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!

Unesco Probing Star Wars Filming In Ireland

timothy posted about 2 months ago | from the but-midichlorians-are-totally-safe dept.

Movies 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.

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

Today I Learnt that... (2, Funny)

balajeerc (1461659) | about 2 months ago | (#47574111)

"... 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.

Re:Today I Learnt that... (4, Funny)

just_another_sean (919159) | about 2 months ago | (#47574141)

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... (4, Funny)

itsdapead (734413) | about 2 months ago | (#47574617)

Many puffins died to bring us this information...

SOLD! SOLD! SOLD! (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 months ago | (#47575299)

SOLD!

To the highest bidder!

Hey! This is just the market, finding another solution. To the problem of life itself...

Re:Today I Learnt that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47574777)

Seriously? You guys didn't know these well-known animals (not specifically Irish names by the way).

Re:Today I Learnt that... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47575029)

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:Today I Learnt that... (1)

gunner_von_diamond (3461783) | about 2 months ago | (#47574293)

Totally just did the same thing! You learn something new every day! Thanks wikipedia!

Re:Today I Learnt that... (-1, Troll)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 2 months ago | (#47574425)

I just thank god that UNESCO is looking out for our precious guillemots and kittiwakes, and in no way just seeking publicity for themselves.

Re: Today I Learnt that... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47574697)

heaven forbid that the world's designated protector of cultural heritage sites actually tries to protect world heritage sites

What you should have learnt (1, Funny)

frovingslosh (582462) | about 2 months ago | (#47575671)

What you should have learnt is that Starwars is now part of Disney, and Disney does whatever the hell Disney wants. They have already clearly stated that Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution does not apply to them, they clearly are not going to be inconvenienced by a Unesco world heritage site and the laws of a land of potato eaters.

Good... (5, Funny)

chinton (151403) | about 2 months ago | (#47574121)

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

Re:Good... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47574131)

Too late: They were bought by Disney.

Re:Good... (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 months ago | (#47574183)

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:Good... (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 2 months ago | (#47574217)

I wonder if South Park was of any importance in that decision.

Re:Good... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 months ago | (#47574241)

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.

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, a racoon rummaging through the garbage, how riveting.

Re:Good... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47574345)

They don't care about pop-stars, they market TV kid stars now. They have a whole lineup of TV kid stars on the Disney Channel.

Re:Good... (2)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 2 months ago | (#47575119)

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: Good... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47575157)

Today's Disney child pop-star is tomorrow's soft core porn star.

There is no reason to speak against the natural order of things.

Re:Good... (3, Funny)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 2 months ago | (#47574437)

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:Good... (4, Funny)

Nimey (114278) | about 2 months ago | (#47575401)

Leia is a Disney princess now.

Re:Good... (1)

halivar (535827) | about 2 months ago | (#47574207)

The sad thing is that Hayden Christensen was actually an upgrade. :/

Re:Good... (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 2 months ago | (#47574463)

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:Good... (1)

wiggles (30088) | about 2 months ago | (#47574645)

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... (3, Insightful)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 2 months ago | (#47574791)

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.

Re:Good... (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about 2 months ago | (#47574857)

Yeah cuz the part where Christensen says "I hate you" wasn't whiny or pure crap.

Re:Good... (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about 2 months ago | (#47574843)

Wait Mark Hamill was worse than Christensen? How much dope were you smoking.

Re:Good... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47574757)

God I hate that little kid.

Re:Good... (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 2 months ago | (#47574839)

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 still paying the price for it. Of course, he's 25 years old now and still choosing to whore himself at conventions instead of going back to college or getting a real job. So my sympathy fades a little more every day.

Re:Good... (1)

chinton (151403) | about 2 months ago | (#47574657)

I will say, in Christensen's defense, by the end of the prequel trilogy he had mastered the chin-down-eyes-up menacing glower.

Re:Good... (4, Insightful)

creimer (824291) | about 2 months ago | (#47574455)

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

Translation: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47574127)

Someone was mistakenly left out of the last round of bribes?

Who owns the island? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47574139)

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

Re:Who owns the island? (4, Informative)

PvtVoid (1252388) | about 2 months ago | (#47574223)

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:Who owns the island? (3, Insightful)

operagost (62405) | about 2 months ago | (#47574511)

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.

Re:Who owns the island? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47574811)

Should we care what you think when you're so far gone that you call people who are part of civilization "statists?" That seems pretty wingnutty. Do you also derp about "socialism?"

Re:Who owns the island? (0, Troll)

Richy_T (111409) | about 2 months ago | (#47574881)

Statists are uncivilized barbarians who feel their ideas are so good, they must be applied by force.

Re:Who owns the island? (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 months ago | (#47575313)

Yes, becasue banks behave so well without regulation.

Re:Who owns the island? (1)

odigity (266563) | about 2 months ago | (#47575403)

Seriously, bro? What a ridiculous retort, considering banks (in their modern form) are state creations. Good luck trying to build an empire on a fiat currency printing press without government.

Re:Who owns the island? (2)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 2 months ago | (#47574835)

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:Who owns the island? (1)

Prune (557140) | about 2 months ago | (#47575389)

All the other factions believe in some degree of community ownership of everything.

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.

It is more visited than 13 times per year... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47574157)

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:It is more visited than 13 times per year... (1, Funny)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 2 months ago | (#47574751)

Get out of here with your opinions.

Re:It is more visited than 13 times per year... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47574785)

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.

Tourists can be a right and proper plague and tour operators are even worse because they have absoloutely no shame. A guy I know was unfortunate enough to have a certain natural phenomenon on his property find it's way into a tourist guide.It was fine at first, then the tourists numbers multiplied as more tour guides picked this factbit up. Eventually he had several buses coming daily, dozens of private vehicles, the facilities he had set up (and that were meant mostly for the odd band of sightseers and occasional weekly busload he'd been getting before) were completely overrun, buses and private vehicles tore up the road despite clear signs indicating weight restrictions on the road. Generally the buses in particular turned the site into a comlete pigsty which he and his kids had to clen up in their spare time. He's not got the means to build an expensive road, parking lot, and visitors-center\fast-food joint (plus he's scoming up on 70 years old) and local law precludes him from charging access to the site which would be just about the only way to finance the facilites needed, so he put up a 'No entry' sign to keep the site from being further damaged. This was promptly driven over and crushed by a bus. Now he's fenced the area off and is being sued by the tour operators for blocking access (publich right of way blah blah blah) to a unique natural phenomenon and revenue generating tourist attraction and they have political backing.

Re:It is more visited than 13 times per year... (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 months ago | (#47574915)

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:It is more visited than 13 times per year... (1)

Prune (557140) | about 2 months ago | (#47575419)

[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.

Quote from the article (4, Funny)

Joe Gillian (3683399) | about 2 months ago | (#47574177)

"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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47574381)

Probably very little as long as film crews PCI up their own trash and stuff. Film crews like isolation from extra people popping in... And they have way more work to do than mess with wildlife.

Re: Quote from the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47574537)

And they have way more work to do than mess with wildlife.

because we're concerned that's what they're doing showing up specifically to fuck up the wildlife. We're not at all thinking it may be a bi-product of their work, that would be absurd

Re:Quote from the article (4, Insightful)

Dutch Gun (899105) | about 2 months ago | (#47574895)

"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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47574965)

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

Re:Quote from the article (2)

Dutch Gun (899105) | about 2 months ago | (#47575539)

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.

Re:Quote from the article (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47575259)

You seem to lack any skepticism. Film crews are notorious for damaging private homes and buildings in on-location shoots, it wouldn't surprise me if they did some major damage to outdoors locations without thinking twice. Just because they almost certainly won't exterminate a species doesn't mean that they should just be running around free. If there is an ecologist on set, I'm guessing he's on the crew payroll which kind of makes him like a doctor for R.J. Reynolds.

People forget the other slashdot article... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47575359)

About all the crap they left in Tunisia at the end of the *FIRST* Star Wars movie.

If I remember correctly they just went and built sets and other crap and left them there.

Now imagine if they did that in a wildlife habitat rather than the middle of the desert?

Nevermind that Disney/Former LA have the technology to not need to film on-site anywhere on the fsckin planet.

Makes you wonder why they should be allowed to film in an endangered habitat to begin with.

Re:Quote from the article (4, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 months ago | (#47575357)

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:Quote from the article (1)

lbmouse (473316) | about 2 months ago | (#47575215)

They will all get cushy jobs at Disney World.

The young Empire is flexing tentatively (-1, Troll)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 months ago | (#47574197)

> "Unesco is now concerned"

Who cares what those gigantic cow-sheep-tick thingies think?

Parts of Star Wars Episode VII are being filmed on (1)

lippydude (3635849) | about 2 months ago | (#47574205)

I say - go for it !

Nice the know the UN has its priorities straight (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47574263)

Hamas uses UN facilities to store weapons, and when discovered the UN just gives the weapons back to Hamas.

Hell, ignore the Rwandan genocide.

But I guess another Star Wars film is even worse for humanity.

Unesco is just for encironmental stuff. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47574399)

And as far as the other issues you mentioned, those are caused by people who should know better.

I have become so disgusted with humanity that I am all for protecting the defenseless creatures over human beings.

Humans have proven that they are not worthy of this planet. I for one wish these guys existed. so that they can come down and say, "I don't give a shit about your petty squabbles. Cut the shit out or you will be destroyed." [google.com]

And then disintegrate all the weapons and combatants before taking off.

Re: Unesco is just for encironmental stuff. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47574487)

You are free to remove yourself from existence. You are disgusted by humanity? Well, only fair because humanity is disgusted by you. While you daydream about the never coming of some alien messiah to validate your deluded view of the world, the rest of us will ignore you and, should you become too bothersome, punish you.

Re:Unesco is just for encironmental stuff. (1)

Prune (557140) | about 2 months ago | (#47575439)

Ah, a classic. Probably the best sci fi movie until 1958's Forbidden Planet. And so much better than the 2008 remake with Keanu Reeves.

Not filming in America anymore? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47574277)

Thanks Obama!!!

Re:Not filming in America anymore? (5, Funny)

PvtVoid (1252388) | about 2 months ago | (#47574287)

Thanks Obama!!!

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

Re:Not filming in America anymore? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47574687)

Reminds me of that joke that made the rounds when the Snowden scandal surfaced.

A little girl tells Barack Obama, "My Daddy says you are spying on us."
And Obama replies, "He's not your Daddy!"

Re:Not filming in America anymore? (3, Informative)

91degrees (207121) | about 2 months ago | (#47574379)

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.

These are not the filmmakers you are looking for. (4, Funny)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 2 months ago | (#47574333)

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

worlds largest greenscreen (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47574337)

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

explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47574351)

has asked the Irish government for an explanation.

duh money... And the movie company that is filming it is now setup there. So they can play games with taxes and make sure the movie never makes a dime.

explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47574625)

You chose to fuck your corporations. I welcome them and the jobs and taxes they bring.

Re:explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47575745)

You think that money and jobs will stay there? Haha.... They imported everyone and it is a short term gig. Will re-use some lawyer and a couple of accountants they already have there to take care of it...

Re: explanation (2)

andywebs (701336) | about 2 months ago | (#47574683)

These are not the bribes you were looking for.

Only UNESCO can stop this! (1)

azav (469988) | about 2 months ago | (#47574375)

They must prevent the return of Jar Jar and his people. Unless he dies by being consumed alive by a horde of ravenous genetically designed piranha puffins.

Surprised they are shooting on location at all... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47574387)

Instead of a sound stage somewhere, based on the amount of computer generated awfulness that went into the last three movies.

Episode VII (3, Funny)

Foundling (1856832) | about 2 months ago | (#47574445)

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

Re:Episode VII (1)

Yunzil (181064) | about 2 months ago | (#47574543)

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 (5, Funny)

RevWaldo (1186281) | about 2 months ago | (#47574585)

~ 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.

.

This should be a good one (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 2 months ago | (#47574607)

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... (3, Insightful)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about 2 months ago | (#47574649)

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.

Re:The power to destroy a habitat is nothing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47574771)

New Zealand is still recovering from Lord of the Rings ...

... after that money dried up they had to go back to being sheep.

...compared to the power of ACTING!! (3, Insightful)

dfenstrate (202098) | about 2 months ago | (#47575311)

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:...compared to the power of ACTING!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47575441)

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.

You know what else improves it? Being actually good at acting.

If you can't select your actors properly, and you can't direct them properly because all your efforts are "omg, special effects will be great!", then you get what you get. Don't blame it on the scenery.

CAPTCHA: stunning (as in revelation)

Re:...compared to the power of ACTING!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47575503)

An actor's performance can only be improved by actually being in the environment their character is supposed to be in.

I totally agree. That's why they should also use real lightsabers.

Bad acting is generally due to bad actors and bad directors. Not a green screen.

Hopefully they kill this garbage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47574663)

We don't need a fucking talking lion or a genie in a lamp in a Star Wars movie. Since Disney has said they're aiming the movie at six year-olds, it would be better for Ireland to outlaw all Star Wars movies to protect us than it would be for them to allow this crime to continue.

UNESCO probably... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47574741)

... is concerned that the film crew will discover the Hamas missiles hidden in that monastery.

Re:UNESCO probably... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47574853)

No, it's Ireland. It would be guns, ammo, and explosives from the IRA.

Stone Huts (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 2 months ago | (#47574767)

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!

Don't worry (1)

gelfling (6534) | about 2 months ago | (#47574869)

The UN will blame it on the Jews.

Re:Don't worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47575335)

You realize that it's probably best for people to understand that the actions of Israel are *not* the actions of "the Jews?"

Why that particular island (1)

WhoBeI (3642741) | about 2 months ago | (#47574903)

Couldn't they find somewhere else to film? Apparently the filming is expected to only last for a few days but still. I'm sure some other island together with CGI would have worked just fine. Bloody stupid to choose a protected site.

Re:Why that particular island (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47575303)

Bloody stupid... that's what comes to mind when I think of anything associated with Star Wars.

Re:Why that particular island (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 2 months ago | (#47575321)

Because all the non-protected islands have a McDonalds or Starbucks on them.

Re:Why that particular island (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 months ago | (#47575391)

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.

Exclusion zone (1)

SparkleMotion88 (1013083) | about 2 months ago | (#47574937)

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 (2)

mark-t (151149) | about 2 months ago | (#47574939)

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:I'm confused (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 2 months ago | (#47575133)

how did they get the permits to film there in the first place?

Money talks.

Re:I'm confused (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 2 months ago | (#47575505)

Perhaps you didn't read the entire sentence that you only quoted the question from. If money can buy permission to destroy an environment, then the environment isn't really that important in the first place.

Visited much more often (1)

actn (1519141) | about 2 months ago | (#47575171)

According to http://bestskelligtrips.com/ [bestskelligtrips.com] there are daily trips to the island. Not 13 per year.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?