MovieChat Forums > Everest (2015) Discussion > Biggest "NOPE" moment?

Biggest "NOPE" moment?


What moments in this movie made you say "OH HELL NO, I could never do this"? For me, it was when they first begin climbing up those ladders that were all attached together. I can barely get up two steps on a small stepladder. No f-ing way would I be able to climb 5 of them roped together. That was hands down my biggest NOPE moment of the entire film.

reply

That's how they actually do it on Everest. You can see footage on YouTube. I myself couldn't imagine it holding up or being safe but they do use them

reply

I didn't mean to give the impression that I didn't believe it happened in real life and was only in the movie (if that's how it came across). I only meant that the #1 reason I wouldn't want to climb Everest is because of those ladders.

reply

okay, now I understand... I am deathly afraid of heights and I cannot imagine doing anything like that.

reply

My biggest NOPE moment was even just the whole concept of climbing Everest (which is, let's face it, a death trap) while your wife is pregnant with your baby.

I mean, it doesn't matter how you dress it up, what a jerk. He died an *beep* what can I say. All the heroic music and faux dramatics isn't going to mitigate the fact that he died a stupid *beep* on a mountain of death.

reply

he let his ego get in the way of his better judgement. he figured 'why not' since he had successfully climbed the mountain so many times before... but who's to say WHEN he should have stopped. What if he resumed climbing when the baby was born, became a child and then she lost a father? His death was pointless because he KNEW he was on top of that mountain when he had no business being up there. He had a young family to go home to, he should have either told that doug guy he would give him a full refund, or left him to his own devices. He put some other man's needs/safety ahead of his family.

reply

He's a jerk because he does something that you don't have the guts to do? What will you be remembered for? What, having a good life by your family? Congratulations for being average. What shot did you ever take?



Time wounds all heels.

reply

no one cares how you are remembered.

reply

As a tour guide you can't back out after finding out your wife is pregnant. These trips are likely planned at least a year in advance. The "tourists" pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to these companies to get to them to the top. He couldn't back out of the trip after finding out his wife is pregnant. Not to mention the fact that becoming a parent shouldn't stop you from living your life.


give me a stage where this bull here can rage and though I can fight I'd much rather recite.

reply

Of course he could. Not like they were going to physically restrain him if he chose to leave.

reply

I think I see it the same way. For me, if you have made the decision to have a child, you have accepted an obligation to be there to raise and provide for that child. Until the children are old enough to care for themselves, you should avoid excessive risks. Even if you don’t care about your own life, you made a commitment to them.

reply

i agree, and even if he was contractually obligated , he could find a stand-in

reply

That's how Erik Weienmeier climbed Mt. Everest a few years ago - and Erik is totally BLIND. He is the first blind person to climb Everest. Pretty amazing.

reply

When they try to get Jon Krakauer to help with the rescue and the exhausted climber/journalist says "I can't." I can't see!" In the film he was snow blind at that point.

That conversation never happened and Jon Krakauer is not happy about that fictitious scene-

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-jon-krakauer-everest-into-thin-air-20150925-story.html

The title of the article is misleading. Jon Krakauer did not "hate" the movie. You will understand if you read the article. He is displeased with some inaccuracies.

That snow blind scene never happened and he is not happy it was included. He is also displeased that the actor who portrayed him (Michael Kelly) never contacted him and consulted him about the role.

I read the book and it was better than this film.

This film takes dramatic liberties but generally follows Krakauer's excellent book. I noticed that Sandy Hill Pittman is a tiny bit role in the film. In the book she was a substantial character.

Everest is a good film. Not as good as the book but a very good film.

reply

I don't feel sorry for Jon Krakauer, now he knows how Anatoli Boukreev felt when he read Into Thin Air. Besides, Krakauer pretty much slept through the whole rescue so at least the movie gave him a reason for not helping.

reply

I don't feel sorry for Jon Krakauer, now he knows how Anatoli Boukreev felt when he read Into Thin Air. Besides, Krakauer pretty much slept through the whole rescue so at least the movie gave him a reason for not helping.

When Jon Krakauer collapsed in his tent after the descent from the summit he had not slept in more than 57 hours. He was completly exhausted.

Anatoli Boukreev was the strongest climber on the mountain. His book The Climb was ghost-written according to Reinhold Messner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Climb_(book)

Here Reinhold Messner defends Jon Krakauer-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaWHdHPwkV0

reply

Yes, Boukreev was the strongest climber and he saved many people. He was the hero of the whole tragic event. However, in his book, Krakauer strongly (and unfairly) criticizes Boukreev's actions during the expedition. Krakauer never comes out and plainly states how many people were saved by Boukreev, but instead somehow makes it seem like Boukreev was responsible for those who died. That's why I think it's funny to hear that Krakauer is angry about this movie, he is such a prima donna.

I watched that video and Messner is just stating his opinion about two people he has met. He comes to the illogical conclusion that since Boukreev the man he knows seems very close to the Boukreev as described in the book, that somehow means Krakauer's version of events must be correct. That argument simply doesn't stand. He wasn't on Everest, and he can't even remember Rob Hall's name.

reply

Check out this thread I sent last month-

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0824747/board/thread/250384073

And this thread-

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0446672/board/thread/119609252

Michael Kelly who portrays John Krakauer looks like Steve Martin. Jon Krakauer looks like Steve Martin also but not as strong a resemblance as Michael.

I find your replies funny and absurd although it is not clear to me if that was your intention.

I have read Into Thin Air and although Jon Krakauer questions some judgments made by Boukreev his criticisms are mild and he credits Boukreev's great strength and determination to save climbers in the midst of an awful storm. Jon is also haunted by his own lack of action that fateful night. He was completely exhausted and suffering from Hypoxia.

That argument simply doesn't stand. He wasn't on Everest, and he can't even remember Rob Hall's name.

Yeah, right. It is only Reinhold Messner. He can't even remember Rob Hall's name. What does he know?

Navin R. Johnson: "The ashtray, the remote control, the paddle game, and this magazine, and the chair."

I guess Navin R. Johnson knows more than Reinhold Messner. Right?!



reply

This film takes dramatic liberties but generally follows Krakauer's excellent book. I noticed that Sandy Hill Pittman is a tiny bit role in the film. In the book she was a substantial character.

Part of my dissatisfaction with the film was that the script just omitted so many contributors to the disaster that might have been a bit controversial, at the expense of clarity and understanding for the audience: for instance, Sandy Hill-Pittman being short-roped, the reasons for the fresh ropes not being strung at the Hillary Step, and Boukreev summitting early and descending alone, leaving his clients to fend for themselves.

I was glad I'd read Krakauer's and Boukreev's books before seeing the film, because otherwise I'm not sure it would have made much sense in some parts. If they were going to have an expository tone to it, trying to present the facts of the day, they needed to push that farther, because a lot of it really wasn't clear in the final cut -- as demonstrated by all the ridiculous comments throughout these threads about what an unalloyed hero Boukreev was and what a bastard Krakauer was to suggest that Boukreev could/should have done some things differently.



You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

reply

the reasons for the fresh ropes not being strung at the Hillary Step


well??? what were the reasons?

reply

He stated the reason (though I see how it could missed). Sandy Hill-Pittman was short-roped by the Sherpas on her team.

reply

This film takes dramatic liberties but generally follows Krakauer's excellent book. I noticed that Sandy Hill Pittman is a tiny bit role in the film. In the book she was a substantial character.


The filmmakers did not use Into Thin Air as the basis for the movie. Instead, Breck Weathers' book Left For Dead: My Journey Home from Everest is credited. However, Krakauer's book was the basis for the 1997 TV movie Into Thin Air: Death on Everest.

.

reply

The filmmakers did not use Into Thin Air as the basis for the movie. Instead, Breck Weathers' book Left For Dead: My Journey Home from Everest is credited. However, Krakauer's book was the basis for the 1997 TV movie Into Thin Air: Death on Everest.

I thought Krakauer's book had some influence. I was under the impression that several sources influenced the script and one of those sources was Into Thin Air.

The only comment I have heard Jon Krakauer make about this film is the "snow blindness" scene in his tent that was included in the film. That never happened. That scene was made up and although not really angry he seemed annoyed at the fictitious scene.

reply

I thought Krakauer's book had some influence.

They would have been crazy to make the film without at least referring to Krakauer's book. Krakauer was the only person to have interviewed everyone involved, including Beck Weathers, about their experiences, and his book is the only one that attempts to give an overview on the day and the reasons things happened the way they did.

I'm dismayed at a lot of the comments, in this thread and similar ones, slagging off Jon Krakauer. I'm not a Krakauer apologist, but it seems to have become an internet meme that Krakauer attacked Boukreev and insulted him, when he did no such thing. I suspect most of the people repeating the idea haven't even read Krakauer's book -- it's just a chance to do a bit of sly scoffing at someone on the internet.

I don't blame Krakauer for being unhappy about the "snow blindness" scene, and I think he's been fairly diplomatic about it. Comments like "Now he knows how Boukreev felt" are just foolish and show a lack of understanding; others like "at least it gave him a reason for not helping", likewise. Krakauer needed no reason for helping, since he didn't know a search was happening, or even necessary. He was never told; he got back to his tent and went to sleep, as every other client would have done if they hadn't been caught in the storm. I do wonder if that scene wasn't put there as some sort of gesture towards those who see Boukreev as deserving a chance at "payback", because it does make Krakauer seem selfish and weak. When I saw this film at the cinema, many people in the audience snorted out loud at the "snow blindness" line.

(Edited for clumsy spellnig.)



You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

reply

You are reading waaaaay too much into it. This is how all movies are made. You pick about 8 characters and follow them. Krakauer was the voice of the camp. Him being snow blind or not does not matter whatsoever. Trust me, I know how movies are written. This is why people around him said the same thing. That scene was a symbol of a camp being to tired and to fearful of helping people out. The only reason he says those lines is because he is a main character in the movie. Having someone else say them would not illustrate the point at all. The viewer would be confused about why the "leaders" didn't say anything about the subject.

reply

You are reading waaaaay too much into it.

Nahh, I don't think I am. Your post strikes me as disingenuous, but I'm not sure if it's intentional or not.

You're not the only one who knows how movies are written. I understand a range of events being compressed into one, or into a scene of fictional dialogue, often involving people who may not be the ones who had the conversation in real life, in order to compress arcs or convey issues that would have been unwieldy to get across in other ways. But this is a film purporting to tell the true events of a true story, and Boukreev never had that conversation with anyone. What he did was awesome, remarkable, admirable, brave ... but he didn't tell anyone else he was doing it until some people saw him guiding two of the survivors from Fischer's party back into camp. And he could only manage to do it, arguably, because he'd come straight down from the summit in the early afternoon, leaving his clients to fend for themselves, and gone to sleep himself.

The scene is staged to whitewash Boukreev and blacken Krakauer, there's no question. I'm not reading anything into it at all. The film was made based on the versions of events by two pro-Boukreev anti-Krakauer participants, so it's no surprise that Boukreev's failures in the events of the day are simply omitted from the film, even to the point of leaving gaps in the logic of the telling, and the one they choose to make look weak is Krakauer -- who, by the way, I disagree was a main character. There was no good other reason to choose Krakauer for that fictional scene. There was no reason to convey the idea that everyone else was too tired, because it simply didn't happen. In real life Boukreev just went and did it; they could have done the same in the film.



You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

reply

Some things just don't work on film. Some things are added to the story to make it more interesting. Even though what they add did not happen. Also, it's not about picking sides here. The journalist was one if the coolest characters in the movie. Nearly all the other people were much worse. You act like they are trying to attack someone. But they are not. They are just making a movie that can make a profit. I am not the only one that knows about movie making. But I do know a lot about it.

reply

[deleted]

I get headaches often so I think I'd die from that as soon as the plane landed haha, but I'd try that other stuff if I trusted the people and gear, the frost bite scares the hell out of me more than anything, my toes are always freezing






"how's a fella go about gettin' a holt of the police?" -Karl

reply

suffering from agoraphobia.. i guess i wouldnt do anything on this movie since the beginning =P

http://trakt.tv/users/pedro

reply

The first of my many "NOPE" moments was the first scene of them trudging up the mountain in the searing wind and snow, right before and during the opening credits. I live in GA and whine when it's 30 degrees. I get the draw of Everest, K2, Annapurna, and the like - never thought I would - but I would never attempt to climb them - except maybe Kilimanjaro. The idea of trekking to Everest base camp does appeal to me, though, as I would like to SEE the mountain in person; might just put that on my bucket list.


~ Hello Ellie. Still waiting for E.T. to call?

reply

That was exactly my "nope" moment and I didn't realize it until I read your post! :)

reply

It just seems stupid and pointless, the whole thing. And even more so if you have kids or a pregnant wife waiting at home.

Why would we go and do something that's not meant for us? Just leave it alone, seriously.

Frost bite, severe cold, merciless wind, avalanches. That's just not things for human beings to experience unless they HAVE to, like when that plane fell on the Andes. Willingly putting yourself through that kind of stuff, out of boredom, just sounds dumb and I guess people do realize that when *beep* hits the fan, but then it is too late.

reply