Everest movie boycott

Dylan B. wrote: Nope, whether the plaintiff is a public or private individual is actually very significant in a defamation action. The following is a broad-strokes picture, and there are significant variations depending on which U.S. jurisdiction you're in: Defamation was a common law action that existed prior to the adoption of the Constitution and the First Amendment. In the traditional defamation action, the plaintiff only had to prove that the defendant published a defamatory statement, and then the burden shifted to the defendant to prove that the defamatory statement was, in fact, true. But with the adoption of the First Amendment that became problematic, particularly when it comes to public figures. Over time he courts reached a compromise that shifted the burden to the plaintiff if s/he was a public figure, to prove not only that the defendant published a defamatory statement, but that the statement was false. Proving the falsity of a statement--particularly a portrayal of a character in a movie--is really quite difficult. This is why the tabloids can publish the nonsense about celebrities that they do. There's also additional protection when the defamatory statement is concerning a matter of public concern. It all gets pretty murky there's a lot of subtle variations between jurisdictions, but I think you get the gist. We're trying to balance the individual's right to have a reputation unsullied by falsehoods, with the quite potent value of free speech. Courts (and legislatures) have struggled with this and come up with a variety of answers. Before you protest, "the first amendment only applies to government regulation of speech," realize that when a court exercises authority in a defamation action, that is the government regulating speech. Even though the parties are private, the power of the government is being utilized to suppress speech. (Same reason racially restrictive covenants in real-estate transactions are unenforceable--courts can't enforce them without running afoul of the Fourteenth Amendment). Anyhow, I'm not aware that any jurisdictions allow defamation actions to be brought by next-of-kin. The interest protected by a defamation action is a personal one, and I'm doubtful, but not certain, that many jurisdictions have found it to be something that someone can bring on behalf of a deceased.

This is why I'm not a lawyer, but thanks for the explanation.

I thought the main difference between private and public figure defamation was one of proving negligence vs malice in regard to the false statement.

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.

Bull. Climbers flock to climbing related films, no matter how good (Everest, actually, imho) or bad (Vertical Limit). And what's with this stupid stereotype of "real climbers", whatever they are, being poor?

Someone needs to make a movie about climbing industry executives, or corporate executives in general, and portray them all as a bunch of fat, slow, greasy, malcontent losers, who advocate for things like genetic modification, and who seek to make money off of blowing up drama and bullshit.

Portray them as the genetic losers trying to "get even", while ironically espousing that ones coffers are the best indicator of a life worth reflecting upon.

JNE wrote:Someone needs to make a movie about climbing industry executives, or corporate executives in general, and portray them all as a bunch of fat, slow, greasy, malcontent losers, who advocate for things like genetic modification, and who seek to make money off of blowing up drama and bullshit. Portray them as the genetic losers trying to "get even", while ironically espousing that ones coffers are the best indicator of a life worth reflecting upon.

Who peed in your cornflakes this morning?

Marc801 wrote: Who peed in your cornflakes this morning?

I thought I was grouchy this morning!

Marc801,

I read a nice piece by a grieving widow who was simply asking that her deceased husband be portrayed as the nice, kind, compassionate person she and people who actually knew him, apparently knew him to be.

It sounded like she was sick of having her husbands image gaslit into some caricature of who he really was, for the sake of making a more profitable story, or whatever. Or more likely just for the sake of making some fat, greasy, lazy, good-for-nothing loser feel like he had some nudge in the world.

So tell me, marc801, does ammonia taste foul? Does it contribute fine taste and textural qualities to your breakfast?

JNE wrote:does ammonia taste foul? Does it contribute fine taste and textural qualities to your breakfast?

Depends on the day and the particular style of deliciousness that is being had.

JNE wrote:Marc801, I read a nice piece by a grieving widow who was simply asking that her deceased husband be portrayed as the nice, kind, compassionate person she and people who actually knew him, apparently knew him to be. It sounded like she was sick of having her husbands image gaslit into some caricature of who he really was, for the sake of making a more profitable story, or whatever. Or more likely just for the sake of making some fat, greasy, lazy, good-for-nothing loser feel like he had some nudge in the world. So tell me, marc801, does ammonia taste foul? Does it contribute fine taste and textural qualities to your breakfast?

I read her piece. It complains about a lot of things *other* than this movie, like the IMAX movie, Krakauer's book, and the Wikipedia article. Out of 5 printed pages, she only talks about the current movie for about 3/4 of a page. In fact it seems her entire objection to the current movie is based on 4 seconds of screen time in the trailer and the standard language in the contract she would have signed for *her*, not Scott's, depiction. I totally disagree with her assertion that Fischer was depicted as a "totally unprofessional and disorganized boozer caricature of my husband." In fact, I feel the movie did indeed portray him "...as the nice, kind, compassionate person she and people who actually knew him, apparently knew him to be."

I find it interesting that in her description of the 4 seconds of scene where Fischer is introduced in the trailer she used the phrase "stoned-looking" instead of "exhausted" or "tired" or "dealing with the altitude" as the She might not have had that assessment if she had actually watched the full movie. Your assessment might be different too.

Marc,

My assessment may be different, but if those scenes in any way referenced, or could be referenced, to other b.s. which was said about her husband, then it was out of line. Given the article was written, and that was specifically brought up, I am going with the references were there and real. Low class.

To then see the thread about it get hijacked to talk about the movie and everyone's apparent right to take television and print personality characterizations seriously, was too much. I just felt the need to say something on this woman's behalf. She has a reasonable request, after all. At the least just read what she wrote and move on.

Ill take your word for it that you got from the movie that her husband was the nice guy she remembers :)

JNE, well said.

JNE wrote:To then see the thread about it get hijacked to talk about the movie...

Talking about a movie that we are being requested to boycott is the polar opposite of a thread hijack. It's the central point. Accepting what Price wrote simply because she was the author and based her request to the climbing community on literally 3 or 4 seconds of film (which was part of a 3-ish minute scene) is just as questionable as fully believing every characterization in every movie.

Yes, she knew Fischer better than any of us, yet I saw the movie and read her piece. I flat out disagree with her request as being unreasonable and a fairly inaccurate representation of the characterization of Fischer as depicted in the movie.

Marc801 wrote:I flat out disagree with her request as being unreasonable...

It would have involved shooting those scenes without things like alcohol. Given the scenes in movies are picked under scrutiny in order to best tell a story, we can all reasonably conclude the alcohol and other "subtleties" were added to the scene(s), and that particular scene(s) was/were picked, because it/they portrayed Fischer in the way the film producers wanted in order to tell their story the way they wanted.

Your comments seem to suggest that changing these "subtleties" would have drastically altered the plot of the movie, requiring a bit of a re-write. If that is so, it seems a little odd that almost no one on this thread seems willing to grant that this thread had a point aside from talking about some movie and encouraging people to go see it. Ill be skipping it in any case ;)

Marc801 wrote:...and a fairly inaccurate representation of the characterization of Fischer as depicted in the movie.

Again, I will take your word for it, and also add that it is very nice of you to say and repeat that. For me, that is the takeaway message here :)

JNE,

Honest question, how can you comment on how Scott Fischer was portrayed in the movie, if, well, you have not seen the movie?

JNE wrote: 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?

As far as I know, even alive, I have no control how other people perceive me or talk about me. The only thing I can control are my intentions.

On a side note, regarding Into Thin Air, I didn't think that Krakauer portrayed Scott Fischer at all in a bad light. Throughout the book I thought Krakauer made it pretty clear (and stated often enough - especially in the epilogue) that he was writing about the experience from his own point of view, and that the altitude induced hypoxia certainly had an effect on his perception of the events between the summit and the South Col.

Degaine, where did I comment about actual movie scenes? Seriously!?! Sorry, I wont be seeing this one ;)

I'm pretty sure I commented that the mans widow had written a very nice piece saying that she did not appreciate a particular mis-portrayal of her husband which was not an accurate reflection of who she (and I figure she actually knew the guy well, unlike you, I, or likely anyone else on this thread...) knew him to be.It appeared to reference other things written in print, and from my read on it I gather that this situation amounts to trying to have the negative shit that was said about him in life define him in death. At least that is the concern, plainly read.

While no one needs to make up good deeds he never did, nor portray him to be someone he is not, at the least we could remember him for the good he did and not for some mild character faults most if not all people here share with him. Personally, I will CHOOSE to define him by his good deeds and actions.

Upon making the reasonable request to remember the guy for the good he did and not dumb b.s. provided to us by thoughtless people looking to make a buck, this thread appeared to fill itself with what I like to characterize as "mean girls" (who I will note were almost entirely males...), who sought to portray the man in a particular unflattering light, the widows wishes be damned. Reading back that actually seems more of the point of many of the comments. People seem more worried about their "right" to take television and print articles seriously, and socially vouch for their contents. WTF? Sad.

People should begin expressing that more publicly to people and see how it goes over. It didn't go so well for them here. There is a reason certain things are only whispered about in dark moldy cellars by tricky willful and worm-tongued manipulators to daft and easily controlled morons. If that shit was true, people could just walk up to others on the street and start saying it with no social consequences. They could vouch for the shit they say, and stand behind it. Why don't they?

Perhaps if the people who produced film and print articles actually displayed some integrity, I would feel differently.

Seriously, Degaine, can't we just say that the movie portrayed the guy in a perfectly fine light, as a good and decent guy trying his best to do the right thing? Seems like that was the reasonable request asked for here, and it seems Marc801, I, and I am sure others, get the importance of that. It's a very very very small difference in my own behavior, and it would make ALL the difference to someone for whom that would impact everyday. Fucks sake...

Degaine, whats your bone in this? My words piss you off? Do you have the "right" to take Fox News and Bill O'Reilley seriously, and you wish to express it?

Wow, ya'll are getting really worked up over this one woman. Do you all boycott every biographical movie and book written? Do you expect every biographical account is entirely unbiased and without some amount of objection from at least one person who knew the now deceased? Is it really blood money to patronize a movie that didn't 100% acquiesce to the desires of relatives? Grow up.

Given that the people who were there couldn't agree on exactly what happened, I thought they (director, writer, etc etc) did a great job of not painting anyone in a bad light - except maybe slightly Krakauer, and at least he's alive to defend himself. I understand not wanting to sell away the rights to you and a relatives lives to a hollywood studio, but this isn't first time somebody has made money off retelling the '96 Everest season. Did anyone boycott Into Thin Air because some people disagree with how some of the climbers were portrayed in the book?

DEF wrote:Given that the people who were there couldn't agree on exactly what happened, I thought they (director, writer, etc etc) did a great job of not painting anyone in a bad light - except maybe slightly Krakauer, and at least he's alive to defend himself. I understand not wanting to sell away the rights to you and a relatives lives to a hollywood studio, but this isn't first time somebody has made money off retelling the '96 Everest season. Did anyone boycott Into Thin Air because some people disagree with how some of the climbers were portrayed in the book?

Agreed! The movie didn't even tell Sandy Hill's part of the story. That would be been something to be up in arms about!!

I came away from Everest feeling Scott Fischer was the most responsible leader that expedition. The scene where he and Rob Hall were discussing strategies and Scott said "a lot climbers in the mountain this year.. A lot of climbers" I think showed responsibility. The drinking shouldn't sway movie goers one way or the other. Who doesn't drink a beer.

The only bad side of Scott Fischer in the movie was his competitiveness with Rob Hall. BUT that's business.

Dylan B. wrote:My desire for entertainment does not justify the exploitation of this woman's grief. I wouldn't have seen this movie anyhow, but I certainly can't justify it in light of her objections.

Again, she's basing 100% of her objections to *this* film on 3 seconds of trailer. 90% of her blog post is ranting about *other* films, books, and articles and objection to standard movie release contract wording regarding *her* life, not Scott's. The strongest voices in this thread in favor of boycotting are from people like you who are basing it on hearsay and have not seen the film.

I'm not championing the movie one way or another nor saying that people shouldn't boycott it if that's the way they feel. Basing that decision on what those of us who have seen the movie feel is a flawed understanding by Price of Scott Fischer's characterization is my objection.