Everest movie boycott
|
The drinking shown wasn't just a couple of beers. In one scene Scott is having some kind of hard liquor in a small cup and hands it to Rob Hall for a sip. I could be wrong, but if I remember correctly the light in the shot implies it's like 10 in the morning. |
|
Christian wrote:In the other he's lying down on the moraine by himself halfway through a bottle of whiskey (or some other hard liquor). That's what I remember anyway..Frankly, I only remember that scene now that you mention it. Climbers drinking is not exactly uncommon (I know of one team of 4 very well known climbers in the 80's taking a case of Jack with them to Alaska and running out during the 6 week trip!) so that it had no impact on my assessment of the Fischer character. The persona they portrayed as Fischer had so many favorable, good, compassionate, and sensible aspects that the drinking failed to impress one way or another. |
|
Dylan B. wrote: People like me are the strongest voices in favor of a boycott? I didn't even say I was in favor of a boycott. All I said was I probably wasn't going to see it anyhow, and it's no real loss to me to respect her wishes. My desire for entertainment is pretty small price to pay, compared to someone else's grief. Whether her grief is justified or not is not for me to say. But my life is not much diminished by skipping this movie. That's how I weigh the varying interests in this matter. Everyone else is free to weigh them differently, of course. For all I know, your need for entertainment is far more weighty than mine. Or maybe you're in a better place to second-guess this woman's grief than I am. But it's nearly no cost to me to respect her grief, so I choose to do so.+1 That is rationality at its finest. |
|
I found it pretty boring actually |
|
How do you portray a risk-taking individual and stay true to the story and not offend their family? I've heard stories from contemporaries of Fischer as well as the Krakauer book and he was certainly a bold climber and had some very lucky close calls. |
|
Benjamin Pontecorvo wrote:he is the Bill Cosby of writing."Really? I'm pretty sure his writing can't be equated with someone that drugs and rapes women. I hear what you are saying, but perhaps a better metaphor might be found. Not saying your aren't right though. |
|
Craig Childre wrote:Cosby's only been accused of those crimes... and the reason for statue of limitation is precisely to prevent one from being charged for a crime from so long ago that has no evidence to prove or disprove still exists. Could have happened that way... but waiting this long to speak up... For what I know... WOMEN NEVER LIE!!!! LMFAO...except for the deposition where he pretty much admitted it. lol now back to the boycott. I honestly don't think he seemed to be painted in a bad light, but I didn't personally know the man. |
|
I saw the movie in 3d and although it was typically hokey I did not feel that they portrayed or demeaned Scott Fischer in any way. |
|
Bob Mcdonald wrote:...although it was typically hokey...Out of curiosity, in what way? Why do you say this? |
|
She raises a really interesting perspective and I'm sorry for the anguish that the film or other events are causing her. |
|
The 2015 film, Everest, leaves a lot out of the story. Specifically, the relationship between Sandy Hill Pittman, Lopsang Jangbu, Anatoli Boukreev, and the fixed ropes. It has to be noted that the film's creators did meet with the families of some of the victims including Jan Arnold and her daughter Sarah Arnold. This being said, the film does do a lot of "walking on eggshells" in what seems like an attempt to keep the victim's reputation intact and the families happy. Is this film a full representation of what happened? Absolutely not. On another note, Krakauer's versions of events are disputed for two reasons: 1) Many said he didn't like Bookreev so he set out to paint him like a villain in his book Into Thin Air. This is unfounded and untrue. Krakauer's story was just to-the-point and a step-by-step account of what happened, who did what, who was responsible for which things and how that fit into his experience while he was there. This, unfortunately, rubbed people the wrong way, because in doing this, it put the actions of certain individuals in the spotlight. Rather than accept the blame, some chose to discredit this version. 2) The initial article that Jon Krakauer wrote for Outside Magazine had a few discrepancies. This article was written when the events were still fresh in his mind, certain things that he thought he saw, weren't exactly what actually happened. An example of this was when he said he saw a climber ask him for directions to Camp 4 while he was sitting on a rock. This led people to believe that the person he thought he saw must have later died in that area before reaching camp for. In reality, the person he saw was someone else entirely. He later found this out after he interviewed other climbers for the book he was going to write, Into Thin Air. This book was Krakauer's attempt at laying out the discrepancies of the article and making it right by compiling his experiences, those of the individuals he interviewed, and the facts into a cohesive book that gave answers. We cover this book in-depth in an Analysis of Into Thin Air by Jon Krakauer. We also covered an Analysis of The Climb by Anatoli Bookreev, although this was more of a review. For anyone interested in learning more, you can also read "The 1996 Everest Disaster - The Whole Story", which compiles everything and offers some references at the bottom of more articles of interest, films and more. If you'd like to learn more on YouTube, our article 1996 Everest Disaster Movies on YouTube has a list of docs you can watch on YouTube and some you can rent. There are no winners in this story. Hope this helps anyone who wants to learn more about why there is so much controversy surrounding the 2015 movie, Krakauer's story, and the truth. |