Hacker Cinema
Everest
2015 · Film · 121 min
Directed by Baltasar Kormákur
Inspired by the incredible events surrounding a treacherous attempt to reach the summit of the world's highest mountain, "Everest" documents the awe-inspiring journey of two different expeditions challenged beyond their limits by one of the fiercest snowstorms ever encountered by mankind. Their mettle tested by the harshest of elements found on the planet, the climbers will face nearly impossible obstacles as a lifelong obsession becomes a breathtaking struggle for survival.
1 positive1 mixed6 neutralfrom 8 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
8 comments on Hacker News
It's nice that he is acknowledged. Sometimes Everest seems a little like hollywood - you see the image of a person at the summit, who becomes famous - and you wonder how many unacknowledged people are in the film crew behind the camera?
I really feel sad for these sherpas that have to work as care givers for these unprepared losers from the west (most of them seem to be) that just want to impress their kin back home.
I suggest the book "Into Thin Air" (and the movie version "Everest") if you want to know more about how the commercial side of Everest climbing works (and about a really sad tragedy).
It's not professional guides and sherpas anymore, it's an industry. The summit became a pure management problem. The recent "Everest" movie described it very well.
Weird. We are in the same wavelength right now:
Just came from seeing the 'Everest' movie based on this incident I did read both the original article you are looking for, (not online) and the book.
I also watched the 2 seasons of the reality show Everest: The Death Zone- precisely based on Russell Brice's company.
It's brutal, and I guess people forget it from time to time for a very small number of years. But the Mountain Never forgets.
The movie is only worth a see on IMAX, enjoy the scenery. Pretty much follows the 'Into Thin Air' book, focused on the American clients + Scott & Rob
This is the thing that I was wishing existed a couple of months ago when I read "Into Thin Air". It's a fantastic read about the 1996 Mount Everest disaster where eight climbers died, but I often had difficulty visualising what was going on. (There's also a film, Everest, due out next year.)
To be better convey what it's like to climb Everest, I think this visualisation would be improved if it had more annotations about what makes climbing difficult and the dangers involved. For example, the Khumbu Icefall is a fast moving glacier with many crevasses and ice towers, and has a habit of hosting avalanches and falling ice towers. Climbers try to limit the amount of time they spent here due to the danger, although Sherpa guides tend to cross it many times to stock Camp 1 in preparation for their clients.
> I think you are making several incorrect and unfair generalizations.
> Calling those climbers "rich idiots" is unnecessary, and hugely inaccurate. Nearly all guided Everest expeditions require previous high-peak mountaineering experience to join the expedition, in places such as Aconcagua and Denali [1][2][3]. Technical familiarity with crampons, ice-axe, etc' is a must, and a high level of fitness is required.
I agree that it's a bit of an exaggeration and most expedition organizers are responsible and take preparations seriously and require their participants to be in good health and fine physical fitness.
And then there are the organizers that aren't. In the Discovery documentary, there was one particular group of Chinese climbers who were practically pulled up the hill with ropes by their sherpas.
Even the group who were followed in that documentary, from an organizer with a good reputation, led by a well known mountaineer had some members whose physical condition was a bit questionable. There was a motorcycle accident victim who could barely keep up with the climbers at the lower camps and in the end refused to turn back when told so by the expedition leader, putting himself and his sherpas at peril. But most of that group were fine climbers with proper preparations.
I do understand that judgment doesn't quite work well at 8000+ meters, even with supplemental oxygen. I do not want to make moral judgments about the case above, but I do want to raise a discussion about the subject.
Yep. I saw the Everest IMax movie, and thought "Wow, that seems spectacular. Maybe if I'm able someday I'll try it." Then I read "Into Thin Air" and immediately changed my mind. Great read.
Agreed. This is one of the reasons a sufficiently large (non-3D) IMAX screen provides an incredibly immersive experience for all kinds of long distance "big" shows like "Everest" or my childhood favorite "The Dream is Alive". You get all the right visual cues to feel as though you're looking out an airplane window zooming over terrain or standing on a mountain peak. In my experience, the IMAX shows that have been less impressive have been the ones relying on lots of close-up work. Undersea ones in particular don't feel as immersive because the camera needs to be too close to the subject in order to have sufficient detail.
I would argue though that just because you don't see in 3D at a long distance, doesn't mean that the little area at 3-4m away isn't important for traditional movies. Most personal interaction is at that distance. In fact, a lot of the dialog scenes in movies are shot as though you're standing right there looking the actors in the face. I think good 3D in that range is also what pulls you into the scene and really makes you feel like you are there. There were a couple of scenes in Avatar where this was really well done, most notably when they were in the thick of the jungle and insects were buzzing around your head. That little detail really made me feel like I was standing there.