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.
by ExcitableBoy » Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:06 pm
jdzaharia wrote:
Also, I was confused by the mention of David Breashears in the movie. Was he on one of the guides or clients?
by Scott » Tue Oct 06, 2015 9:21 pm
lack of oxygen near the south summit
Also, I was confused by the mention of David Breashears in the movie. Was he on one of the guides or clients?
by english_alpinist » Wed Oct 07, 2015 1:05 pm
by radson » Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:09 am
because he relented in the face of a client's amateurish summit fever
by j4ever » Thu Oct 08, 2015 4:29 am
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.
by english_alpinist » Thu Oct 08, 2015 7:23 pm
To base someones actions as amateurish at ~8,700 m completely ignores the unknown affects of hypoxia on the person at that time.
by english_alpinist » Thu Oct 08, 2015 7:27 pm
by j4ever » Thu Oct 08, 2015 9:29 pm
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.
by english_alpinist » Thu Oct 08, 2015 11:00 pm
by Alpinist » Fri Oct 09, 2015 3:04 pm
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.
by Scott » Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:18 am
@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.
by Marmaduke » Sat Oct 10, 2015 5:04 am
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).
by english_alpinist » Sat Oct 10, 2015 5:36 pm
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.
by radson » Tue Oct 13, 2015 11:48 pm
by ExcitableBoy » Wed Oct 14, 2015 12:16 am
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests