Unesco Probing Star Wars Filming In Ireland 181
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.
Today I Learnt that... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Today I Learnt that... (Score:5, 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!
Re:Today I Learnt that... (Score:5, Funny)
Many puffins died to bring us this information...
SOLD! SOLD! SOLD! (Score:2)
SOLD!
To the highest bidder!
Hey! This is just the market, finding another solution. To the problem of life itself...
Re: (Score:2)
(Score:6, Funny)
Re: (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.
Re: (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 t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, most people in US should at least know "puffin" as it's a name of a the largest English language children's book publishing group.
On the other hand, ignorance is relative. If Europeans learn about regions 200 miles from them then that covers a lot of territory, but many Americans are very familiar with parts of their that far away and may drive on trips that far regularly. It would not be at all surprising to find London residents who know very little about anything outside of London except what the
Re: (Score:2)
Don't make me link this here [xkcd.com].
Re: (Score:2)
What you should have learnt (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
not clear who I insulted (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be more accurate to define the Irish of a land of people who aspire to eat potatoes, sometimes unsuccessfully?
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is they are fairly toothless given all they really have is their branding. The most they can do is either:
1) Withdraw heritage status from a location
2) Write a strongly worded letter to Government/Local Council/Developer/Other threatening to withdraw heritage status from a location
Since most places that have heritage status only use it for tourism promotions and this island only has 13 tourist trips a year, threatening to destroy the tourism is pointless...
Good... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The sad thing is that Hayden Christensen was actually an upgrade. :/
Re: (Score:2)
So true. As much as people rag on Christensen, it sure beat the shit out of casting an 8-year-old in the role. The second film in that trilogy was no masterpiece compared to the originals, but it was compared to the abomination that was The Phantom Menace.
Re: (Score:2)
People bag on Christensen without remembering how terrible Mark Hamill was.
We used to play a Star Wars drinking game in college - one of the items was to take a shot every time Luke whines.
Re:Good... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I saw Anakin in II and III as whiney and Luke as an individual.
Re: (Score:2)
Powwwer converrrters!
Re: (Score:2)
I have a t-shirt that says "Skywalker, when you want your heroes with a little whine."
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I heard a story that at one of the recent conventions, Jake Lloyd showed up to sign autographs. And the autograph line for one of the guys who did some minor FX stuff for the original trilogy was reportedly much longer than the line to get his autograph (which was almost non-existent).
I almost feel sorry for him. He probably had typical stage parents who pushed him into acting, and had no idea as a little kid what he was getting himself in for. He was basically exploited by all the adults in his life and is
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if South Park was of any importance in that decision.
Re: (Score:2)
That has yet to be seen. They still have time to drive the Marvel stuff into the ground.
And, really, the 1970s and 1980s had an awful lot of dreck in the form of bad live-action wildlife movies with a narrator.
Yay
Re:Good... (Score:4, 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!
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
up into the garbage chute, flyboy!
Re:Good... (Score:5, Funny)
Leia is a Disney princess now.
Re: (Score:2)
Only a matter of time before she ends up shoehorned into Once Upon A Time.
Re: (Score:2)
And a guest appearance on Sophia the First.
<shudder>
Re: (Score:2)
I'm usually off to work before Sofia the First comes on, so I haven't seen many episodes. But are they really guesting Princesses into Sofia's timeline? Does Cedric have something to do with it?
Re: (Score:3)
But are they really guesting Princesses into Sofia's timeline?
Yes. [wikia.com]
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.
It is more visited than 13 times per year... (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.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:It is more visited than 13 times per year... (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Then he should offer to sell that bit of property to them for market value (taking into consideration a lifetime of lost revenue, mwa ha ha), and if they refuse, well, they gave up their only bargaining chip.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed] or I call BS. There's no legal right in a civilized country to see X by going into someone's property, regardless of X.
Actually, yes there is. From times when road systems were not as good as they are today, and it was literally impossible to leave your own land without traversing someone else's, there developed laws of "rights of way". These are mostly an anachronism today, but do sometimes have to be respected. When I was a young lad, there was an old woman living at the back end of our farm, in a 3 room cottage with an open hearth, no electricity and no running water, half a mile in off the road. She had the legal right
Quote from the article (Score:5, 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.
Re:Quote from the article (Score:5, 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.
Re:Quote from the article (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
No, this is about a jackass deciding to break the law because his films are more important than anything else. The movie company has no right to be on the island and all, they are the foreign invaders. The question is which corrupt politician signed the papers allowing them to break the law?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Quote from the article (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Or someone pulled the assessment from their ass for quick cash.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: Quote from the article (Score:4, 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.
These are not the filmmakers you are looking for. (Score:5, Funny)
worlds largest greenscreen (Score:5, Funny)
Of course they're filming in Ireland, its the worlds largest green screen.
Only UNESCO can stop this! (Score:2)
Episode VII (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's an improvement. Episodes 1, 2 and 3 were documentaries on how not to make a movie.
Puffins attacked the craft services tent, allright (Score:5, Funny)
~ 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.
.
This should be a good one (Score:2)
On one side, we have UNESCO which is charted by a shadow government with designating and protecting what are considered world cultural sites. On the other we have the dark empire of Disney, another shadow that influences government in terms of Copyright and other legislation that it deems necessary to keep the Mouse protected. Any takers on which side will win this battle? I'm betting on the Mouse.
The power to destroy a habitat is nothing... (Score:4, 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.
...compared to the power of ACTING!! (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
If I had seen this comment 2 months ago I would agree completely. However, I have recently seen this clip www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_VnHAy1Vdc which highlights that if you are just good at your job, you can act without any help from being in the correct setting.
Stone Huts (Score:2)
Looking at the pictures of Skellig Michael [aside: didn't Michael Skelling used to be an NPR reporter?] it seems very likely that the stacked-stone huts [google.com] will be used in the new films.
If this is a sign that there's no nexus around Tatooine, this thing might actually have legs!
Re: (Score:2)
Exclusion zone (Score:2)
Currently the Irish navy has deployed one vessel to maintain a 2 mile exclusion zone around the island.
I hope, for all our sakes, that the U.S. military does the same thing around movie theaters after the film is released.
I'm confused (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
how did they get the permits to film there in the first place?
Money talks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If money can buy permission to destroy an environment, then the environment isn't really that important in the first place.
That doesn't follow, you just shop "environmental impact statement companies" until you find one willing to take your money in exchange for permission.
That says nothing about the importance of anything, merely that one can usually find someone who is corrupt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the organizations that grant such permission are corrupt enough to accept a fee in exchange for ignoring the environment, then again., as I said, the environment isn't actually that important to them to begin with.
That's like saying the IRS is corrupt if it accepts even a single tax return prepared by a corrupt tax preparing accountant.
That's not really a fair standard by which to judge the organization.
Everything else you wrote i agree with though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I follow your analogy
I'll clarify. Suppose a city has ordinances requiring certain building codes be followed for new construction.
In some cities the city employs all its own inspectors. If just one of those inspectors can be bribed, does that really mean the organization (city) is not serious about the codes being followed? That seems a stretch.
In other cities, in addition to city employees, there are 3rd party consulting companies that can perform inspections, prepare reports, and submit them
Re: (Score:2)
It means that the inspector that can be bribed doesn't place much importance on what they are being bribed to ignore... I was assuming, perhaps erroneously, that any agency which is supposedly acting on behalf of the government in granting filming permits would also act in accordance with the
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Not to sound like a mastercard commercial, but in this world there really are things that absolutely no amount of money can buy.
The only reason money would ever be able to buy ignoring legitimate environmental concerns is because somebody isn't actually realizing how important the environment (or that aspect of the environment) might be in the first place, or perhaps putting it another way, they have simply not accurately assessed the environmental risks which may be involved.
Sceilig Mhichíl (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious solution? (Score:2)
The obvious solution? Just make a rule: "No Blasters."
Re:Who owns the island? (Score:5, Informative)
That person should tell the UN to mind its own business!
The island is owned by the Commissioners of Irish Lights [wikipedia.org], i.e. the Irish government.
From the UNESCO web page on Sceilg Mhichíl [unesco.org]:
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Since, by definition, everything can be substituted into the position of "everything", try the term "my wife" in there and let's see how you like it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who owns the island? (Score:4, 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!").
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, becasue banks behave so well without regulation.
Re:Not filming in America anymore? (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks Obama!!!
Obama is also responsible for why you can't get a date.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: explanation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because all the non-protected islands have a McDonalds or Starbucks on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone involved in the movie wanted to visit there, so why not have the movie pay for it? As a bonus, you get to stomp around on your own instead of having to do what those pesky guides tell you to do.
Re: (Score:2)