You think this story was good?...check this out.....
Read, or get the movie or Touching The Void. It'll blow this story out of the water...
I cant believe some of the reviews of this film and its absurdly high rating.
Its completely unrealistic and unbelievable rubbish.
SirGolfy you are 100%spot on. No-one who had seen Touching the Void would regard Into Thin Air as a serious movie.
[deleted]
Why is it unbeleivable since it is actually based on a true story?
Read Into thin air by Jon Krakauer.
the book is amazing, i haven't seen the movie but i doubt it could be better than the movie
shareAnd the book version of Touching the Void beats the film version well and truly also ... just read the books ...
"Everything is safe till it goes wrong" - Joe Simpson, "Touching the Void" - book only.
Krakauer seemingly ignored facts and painted Bourkeev as a villan, none of boukreevs charges died, and he was awardred the highest award for bravery by the american apline association
read the climb the counterpoint to into thin air
Urris, you are correct. Krakauer's story is contradicted in The Climb. But I think people are confusing a bad movie (which this is) with an inaccurate movie (which this is, sort of).
First of all this is just simply a bad movie in its depiction of high alpine climbing. Much like Vertical Limit was and the horrible Cliffhanger. Little things stick out that are incorrect. Mostly nit picks, but anyone who has done alpine climbinig would pick up on. You don't have conversations the same way at 22k ft that you do at lower elevations. The only actor that seemed to know that was the guy that played Ang.You never remove your eye protection on a snow covered mtn on a sunny day. It's literally blinding. Plenty of expamples of incorrect use of equipment, like I said nitpicks but things a good advisor should have picked up on.
Secondly this story is not necessarily what happened on the mtn during that expedition. It is one man's story and this particular man (Krakauer) had some responsibility in what transpired. It does seem to follow the book Into Thin Air reasonably well, but honestly the book did a much better job of being suspenseful than the movie did. It was a TV movie, so it gets a bit of a pass for that (see bad movie). It, like the book, didn't seem to portray Scott Fischer in a very good light. Whether that was the case at all, I'm not sure. I'd never climbed with Scott. But it does go along with Krakauer's position in the book. There are as many versions of this story as there were people climbing the mtn that day, plus one, the actual truth. Everyone who tells their story is going to have a slightly different version, ususally placing themselves in a more favorable light. The other thing to remember about climbs like Everest is this. These are not guided tours. You have to be an accomplished mountaineer to attempt Everest. You are responsible for you. Your abilities should be equal to or just under your guides. The thing they are bringing to the table is the experience on the mtn. That and the difficult to get and expensive permits to climb. Sorry to ramble but I just finished watching the movie and these things stuck out to me.
I disagree, ptarmigan, with just one point-
Krakauer was sent by Outside (in return for some advertising consideration for Hall's group) to document the fact that anyone with available wealth (and there are plenty, as this May 10 tragedy proves)can get a ticket to Everest.
That continues to be a problem, Outside printed an article this year as a follow up showing that 10 (ish) years later, the problem has escalated, and needless deaths continue. Many are ill-equipped, Many can go solo, and many are led by unproven guides. There is no "accreditation process" for high altitude guides.
I think I read that article that "jackspam-web" mentioned, can anyone tell me how in NAPAL did a centerfold model get up there and pose in a bikini?!? Even in the best conditions-wouldn't she suffer from exposure?
(Not a mountain climber, just been reading "Into Thin Air" and "Left For Dead")
It was a movie scene, not a documentary of the events.
And I really hope you were kidding when you wrote that.
You said it was one man's story but what it actually was was this. Krakaur went to the survivors of the climb and interviewed them, collecting their stories. He then pieced it together with what he knew. The biggest example of him taking evidence into account was when he told of Andy Harris walking off a cliff, dying, in the white out. He published that in his essay that he wrote for Outside magazine. However, after the publishing of his essay, Jon interviewed Ang Dorge who was with Scott Fischer at the time. He said he saw Harris climbing from the South Summit (where the O2 cache was) to Rob Hall and Doug Hansen. I challenge people who are going to criticize this story (which is also some of the best modern American literature) to climb to 26000 feet in the deadliest storm of the decade and try to remember what happened.
shareAre you talking about Bourkeev's book The Climb, or Gordon Korman's book The Climb? They came out within days of each other.
share"Krakauer seemingly ignored facts and painted Bourkeev as a villan, none of boukreevs charges died, and he was awardred the highest award for bravery by the american apline association
read the climb the counterpoint to into thin air"
Read the postscript to Into Thin Air which was added in the re-publishing of the book. It is a response to DeWalt's The Climb. Krakauer shows how DeWalt's research methods were shoty and his conclusions should be regarded with great skeptism because of this.
CGI SUCKS
Its not that Into Thin Air is unbelieveable. Its that the format is terrible. The production values are appalling. Every second you're watching it, you know its a Made-For-TV movie. This film would be much better served by a documentary format, interviewing the actual personalities.
I mean, in the first 3 minutes, the actor playing Scott Fischer pronounces Anatoli Boukreev wrong. Later, the narrator (the actor playing Krakauer) pronounces Boukreev's name wrong. (He says BOUK-a-reave, instead of BOUK-ar-YAY-yevv.) Jesus Christ.
We hear Krakauer say "Our friends are out there! And they're dying!" And its the sherpa that says, "No, John! We must turn around now!" Gee, can you guess that Krakauer was the author of this depiction. No moral choices for him. He's forced to turn around by the sherpa.
Thats why Touching the Void is one the most amazing films you will ever see. Words cannot describe how mystical and bewildering it is watching the actual persons involved (and not bad, hack actors) in the fiasco being interviewed.
We hear Krakauer say "Our friends are out there! And they're dying!" And its the sherpa that says, "No, John! We must turn around now!" Gee, can you guess that Krakauer was the author of this depiction. No moral choices for him. He's forced to turn around by the sherpa.
Having recently read Into Thin Air, I don't recall the passage playing out that way. I think they did that for the benefit of the film.
Krakouer in his book pretty clearly pointed out at the time how he was essentially useless in helping anyone and in numerous instances failed to act or intervene when he could have made a difference (eg, at the O2 stash below the south summit when he and someone else met with Harris, due to the altitude sickness and lack of oxygen they couldn't put it together that Harris was in trouble).
Re Boukreev - I've read his chapter addressing The Climb but have not read The Climb. I think people overblow his criticism of Boukreev, and having not read The Climb I believe Boukreev knew what he was doing and was very experienced.
The whole thing was a cluster$#@^ of bad luck and bad decisions across the board and I think that's the take home from Into Thin Air.
I plan to read the other accounts at some point. share
I think people overblow his criticism of Boukreev
Absolutely. What he criticized was his decision to climb without oxygen, because as a guide his clients were his responsibility, and the fact that he went back down before them. That's it. And I think he is right on both counts. He never denied that otherwise his actions were heroic, and that he was a great climber.
P.S. The actor who plays Scott Fischer in this movie looks a lot more like him than Jake Gyllenhaal (who didn't look like Scott Fischer at all) in the new Everest movie. share
I haven't read either of the books, just seen into thin air, I'm sure there was a discussion with Scott and Boukreev regarding climbing with oxygen, to which Boukreev stated it was safer for him to not rely on the extra o2 for him. Potentially this could be why he knew he was able to rescue people, he knew his limits and what no oxygen at that altitude was like. I wonder if he had used it would the ending be different, I think him relying on it would have reduced his ability.
There's no poetry in my soul, just a list of lies untold. - Young Guns
You haven't seen the movie, have you Slim?
shareWhat I find wrong with this movie is that it just simply is inaccurate with accordance to even the books account of the story. I've read both the climb and In to thin air as well as Touching the void and (the movie) and many other documentaries on the subject. after reading the latest edition of "Into thin air" and doing further analysis on the events of that climb I have come to conclusion that Krakauer was right about Boukreev in a lot of ways. For one, who guides climbers on Everest with out oxygen. It is well documented that Boukreev did do this and I feel it was a contributing factor to some of the issues that happened. However, unlike how the film paints him I feel like he was just the same as anyone else who was climbing that day, they all were driven by a desperate need to get to the top. Its the same thing that has killed 99% of the people attempting Everest. Boukreev just wanted his fame like anyone else and wanted to do it with out oxygen. This brings me back to how the movie portrays him. He isn't this horrible evil person for doing what he did. Again I will say, He was no different that anyone else. This accident didnt happen because of some drama nor did it happen because of ONE huge mistake. It happened because of many small mastakes made by many people who wanted personal glory. This is what bothers me about this film.
share