it by the total sum of the bill, it was expensive per job. But it wasn't buying jobs, it was buying goods and services.
Of course you can get more jobs per dollar if the government just directly hires people, and puts them to work doing what needs to be done (like build cars, sweep floors, grow corn, etc.). But that's socialism, so instead we just buy stuff from the market, and let the market decide how many (and which) jobs get created.