jdzaharia wrote:
Also, I was confused by the mention of David Breashears in the movie. Was he on one of the guides or clients?

He was the guy making the IMAX film, so not a client or a guide.

lack of oxygen near the south summit

That part wasn't explained in detail in the movie (probably due to lack of time; the movie was already 2+ hours). In reality, there was no lack of oxygen bottles at the South Summit. There were several full bottles. What happened is that Andy Harris, probably in a hypoxic state, was telling everyone that the oxygen bottles were empty, which created confusion. Jon Krakauer and others, while descending tried to convince him that the oxygen bottles were full, but he wouldn't believe it. Since the only way to tell if the bottles are full or not is to attach them to the regulator on the mask, it is thought that Andy's regulator was frozen up (or malfunctioning), which caused him to think that the bottles were empty. In his oxygen starved and hypoxic state, he wouldn't believe it when others told him that the bottles were full. Apparently Andy eventually figured it out and carried some full bottles up to Rob Hall, but no one ever heard from him again and no one know's what happened to him after that. The movie portrayed the events briefly, but it didn't explain what was going on in detail.

Also, I was confused by the mention of David Breashears in the movie. Was he on one of the guides or clients?

As mentioned above, he was making an IMAX film with Ed Viesturs and others. They decided not to do a summit attempt at the time of the accident since they felt that there were too many people on the mountain, which would interfere with the filming. They decided to hold off the summit attempt until the crowds thinned off. David Breashears played an important part in the even since they had oxygen and other supplies cached at the South Col and at other camps. When the tragedy happened, the IMAX team/Breashears let (what was left of) Hall's and Fischer's expeditions have access to their cached oxygen and supplies (on a different note, after the tragedy, many expeditions packed up and went home, so the IMAX team was able to replace many of the items that they had generously let others use).

I thought it was a superb film, easily the best mountaineering movie out there. So many of them are cloying, machismo things with barely any authenticity. Everest however had a true mountaineering feel, very well researched. It captured the monster slopes, crevasses, ridges and weather on a high mountain brilliantly and even simulated the actual Everest route pretty well. The best thing of all was the human element: the suffering was graphic, the motivations and personalities involved were credible, and not least the tragedy for those left behind. After seeing it for the 2nd time I realised it was in fact quite a savage indictment of the mountaineering risk factor, especially if you're a person with a family. It was a fair movie, though, portraying the combination of selfishness, skill, courage and irresponsibility that make up most climbers. The bottom line was whether folk should be doing this. The conclusion for me was 'yes', but only if you're a proper mountaineer with the skill set and experience to look after yourself and make good decisions - eg Boukeev. The final word that swung it for me was the helicopter rescue at the end, those heroic pilots taking such risk. The way the wife pulled political chains to make this happen made me feel frankly nauseous. Possibly guided climbs are acceptable, but only if you heed the advice of a good guide (like Rob Hall), and have a certain minimum of experience and self-sufficiency, and do not expect rescue if it goes wrong. Rob Hall died, according to this movie at any rate, because he relented in the face of a client's amateurish summit fever and made a decision he himself knew was wrong.

Even if the movie does not tell the story fully accurately, it doesn't matter, because it captures all the mountaineering themes accurately and encapsulates the moral debate very realistically and intelligently. Some silly things can be forgiven as artistic license, such as the crazy amount of time they spent with their glasses removed and faces exposed, but we needed to be able to recognize the actors and follow who's who as the story progressed.

because he relented in the face of a client's amateurish summit fever

Hansen on paper looked like one of the more experienced climbers on the mountain with 2 previous attempts. HA does very weird things to peoples brains with our without oxygen at 0.5 - 4l minute. To base someones actions as amateurish at ~8,700 m completely ignores the unknown affects of hypoxia on the person at that time.

english_alpinist wrote:I thought it was a superb film, easily the best mountaineering movie out there. So many of them are cloying, machismo things with barely any authenticity. Everest however had a true mountaineering feel, very well researched. It captured the monster slopes, crevasses, ridges and weather on a high mountain brilliantly and even simulated the actual Everest route pretty well. The best thing of all was the human element: the suffering was graphic, the motivations and personalities involved were credible, and not least the tragedy for those left behind. After seeing it for the 2nd time I realised it was in fact quite a savage indictment of the mountaineering risk factor, especially if you're a person with a family. It was a fair movie, though, portraying the combination of selfishness, skill, courage and irresponsibility that make up most climbers. The bottom line was whether folk should be doing this. The conclusion for me was 'yes', but only if you're a proper mountaineer with the skill set and experience to look after yourself and make good decisions - eg Boukeev. The final word that swung it for me was the helicopter rescue at the end, those heroic pilots taking such risk. The way the wife pulled political chains to make this happen made me feel frankly nauseous. Possibly guided climbs are acceptable, but only if you heed the advice of a good guide (like Rob Hall), and have a certain minimum of experience and self-sufficiency, and do not expect rescue if it goes wrong. Rob Hall died, according to this movie at any rate, because he relented in the face of a client's amateurish summit fever and made a decision he himself knew was wrong.

Even if the movie does not tell the story fully accurately, it doesn't matter, because it captures all the mountaineering themes accurately and encapsulates the moral debate very realistically and intelligently. Some silly things can be forgiven as artistic license, such as the crazy amount of time they spent with their glasses removed and faces exposed, but we needed to be able to recognize the actors and follow who's who as the story progressed.

why in the world would that make you feel nauseous?

To base someones actions as amateurish at ~8,700 m completely ignores the unknown affects of hypoxia on the person at that time.

That's true, Radson, I put that wrong. Amateurish is definitely not the word for a guy who has been on the mountain twice already (plus whatever else he's done). I'll put it this way: Rob Hall didn't assert himself as leader enough at that moment, by making a call he knew he shouldn't. I realise that's only the way the film showed it, though, so I'm only commenting on the fictional Rob Hall.

@jfever The helicopter rescue made me feel nauseous because of the unorthodox and massive risk the pilots were taking with their own lives, because of (apparently) the wife pulling strings to get preferential treatment in effect. Also the way she was shown threatening the authorities with bad press. It was her husbands decision to go on the mountain, and he knew the risks.

english_alpinist wrote:@jfever The helicopter rescue made me feel nauseous because of the unorthodox and massive risk the pilots were taking with their own lives, because of (apparently) the wife pulling strings to get preferential treatment in effect. Also the way she was shown threatening the authorities with bad press. It was her husbands decision to go on the mountain, and he knew the risks.

She probably did not want to sit there and just be the helpless wife and cry about the situation, yeah he knew the risk but that's between him and the mountain so to speak, it has nothing to do with her, so I doubt she cared about that, she was trying to get her husband and the father of her children back home. Do you not think that any rescues should be put into effect? Most people do know the risk and when things go wrong rescue is dispatched.

[quoteDo you not think that any rescues should be put into effect? ][/quote]

Yes I certainly do, otherwise we'd have to ban all danger sports altogether, or else leave anyone in a bad situation to die. Leave a driver in a burning formula 1 car, leave a swimmer to drown, leave a marathon runner to die of dehydration or heart attack. People in the rescue or emergency services do what they do because it's their job, or they do it voluntarily because they believe in it (and often have a background in the same sport). I'm just a little uncomfortable with the way the pilots were basically pushed out there against their own judgement. It probably didn't happen like that in the actual 1996 disaster anyway. No, I hate those stay-at-homes and pissheads who say climbers are irresponsible and endanger others lives as well as their own blah blah. Mountain rescue should be left to their own expertise, though, and not have decisions made for them.

ExcitableBoy wrote:

jdzaharia wrote:
Also, I was confused by the mention of David Breashears in the movie. Was he on one of the guides or clients?

He was the guy making the IMAX film, so not a client or a guide.

Right. He was filming the IMAX film in 1996 when the tragedy occurred. He was also filming on Everest last year when the avalanche struck. (Don't think I'd want to be on the mountain when he's filming.) He is the filmmaker for the Everest movie.

@jfever The helicopter rescue made me feel nauseous because of the unorthodox and massive risk the pilots were taking with their own lives, because of (apparently) the wife pulling strings to get preferential treatment in effect.

If the Weather's side of the story is accurate (and there doesn't seem to be any reason to lie about the incident), Peach had no idea that a helicopter rescue would even be a big deal. She had no idea that they couldn't fly at high altitude and was completely ignorant on mountaineering (or science) in general. Or so it seems from reading Beck's version of the story. As mountaineers we take that sort of knowlege for granted, but much of the general public is truly naive about high altitude and climbing.

(Not that I'm really defending Peach though. She isn't someone who comes off in an overall positive manner to me).

Scott wrote:

@jfever The helicopter rescue made me feel nauseous because of the unorthodox and massive risk the pilots were taking with their own lives, because of (apparently) the wife pulling strings to get preferential treatment in effect.

If the Weather's side of the story is accurate (and there doesn't seem to be any reason to lie about the incident), Peach had no idea that a helicopter rescue would even be a big deal. She had no idea that they couldn't fly at high altitude and was completely ignorant on mountaineering (or science) in general. Or so it seems from reading Beck's version of the story. As mountaineers we take that sort of knowlege for granted, but much of the general public is truly naive about high altitude and climbing.

(Not that I'm really defending Peach though. She isn't someone who comes off in an overall positive manner to me).

I totally agree that she wouldn't know about the altitude issue involving helicopters. With that said, the movie made her come across as pretentious, made of money and lacking of common sense. And Beck Weather's book told a similar story regarding THE BOTH OF THEM.

I totally agree that she wouldn't know about the altitude issue involving helicopters. With that said, the movie made her come across as pretentious, made of money and lacking of common sense. And Beck Weather's book told a similar story regarding THE BOTH OF THEM.

It's true, most people don't understand altitude. Hell, I researched it and did my best to acclimatize for Mont Blanc recently, but had difficulty at 3500 metres. Beck must have understood what he was getting into, even if his wife didn't. It's a selfish thing at the end of the day. I see his book is out in English bookshops hot on the heels of the movie. I'm not buying it. The guy did well to survive, and he paid a big price with his hands, but his life is all he deserves as far as I'm concerned. He sees his children again and they see him, that's his reward. It's not as if he's achieved anything by mountaineering standards. People like Boukeev routinely go up to those altitudes without oxygen these days, and a few people do Everest solo. Everest is not worth the risk now, just to say you have 'bagged' it.

umm to be fair, Weather's book has been out for 15 years. Boukreev passed in '97.

My understanding is that roughly 3% of everest summits have been done without oxygen. Certainly not routine. From memory reading one of Hawley's reports, risk of fatality of climbing E without oxygen is an additional 10 x magnitude.

As for Solo, has it been done more than once ?? as any trip through the Nepalese icefall is not solo.

radson wrote:umm to be fair, Weather's book has been out for 15 years. Boukreev passed in '97.

My understanding is that roughly 3% of everest summits have been done without oxygen. Certainly not routine. From memory reading one of Hawley's reports, risk of fatality of climbing E without oxygen is an additional 10 x magnitude.

As for Solo, has it been done more than once ?? as any trip through the Nepalese icefall is not solo.

Yes. Steve Swenson soloed the North Ridge, but never claimed it because there were other teams on the mountain. This is according to Barry Blanchard, said in front of Steve who said nothing to counter the claim.