Slashdot Mirror


Unesco Probing Star Wars Filming In Ireland

First time accepted submitter wijnands (874114) writes Star Wars crews have started filming on the small Irish Island of Skellig Michael. This island, listed as a Unesco world heritage site, features the remains of a 6th century monastery as well as breeding populations of puffins, manx shearwaters, storm petrels, guillemots and kittiwakes. Currently the Irish navy has deployed one vessel to maintain a two-mile exclusion zone around the island. Unesco is now concerned about what is going on the island, which is only visited 13 times a year by tourist groups, and has asked the Irish government for an explanation.

38 of 181 comments (clear)

  1. Today I Learnt that... by balajeerc · · Score: 2, Funny

    "... puffins, manx shearwaters, storm petrels, guillemots and kittiwakes" are NOT from a Harry Potter novel but real world animals. I am going to have a lot of fun looking them up.

    1. Re:Today I Learnt that... by just_another_sean · · Score: 4, Funny

      Seems to me that they have a nice cache of Star Wars alien/animal names all provided free of charge by the nice folks in Ireland...

      A herd of guillemots sure sounds scarier to me than a herd of nerfs. And I'm sure it's a total pain when your inside an asteroid and a bunch of filthy kittiwakes start chewing on your power system. And of course storm troopers riding around on storm petrels is too obvious to pass up!

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    2. Re:Today I Learnt that... by itsdapead · · Score: 4, Funny

      Many puffins died to bring us this information...

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    3. Re:Today I Learnt that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They're not *that* common (as evidenced by the fact their habitat needs protecting). I'm sure I would have heard of them if I were a bird-watcher or maybe if I lived near the ocean. But chiding someone far outside of their habitat for not being familiar with them is kind of like chiding someone far outside of cattle country for not knowing the difference between a Milking Devon and a Dutch Belted.

    4. Re:Today I Learnt that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's more likely to be that general knowledge education is simply better in UK

      And yet you didn't even know the difference between a Milking Devon and a Dutch Belted. Even a 8-year-old knows that where I'm from.

      But if you want to keep congratulating yourself with your own smug sense of intellectual superiority, might I suggest you buy a Macbook?

      It wouldn't be so bad if the reaction was "Ooh! Tell me more!" but more often than not I'm met with anger that I've shown someone up for their ignorance, or worse still, pride in ignorance.

      The reason they were angry wasn't because they love ignorance. It was likely because you came off as an smug little prick condescendingly talking down to your inferiors. You're the douchebag who feels the need to brag to everyone at the party that he doesn't even *OWN* a TV, and then wonders why people don't like you.

  2. Good... by chinton · · Score: 5, Funny

    Keep an eye on them so they don't do something stupid... Like Jar Jar. Or Hayden Christensen.

    1. Re:Good... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      Disney's past their peak awfulness of the late 1990s and early 2000s, where milking every IP they had for maximum profit at the expense of any and all artistic credibility was a primary goal, and it's been multiple years since they last invented a pop-star by manipulatively marketing them at kids.

    2. Re:Good... by NotDrWho · · Score: 3, Funny

      Disney's past their peak awfulness of the late 1990s and early 2000s

      Weak-minded fool! They've used the Jedi mind trick on you!

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    3. Re:Good... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's the perfect place to bury Jar Jar and Hayden Christensen in a peat bog.

    4. Re:Good... by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When I re-watched Star Wars for the first time as an adult, I was shocked at how whiney Luke was. As a child I didn't notice how unlikable the character is.

    5. Re:Good... by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      They clone them in a lab in Orlando. Using DNA from seedless grapes, they've supposedly even created some recent experimental lines who are pushy-stage-parent free.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    6. Re:Good... by Nimey · · Score: 4, Funny

      Leia is a Disney princess now.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    7. Re:Good... by micahraleigh · · Score: 2

      Dissatisfaction with the world and the choices it hands to you can often be interpreted as whiney.

      I saw Anakin in II and III as whiney and Luke as an individual.

    8. Re:Good... by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      I think he was meant to be a little unlikeable in the first two movies (certainly in the Dagobah scenes in Empire, without a doubt). He's the hot-headed kid with a lot of enthusiasm and idealism, but with little experience or sense. Han Solo is meant to be his literary foil, the cynical scoundrel with no idealism or enthusiasm, but a lot of experience and sense. Both are meant to have both unlikeable qualities, and admirable ones.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    9. Re:Good... by idontgno · · Score: 2

      But are they really guesting Princesses into Sofia's timeline?

      Yes.

      Does Cedric have something to do with it?

      No, as far as I can tell. I guess it's assumed all the Disney Princesses have some kind of illogical shared continuity (regardless of time, history, or distance... because preschoolers). Think of it as the Power of Marketing.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  3. It is more visited than 13 times per year... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are 13 tour companies one can take to visit the island. The tours run each day during the summer but only once per day. So there are 13 boats of visitors per day for 5 months out of the year, not 13 visits per year total.

    1. Re:It is more visited than 13 times per year... by Muros · · Score: 3, Funny

      There are 13 tour companies one can take to visit the island. The tours run each day during the summer but only once per day. So there are 13 boats of visitors per day for 5 months out of the year, not 13 visits per year total.

      In a really good year here, we get about 10 days of summer.

  4. Quote from the article by timrod · · Score: 4, Funny

    "We can't tell what the filming of Star Wars on the site will do to the wildlife."

    I can see a whole lot of lawsuits from all of the puffins, manx shearwaters, storm petrels, guillemots, and kittiwakes who don't want to appear in a modern Star Wars film. Can't say I blame them, not after Episodes 1 through 3.

    1. Re:Quote from the article by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "We can't tell what the filming of Star Wars on the site will do to the wildlife."

      I'm pretty sure I can tell you. Not a fucking thing. Nature is not so fragile that a film crew will destroy an ecosystem just by walking around and filming a few scenes. They're under restrictions on what they can do (i.e. they're not going to be blowing up the island), and they've got an ecologist on the set at all times. This is all about a local jackass getting his nose in a snit.

      Stephen Newton, a seabirds expert with Birdwatch Ireland, said he could not get onto the island to check the important colony.

      Mr Newton said he was asked by the film producers only days before shooting was to begin if he would help them with an impact assessment to secure permits for filming.

      He refused, arguing it would take several weeks to assess, as many of the species breed underground or in rocky crevices where it would be difficult to see what damage is being done.

      Are you kidding me? Several weeks for an impact assessment? Does that strike anyone else as a bit over the top?

      Likely translation: He tried to shake the movie company down for a few weeks worth of work rather than a day or two, and they told him to piss off, then contacted someone more reasonably inclined. They obviously got the permits, meaning that someone was able to do the work in just a few days. And why the hell should he be allowed on the island after what he tried to pull? The fact that he's blabbing to the press and causing trouble for them now shows they were probably right to snub him.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:Quote from the article by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Film crews can be pretty destructive.

      This is about people wanting what is happening on the island to be transparent, like it should be.

      "Are you kidding me?"

      No.
      " Several weeks for an impact assessment?"
      Yes.
      " Does that strike anyone else as a bit over the top?"
      Not really. OTOH, I know what is involved in an impact assessment, where you clearly do not.
      I will note that I've never been to this island. So maybe there is some geological reason you are aware of when you where surveying the island...?

      He is an expert in the species, and wants to be sure their disturbance is a minimal one.

      ob. Star Wars joke:
      Bleep, booop beedadbee blooeeeuuup.

      That really cracked them up in the droid factory.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Quote from the article by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

      So, maybe there's a different interpretation, and maybe it does take weeks to figure out HOW A FUCKING ECOSYSTEM WILL BE IMPACTED.

      If you read the article instead of ranting angrily at me, you'd find that it really doesn't sound like the film crew or local authorities are ignoring the island's ecological safety.

      The Irish Film Board, which helps international film producers locate in the Republic of Ireland, said consent was granted for a limited shoot on Skellig Michael after extensive scientific analysis by the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS).

      Ok, the National Parks and Wildlife Services seems to think things will be fine. They may have contacted Mr. Newton only days in advance, but you can bet they were in contact with the NPWS for a hell of a lot longer than that. I suppose the NPWS could be lying about their extensive scientific analysis, but I'm more inclined to take them at their word, with it being their butts on the line if anything bad happens to the island. Let's read on:

      The film agency said experts are on the island during the shoot and have the authority to intervene if they suspect any impact on the habitat and wildlife.

      "The production company also has a senior ecological advisor on set at all times," the spokeswoman added.

      "Activity is confined to visitor areas and pathways."

      Ok, that sounds reasonable, right? The ecological advisor has veto authority on the set, which is good. Now, let's note that last part. The film crew will only be filming where people already visit on a regular basis. So... you really think that, while staying on existing pathways and areas that visitors regularly use, the film crews are somehow going to damage this ecosystem? That, unless this particular expert, one Mr. Newton, studies the problem for weeks, that there may be some ecological damage?

      Sorry, I don't buy it. And here's the biggest reason why. He was supposedly an expert on this particular ecosystem, right? Given the plans of what the film crew was to do, shouldn't he be able to tell immediately if their shooting would bother the local wildlife? What would weeks of study tell him that his previous years of expertise wouldn't? How would he be able to tell if the wildlife were being disturbed unless he were monitoring them as they were filming? It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Apparently, it didn't make much sense to the film company or the NPWS either, since they simply proceeded without him.

      I don't think I've ever wasted this much time responding to an AC troll before, but you know what, I'm fucking tired of wacko environmentalist loonies strumming their heartstrings without engaging their brains. Guess what - I happen to love the environment too, and don't want to see any protected ecosystems get screwed up. But damn, you have to be reasonable or people just tune you out, and that ends up hurting a worthwhile cause in the long run.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    4. Re: Quote from the article by Talderas · · Score: 3, Funny

      We have discovered an abnormally high number of dead wildlife surrounding the sites where the filming occurred. The bodies were discovered with wounds across their abdomens and a few animals were beheaded. After questioning the film crew we realized they were entirely unaware of the scenes that surround their scene. Upon reinvestigation of the sites where dead animals were found we further discovered branches that had been gnaws and scraped into crude sharp edge upon which traces of blood were discovered.

      Based upon this evidence we have reached the concluse that the wildlife had committed ritual suicide after witnessing the horrible creation brought about by Disney. Since the culpability of Disney is unquestionable, we will be fining them $50,000.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    5. Re:Quote from the article by Muros · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nature is not so fragile that a film crew will destroy an ecosystem just by walking around and filming a few scenes. They're under restrictions on what they can do (i.e. they're not going to be blowing up the island)

      No point in watching this in the cinema then.

  5. Re:Who owns the island? by PvtVoid · · Score: 4, Informative

    That person should tell the UN to mind its own business!

    The island is owned by the Commissioners of Irish Lights, i.e. the Irish government.

    From the UNESCO web page on Sceilg Mhichíl:

    When in 1578 Queen Elizabeth I of England dissolved Ballinskelligs following the rebellion of the Earl of Desmond, under whose protection it had been, the island passed from the Augustinian Order to John Butler. However, although the monastery no longer existed, it continued to be a place of pilgrimage. Around 1826 the owner sold the island to the Corporation for Preserving and Improving the Port of Dublin (later to become the Commissioners of Irish Lights), who built two lighthouses on the Atlantic side.

    Sorry to burst your little libertarian bubble there, dude. Better luck next time.

  6. Re:Not filming in America anymore? by PvtVoid · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thanks Obama!!!

    Obama is also responsible for why you can't get a date.

  7. These are not the filmmakers you are looking for. by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    They can go about their business. Move along...

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  8. worlds largest greenscreen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Of course they're filming in Ireland, its the worlds largest green screen.

  9. Re:Not filming in America anymore? by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Informative

    Aside from special effects, they really didn't do much shooting in the US. The studio work was mostly in the UK, and planets were represented by Tunisia , Italy, Spain, and a few others.

  10. Episode VII by Foundling · · Score: 3, Funny

    What I get from this is that Episode VII is basically going to be a documentary about puffins.

  11. Re:Who owns the island? by operagost · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sorry to crush your cocky statist attitude, but he'd simply assumed the island was privately owned and was incorrect. It has nothing to do with whether he's a libertarian or not, although I'm greatly concerned if the concept of private property is now only the province of libertarians.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  12. Puffins attacked the craft services tent, allright by RevWaldo · · Score: 5, Funny

    ~ They ate all the lobster salad and the chocolate chip power bars. Look at the feathers and tracks. It's just I never heard of them hitting anything this big before.

    ~ They didn't. But we are meant to think they did. These tracks are side by side. Puffins always march single file to hide their numbers.

    .

  13. The power to destroy a habitat is nothing... by RivenAleem · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The power to destroy a habitat is nothing next to the power of Money.

    One must really wonder what is so special about this location, that they A) feel the need to risk damage to the habitats to film, and B) could not be reproduced in a green screen environment like they do everything else.

  14. Re: explanation by andywebs · · Score: 2

    These are not the bribes you were looking for.

  15. Re:Who owns the island? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

    if the concept of private property is now only the province of libertarians

    The way it's going, if you "still" believe in private property you're either a libertarian or you've given up on compulsory political systems entirely. All the other factions believe in some degree of community ownership of everything.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  16. I'm confused by mark-t · · Score: 2

    If there was really such a major conservationalist issue with them filming there at this time, how did they get the permits to film there in the first place?

    If it was just as a result of miscommunication, then it would seem that the permits should probably be revoked (and fees for them refunded, obviously), unless those making the movie can show that film crew's activities will not introduce things to the environment there which may damage the ecosystem.

    I'm as big a Star Wars fan as anybody else that I know, but it's still just a movie, for chissakes. It's not worth harming wildlife over, even if it's only accidentally.

  17. ...compared to the power of ACTING!! by dfenstrate · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The power to destroy a habitat is nothing next to the power of Money.

    One must really wonder what is so special about this location, that they A) feel the need to risk damage to the habitats to film, and B) could not be reproduced in a green screen environment like they do everything else.

    Excessive use of green screen likely helped Episodes 1-3 be so terrible- wooden acting being one of the many problems. An actor's performance can only be improved by actually being in the environment their character is supposed to be in.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  18. not clear who I insulted by frovingslosh · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm not clear on who your people are. Are they the ones who boil food until it is completely bland and tasteless, or are they the ones who buy politicians every time one comes up on the market? I hope that you do understand that the reference to not being bound by the laws of a land of potato eaters was intended to reflect the view taken by the corporation that feels it can do anything it wants.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  19. Re:Who owns the island? by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's a difference in believing in private property, which most people in liberal democratic countries do, versus belieiving that private property makes you lord and master over every square inch of it (puffins be damned!). There is always some community responsibility involved everywhere, unless and until someone manages to live somewhere with no community and has no effects on anyone else. So even if this island was private property there are still large community effects involved (this is usually countered by the notion that economic benefits are far more important than environmental harm, maybe by saying something silly like "people are more important than birds!").