Everest movie boycott

Christian wrote: 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.

Saw it.
Don't bother.
You know the story already.
Visuals nice but not spectacular enough to carry the film. Even in 3D.
I agree it was well done. And not overly Hollywooded.
Anyway. tastes differ.
De gustibus non est disputandum, as my Mom always used to say BITD.

Saw it and then saw this post. Thought it was pretty good. Fischer was portrayed as pushing his limits.

Saw it the other day and went into it wanting/expecting to hate it. Issues described above notwithstanding, I felt it was actually really well done. Everyone knows the story already and IMO they were faithful to it with not too much Hollywood BS. IMAX 3D is a must as mentioned above.

I read her piece. My heart goes out to her for her loss. I've also read the various accounts. I'm looking forward to seeing how the movie represents what happened. I find it entirely plausible that Scott's wife saw one man and certain expedition participants saw another. This is not to accept views that differ from hers, but only to acknowledge that her view may be no more right or wrong than perspectives that seem in conflict with the person she knew and loved. She owns the intimate view of the man she shared her life with, but she does not own the public persona.

The Everest guides are part of a far-flung enterprise which, among other things, parades folks with huge disposable incomes and mostly inadequate mountaineering skills past Fischer's frozen corpse. He was part of that enterprise in life, and now continues to be part of it in death. His fate is both morbid and ironic. The movie is arguably a continuation of the commercialization tragedy that Everest guiding represents, part of a huge and unpredictable process the Everest guides signed onto when they chose their profession. I fully understand not liking where the train seems to be heading, but the only solution to that---now far from available---would have been not to get on in the first place. Scott Fischer made his choices. There is nothing about the movie, accurate or not, that was not a potential outcome.

For all these reasons, I have no reservations about going to see the film. I already know the stories, and am mostly interested in how the mountain environment is brought to the screen.

I know Scott and Jeannie's son, Andy, and he is a really great guy and a testament to both his parents. If you want to do something good with your money buy his band's music instead of giving your money to the studio that made this film. They are called The Good Mad. I really like the songs Adelaide and No Time to Talk off Face Your Feels. They really are a good folk, rock band.

Good thoughts Rgold.

Went to see it last night. Remarkably well done for Hollywood. I thought Scott's character was pretty well represented, at times being more responsible than the main protagonist (Rob Hall). I haven't read Anatoly's book yet, but have read ITA and Doctor on Everest, and the movie seemed pretty true to those accounts.

Having been to Basecamp a couple of times, the scenery was certainly nostalgic. Might be worth noting that back in '96 Namche was much less dense, there was only the old suspension bridge and the field at Lukla was still dirt.

Although I understand why, it's also kind of sad not to see any of the other stories from that year, like Pete Athens participation in the rescue.

I'll second the thumbs up to RGOLD, good comments, thanks.

I would like to suggest. Recounts from anyone who participated in that emergency. Surely their memory is cloudy at best. As I understand, just being in base camp can seem like you are in an almost drunken state. A sensation that surely rises above camp IV. I wouldn't suggest that anyone purposely left anything out. I just know, sleep deprivation alone will have you forgetting and mixing things up... much less being at altitude. So how some accounts differ is understandable.

I also, didn't consider how being at altitude might alter ones personality. I know for myself, I' m not the same in the mountains as I am at home.

RGold says smart stuff about climbing on a regular basis. Now he says smart stuff about a cultural/social/economic issue. (Probably has before, but this is the first time I noticed.) Some people are just smart. Thanks for commenting here, RGold.
PS: We'd probably hate each others' politics, but I can still admire your thoughtfulness.

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

I saw it the other day and I don't think it portrayed him in a bad light at all. As another poster said, the one thing that stuck with me was the irony that he was the one pushing safety up until the point he made the choice to bring the guy to the summit past their target time.

I'm pretty sure you're thinking of Rob Hall, not Fischer who brought the mailman up too late.
Either way, I agree that I didn't think the portrayal of Scott Fischer was that bad. He seemed like a guy who was eager to actually make a profit from the early days of a risky business.

Saw the movie. Clearly his wife didn't, because Scott F. is like... barely even in the movie compared to Rob Hall and his party. Scott is shown relaxing in base camp with a beer. Later seen agreeing that the teams should cooperate. Later seen on the mountain talking with his clients who say they're turning around. Later seen getting caught in the storm and turning cold. Maybe 4 minutes of screen time tops...

Overall the movie was entirely non-sensationalized. That did do it some disservice as coming across as a pretty dull matter-of-fact film, but I felt all parties to the event were respected.

My biggest complaint about the movie was the stark lack of mountain porn. When I watch a mountaineering film on the big screen, I demand long sweeping dramatic views from the summit, dammit.

They planned to get some of those sweeping views but the big avalanche made it impossible to film beyond base camp. Much of the climbing was filmed in the Dolomites in the winter, but they couldn't do sweeping views there and maintain the fiction the the climbers were on Everest. The climactic storm scenes were filmed on a sound stage constructed to look like the environs of the Hillary step.

If you ever saw the Disney film, Third Man on the Mountain, it has lots of great climbing scenes, but in the middle of an ascent of the Matterhorn the party suddenly finds itself on the South Face of the Aiguille du Midi. The fact that the Matterhorn choss had magically turned into impeccable Chamonix granite didn't seem to matter to the filmmakers or the audiences.

It won't be climbers that make this movie popular, real climbers are too poor to waste money on a film when they could use that money for gas money and better food.

rgold wrote:They planned to...

J Q wrote:It won't be climbers that make this movie popular, real climbers are too poor to waste money on a film when they could use that money for gas money and better food.

For all the people who think misportrayal of character is not a big deal, may all your obituaries contain gross factual errors, and may corporate executives profit greatly. Hopefully it is entertaining for people such as myself. Especially you, rgold...

Does this man, Scott Fischer, not have the right to have his own life decisions reflect his own character? Does HE not have the right to define himself? Because he is dead, and people knew about him, they get to portray him however they want? What a fucking joke.

Hopefully they did a good job of making more money off of Everest...