It’s OK - Dr. McCoy injected them with TriOx compound.
I saw the trailer and it screamed “Perfect Storm” style computer graphics. I’ve seen a number of really great climbing films - shorts - in film festivals. I wonder why Hollywood can’t do something real? I like Jackie Chan movies for this reason (though lately he’s using a gun more than his feet). What about the Eiger Sanction? Was that any good?
First, no. For all the reasons above. Not even close. But the falling-hero-grabbing-something-to-arrest-his-fall is a fairly common movie suspense devise. I know I’ve seen several occasions of guys falling down elevator shafts for FLOORS (!) and grabbing a protrusion to stop themselves. And the list goes on.
Second, the first ‘rule’ in screenwriting is there has to be conflict or suspence. The reason you won’t see a realistic climbing movie from Hollywood is that it doesn’t meet their criteria. Only climbers could apreciate ‘daring’ real moves, Hollywood having jaded non-climbers.
As for SoNB, I think andygirl is just about on target.
For a major Hollywood release, the Eiger Sanction is about the most realistic climbing movie out there. Eastwood even did most of his own stunts for that one.
I know there is a “willing suspension of disbelief” when seeing movies, but it’s really hard with something that you know intimately. I can’t take any Hollywood movies about climbing, hiking, skiing, or computers without getting mad because I’m constantly wanting to scream at the screen. If you want really bad, try the TV movie of “Into Thin Air”, that one was pathetic.
I think what pisses off most climbers is that you could make a tense thriller about climbing without resorting to half a dozen avalaches, nitro explosions, and helicopter crashes. It just wouldn’t be as flashy as “Vertical Limit” but the Real Climbers ™ (both of them) would be very happy.
I’m perfectly happy to let my brain go on rest cycle for many action adventure flix, just not ones about hiking, climbing, or skiing. Now, if there are scenes like that in a James Bond flix that’s OK, just not a picture with a premise like VL.
If you want to see wonderful climbing and skiing movies, look for the Banff Festival of Mountain Films, which travels around the country every year. Lots of great, real, and fun movies to be seen.
There’s also a good climbing/mountaineering film festival in Colorado every year.
[[I think what pisses off most climbers is that you could make a tense thriller about climbing without resorting to half a dozen avalaches, nitro explosions, and helicopter crashes. It just wouldn’t be as flashy as “Vertical Limit” but the Real Climbers ™ (both of them) would be very happy. I’m perfectly happy to let my brain go on rest cycle for many action adventure flix, just not ones about hiking, climbing, or skiing. Now, if there are scenes like that in a James Bond flix that’s OK, just not a picture with a premise like VL.]]
I totally agree. Having watched guys free climb 5.12 - 5-13 high off the deck, using elegant style and taking risks, you just have to wonder why they don’t use these guys on film every chance they could. Medical procedures are also usually falsely portrayed in film and that bugs me, too. But James Bond and that kind of thing… I’m fine with that.
Shirley Ujest, I would want to climb it because as an avid climber, I look forward to the challenges, and the whole “death is imminent” thing, well, that’s just bogus, it’s imminent regardless, some people like me just enjoy the thrills I suppose, might have to do with those latent “caveman” genes still around…
Telemark, thanx for your earlier posts, I agree.
I was really reeeeeaaaaaaaallllly hoping for a good climbing movie… but no cigar. My best friend and I have been climbers for about six years now, and though I’ve only done some mild ice climbing, he’s actually been to k2 and many more places around the world, niether of us could believe the crap in that movie. Yeah, crampons and ice axes definitely can’t be used the way they were in the movie the whole time.
Aside from the crap though, If I were falling, and all I had was a couple of ice axes and crampons on my feet, I’d try my damndest to hold onto anything at all without cutting my rope, even if it involved a little face splatter here and there… I did fall once, not ice climbing, and not from too high, but I was climbing solo, and learned my lesson, got a real nasty contusion in my right heel, and sprained my left ankle real bad trying to avoid what became the contusion… burned up the insides of my arms and part of my chest skinning it on the rock, so for all future climbers:BRING CRASHPADS WITH YOU WHEN YOU PLAN ON CLIMBING SOLO and don’t fall. 
JillGat, I admire those guys, the 5.12 free climbers, as I’m still working my way on 5.10’s. Isn’t it lovely to see 
Here in NY, in New Paltz, they have several times a year when there are film festivals and just plain parties that a mess of climbers go to. Lots of fun, but I still want to see a really good climbing movie.
I got a physics question…
Waaay back up there, Lawmill said:
Is this correct? My High School physics teacher told me that horizontal and vertical accellerations are independent. So, sooner or later, assuming an infinite vertical fall, wouldn’t our hero fall straight down? Wouldn’t his horizonatal acceleration be stopped by air resistance? I mean, otherwise, I could jump across the Grand Canyon if I started high enough, right?
5.12, 5.10…
I’m assuming that they’re grades for climbing difficulty. What’s the scale entire?
I probably shouldn’t have used the word “any”. Yes, horizontal and vertical accelerations are independent. On a flat plane, a dropped bullet and shot bullet will hit the ground at the same time. Excluding air resistance, you could jump infinitely far. Still, the basic idea remains that you could jump across a football field if you ran fast enough, remained airborne long enough, and drag didn’t slow you down too much.
In US based climbing (different scales are used elsewhere) the whole range of climbing is done on a scale of 6. 1 is flat walking and it goes up to scrambling, using your hands, etc, up to about 5, where ropes are generally needed for safety.
The scale is then divided into 5.1, 5.2, etc up to 5.9, which is the hardest thing people can climb. Or could climb, back when the scale was put together. With modern climbing shoes and completely insane people, the scale has been extended up from 5.10 to about 5.14. Things get pretty subjective up there, as do all climbing ratings.
5.12 and up is where you pass from the realm of mere mortals.
…Bows down before the shrine of all climbers who have reached 5.12 and higher…
Telemark, one of the things that I would add to that is that the grades (numbers) are representative of “routes” up a cliff/wall/mountain…etc. just as they would be “routes” or trails on a hiking path, and that the grading of most routes is based upon the hardest part of the climb. So for example, there could be a mere 400 foot climb at the Shawangunks (where I usually climb) rated at 5.10, (These routes are given names as well, just like hiking trails)so we’ll refer to one of my favorites, called The Arch, its really not difficult considering the rating, in that the only part an avid climber might consider it 5.10 would be the overhang, or roof that must be traversed to make it up the rest of the way. The climb up to the roof, and the climb above the roof, aside from it being about a two hitch climb, is relatively easy, perhaps more on a the scale of a 5.7. Took me about 10 minutes to do just that part, neat little view when your’e almost upside down 
Here’s a thread in which we listed some climbing route names: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=47535
Also, 6 means aid climbing. This means to climb something you have to rely on pulling on a rope, hanging from a piton or nut, or something like that. All the ropes and nuts and cams and pitons are usually there for protection, and cannot be used to “climb” in any way if you want to remain “pure”.
I’d say the grades are given to particular moves. A route is given the grade of the most difficult move on that route. Which is why the number grade doesn’t mean everything.
Some routes in Yosemite are relatively low rated (5.8 or so, IIRC). But they are 30 pitches and have 1500’ of exposure, which makes them a bit more challenging than a 5.10 top rop at your local crag.
Sport climbers often will rapell down a climb they are attempting, and practice the difficult moves while hanging from the top. They will also place their protection, even drilling the rock for pins, and cleaning the route before starting at the bottom for a go at the whole thing. This has helped push the ratings higher, since it’s more difficult to climb something with a heavy rack of gear, seeing the crux move for the first time.
Different climbing areas have different ethics, and I’m not trying to badmouth sport climbing, but the ratings have changed as a result.
Telemark, a rope hanging from a nut? I thought it was the other way around
As to the movies, though, I can suspend my disbelief even on the things I know well (physics), but it sort of puts me in a different mode when I’m watching such a movie. On the rare occasion when they get it mostly right (Apollo 13, Deep Impact), it certianly is a real treat, though. Why can’t Hollywood actually just hire a science advisor (or mountaineering advisor, or medical advisor, or whatnot, depending on the focus of the movie) once in a while?
Which would be Ozone… Maybe it will give you a boost but your lungs will be as crispy as the vinyl top on a Starsky and Hutch Gran Torino that’s been in the wrecking yard since '74.