Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Lucasfilm Unveils "Sandcrawler" Singapore Office

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the breaks-over-jawa dept.

Businesses 159

An anonymous reader writes "The massive, slow moving Sandcrawlers from George Lucas' Star Wars films inspired the form of Lucasfilm's new regional headquarters in Singapore. Designed by Aedas, the Sandcrawler Building will house a 100 seat theater, Lucasfilm Singapore offices, a public podium and other employee spaces. Neither rusty nor slow moving in this case, the glassy and streamlined building will combine a high performance facade with lush gardens and foliage that spills over terraces, resulting in a highly efficient commercial space. With construction already underway, we can look forward to this real life Star Wars manifestation sometime in 2012."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Asia (0)

ge7 (2194648) | more than 3 years ago | (#37302910)

Asia is in general much nicer looking than western world. They put a lot of thought on how things look, even to the finest detail, and have done so for centuries. This is visible in the old temples and buildings, but also in modern view - like Marina Bay Sands [dailymail.co.uk] in Singapore. As someone who likes to travel and live there I can say it's much nicer than being around the concrete blocks western world has. We have really let ourselves go and forget what's nice in life, and just have shit like wal-marts.

Re:Asia (0)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#37302932)

I seem to recall that in Singapore the official penalty for chewing gum on the subway is a police-administered beating. Keeping things looking nice is easy when you can flog people with truncheons for messing it up.

Re:Asia (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37302950)

What a lovely place.

Re:Asia (0)

ge7 (2194648) | more than 3 years ago | (#37302954)

It's a fine, not beating. Gum is illegal according to laws anyway (and don't start about it. Their country, their laws).

Re:Asia (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37302974)

We're allowed to say what we want about whatever we want including shitty laws that fine a person for chewing gum (or beaten for other reasons).

Re:Asia (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37303088)

But it would have nothing to do with Lucasfilm or their new office.

Re:Asia (1)

vbraga (228124) | more than 3 years ago | (#37302976)

Just out of curiosity, why gum is illegal there?

Re:Asia (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303014)

Because it's a small country and they need to keep it clean. They don't administer canings for possession of gum though, but the penalty for sticking gum anywhere other than in a trash can is pretty harsh.

I wish we could get a lot more strict about that here, because it's nasty coming across somebody's ABC gum because they were too lazy to throw it away.

Re:Asia (2)

Hartree (191324) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303042)

There's a whole wikipedia article on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewing_gum_ban_in_Singapore [wikipedia.org]

Re:Asia (0)

Flyerman (1728812) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303134)

If chewing gum is outlawed, then only outlaws will chew gum.

Re:Asia (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303228)

In Soviet Russia gum chews you!

Re:Asia (0)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 3 years ago | (#37304122)

If chewing gum is outlawed, then only outlaws will chew gum.

If gums are outlawed, then only outlaws will have gums.

FTFY

Re:Asia (0)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303120)

because this way the cops only have to keep gum with them if they want to randomly punish someone.

why the fuck does lucasfilm need a singapore office though? and what kind of a creative person would want to live in singapore?

Re:Asia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37303188)

why the fuck does lucasfilm need a singapore office though? and what kind of a creative person would want to live in singapore?

if you can afford the plane ticket, fly here for a look. it'll be really obvious.

Re:Asia (1)

Forrest Kyle (955623) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303194)

Probably a creative person who is a native of Singapore?

Re:Asia (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37303290)

When has Lucas been creative in the last fifteen years?

Re:Asia (0)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303848)

I was thinking exactly the same thing. The hundred seat theatre is probably sized for the number of people who still think a Lucas film is worth watching after the last batch of star wars consumer rip off movies he made. Pure drek.

Re:Asia (-1, Flamebait)

cfalcon (779563) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303384)

" (and don't start about it. Their country, their laws)"

Fuck you and fuck this sentiment. It's especially retarded given that GP's whole point was that they have bullshit laws to make things look nice, and that you have to give up freedoms. If gum itself is illegal, yes, you would expect less gum in places. But that's a retarded thing to do, and proves his point nicely.

Re:Asia (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303452)

dont like it, then dont go there

why are you getting all up in arms about something that doesnt effect you? and if it does effect you why are you pissing and moaning here, get off your ass and do something about it

Re:Asia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37303770)

" (and don't start about it. Their country, their laws)"

Fuck you and fuck this sentiment.

Believe it or not, many people are perfectly willing, even happy, to give up certain 'personal freedoms' in exchange for security (or the illusion thereof), peace of mind, harmony (or the appearance thereof), or a number of other social benefits. You can't sit outside the culture and judge them according to your own norms: their country, their laws. Neither you nor the United States gets to define right and wrong across the planet. Hell, even within the US, you can't agree on right and wrong - all the different states have their own laws, cities have their own laws.

That's what "sovereign" means: to be an independent authority. You don't get to invade countries just because you don't like their internal policies. You don't get to assassinate dictators just because they're assholes. Regardless of how many times the US and other Imperial Powers have done so in the past. Countries in which you don't live are not backwards children in need of babysitting.

Re:Asia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37304254)

(and don't start about it. Their country, their laws).

Well, if there were more upstanding people like you, South Africa would still be the shining diamond (pun intended) of the continent. ...and to use a ge7: (and don't anyone suddenly start whining that you "can't compare" the two situations - one should have put a more nuanced/qualified statement in the first place).

Re:Asia (2)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 3 years ago | (#37302980)

Comparing the most expensive hotel in the world to a local Walmart may tend to distort the "nicer looking" scale. =)

Re:Asia (1)

PNutts (199112) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303104)

Comparing the most expensive hotel in the world to a local Walmart may tend to distort the "nicer looking" scale. =)

Agreed. I couldn't afford a pair of socks from that hotel.

Re:Asia (3, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#37302998)

That's not really true. Had you been around thousands of years ago to see what are now Greek ruins they would have been quite the sight. Unfortunately, due to whether and deterioration you don't get to see the bright colors that were original.

The main difference is that the temples in SE Asia relied more upon detail carved into the rock than treatments applied to the building materials.

Re:Asia (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37303008)

I guess you've never been to downtown Paris. Or Prague. Or Antwerp. Or Stockholm. Or lots of other places in Europe.

Furthermore, "Asia" covers a lot of ground. Pick a random city in Vietnam or Pakistan or China and you'll find plenty of the usual hellish concrete boxes. Cherrypicking Singapore is a bit silly.

Re:Asia (3, Informative)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303064)

Meh. In Asia, but also in Europe, public spaces tend to look a lot better than in the USA, where they mostly look rather shabby. But moderns buildings in Asia are just as crap as in Europe and the USA, whereas in old buildings on all continents you will find attention to beauty and detail. I did not find buildings in Asia to be all that nicer.

Re:Asia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37303076)

Sounds as if your comparing Kansas to Singapore, not exactly fair when most of south east Asia still lives in a hut.

Yes they have nice buildings but New York tears down nicer things than they build. Have you looked at the new freedom tower being built? There was a nice Discovery special on it this weekend describing it, I can see it from my building now and it is beautiful, well thought out and unique, so trust me we're not behind.

That said, yeah we tend to be a bit more practical and less thoughtful with most of our building, which I happen to find more beautiful and natural in many ways.
 

googling 'china pollution' (1)

decora (1710862) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303170)

i have to agree. their people, dying of cancer, take it so much more gracefully. they dont shout in the streets like those people in syria or tunisia. they just shut up and die, so admirable.

Re:Asia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37303206)

The should have built this in the desert.

Re:Asia (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303396)

Asia is in general much nicer looking than western world. They put a lot of thought on how things look, even to the finest detail, and have done so for centuries.

Actually, the reason they look nice is because they are simply NEW. The west is is still using 100 year old infrastructure. But a much larger percentage of some Asian cities are the result of rapid growth, with most of the large buildings being built post 1960s.

Re:Asia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37303492)

Asia nice looking? That hasn't been my experience. The only nice looking areas of Asia seemed to be due to European influence.
Come to think of it, the dirties areas of western cities tend to be the asian areas. Maybe I've developed a bias:

  In China I got an idea how old a building was by the amount of grime it had collected. At night these same buildings had amazing light shows... a residential apartment tower with computer coordinated light bars on the balconies.. looked amazing... until the sun came up.

In Calgary, Alberta, a super clean city by any standard, you walk by the large asian T&T grocery store on 16thNE and they've let the bird crap pile up along the main entrance! They'll eventually get fined... but really... are the health inspectors the only one's concerned about this? Go to _your_ local asian-run restaurant and look around.

Malaysia was dirty too... and it took them 3 months to repair an incredibly dangerous broken drain cover across the street from "Times Square" - their fanciest shopping complex roller-coaster and all. I put a frick'n dead tree in the hole to warn others.

Thailand - they know how to do it right... brightly painted and overall clean place!

Indonesia... other than the brightly painted taxi's you don't get a clean place with any pride until you get west to Yogyakarta.

then of course there's India. Look down for the garbage dump. If you want clean your only option is Gandhi's neighborhood or the Taj Mahal.

There was the Buddhist Monk throwing the chip bag out the bus window in the middle of nowhere in Laos. Of course... they used to use leaves to wrap food in and haven't quite adapted yet.

I have to admit though that Singapore is very clean in general. After all I've seen though I'm sorry, I have to attribute that more to the British influence, and the super-strict laws to keep the population from messing it up.

Don't get me wrong... these are all amazing places in one way or another.. some just don't have cleanliness as a priority.
Also, it's much different when you consider personal spaces.

Re:Asia (1)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303546)

Clearly you haven't traveled much in the West.

Looks like a toaster (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#37302914)

Or some random chome chunk form a 1950's buick

either way, grats just what the world needs, another monstrosity of an ugly building

Re:Looks like a toaster (2)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 3 years ago | (#37302988)

You want to see a monstrosity? There aren't any near me, but this [wikimedia.org] comes pretty close.

We call it the slug.

Re:Looks like a toaster (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303016)

gah! Its like a disco ball laid out a turd

Re:Looks like a toaster (1)

Hartree (191324) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303022)

If you're a tomato plant, be afraid. Be very afraid.

(And carry an oversize salt shaker.)

Re:Looks like a toaster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37303116)

Mechamothra!

Mechamothra was in a Godzilla script but never made it to the screen, BTW.

Re:Looks like a toaster (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37303034)

Did someone say TOAST?!

Very lovely, but for me it misses the point (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 3 years ago | (#37302918)

The sand crawler we all know so well was dirty, weather-worn and perhaps extemporised. In the circumstances methinks they should have gone with a shiny Naboo-inspired design.

Re:Very lovely, but for me it misses the point (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#37302964)

it also wasn't curved

Re:Very lovely, but for me it misses the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37303328)

The sand crawler we all know so well was dirty, weather-worn and perhaps extemporised.

That was sooo 1977. I guess you haven't seen the enhancements in the new Blu-Ray version.

Re:Very lovely, but for me it misses the point (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303642)

I guess you haven't seen the enhancements in the new Blu-Ray version.

Your point? If anything it would have been worse, being able to see every pock mark, burn and blemish in glorious (TM) high-definition.

Re:Very lovely, but for me it misses the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37303962)

You talking about Mark Hamill's face or the Sand Crawler?

what the flook ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37302924)

....does ol' george need an office in singapore / asia for?

hasn't produced anything relevant in about 22 years.

Re:what the flook ? (2)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#37302968)

it says right there in the article, he needs a theater for his ego, its not as strong in the east

Re:what the flook ? (1)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 3 years ago | (#37304206)

I just assumed this office was in charge of ways to further fuck up future releases of the original trilogy.

hahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37302926)

LOL I hate netfirms.

How Appropriate... (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303032)

If memory serves, the sandcrawlers were the mobile headquarters for the Jawas, a smelly little species known for their skill in picking over and/or stealing the detritus of more advanced civilizations, bodging it up just enough to get it moving off the sales lot under its own power, and then skipping town.

This seems like an eminently appropriate architectural allusion for the 'late-Lucas' period of Lucasfilms' work...

Re:How Appropriate... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37303154)

Phew, okay, thought you were gonna somewhere else entirely with that one...

Re:How Appropriate... (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303338)

Something that has long bothered me about the Jawas was the idea that Tatooine was littered with serviceable escaped droids just waiting to be picked up and resold. It really is a stupid idea. Wouldn't it have made more sense for the the droids to have crashed the escape pod into Uncle Owen's back yard?

Re:How Appropriate... (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303358)

If I remember correctly, the rationalization(most likely a retcon) was that Tatooine was originally a much more ambitious mining colony that, for some sort of convenient plot-related reasons, failed to pan out. The investors said "fuck it" and abandoned all the equipment not worth pulling back out of the gravity well, along with the assorted scum and yokels who were hanging around to either take advantage of the distant location or scratch out a feeble living. That was supposed to explain how they had sandcrawlers in the first place, those being rather above their tech level, and how a lifestyle based on nomadic scrounging and tinkering could possibly make sense...

Re:How Appropriate... (2)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303818)

You guys are cracking me up... lol. Seriously....

George Lucas wrote the movie and filmed it in the 70's. Rational explanations? How about how much drugs were done in the 70's? Trust me, there was some rationalization about a lot of things in the movie, but the kind you only understand when you are really really fucked up.

I heard the guy that played Chewbacca was stoned half the time during the film. It's the only way he could pull off those sounds.

Special edition? (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303060)

So, how long till a special edition Star Wars re-release has sandcrawlers that look like that?

Re:Special edition? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303156)

maybe that's why they're locating that office in singapore.

you know, if bart & lisa try to go to smack some sense to the guys there, they'll get death.

Sweet building! (1)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303062)

I just hope they return to making movies that look half as good as the building.

Although, what I really mean is writing and acting half as good as the building looks. But that wouldn't have been as smooth an opening line.

Why are there so many sour grapes in the comments? (-1, Flamebait)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303102)

The guy made a great movie.

Don't hate him because he didn't make another movie that matched your high standards.

If your wife cooks you an amazing steak and gives you an amazing blow job, appreciate that she did that. Don't hate her because she didn't give you steak and lobster and a threesome the night after that.

The problem is YOU and your ridiculous standards, not Lucas.

Grow the fuck up, you ridiculous Star Wars fanboys.

Re:Why are there so many sour grapes in the commen (1)

Alter_3d (948458) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303140)

While I agree with most of your post, IMHO what really bothers most Star Wars fans is not the prequels, but the crap he pulled with the release of the "Special Edition" and the DVDs. He took great movies and filled them with CGI nonsense. Come on. An extended dance sequence in Episode VI with a freaking toad stripper? WTF Lucas??

Re:Why are there so many sour grapes in the commen (1)

mrsurb (1484303) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303168)

If your wife cooks you an amazing steak and gives you an amazing blow job, appreciate that she did that. Don't hate her because she didn't give you steak and lobster and a threesome the night after that.

No, but if the night after she promises to give you steak and lobster but instead serves you a turd sandwich, and the threesome is you and two big burly guys (and you're not into that) then you will complain.

Re:Why are there so many sour grapes in the commen (1)

aekafan (1690920) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303172)

I completely agree with this. The SW eps. 1-3 were clearly made for children. Unfortunately, all we have heard about them around here is the child-like whining of the Star Wars fanboy losers. They hit their target clearly, and Lucas is laughing all the way to the bank, because even the fanboy rage is still publicity for him

Re:Why are there so many sour grapes in the commen (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303296)

My kids were bored by them. They weren't made for kids. They were made for chumps... and seeing as I went to the theater and watched them and own them now, I guess I'm one of those chumps.

Re:Why are there so many sour grapes in the commen (0)

vux984 (928602) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303636)

I completely agree with this. The SW eps. 1-3 were clearly made for children.

Turmoil has engulfed the Galactic Republic. The taxation of trade routes to outlaying star systems is in dispute. Hoping to resolve the matter with a blockade of deadly battleships, the greedy Trade Federation has stopped all shipping to the small planet of Naboo.

Yep... way to engage the young'uns. The movie doesn't even have a main character.

My kids don't enjoy it at all, and if we throw it on they wander in and out paying attention to only the major fight scenes. These are kids who will watch The 10th Kingdom from start to finish in one sitting.

The problem with Star Wars I to III is that they are bad movies. Full stop. They don't satisfy anyone and they are chock full of bad decisions, bad acting, bad scripting, bad direction, they're just bad. And they are stuffed with CGI to the point of distraction.

And the CGI additions to the later episodes do nothing to make them better, they extend the movie and add nothing, except distraction. If they'd been in the original movie, they should have been cut out by a good editor.

Re:Why are there so many sour grapes in the commen (0)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303902)

The movie doesn't even have a main character.

The main characters in all six Star Wars films are R2D2 and C3P0. Kasdan tried to get away from it in Empire Strikes Back, which is everyone's favorite, so it's understandable why this fact is so conveniently overlooked.

I love how everyone becomes an expert film critic when bashing Star Wars episodes 1-3. The fact of the matter is, if the prequels would have lived up to contemporary critical standards they would have felt out of place next to episodes 4-6. The same goofiness we hate about Jar-Jar Binks was central to C3P0. We just have fond childhood memories of C3P0 which blind us to how annoying he really was.

I'm sure you would have been just ecstatic if Michael Bay made episodes 1-3. They would do everything 'right' and by doing so fail to actually hold all six movies together as a single cinematic experience. The point of the CGI enhancements to the older ones was an obvious means to this end. They came out before the prequels and Lucas wanted to make them fit together cinematically.

People seem to really forget that Star Wars is a series of adventure films. They get into some dark territory when they climax (episodes III/VI), but they build up to these climaxes with stories of adventure and fun. It's obvious that many filmgoers such as yourself wanted the prequels to be like Batman Begins compared to the Tim Burton films. But Lucas wasn't trying to redefine what Star Wars was -- he was just finishing a project he started a long time ago.

Hayden Christensen may have been a wholly mediocre actor, but so was Mark Hamill. Wouldn't it have felt weird for 1-3 to have stellar acting/writing and then move on to the ridiculousness in 4-6? I say keep it ridiculous the whole way through, which is just what Lucas did.

Personally, I think Star Wars as a whole series is the greatest work of cinematic art ever created. Yeah, I said it. Citizen Kane doesn't have shit on Star Wars.

Re:Why are there so many sour grapes in the commen (0)

vux984 (928602) | more than 3 years ago | (#37304134)

The main characters in all six Star Wars films are R2D2 and C3P0. Kasdan tried to get away from it in Empire Strikes Back, which is everyone's favorite, so it's understandable why this fact is so conveniently overlooked.

Neither had any real part in episode one. They were not the main characters. Its absurd on its face to suggest that they were.

And even in later episodes, they were not the main characters, they were the comic relief. Luke Skywalker and Han Solo were the main characters... they had conflict and character development. The two droids... not so much.

I love how everyone becomes an expert film critic when bashing Star Wars episodes 1-3.

Including you?

The fact of the matter is, if the prequels would have lived up to contemporary critical standards they would have felt out of place next to episodes 4-6.

They still feel out of place.

The same goofiness we hate about Jar-Jar Binks was central to C3P0. We just have fond childhood memories of C3P0 which blind us to how annoying he really was.

JarJar just stands out in the prequels as a focal point for what is wrong with them. JarJar as "C3P0 2.0" is just fine, albeit unfortunate. But the movies failings go far beyond the pointless annoyance of JarJar. C3P0 actually had some good lines.

I'm sure you would have been just ecstatic if Michael Bay made episodes 1-3. They would do everything 'right' and by doing so fail to actually hold all six movies together as a single cinematic experience.

I hate Michael Bay movies.

But Lucas wasn't trying to redefine what Star Wars was -- he was just finishing a project he started a long time ago.

Then make a good movie. eps 1 to 3 sucked.

You mentioned Batman... good example. The original with Keaton and Nicholson was perfectly fine.

While many people would have liked Batman Begin's style re-envisioning of the series.

Continuing it in the same style doesn't mean its going to be terrible though.

Lucas could have made eps1-3 in the style of the originals without making them suck.

Batman Returns was awful. But Batman II with Walken and DeVito was just fine. I'd have been fine with a Batman Begin's prequels... I'd have been fine with a Batman II style prequel... but we got Batman Returns... no... what we got was even worse.

Hayden Christensen may have been a wholly mediocre actor, but so was Mark Hamill. Wouldn't it have felt weird for 1-3 to have stellar acting/writing and then move on to the ridiculousness in 4-6? I say keep it ridiculous the whole way through, which is just what Lucas did.

Yes Hamill wasn't the best actor. But Christensen's problem wasn't his acting, it was his script and direction. It was Batman Returns not Batman II.

It didn't continue the sillyness... it was just bad.

Re:Why are there so many sour grapes in the commen (0)

vux984 (928602) | more than 3 years ago | (#37304166)

-sigh-

Batman II is Batman Returns and is fine.
I meant Batman and Robin as the turd sandwich.

Sorry for the confusion.

Re:Why are there so many sour grapes in the commen (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#37304468)

Even Hamill could invoke gravitas without behaving like a spoiled adolescent. Ponder the final confrontation between Luke and Vader in RotJ, and then look at Christensen's sheer lack of chops in Anakin's final battle against Obiwan. Hamill was no Shakespearean actor, I'll grant you, but he was a helluva lot better than Christensen. Even with good dialogue, Christensen would have sucked. Hamill, at least, was watchable even with stuck with some of Lucas's infamously badly written lines.

Re:Why are there so many sour grapes in the commen (1)

apt142 (574425) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303176)

The problem isn't that he didn't make another great movie.

The problem is he took that great movie and manipulated it again and again.

To use your analogy, he cooked us dinner and took us around the block. And now he's retelling us that same story night after night with new fabrications such as changing the steak to salmon and making us believe that we blew him instead.

Living on past accomplishments is one thing. Dwelling on them and reminding us frequently how great it was that ONE time. Not so great.

Re:Why are there so many sour grapes in the commen (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303254)

"Living on past accomplishments is one thing. Dwelling on them and reminding us frequently how great it was that ONE time. Not so great."

Yeah I agree. But that's what fanboys are doing to themselves, not what Lucas is doing to them.

Appreciate what you get in life. Raising your standards to ridiculous heights and flogging a dead horse is the fanboy's problem, not Lucas's

Re:Why are there so many sour grapes in the commen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37303494)

"Appreciate what you get in life. Raising your standards to ridiculous heights and flogging a dead horse is the fanboy's problem, not Lucas's"

Perhaps we've grown up, but you haven't. Raising your standards is something that all should attain.

Re:Why are there so many sour grapes in the commen (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303620)

no. wisdom is the difference between raising your standards too high and not raising them at all. it shows you don't know what you are talking about when you think just raising standards is the only issue here, and it doesn't speak very highly of your communication skills that my words represent something to you that i didn't even say

Re:Why are there so many sour grapes in the commen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37304234)

Maybe you could make a movie about wise zombies. That would be great.

Re:Why are there so many sour grapes in the commen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37303300)

If your wife cooks you an amazing steak and gives you an amazing blow job, appreciate that she did that. Don't hate her because she didn't give you steak and lobster and a threesome the night after that.

If you and your wife aren't happy today, it really doesn't matter at all that you were happy together years ago. You should still get a divorce.

Re:Why are there so many sour grapes in the commen (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303428)

right

but then you are dealing with people with serious issues about the ability to appreciate what they have, and therefore people who will never truly be happy, and therefore miserable people you should stop considering as valid examples of anything

there are pitiable creatures you should recoil from and never ever want to be near, as they are merely toxic influences in the lives of everyone they touch, because they simply can't ever be happy and content with modest things

Re:Why are there so many sour grapes in the commen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37303386)

"The guy made a great movie."

I love it when manchildren try to throw around the "fanboi" epithet. Uh, you're gushing over a movie for children, not grown adults. We have nostalgia on our side for Star Wars, the prequels, which we can see with fresher eyes were fucking retarded.

Not the first sandcrawler corporate HQ. (3, Funny)

davebooth (101350) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303114)

Exercise a little google-fu and check out the Best Buy corporate HQ near the Minneapolis/St Paul airport... When they built that it seemed so appropriate and in line with their corporate attitude that they'd be headquartered in a bunch of sandcrawlers. We try to avoid buying from them but if we're running out of options, somebody in the family will always say "well, in the last resort we could go look what the Jawas have got... "

Re:Not the first sandcrawler corporate HQ. (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303136)

Thank you. I'll be stealing that.

Re:Not the first sandcrawler corporate HQ. (1)

Flyerman (1728812) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303160)

hahaha! oh man, they really do look like a bunch of sandcrawlers.

Re:Not the first sandcrawler corporate HQ. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37303192)

The new library in Canada Water, London is a sandcrawler-like building - www.canadawater.org

Re:Not the first sandcrawler corporate HQ. (1)

proverbialcow (177020) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303342)

I know exactly the buildings you're thinking of - just off 494/Penn in Richfield.

Weirdly enough, I was thinking of another Twin Cities building that my friends had dubbed 'The Sandcrawler': McNamara Alumni Center [umn.edu] at University of Minnesota.

Non Entity. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37303132)

I guess Lucas would rather spend the money on the building that on better writers or a series of lawyers that prevent him from killing his own creations. Oh well. It's not my money. Lucas has ceased to be anything. Enjoy the building.

If it was Peter Jackson putting up a building... I can understand. But not Lucas.

And these weld points (1)

senorpoco (1396603) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303166)

Too accurate for Chinese people, only imperial storm troopers are so precise.

Re:And these weld points (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303242)

Well played.

Except when you're watching/being shot at, then they can't hit the broad side of a barn.

What retarded PR (3, Insightful)

sgage (109086) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303190)

"Neither rusty nor slow moving in this case, the glassy and streamlined building will combine a high performance facade with lush gardens and foliage that spills over terraces, resulting in a highly efficient commercial space. "

WTF is a high performance facade?

Trite tripe (1)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303348)

They're bullshit artists, they get turds polished up real nice. I guess PR are the Jawas of the corporate world.

Re:What retarded PR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37304424)

WTF is a high performance facade?

I'm guessing the glass is insulated, high efficiency, low emission (especially with the mirroring), so there is little solar gain and lower cooling costs.

Larry Ellison (2, Insightful)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303200)

Larry Ellison is following suit by making his headquarters shaped like the Death Star. Coincidentally, it's aimed at Google.

Re:Larry Ellison (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303340)

AT&T has been using the Death Star as their logo since the 80's. Seems oddly appropriate.

Of course... (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303202)

...everyone has to walk single-file in and around the building...to hide their numbers.

Another in Virginia (1)

Nkwe (604125) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303212)

Right next to the Dulles airport in Virginia there is the CIT Building [flickr.com] that has a similar look. Address is 2214 Rock Hill Road, Herndon, VA 20170.

'Bird Shit Architecture' in Brasilia and Beyond (3, Informative)

ipv6_128_lgwb (70428) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303214)

Great talk about this type of Architecture http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnq1SvmZUYU [youtube.com]

Re:'Bird Shit Architecture' in Brasilia and Beyond (1)

wonderboss (952111) | more than 3 years ago | (#37304032)

Where are my mod points when I need them.

Best reference ever on /.

For an alternative way see "The Timeless Way of Building" by Christopher Alexander.

Sandcrawler from unreleased StarWars (1)

tokul (682258) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303238)

Sandcrawler was rusty box on tracks. Building is horseshoe shaped and sits on poles. If building looks like sandcrawler to journalist, he/she should stop smoking that stuff or pass it to others. Two or three ground floors missing. Public podium available 24/7 for bombing and you don't have to dig anything to put explosives under the building. Interesting design. I hope they don't have earthquakes or terrorists in Singapore.

It might be slow moving (1)

theillien (984847) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303266)

If you consider the glass-as-slow-moving-fluid concept.

only white people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37303302)

Apparently, Lucas' designers expect that only white people will inhabit this building in Singapore. Look at the slide show.

Why do they need a Singapore office? (1)

CerealSam (642129) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303596)

Let alone a whole building? Managing the cheap labor for their merchandizing?

Han shot first!!!! (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303760)

And I have the video to prove it.

Re:Han shot first!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37303858)

And I have the video to prove it.

Now, why was my first thought "Rickroll'd" when you mentioned that?

Hey Look! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37303966)

Outsourcing is cool when you build a geeky office building.

Looks nothing like a sandcrawler. (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 3 years ago | (#37303982)

This looks like the antithesis to a sandcrawler.

Signapore canings... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37304126)

This is the same place that caned the American more than a decade ago and a Swiss national just last year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore
They apparently cane you regularly there in prison and school even.
I suppose all of our corporations opening offices there, including Lucasfilm, condone this or they wouldn't be there.
Food for thought.

Heat (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#37304160)

From TFA: "the space, which will be overgrown with foliage, will be a respite from the heat and the sun and cooler than surrounding areas."

Which will be warmer because of the heat and the sun reflected from the shiny building...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?