Everest movie boycott

sondry.com/posts/Can-You-He…

The late Scott Fischer's wife Jeannie Price speaks out.

My wife and I will not be going to see the movie in support of Mrs. Price and suggest that the climbing community consider also not seeing the movie after reading Mrs. Price's thoughts.

Really interesting. Wasn't really looking forward to seeing the movie in the first place as I already assumed that it would be overly contrived and custom made for the couch dwelling humanoid.

Biggest issue is that they hijack these people's lives to make pure entertainment. At least throw her a couple of mill for tearing her heart out.

The article is really well written. Definitely worth a read.

I was looking forward to this film. Mostly to see how they dealt with it visually.

The story line I'd always felt would be contrived in some form or fashion. A typical Hollywood sensationalization. Converting Fischer into a comic book character is what I expect from that machine. I hope you all take the time to read Jeannie's thoughts. May your conscious serve you well.

I am sure I'll watch it eventually, just not in theaters. I am fairly sure it will take its rightful place in my heart, between Vertical Limit and Cliffhanger.

Thanks for starting this thread. I have been clueless concerning this.

Read this several days ago. Wasn't planning on seeing the film, needless to say after reading this, I certainly won't.

I read the article and I don't understand. It read like she didn't agree to the terms of the contract, so how could they make the movie? Is the Scott Fischer character not called Scott Fischer?

Because he is a "Public figure"

Not going to see it anyway. Got enough douche chills from the trailer to figure it's a turd.

FrankPS wrote:I read the article and I don't understand. It read like she didn't agree to the terms of the contract, so how could they make the movie? Is the Scott Fischer character not called Scott Fischer?

This is from the article, "Even after I backed out of the project, meaning they can’t portray me in the film, I pushed to not allow them to portray Scott in any false or contrived way, but my attorney informed me that since Scott is considered a “public figure” they can say or present him in any way they choose."

Does not make sense. I'm not a lawyer but I would imagine defamation doesn't matter if the person is public or private, alive or dead.

SinRopa wrote:All other discussions aside, I saw the movie, and enjoyed it. It's well done, tasteful, and pretty accurate too.

I was hoping they would give Fischer a bolt gun, a canister of Nitroglycerin... maybe even do an all points 100' dyno... ;)

I've got to say, I was rather shocked to learn that Fischer's body had become a tourist destination. I can't imagine how heavily that plays upon those who survived him.

I'm inclined to think some of the friction is due to how the lawyers for the film really went the extra mile to cover all their bases, except the actual spelling of Fischers name. Further, she's reacting to the trailer... which is often a distortion of the actual feature. I've seen several trailers with scenes that never appear in the actual film.

Let's hope the film proves to be more respectful than Jeannie's expecting. I wouldn't fault anyone for going to check it out or boycotting.

FrankPS wrote:I read the article and I don't understand. It read like she didn't agree to the terms of the contract, so how could they make the movie? Is the Scott Fischer character not called Scott Fischer?

The contract offer was for her character to appear in their portrayal, Scott is fair game.

Craig Childre wrote: The contract offer was for her character to appear in their portrayal, Scott is fair game.

Thanks.

To be completely honest, I was planning on watching it. I knew it was going to be completely "Hollywood", but still thought it was be enjoyable. But after reading that women's story on this matter and asking myself a bunch of hypothetical what-ifs, essentially placing myself in her shoes, I PROBABLY will not be watching this in theaters.

Thanks for sharing that piece.

i saw it. i thought it was good. for once they didnt brutalize the ins and outs of climbing.

i also didnt think they made scott f. look bad. he goes up when he shouldnt have to try to help the team. did he have some adult bevs. at basecamp? yes. that type of behavior is not unexpected on an expedition climb. i didnt have any negative opinions of him from the movie. there are other scenes where he is taking his style of climbing very serious and working rob to try to do things the safest way. but thats not in the trailer so i guess you will never see that stuff. maybe boycott trailers?

i also dont understand the OP suggesting others boycott the movie. read the article, if it makes you not want to see it, dont see it, you dont need to push your opinion on others. dont know why everyone feels the need to do this whether its this or religion or politics. let people form there own opinions. throw your info our there but you dont need to "suggest" others do what you decided to do. not suggesting its a bad viewpoint to have, but let others form it on their own.

I will watch the torrent but never expected it to be worth watching from a movie perspective.

I know to much about to many things and that normally ruins any movie trying to "be realistic" for me (not sure if they are trying to be that way or not). That and the trailer where they are calling Everest the most dangerous place on the planet line was an instant off the list comment.

Saw the 3d premier and i thought it was decent. Certainly better than the old version. Less corny for sure.

Let's be honest here though. I went expecting a sensationalized piece of hollywood work. How could you expect anything less. Like you haven't watched K2 like 50 times no matter how lame it really is. Or cliffhanger. It's tough since these were actual climbing lives lost, but it's a movie. It's not a documentary.

That being said she wrote a great heartfelt article. I can certainly see her massive concerns, and do support them.

Saw the movie 3 days ago. Don't bash me, but I thought it was well done. Since I followed the event on the news as it happened, since I was 38 and just days from going to or just off Rainier. It seems to follow a mix of "Into Thin Air" by Jon Krakauer and "The Climb" by Anatoli Boukreev in both character attitudes and perspective on what happened. No nitro, bolt guns or 100' dynos though. IMAX 3D a must. Filmed in Italy, Iceland, and Nepal but it didn't appear to cheap out on the feeling of being in Nepal or on a mountain. If you don't know what happened it might not be as good.

Seems kind of ironic that by refusing to sell her "life rights" (what a creepy ass term ), the producers were prevented from possibly adding a couple of scenes that might have humanized him a little more.

If I remember correctly, in Krakauer's book, he was portrayed as a more of a happy-go-lucky, party-animal social drinker? In the movie, in one scene in particular, he's portrayed as more of a morose and problematic drinker fighting some kind of inner demon or crisis of conscience even before the climbing starts.

Because of my own biases, the movie portrayal actually seems less despective, but it's not hard to see why the widow feels the way she does. I can imagine being in her shoes, but only in an abstract sort of way that obviously doesn't come close to the emotional hell she's been through.

Jake wander wrote:i saw it. i thought it was good. for once they didnt brutalize the ins and outs of climbing. i also didnt think they made scott f. look bad. he goes up when he shouldnt have to try to help the team. did he have some adult bevs. at basecamp? yes. that type of behavior is not unexpected on an expedition climb. i didnt have any negative opinions of him from the movie. there are other scenes where he is taking his style of climbing very serious and working rob to try to do things the safest way. but thats not in the trailer so i guess you will never see that stuff. maybe boycott trailers? i also dont understand the OP suggesting others boycott the movie. read the article, if it makes you not want to see it, dont see it, you dont need to push your opinion on others. dont know why everyone feels the need to do this whether its this or religion or politics. let people form there own opinions. throw your info our there but you dont need to "suggest" others do what you decided to do. not suggesting its a bad viewpoint to have, but let others form it on their own.

Just thought I'd mention that I suggested folks consider also not seeing the movie. I'm sorry you feel I was "pushing" my opinion on you for suggesting you consider something.

Is it ok if I wait for it to come out on Netflix?

Wasn't planning on seeing the movie, but now I'm going to after reading that link.