Everest- the show

Hey I thought I'd pass along some information about this show that I'm working on for my marketing job. The show is called Everest, and it debuts next week on the Discovery Channel.

It follows an inexperienced group of climbers trying to trek the mountain during this climbing season.

Given the nature of this board, I figured you may have some interest or questions about it. Feel free to ask!

You can also find more information here:
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/everestbeyond/everestbeyond.html?clik=netmain_feat1

Yet another oversensationalized made for TV movie about a bunch of inexperienced (trailer's own statement) "9 heroic men and one heroic woman" setting out to "conquer" Everest, having paid, what's the going price to have some Sherpas haul you up the mountain (most of the cost going into some non-Sherpa's pocket), $65,000 each. The trailer includes lots of "people die up here", "people lose fingers up here" (with closeups of horribly frostbitten fingers), people falling, and all the "horrendous danger!!!" words and pictures.

Climbing is NOT like that, folks. Yeah, there are people who have a lot more money than sense, and yeah, Everest in particular has become a circus. But that is not what climbing is all about.

Discovery Channel has had some good shows on climbing. But lately it seems that Discovery, History, and several of the other TV channels have felt the need to turn to sensationalism and lots of DANGER!!! and RISK!!! and DEATH!!!

Contrast this kind of garbage with a video like Vertical Frontier, which has been shown recently on PBS stations. Yeah, the photography in the trailer looks pretty, and the scenery around Everest is great. (By the way, several of the falls in the trailer look to have been carefully choreographed, giving me the impression that this is a fictional film, or at least "dramatized").

By the way, nicatrails, you have some terminology wrong - "treking" is hiking the countryside. You do not "trek" to the top of Everest, although you can trek to Everest Base Camp (major commercial industry these days).

First, the show isn't a movie, it's a show. Second, sorry for the confusion in terminology. I am not an avid climber/treker so I am not too familiar with the terms that are used and what can be interchanged.

I haven't been able to see the show yet, so I can't really tell you if it is sensationalized, which I would imagine that it is not. What I can tell you is that the show seems interesting to me, as a person who likes to learn about climbing and has a husband who loves this type of genre. I would imagine that there are a lot of people out there who attempt this sort of thing a lot and may or may not be successful.

I think that it would be interesting for you, just to see what the climb was like in such a difficult season.

Judging by the trailer that you linked, the show is sensationalized. Most of the trailer repeated scenes of people falling, closeups of badly frostbitten fingers, exchanges between the expedition leader and people high on the hill arguing over whether to continue in the face of extremely dangerous, probably fatal (leader's statements, repeated several times) conditions, and repeated statements about how these "9 heroic men and one heroic woman" continued in the face of extremely risky conditions, plus repeated statements by the narrator of the trailer about how some will die and others will lose limbs.

Real climbers don't do that sort of thing. At the least, the trailer grossly misrepresents mountaineering. Anyone who continues in the face of such odds, against the advice of an experienced expedition leader is not "heroic", but suicidal.

There is an old saying among mountaineers, "Getting to the summit is optional, getting off the mountain alive is not." The general consensus among climbers is that you have not climbed the mountain until you return home alive.

Yes, there are people who will try to bag a summit, regardless of how ill-equipped or inexperienced they are. There are people who will demand that they be taken to the summit, since they paid their $65,000 (typical fee by guide services for Everest), regardless of the consequences. Just as there are people who play Russian roulette for fun, or people who go over Niagra Falls in a homemade barrel, or people who imitate the stunts on Jackass, despite the disclaimers of "do not try this at home", or "professional driver on a closed course". Is watching someone jump off a building fun and enjoyable? Oh, yeah, I forgot, there are TV shows devoted to this sort of thing, so I guess there must be a market for it.

Need to sell copy. Count the number of times the word "extreme" is used, that's a good indicator.

Totally hyped up. How could it not be?

To portray this as "climbing" does a disservice to folks who really do climb. This is a reality show with an "extreme" twist is all. Hyped up, cut and pasted, totally packaged for "extreme" consumption.

I'm with Bill, except, I'd probably try to watch it as I can relate at bit to some of the stuff, although it'd probably make me puke.

"Deadly!" "Extreme!" "Controversy!".

Nah..."Horrendous!"

-Brian in SLC

This year's climbing season on Mount Everest was one of the deadliest on record and also one of the most controversial. In April and May 2006, the Discovery Channel documented Mount Everest summit attempts by climbers in veteran guide Russell Brice's expedition, who is based on the mountain's northern face, in Chinese-controlled Tibet.

Using cutting-edge technologies, including high-altitude video and small cameras mounted to Sherpas' helmets, as well as old-fashioned human determination, the six-part production not only puts viewers on the summit of Everest, but also captures the amazing journey of individuals striving to reach an almost impossible goal.

The series documents the two-month expedition from start to finish, highlighting the struggles, highs, lows and triumphs as people from around the world attempt to reach the world's tallest peak.

EPISODE 1: SUMMIT DREAMS
Tuesday, Nov. 14, at 10 p.m. ET/PT

At three miles above sea level, the base of Mount Everest is already higher than any mountain in the Rockies. Since the human body needs to adjust slowly to rising altitude, it is a huge effort just to begin the climb. The expedition team makes seven overnight stops to get to Base Camp (BC) on the mountain's northern face and will take a full month to acclimatize their bodies before they attempt the summit. The air is thin and the climbers feel physically weak, but the camaraderie is strong.

As the team moves to Advanced Base Camp (ABC) at 21,000 feet to begin acclimatization climbs, they are shocked to discover how badly their minds and bodies cope. The air is so thin at ABC that helicopter evacuation is impossible.

The expedition members begin climbs up to a ridge at 23,000 feet called the North Col, scaling 1,000-foot ice cliffs along the way.

EPISODE 2: THE GATEKEEPER
Tuesday, Nov. 21, at 10 p.m. ET/PT

At ABC, more than 600 climbers prepare for summit attempts. All the climbers on Russell Brice's expedition must prove they're strong enough to climb from ABC to the North Col in less than five hours or he will not allow them to continue. Bouts of bronchitis and other altitude-related ailments call into question whether some climbers will be forced to head back to BC.

Carrying almost half their body weight in ropes, gear and oxygen, six Sherpas from Russell's team are sent ahead to rig four miles of safety ropes to the summit as the rest of the team continues to acclimatize.

Russell, who religiously checks weather forecasts every six hours, spots a period of light winds in two weeks' time that looks ideal for an early summit attempt. To make this window, however, he'll have to push both his Sherpas and climbers extra hard to be ready two weeks early. More than 130 bottles of oxygen and 90 tents will need to be shifted in preparation for moving up to the North Col — all without tipping off other teams at ABC. And, with a few team members continuing to have difficulty, Russell has tough decisions to make as summit day approaches.

EPISODE 3: TO THE SUMMIT
Tuesday, Nov. 28, at 10 p.m. ET/PT

With all high camps ready and a promising forecast, Russell splits the group into two teams for the five-day, 8,000-foot summit climb from ABC. The strongest climbers are assigned to Team One guided by Bill Crouse, including L.A. firefighter Brett Merrell, ER doctor Terry O'Connor and asthmatic climber Mogens Jensen. Led by guide Mark Woodward, Team Two includes double amputee Mark Inglis, Hollywood biker Tim Medvetz and Lebanese climber Max Chaya.

Sherpas will climb alongside the teams, and they are the climbers' best hope for survival if they get into trouble.

After leaving ABC, the climbers will spend one night in each of four high camps. Just after Camp 3, they will reach the death zone at 26,000 feet, where there is 70 percent less oxygen than at sea level.

On the eve of their departure, Russell strongly warns the group of the very real dangers that lie ahead. He reinforces that the Sherpas are not there to die for anyone's personal ambitions or ego — and warns them that he will withdraw the Sherpas if any of the climbers disobey his orders and put them in danger.

After taping personal videos for their loved ones, the teams set off in good spirits, but on the climb from Camp 1 to Camp 2, Brett begins to struggle. Will the firefighter be forced to abandon his summit dreams for a second year in a row, or will he continue, determined to place a flag at the summit to salute his comrades who perished on 9/11?

The climbers face extreme difficulties as they move from camp to camp. Will Mogens, an asthmatic, be able to cope without oxygen? Can Tim, consistently slower than the others and suffering from bronchitis, make it to the high camps? How will Mark's lack of mobility affect him? And will Russell's gamble on an early summit bid pay off for the team?

EPISODE 4: INTO THE DEATH ZONE
Tuesday, Dec. 5, at 10 p.m. ET/PT

Team One is the first to head into the death zone, where the extreme altitude shuts down digestion and the body starts to consume its own muscle tissue for energy.

After only a few hours at the top camp, Team One leaves in the darkness at 1 a.m. for the summit. Almost immediately, they are caught in a frustrating human traffic jam that stops them in their tracks. If they can't pass some of the slow climbers on the ropes ahead of them, they could run out of time…and oxygen.

The episode vividly shows the backups that occur at the top of Everest — a shocking row of people lined up on safety ropes — and the potentially fatal risks that inexperienced climbers pose to everyone on the mountain. As frostbite sets in and oxygen tanks empty, will Team One be able to summit and descend safely?

EPISODE 5: MUTINY ON THE MOUNTAIN
Tuesday, Dec. 12, at 10 p.m. ET/PT

Members of Team One cope with the aftermath of their summit attempts. Many climbers are in danger from frostbite in the minus 40 degree F temperatures.

Russell instructs Team Two, now at the top camp and ready to begin their summit attempt, to leave two hours early to try to beat the traffic. Although this might help, it also means an extra two hours in the elements before the sun rises on a very cold day. While some climbers make a strong start, others immediately struggle.

Two of the team's slower climbers create havoc on the mountain when they refuse to obey Russell's orders. Because 80 percent of all climbing accidents happen on descent, Russell and others in the lower camps become gravely concerned.

EPISODE 6: THE FINAL COST
Tuesday, Dec. 19, at 10 p.m. ET/PT

As everyone descends, the entire team suffers from the extreme cold. Frostbite affects more climbers on Russell's expedition than ever before.

For each one who made the trek, whether or not they made the summit, the most important trip will be the one home. The climbers reflect on this year's expedition and whether or not they'll return to the mountain.

Wow, I didn't expect to get this type of reactrion. But your opinions are always good, even if they are not optimistic about the show. I can't really tell you if it is sensationalized or not, just bc I am not an avid outdoors person, but I think it would be an itneresting show to watch even if you are expereienced bc of the shots of the mountain. I mean at least for that it will be cool to see.

The idea when you're on the mountain is to have as little drama as possible, but no drama = boring TV for most.

Understood. But, it's not like the drama or issues that take place on the show are fabricated. While that may be the ideal situation for a climb, that's just not waht happened in this situation, which makes it even more intriguiging to watch I think.

Yeah, but ...

Consider the "news" shows. How much good, happy, pleasant news is there in a typical week on any given nightly news show? one or two stories, maybe? Most of it is the latest murders, missing persons, war stories, political scandals, etc. As adam says, no drama = no audience (at least in the eyes of the producers. The more sensational the better, from their standpoint.

It used to be that History, Discovery, The Learning Channel (now called TLC), and many other channels had informative, factual programs. Now they are doing "Shows" (ain't the same as programs, even if you don't call them "movies"). Many are highly "dramatized", or "re-enacted". Just like the "news" programs (many of which feature fanatical extremists screaming their commentary, and note it is both far left and far right, doesn't seem to be any moderates or unbiased presentations anymore), what is presented is selected for being "Extreme!", "Horrifying!", and so on. You keep coming back to saying that the show will be interesting for "showing what it is like", except as Brian, adam, and I have said, if the trailer is representative (and you say you are working on the marketing of the program, so I assume you have seen enough of the program to tell us), that ain't what real climbing is like. As I noted before, there are several sequences in the trailer of people falling that look very much like they were staged (person exactly centered in the frame, zooming in at the precise moment the person slips, very nice coincidence). The cameras just happened to be rolling on the expedition leader and the persons arguing with him on the radio at both ends - nice coincidence, if it really happened that way. Well, maybe you would say it was "dramatized", which means, really, that the incident is recreated by actors, professional or amateur. It also looksl and sounds like there is a lot of judicious editing. Which means, just like the news media, selecting the most "Sensational!", "Extreme!", and otherwise exciting and frankly unrepresentative moments.

Yeah, lots of people like to watch horror movies (Psycho is one of the most watched movies of all time, after all), shoot-em-up Westerns, murder mysteries, war movies, and so on. Sensation sells. But keep in mind, it isn't really like that. It is "entertainment", plain and simple.

Oh, yeah, I might watch some of the episodes. Can't watch them all, even if I am still curious, though, because I will be off doing some real live mountain expedition type activity for the latter ones.

Ok, obviously you all are much more knowledgable about the topic than I am. But, what I can tell you is that this show is not like watching a canned reality show that is very cheesy or overdone. I think that it surpasses most of those shows that you watch on network television. And I think that its main goal is to open the eyes to those less experienced climbers about what CAN happen out there. For those of you who know more about it, well, I thought that you would be at least somewhat interested in watching it, which it seems like you are, even given your reservations. So, great!

"But, what I can tell you is that this show is not like watching a canned reality show that is very cheesy or overdone."

Seems very, nay, "extremely" cheesy and overdone. Would have to be to sell copy.

So, compared to what? Based on what criteria?

"I think that it surpasses most of those shows that you watch on network television."

In terms of what? Viewership? Bet it won't hold a candle to Fear Factor for ratings. "Quality"? That's a hard thing to access.

"And I think that its main goal is to open the eyes to those less experienced climbers about what CAN happen out there."

No way. Its main goal is NOT educating less experienced climbers. That's total horse pucky. Its reality "extreme" drama. Survivor meets over hyped Everest. Greatest Race meets fixed ropes and Sherpas. Not even a stretch as "reality". It seems totally geared toward main stream, lowest commmon denominator viewership.

"For those of you who know more about it, well, I thought that you would be at least somewhat interested in watching it, which it seems like you are, even given your reservations. So, great!"

Which is what this is really about, correct? Ratings and viewership, promotion, and sales. Which is why you're here?

Just like Vertical Limit makes a good drinking game. Heck, I even own a copy. But, in no way does it resemble "real climbing". Mildy good entertainment, though, and almost a parody piece.

-Brian in SLC

Actually, I am here to get an idea of what you think about the show once it comes on, and secondly to learn about your thoughts about the show as opposed to selling the show to you. My main goal is just to make you aware that it is out there, if you DO want to catch an episode and also to see what you think once you watch it.

Hey, Brian and adam,

maybe we are being too harsh with the poor girl. After all, it's just "...this show that I'm working on for my marketing job." She's gotta earn her salary. And the marketing fashion these days for the media is "Extreme!" hype.

nica, if you want to know what climbing is really like, look at the IMAX Everest video that Dave Brashears did, or Vertical Frontier that has been showing on PBS recently. Touching the Void is a very accurate re-enactment of a genuine extreme incident that still provokes a lot of discussion in the climbing community, because it was so extreme.

Films like Vertical Limit, MI-2, Cliffhanger, and the like are considered hilarious comedy by real climbers. Some recent programs that have appeared on Discovery and History have presented climbing in the same vein, even though some have been based on real events.

You have said several times that Everest: Beyond the Limit (talk about an Extreme, overly sensational title!) shows what it is really like out there. But, as I have noted, if some of the shots in the trailer were not staged or re-enacted, the camera people were tremendously lucky to have their cameras rolling at the right time in the right place with the right zoom setting and got their pan and zoom-in exactly right. I have done a lot of photography in the hills and know several of the top climbing photographers who photograph real expeditions under the conditions you encounter on Everest (and K2, and even Denali). There is a large amount of skill, experience, and expertise involved, but there is also a lot of luck involved in having the camera pointing in at least the right general direction when something happens.

Given the shots included in the trailer, I have to be very skeptical about the statements that the program shows the "real thing" with no re-enactments or staged shots. The language used in describing and, yes, marketing the show is, as Brian and adam have also pointed out, so "beyond the limit" that my skepticism is heightened even further.

I don't think we're being too harsh. We haven't even gotten into the name calling part yet. ;)

Nica, the trouble you're encountering is caused by the predecessors of this movie/show/whatever-you-call-it. Not many film attempts previous to this one have been very accurate of what it's like on a mountain. Maybe this show will be different, probably not.

Bill, Brian, Didn't we have a regular well respected poster on the predecessor of this site that was on the tech team as a rigger for one the movies Bill listed as comedies? His initial opinion of the movie being accurate was left on the editing room floor.

adam g
from a Remote Undisclosed Location

adam,
I think you may be referring to Scott Billups. His wife did the rotoscoping on Vertical Limit. Actually he warned us it would be rather inaccurate as to real climbing. I recently read Ed Viestur's book, where he makes some comments about his role in the movie (for nica, Viesturs is one of the top Himalayan climbers currently active, having summited his 14th of the fourteen 8000ers last year. He had a cameo appearance in Vertical Limit and was one of several climbing consultants). Anyway, Ed considers that cameo (he had a 1-sentence speaking part) as a blot, and regrets his association with such a movie.

I have a DVD of Vertical Limit, too, "with special added features", among which are scenes as shot, before the backgrounds were put in and the rotoscoping (method of removing the cables, platforms, safety nets, etc from the scenes). Scott had told us to look carefully at the infamous leap across the chasm and sticking the ice tools scene, since the trajectory is so obviously not the parabola dictated by basic physical laws. The raw scene, with the platforms and cable, shows why the path is a concave circular arc, rather than the physically correct convex parabolic curve.

Haven't heard from Scott in a couple years. Wonder whether he ever got back to climbing.

By the way, Brian, I picked up Ed's book at my local Costco at a substantial discount. On mine, the dust jacket, fly leaf, and several other places very prominently notes Dave Roberts' part in writing the book. If I recall, your copy did not acknowledge Dave's contribution.

I thought I had some of the details wrong... thanks for clearing it up. Scott was pretty messed up, but pretty lucky.

Wonder if Ed will mind signing my copy of VL tonight, then? Ha ha. Should be interesting. I'm taking it.

Yeah, I think the copy I have (preproduction paperback) mentioned Roberts (says, "with David Roberts"). I asked Viesturs, jokingly, what he got out of Roberts with regard to the book. He said, "well, he wrote it". He kinda didn't get my point, which, was maybe a good thing.

He's in town tonight.

I support my local bookseller, Kings English, and proudly paid full price for two copies.

Yeah, Ed in VL is almost painful to watch. More funny is the look on Barry Blanchard's face when the lead dude is going on and on about how awesome Ed is.

-Brian in SLC

The entire concept of this movie is preposterous from the get go. Perhaps it should be worded " a group of inexperienced trekers decide to climb Everest". The movie and concept is an insult to climbers and especially to those who have climbed and those that have died on Everest and every alpine peak. This is just as stupid as a movie about a bunch of non-climbers arriving in Yosemite Valley and climbing Astroman. In the movie they'd die falling from the harding crack, but in reality they couldn't even get off the ground cause it was too hard. Despite all the BS, Everest is a difficult deadly mountain and no one makes it up without atleast really good to excellent alpine skills. No one is strong enough to carry another down much less up above the death zone, you have to be in excellent almost freaky good condition to even get a shot at it and the concept that you just pay someone and they strap crampons on you and you become a world climber is just ridiculous.

Why not choose a reasonable more normal mountain to die on - a bunch of LaLa people climb Mt Whitney on a warm january day with no food water packs or coats and they all die.
Jim YMMV
P.S. Soap box off - sorry I just learned of the climbing death of a friend who was a world class alpine climber and I being protective. John was a real climber and what he said was this "Only you know where you've been". Means most climbers are kinda shy about talikng about their climbs because its far too complex to relate and only a few would know what you were talking about anyway.
P.P.S. Couldn't you find any good footage of bodies frozen in snow and mangled faces looking up through ice?

No, we're not being too harsh. Too many companies make show and/or movies depicting climbers as adreniline-deficient junkies. Thats not what climbing is about at all. Maybe it is for some, but not for most. If the shows and movies would show what climbing is really like, it would be just as interesting, and far more informative to the general public.

I just want to clarify one small detail, though...the show is actually not trying to show what mountain climbing is like for preofessionals, it is depicting what is is like for a group of unexperiences climbers trying to go up Everest. So, it is a little different than what you are talking about.

Basically what you are looking at with this show is "Reality" has finally made it to Everest and that is stupid. Everest has already been ruined by inexperienced people buying their way up and now the TV industry is sealing the deal by putting it all on cable TV - permanent for the record. Will the mountain ever recover? Who knows? Mother Nature always wins in the end I guess.

Message to Discovery Channel: Please stop it!

Clarificationn in first sentence: "Reality TV" is what I meant to type.

nicatrails said "the show is actually not trying to show what mountain climbing is like for preofessionals, it is depicting what is is like for a group of unexperiences climbers trying to go up Everest."

Well, none of us who post here on this website are anything close to professionals. And, according to the trailer and the website, the expedition organizer is a professional guide and makes his living running this type of expedition, which makes him a professional, I believe. He makes a statement in the "about the cast" section that the people who are accepted for his expeditions are screened for experience, so saying it is a "group of unexperiences climbers" (I assume you mean "inexperienced") is a bit disingenuous. An important point that all the replies to you have been trying to make is that truly inexperienced people do not belong on a mountain like Everest. Making a TV show out of it is like making a TV show about attempted (and successful) group suicide attempts. The trailer even plays this up ("People die up here!", delivered in an excited, overwrought shout).

The climbers probably are much less experienced than is advisable for such an expedition. One of the real tragedies of Everest is that far too many people pay their $65,000 and have far too little experience and judgment to be on such a mountain. It has indeed become a circus. But that is no reason to glorify such "heroic" would-be suicides. In fact, that is the very reason publicity about such people should not be granted in the form of, as others have put it, a "Reality TV" show.

I notice, by the way, that the trailer being shown on Discovery and other channels is much more subdued than the one you linked.

Discovery could have done a positive service by examining the question of why people want to engage in such risky undertakings, with so little experience (minimum requirements by the guide services are having ascended a certain number of high altitude peaks under a variety of conditions), and with so little knowledge of what they are really getting into. Why do people engage in other risky activities that have potentially such extreme consequences? In such an examination, terminology like "Extreme!", "heroic!", "disaster!", and the rest of the terms in the trailer and the publicity website should be left out.

One thing I have seen more and more in the past 10-15 years is the number of men (and increasingly, women) in their 40s and 50s who all of a sudden get the urge to climb a challenging mountain, never having done much more than a few short backpacking trips, if that. I went on a climb of several of the Mexican volcanoes that a friend was guiding for one of the major adventure travel companies, invited along as an unofficial assistant. Now these volcanoes are not all that difficult, if conditions are perfect. But they have dangers that put them far out of the risk level of hiking up, say, Mt. Monadnock in New England, or Mt. Dana on the eastern border of Yosemite National Park. Severe storms can come up, and it is possible for the inexperienced to fall and slide a very long way. But these clients of my friend were talking about being in "The Death Zone" even at the cars at the trailheads at 10,000 to 13,000 ft altitude (the "Death Zone" is considered by high altitude medical specialists to start at 26,000 ft, not 10,000). Yes, people do get AMS as low as 8000 ft. And, as it turned out, the group never got higher than 16,000 ft on any of the peaks. Over half the group (including those taking Diamox as a preventative) got AMS severely enough that my friend, his real assistant, and I, the unofficial assistant, basically had to haul them down from the high point on Orizaba. After the trip, the group were all excitedly talking about how they had cheated death. So what is the psychology of people that they want to believe they are doing death-defying acts? And what drives them to charge off with eyes closed on something like Everest, where there are known severe consequences for having such a lack of skill and experience? And, what is it that triggers the "mid-life crisis" that sends them into risky activities for which they have little training or experience?

Several of the people who have responded to your initial post have been climbing for literally decades, not like these one-week "heroes" who suddenly decide at age 45 to "climb Everest!", then drop out of climbing after a total of maybe 3 or 4 years. Discovery could have done a positive service by examining what makes the difference between those of us who have been climbing for decades and these one-climb "heroes", who drop out as quickly as they started. Instead, we get "Sensational!" trailers and shows.

Since I was at a meeting last night, I recorded the 1st installment of the show. Good thing, too! I got to skip over something like 20 minutes of commercials. And when you take out all the "re-start" review after each commercial session, there probably was less than a half-hour of content in the hour-long "show". I guess the commercial breaks are so long that they have to review, because you will have forgotten what happened in the last segment.

Anyway, despite the trailer, the show started reasonably. I did misunderstand a couple things in the trailer. It wasn't "9 heroic men and one heroic woman" - don't know how I got that. It was "8 heroic men and ..." something about the super guide. But as you get into the show (and as those of us who have done a bit of reading about Everest know), an Everest expedition these days involves a whole bunch more people - for example, they did not mention in the trailer that there was an expedition doctor, several more guides (Russell Brice, the "super guide" and expedition leader stays at Base Camp - don't get me wrong, Brice is indeed a very experienced guide and has been on Everest many times), plus a lot of Sherpas to schlep the gear up the hill.

Unfortunately, the show deteriorated rapidly into an obsession with disasters. We find out that the clients are mostly "walking wounded" before they even get to the mountain. This is not to take away from their skills, previous experience, or determination. It's just that the show and narrator obsess on their weaknesses - a double amputee (from being stuck apparently for a couple weeks on Mt Cook in New Zealand, too many images of severe frostbite), a guy with serious asthma, a motorcycle mechanic who seems from the Xrays they show to have about half his skeleton replaced or reinforced with screws, plates, and cages, a guy who was on Everest the year before and didn't make it beyond Advanced Base (except there was a comment about his high point being the North Col camp), and others.

So far, we have seen a Sherpa die from HACE, and Indian team member get hauled down with HACE and HAPE, the motorcycle guy turn back half-way from ABC to the North Col on a conditioning climb (next installment preview hints that he gets thrown off the team), cameraman carried down the mountain on a stretcher, someone getting piggybacked down the mountain with some level of altitude sickness, lots of closeups of someone's cramponed feet scraping on a tiny ledge, one of the Indian climber's evacuation team falling on the descent off the face and spearing the guy below him with his crampons and knocking that guy down, and so on.

Lots of talk about how little oxygen there is (volume density does indeed drop with altitude). There is a scene of the team doctor helping a Spanish climber who apparently has AMS. They show the pulse-ox meter - something like 50% saturation at, I think it was 21,000 ft. Normal at sea level is in the high 90% range (I measure 98%), and dropping as you go up. After acclimatizing, the saturation does rise (at the 17,000 ft camp on Denali, I measured back up in the 90% range after a few days, benefited by sticking to a 1000 ft a day regimen, but I acclimatize quite well compared to most people). At sea level, the Spaniard's measurement of 50% would have put him in the ICU, as the team doctor commented.

Anyway, there were some good segments which were informative, but my estimate is that over half of the actual show (omitting the commercials and reviews) was focussed on the problems. Something between 5 and 10 minutes was spent on getting the Indian HACE/HAPE victim down the hill to ABC from the North Col.

Oh, yeah, we already know from the preview that the double amputee breaks one of his prosthetics, the ones with the crampons bolted to the feet, somewhere high up where the crampons are needed.

Curious thing - I didn't stop the recording to get a closer look, but it looked like the crampons the LA fireman was using were Grivel Airtech Light aluminums. I have a pair of these, and they are great for approaches and on glaciers, but are not intended for anything technical, plus they do get dull fast if you spend much time on rock (a lot of Everest has rock mixed with the snow and ice).

Discovery, you missed a great opportunity to do it right. Your disaster show is a disaster.

Bill, Jim, et al., I don't have cable so my chances of seeing this series are less than optimal, but I have been following this thread with interest.

When the "Into Thin Air" debacle happened back in '96, there was a lot of controversy over just what this show apparently depicts-an experienced guide team taking climbers of modest skills and experience up one of the most dangerous mountains in the world. As far as I know, that, plus some bad luck, got Rob Hall and a few others killed.

I have a very modest amount of experience in the mountains. Even when I was in my best condition, I knew, as much I might have imagined it, there was no way I was qualified to climb a big mountain. Other folks, who have the money and the ego, think otherwise, and there will always be guides willing to take the risk to take these big mountain wannabes to the summit, or at least as far as they are capable of going.

Those are the choices they make-guides like Brice want to climb, want someone else to pay for it and guiding is how they do it. The clients want the experience and bragging rights. I don't think it makes them bad people, just unrealistic as to the danger vs. the rewards.

If I had a spare $20M, I'd love to go to the space station for a week; wouldn't make me an astronaut, but it'd be an amazing experience. On the other hand, if it meant endangering everyone else on the mission, then I would hope someone would say no, you can't come because you might get the rest of us killed and we don't want that risk.

As far as the hype on the show is concerned, my guess is much of the drama is manufactured. By that I don't mean that the events were set up, although that is a distinct possibility, but footage gets compressed and edited for the most dramatic effect. I have friends who work in reality tv. A lot of what passes for drama is created in the editing room. As far as the on the mountain drama, the fact that everyone apparently got back, not all that much worse for the wear shows that the situation probably wasn't as death defying as they would have you believe. Not that I think climbing Everest isn't dangerous; no doubt it is, but not all expeditions have the big dramatic moments, otherwise we'd be reading about them every week.

A friend of mine is developing a reality show on SAR. One thing he's been told is that the networks want "extreme" adventures. Just showing a SAR team out looking for a missing kid, as dramatic as that may be,isn't enough. They want the "dangling from the helo in avalanche country" kind of extreme. It's Discovery that runs "Shark Week" and you'd think from that every time you go into the ocean, a shark is out there just waiting to nibble on you. Total baloney.

After reading the episode guides Brian posted, I don't really see what all the fuss is about. Aside from some hyping of the drama, it sounds pretty much what I would expect for a show about a commercial climb. I remember my basic climbing class; some of us were more adept at it than others and some of us were stronger than others (I sort of fit into the "others" category). This bunch probably wasn't much different, except the stakes were much higher.

A show about my climbing class would have been a real snore. Other than my falling chest deep into a crevasse and one of our guides getting whacked on the head with an ice axe (a surprising bit of blood, but no real damage), it was pretty low key. But for me, an adventure nonetheless and I must say, the view from the top of the little mountain we climbed was spectacular. It wasn't Everest, but then, it wasn't $65K and a bunch of frozen toes either. Hehehe.

Hmm, I re-read Bill's post and see that I missed the part about the Sherpa dying and the other climber being evac'd. Not sure if they were from Brice's party, but something like that seems to happen at least once a season. Not my intent to gloss over his death because he was a Sherpa in case anyone got that idea.

Because I enjoyed the movie Into Thin Air I was interested in seeing this new reality show.I watched the first episode and loved it. I have always been fascinated with Everest and enjoy seeing actual pictures of the beautiful scenery. Seeing and sort of "meeting" the type of individuals who would try an ascent is intriguing. I like getting to "know " more about the person. The sad reality is someone will die from adema(sp)or suffer from altitude sickness to the point of having to leave the expedition.
What I hate seeing is all trash left behind and dead bodies left behind from other expeditions. It truly points out how money can get you anything whether you deserve it or not. This reality shows the "harsh" reality of mountain climbing the Queen of them all and the possiblity of losing your life over your ego and pride. I will watch each episode just because I am interested in the total endeavor of the climb and the sacrifices people make to do it.

Do not see "Everest: Beyond the Limit"!

The man who led this expedition is ruthless despite how he appears on TV. Commercializing Everest is one thing, letting fellow climbers die because his clients wanted to summit is shameful. Mountaineering is not all about summits; human life is a precious thing, and to resort to cutting ropes, stealing from high camps, letting his clients climb wiht faulty equipment, and spitting on the lives of dying men is another. This man advised people to pass David Sharp last spring as he was dying - very visibly - near the summit of Everest. If you are an avid mountaineer, then you will know one of the #1 principle is this: always help a climber in need. A rescue team would have sufficed. Everest over the years has become a commercial venture where people pay 50k and expect a summit because of their investment. It's no surprise that Everest climbers on the North side are so cold towards others.

How uncompassionate was his decision? His Sherpas talked to David just 1 hour before he died, as he was saying that he was dying. Guess what they were doing? You guessed it. Filming the Discovery Channel documentary! They have it on tape but did not release it at David Sharp's familys request. Be aware, this is not a fault of the sherpas, who could have brought Daniel back to Base Camp quickly enough to save him, according to many mountaineers and doctors (see explorersweb for more information). 40 people passed this man as he lay cropped against a rock to die, mostly from the Himex team that Brice led!

Boycott this show!!

___________________
Explorersweb article about the show and Discovery Channel's insistance that they publicize it.

http://www.mounteverest.net/news.php?news=15279

______________________________
Russell Brice cover-up

http://www.mounteverest.net/news.php?id=10064

________________________

Dr. Morandeira: “Could David Sharp have been saved? Definitely”

http://www.mounteverest.net/news.php?id=10071

I have done some trekking in Nepal. Am not a climber but have hiked the Annapurna circuit and crossed the Thorung-la pass @ over 17,500 feet. I love seeing any show with the mountain scenes in Nepal/Tibet. I am excited to see the rest of it. I know it's contoversial. I can't believe so many people walked over a dying climber without helping him down. This is not the point of the show.

Tom,
The young Sherpa who died at Base Camp, before they even got on the mountain was with Brice's party. He was one of the cooks. His death was from some form of acute altitude sickness, although I don't recall them saying what it was. It did show that the old canard about Sherpas being immune to AMS, HAPE, and HACE is another of the false legends. They need to be careful, just like any other human. There has been an effort in the past few years to train Sherpas in modern mountaineering techniques, which will help them set up and run their own guide services. One of these projects is the Khumbu Project, which is the brainchild of Conrad Anker.

The other evacuee who was prominently featured (we haven't been told his ultimate fate yet on the show) was on an Indian team. There was some comment about 70+ teams being at Advance Base Camp.

I understand your comment about the networks wanting "Extreme!" footage and making the events much more dramatic. Although that isn't completely the case. After all, OLN (now called VS, as in "versus") has fishing and hunting shows on which you watch some fly fisherman casting and casting and casting or some hunters sitting in a blind whispering to each other for 10 or 15 minutes before firing one shot, and there are the golf shows where we get to watch silent crowds staring at Tiger Woods or some other multimillionaire carefully lining up on a putt for several minutes at a time. But yeah, violence sells, "extreme" and "dangerous" sell. I see all sorts of series on the cable networks (I mean in the listings, since I don't watch them) about Shark Attacks (which you mentioned), something like "I should have died", "Extreme Adventure", plus fake "survivor" shows and such.

My problem is that the concentration of the shows is on the death and destruction, with full closeup detail of the blood and gore. Was it really necessary to show closeups of the Indian guy vomiting? Did we really need to see the Xrays of the motorcycle guy's plates, screws, and metal spinal cage? Yes, there is a risk of death or serious, permanent injury on a climb like Everest. There is a risk of death or serious injury every time I get in my car and get on the road (a neighbor of mine, late 80s in age, rear-ended me at a stop sign about 4 blocks from our houses, never put on the brakes - seems her meds were getting screwed up, enough so that she was hospitalized a week later and died a week after that - not from the accident, but from her body just giving out - she could have hit the accelerator rather than the brake in her condition, which would have resulted in serious injury to both of us). I risk death and serious injury every time I go on a bike ride (seems like we get a bike death every couple weeks here in the SFBay Area).

My problem with the Everest: Beyond the Limit is that the emphasis and main focus of the show is on the death, injury, "extreme" risk, and such. I also have a problem with the viewpoint presented that the major reason that people climb, not just Everest, but other mountains as well, is ego and having lots of money. Yes, there are people who do it for that, and that is probably a major reason why people buy Cadillacs, Mercedes, Ferraris, and such (look at the current Cadillac SUV ads for a prime example). But the majority of people I know who climb and who I climb with do not have gobs of money, and they don't climb for ego. This show presents people who climb generally as a bunch of crazy (as in "certifiably insane"), obsessed, rich folks. Most climbers I know are closer to dirt bag, homeless people than they are to Bill Gates. Well, I exagerate, they aren't quite that poor. Most of them know the risks and take account of them in being very careful.

Ok, I realize that the nature of a large fraction of the people who go to Everest these days, and who go for the 7 Summits do have more money than sense. A lot seem to believe "it won't happen to me." I suspect that some of them are among the people who blast past me on the freeway at rush hour, weaving back and forth from lane to lane (it always amuses me that after 5 miles of this, they almost always are no more than a couple car lengths ahead of me, and are often several car lengths back). Some of them are probably among the people who seem to believe that driving a big SUV gives them the right of way on the road and exempts them from the traffic laws, like stopping at a stop sign.

Shows like this just encourage people like that. If the show had focused on what it really takes to climb Everest, namely a lot of physical effort, lots of slogging with heavy loads, lots of help from the Sherpas carrying your loads, and so on, I suppose you are right that viewers these days would just yawn and switch to Shark Attack. Even the Weather Channel is in the act - Storm Stories and other similar shows with lots of death and destruction by tornados, hurricanes, and tsunamis. Seconds to Disaster is a prime example of the cutting to leave only the "drama", although that does provide some "lessons learned".

well, enough of this drivel.

annie said "I can't believe so many people walked over a dying climber without helping him down. This is not the point of the show."

Sorry, annie, as dnlgerber noted, it was in fact the team featured in this show who very notably walked past Sharp. I haven't commented on it, because I wanted to see if they mentioned it in the later episodes. One of the things already made evident in the first episode is that this team had summit fever from day one and were intent on getting there no matter what. That's part of what several posters have referred to in comments about the attitude of many of the climbers that "I paid my $65k (or $40k on a bargain tour), and I am therefore guranteed a summit".

I get the feeling that so much of the show time was spent on the Brice expedition doctor helping other groups and the effort of the evacuation of the Indian climber is an effort to portray Brice and his expedition as being very helpful and considerate of others, and hence to avoid the fact that Brice ordered his people to forget about Sharp. I have been wondering about the scene in the trailer and "upcoming episodes" where Brice admits "I'm sorry, I made a mistake up there, it was a wrong decision."

Bill, I pretty much agree with you. Maybe they should have had Huell Howser do the show. (For you non-Californians, Huell's a PBS host who travels all over the state doing shows about interesting, or not so interesting,places in CA.)

Here is a story about Brice's party and Sharp; it has some interesting background about Brice and his 2001 climb.
http://tinyurl.com/y3uylg

Another, more detailed account-
http://tinyurl.com/uwbjc

Another, very angry account of Brice and his actions. The story isn't signed so no idea who wrote it. They are no fans of Brice and his company.
http://tinyurl.com/y3zblz

A story on the same site about high altitude rescues.
http://tinyurl.com/no8o7

Nice link, great story.

-Brian in SLC

"Six-part series about greed, blind ambition and money"

Filmmaker Dick Colthurst says he went to Mount Everest hoping to learn why people risk their lives climbing. After 48 days on Everest, he told AP he still doesn't understand. "While I admire what they do and how they do it, and the sheer mental and physical strength that it takes to do it, I'm honestly no nearer to understanding why they do it," the executive producer for London-based Tigress Productions, told The Associated Press.

Of course he doesn't understand - the soul of high altitude climbing won't show in 48 days - even less through the eyes of Himex.

"My name is David Sharp, I am with Asian Trekking" were the last words of a dying independent climber speaking into Discovery Channel's camera. Then, the camera was shut off, and the crew was ordered by Russell Brice to descend. David died later that night, alone out in the cold, a mere one hour's climb from the warmth of high camp.

But we won't get to see that. Whatever it is we will see on Tuesday, it won't be about mountaineering - or Everest even. It will be a six-part series about greed, blind ambition and money. Such a documentary airing on a channel like Discovery is yet another nail in the coffin for Everest climbing.

It is sad that Sharp died up there BUT ALL people take the risk of death when trying to climb Everest. From what I have read Sharp was up there on his own, he didn't have ANY support team up there with him on his push for the summit. You are kind of on your own when you decide to climb Everest, knowing the risks, ESPECIALLY without support. He was playing Russian Roullet. So this team being filmed brought along a doctor who seems to be helping all the others teams up there. It is risky business to pull someone off of a mountain. Should they have risked their own lives saving a stranger who was irresponsible enough to try to climb Everest without a support team. It is sad and senseless that people die up there and I think it is fair to say that ANYONE who goes there has to go there with the understanding that they might not be coming back and EVERYONE who goes there is there to summit Everest wants to make it happen. I'd be pissed if I spent my life savings to follow my dream only to find that my team had to take care of every other team who came unprepared. People shouldnt't be cheaping out when it comes to something as serious as climbing Everest, it's not a day hike. I bet if Sharp could do it over he would have spent a little more money on a support team! Was Sharp assuming that if he went alone that strangers would risk their lives to drag him down? I am guessing not, I'm sure he knew the risks and didn't expect other people would drag him down if he got into trouble. It is such risky business that most of the people who die up there are left up there forever.

Annie, Remember what you just wrote if someday your laying near death along the side of the road. Why should anyone stop to help, afterall they're coffee is getting cold, why should they waste that money spent for the coffee? Or does this only apply to your 'life long dream' attempt?

Sharp was only an hour from camp but the cast of characters opted for their summit in lieu of saving a life.

Very little of the attitudes & personalities seen on Everest represents the rest of us that spend time in the mountains but the viewing public doesn't understand this.

Annie, you may like the show for the entertainment value but it's a disservice to those of us who go to the mountains.

adam

Annie-
Judging from what you wrote, you do not do any climbing. The point many of the posters are trying to make is that if you go out in the hills, you have a responsibility for your fellow climbers. You help them, just as you expect them to help you. Yes, it is the Golden Rule and the Categorical Imperative, and true, society today has forgotten about those basic rules of civilization. But the majority of climbers, and especially expedition climbers, do follow them. Everest: Beyond the Limit glorifies one of the few, Russell Brice, who violates and ignores those basic, unwritten rules of the mountaineering game.

The "expedition doctor", by the way, was NOT on the HimEx team as an official expedition doctor. He was a paying client, just like the others. In doing what he did to help other teams, he was following the Hippocratic Oath that all MDs take, and doing what the majority of mountaineers do. According to reports from other teams that appeared during the expedition season last year on Everest.com and other websites, he got chewed out by Brice for spending so much time with other teams.

You said, "...ALL people take the risk of death when trying to climb Everest."

Yes, true. But we all, including you, live with the risk of death in our daily lives. As the old "joke" goes, the number one cause of death is being born - everyone who is born will or has died. No matter where you live, you are subject to natural disasters. I live next to the San Andreas Fault, and went through the Loma Prieta shaker in 1989. It wasn't all that big, but something like 50 or 60 people died. I lived for 10 years in Mississippi, where we had dozens of tornadoes every year (but I didn't live in a "tornado magnet", aka mobile home park). I bicycle a lot, including daily commuting most of my life before retiring, which is high risk. I drive on freeways, and even city streets (more than half of all car accidents happen on streets, and the fatality rate on city streets is astoundingly high). We all live with the risk of fatal diseases, many of which have a high contributing factor of our genetics (that is, we have ancestors who passed down potentially fatal genes).

So making a statement about going to Everest carrying the risk of death ignores the fact that the majority of people die in bed. So should we not get into beds? The reason, of course is that people spend more of their lives in bed than anywhere else, 1/3 of every day.

You might not think about the risks of sudden, violent, painful death in your everyday life, but it is there, whether it be getting run down while crossing the street, burned alive when the building you are in catches fire accidentally, getting served a contaminated meal in a restaurant, getting poisoned when something goes wrong with the city water system, or having some crazy setting off car bombs, engaging in a gun battle as you happen to drive by, or whatever.

Take your choice - you can sit on the couch watching Everest: Beyond the Limit portraying wannabe "heroes" ignoring common sense safety practices to tag the top of some peak, while your arteries clog and result in a heart attack or stroke, or get out there in the fresh air, enjoying the scenery, exercising to stay in good health, and taking the occasional "risk" (that probably is less than on the drive home from work). You can die as a couch potato or having a great adventure.

You also said, "I'd be pissed if I spent my life savings to follow my dream only to find that my team had to take care of every other team who came unprepared."

Sorry, but that's part of the game - responsibility for others. As adam hinted, if we see a car accident, we have a moral and ethical obligation to help the victims in any way we can. How will you feel when you are injured in a serious car crash (50% of Americans are in a serious car crash during their lifetimes - look at the insurance company statistics!), and no one stops to help or bothers to at least call 911? In Brice's case, he ORDERED his people, including "his" Sherpas and film crew to continue to the summit. Look, the mountain will be there another day. What is more important, the summit or a human life? You seem to feel that the money is more important - "...I'd be pissed if I spent my life savings to follow my dream only to find that my team had to take care of every other team who came unprepared." Everyone who climbs knows, or should know, that the money is no guarantee of success. There is no guarantee that you or anyone else will ever achieve your dream - that's why they are called "dreams", after all. Some dream of being "world-famous" whatever, and are disappointed and depressed because they don't achieve the notoriety (OTOH, being "world-famous" carries costs that most people don't realize and a lot of "world-famous" people discover to their regret that the costs are too great).

Something else you are ignoring, or maybe just don't realize, is that Sharp is just one of many people who do things like climbing solo. Some of those depend on others being there to help or to leach off of. Some do it to "prove" something. Some do it because they prefer to be self-sufficient - you only have responsibility for yourself, and only yourself to blame if something goes wrong. But Sharp wasn't truly solo. He had come on someone else's permit, and his supplies and gear were transported by that organization. It is true, however, that this "organization" just exists to provide an umbrella for those who want to do things solo or in tiny groups.

Just so you know, I hike an average of about 50 miles a week, plus 100 miles a week bicycling. In season, part of those miles get converted to skiing miles. And a day or so a week is spent climbing, except for the 2 or 3 times a year when I head out for a week to a month on a climbing trip (I leave for 3-4 weeks of climbing in another 20 days. And like my companions on this trek, I have been doing this sort of thing for about 5 decades, with no serious injuries or accidents). Like most of my climbing partners, I have helped lost and injured hikers, climbers, and backcountry skiers. That's what most climbers are like.

Are you trying to impress me with all of your miles Bill S? Speaking of couch potato, how long did it take to write up that last rant?

Adam- He may have been an hour away from camp if he was able to walk but it's a little different when he had been out overnight and was near death by the time Brice's team came across him. He wasn't able to walk. We all know that it would have meant a major rescue operation of carrying the guy. Was the guy with no legs supposed to throw him on his back and carry him down?

If you crunch the numbers, for Every 10 people that summit Everest there is about one death in attempts and summits. Its a little more risky than riding a bike or letting your coffee get cold. This kid went up there with TWO oxygen cylinders, he was out of air before he even got to the top. He went with an outfit that doesn't provide support on the mountain so basically is was there on his own. I would assume Sharp knew that by skimming on oxygen AND going ALONE for the summit he might not come back. It's one thing to help save a person when there is a chance that they might live but by the time the Discovery team got there it was too late.

No I am not a climber. If you read my above posts I stated this. I have done some trekking in Nepal, I am a mountain hiker. Sharp shouldn't have been up there with only two oxygen bottles, on his own and without appropriate gear. His summit attempt was too risky and he brought that risk on by attempting this on his own. Would it be fair if I decided I wanted to climb Everest next May and decided I would skimp on equipment, gear etc hoping someone would save my ass if I got into trouble? The guy didn't even have a way to communicate with anyone below. He shouldn't have been up there. I read he didn't even have appropriate gloves on!
He didn't follow the golden rule of being prepared. It is sad he died but it would have been more sad if more people would have died saving him. It would have taken many hours and possibly a day to rescue this guy, not just an hour. I'm sure if he would have been savable he would have been saved. On all accounts this guy was living popsicle by the time Brice's group stepped over him. its not like they kicked him aside- People tried. You don't hang out on Everest so somene doesn't die alone unless you want to die yourself. Many people stopped and tried to get him going, gave him oxygen etc but he was too far gone. Just because someone WANTS to climb Everest doesn't mean they should be allowed to do it. Climbing Everest is a major deal and you have to be prepared to die when you decide to go there.

It's already been said, but I can't help but reiterate what Adam and Bill have said about the ethical choice between saving a life or making a summit, even the summit of Everest. I personally find it sad that some people think it’s okay to leave a person to their death simply because they are so focused on their own goal, no matter the size of the goal.

I’m a pretty goal-oriented person myself (some would say too much so) and I can barely imagine how disappointing it would be to give up a life-long climbing goal, like Everest is for some. But, I’d personally rather live with that disappointment than the fact that I didn’t step up and help someone in need when I had the chance, especially someone who then died. You can never undo that. Obviously everyone should climb responsibly and within his or her own limits. But even if everyone did there would still be accidents and complications and as human beings we have a responsibility to do what we can to help others in need. It’s not a question of doing what feels fair, but of doing what is right. Surely a life has more value than standing on top of any mountain.

As many of you probably know, later in May, after the David Sharp incident, another climber, Lincoln Hall, was left for dead on Everest. In this case, guide Dan Mazur and his two clients came across Hall and ultimately saved his life. This meant that Mazur and his clients gave up their own summit bid, something Mazur reportedly still feels guilty about. National Geographic Adventure named Mazur in their “Best of Adventure ’07” in the recent December 2006/January 2007 issue. The profile mentions that Mazur has had a marked drop in his Himalaya climbing enrollments, possibly because no one wants a guide who backed off the mountain. I find that last part ludicrous. Personally, I would rather go with a guide who has the proper perspective on life and climbing than someone with summit fever.

When I first learned to ice climb and was introduced to mountaineering several years ago, the guide who taught me described some of his successful and not-so-successful expeditions around the world. One thing he said that has stuck with me is that the mountain will be there tomorrow. I remember that often when making decisions.

Also, I think a large part of the problem is that we tend to avoid getting involved with other people’s problems (whether it’s on the street or in the mountains). Sometimes it’s hard to know when or how to get involved when someone else is in need. My method of deciding is to imagine the person in need is my own son. What would I then want someone else to do in my place? The choice is usually pretty darn clear.

-Alicia

Not helping someone near death is just that regardless of the situations that lead up to it.

What if for example while on a trek you got caught in an unexpected snow storm that you weren't prepared for? The people you may encounter will see you as someone under/unprepared for the situation. Should they help you or ignore you? Let you live or let you die?

"If you crunch the numbers, for Every 10 people that summit Everest there is about one death in attempts and summits."

Not quite true.

3010 succesful summits versus 203 deaths.

From 2000-2005, there were 1393 summits, compared with only 27 deaths.

See article below.

I don't know how anyone would feel justified walking by a person in need based on that person making some sort of "mistake". Pretty callous.

-Brian in SLC

A number of large media including Reuters reported today that "the death rate on Everest remains alarmingly high, with about one death for every 10 successful ascents". Media cite an article in the Aug. 26 issue of the British Medical Journal by British Doctor Andrew Sutherland, who states that 15 people died on Everest only this year.

In fact, in the last six years the Everest summit/fatality rate is less than 2% - or 1 death in 50 successful ascents. A climber's relative chance of dying on Everest is less than a third today compared to the nineties and only a fraction of the risk before 1990.

In 2006, there were 11 deaths on around 450 summits - a 2006 summit/fatality rate of 2.4% and an overall (1922-2006) summit/fatality rate of 6.74%.

Here goes a breakdown:
(Years/Summits/Fatalities)

1922-1989; 285/106 (37.19%)
1990-1999; 882/59 (6.69%)
2000-2005; 1393/27 (1.94%)

1922-2006; 3010/203 (6.74%)

Since 1990 there has been an explosion of summiteers and fatality statistics have changed. Up to 1990, the Everest fatality rate is a whopping 37%, with 106 deaths and only 285 summits. Yet from 1990 until 2006, the rate has dropped to 3.8%; thus, the rate decreased to about ten times less than the pre-1990 fatality rate. In the new Millenium, the rate has dropped to below 2%.

Everest only tenth deadliest

The British Doctor states that 15 climbers perished on Everest this spring. It's unclear what facts he bases his report on, as only 11 have been officially confirmed (check below).

Sutherland, who had never been above 8000 meters before his Everest summit this year, elaborates on the cause of the deaths on Everest, offering his opinion that although many of the dead were veteran climbers with experience on peaks above 8,000 meters, "things start getting significantly harder over 8,300 meters."

Yet statistics show that Everest - although tallest - is only number 10 on the list of the 14, 8000ers in terms of fatalities. Annapurna (8,091 m), Nanga Parbat (8,125 m), K2 (8,611 m), Kangchenjunga (8,586 m), Manaslu (8,163 m), Dhaulagiri (8,167 m), Makalu (8,485 m), Gasherbrum I (8,080 m), Shisha Pangma (8,027 m) are all deadlier - some, like Annapurna (8,091 m), far deadlier with a summit fatality rate of 40%.

Only this past summer season, K2 (8,611m) and Nanga Parbat (8,125 m) killed 6 climbers on a mere 8 summits between the two peaks.

According to most veteran Himalaya climbers, the main difference on Everest is ignorance, selfish ambition, theft in camps, bad guides, and insufficient supplementary oxygen. Also, the secrecy surrounding Everest is unprecedented on other Himalayan peaks. Veteran climbers criticize not the number of deaths on Everest - but rather the general decay on the peak; which includes hustling of bad oxygen, commercial efforts to discourage independent climbing, indifference to peers in distress and cover ups of accidents.

anniek,
I am glad to see that there is someone out here that liked the show. From what I have heard of my own friends in a poll I have done, they have all liked it also. I can't wait to see tomorrow's...I think that it is going to be very interesting.

The reason why it is safer to climb Everest these days is because people are going more prepared. Check the stats on the non sherpa death rates and what type of expedition they went with. The same big commercial type expeditions that you are slamming are the reason why there are less deaths. These big expeditions offer support. Basically if you pay the money you are set up succeed. You not only have numerous support people on summit day to drag your ass down in case you decide to sit on the top of the mountain and die. You also have trainers, weather reports, communication etc. This is why people pay the money to help them get to the top of Everest. The mountain won't always be there tomorrow for most people who have spent their live savings at one chance to summit only to get to the top and have someone who didnt buy the right gear, didn't bring enough oxygen etc. dying in the snow. I am NOT saying this kid deserved to die because he took too many risks but he did die because he took too many risks. Brice said right on his show as his team was training that the Sherpas arent there to risk their lives to save a paying client. I believe if this kid could have possibly been saved that he would have been saved. I am sure it was a hard thing to see him up there and not have been able to save him as It wasn't possible- it was too late for him.

Trekking in Nepal can't even be prepared to climing Everest. Its stairmaster vs a mountain face. Not really very risky.

Several people I know are all waiting for Tuesday. I have class Tuesday nights but I have my TIVO set.

"On that morning, over 40 people went past that young Briton. I was one of the first, radioed and Russ said look Mark, you can’t do anything. He’s been there X number of hours, been there without oxygen, y’know he’s effectively dead. So we carried on. Of those 40 people who went past this young Briton, no-one helped him except for people from our expedition.”

And then he was still alive when they passed him again on the way down?

Was Sharp's third attempt on the peak. He had the experience and equipment. When folks passed him initially, he was fully dressed.

If you get a chance, read Viestur's book, No Shortcuts to the Top". He has some things to say about helping out fellow climbers. And, look at how he and his team helped out others in the '96 debacle. Did they continue filming? No, they pitched in and helped their fellow climbers. Because they felt they had to.

Maybe, for "guides" and "clients", they don't feel the need as they aren't "fellow climbers"? I don't know. If you can help a guy with no legs get up to the summit, you'd think you'd be able to help a guy who's knackered get down. Maybe if Mazur had been the guide on that day, Sharp would still be alive?

I'm not sure I could walk past a dying person on the way to any summit. Could you? I guess I'm not really a guide or a client, in that mindset, perhaps.

Everest seems to be monopolized by these huge expeditions. Far cry from the bar Messner set on his solo trip there.

I think it taints your ascent, not in the least, that you stepped over a dying man on the way to your own glory. Something to be proud of?

Of course, there's something to "Discover" here...worth more than yet another over hyped, bought and sold, blown out Everest expedition. Maybe someone will make a nice documentary on it. Ie, there's reality TV, then there's reality...

Crazy stuff.

-Brian in SLC

What concerns me most is the arrogant idea that if you paid enough money (or more money than someone else) and/or your ambitions are big enough then you don’t have to get involved and help another person in need.

In that case, how much money determines that you get to look the other way anyhow? Is there a scale that says $60,000 or a life-long dream means I can ignore another person’s life? Is it higher or lower for me, for you? And how do you judge whether or not an individual deserves your help? This reasoning has troubling implications.

Whether or not David Sharp could have been saved or might have been saved, what matters is whether others tried to help him when it was in their power to do so. I’m not saying people are required to risk their own lives to save that of a stranger. But, risk a chance at a summit bid in order to stop and save someone’s life? Well, to me, that sounds like the right thing to do (I just hope it’s what I would do if faced with that situation).

Sometimes the right thing to do is the hardest thing to do. But that doesn’t change it from being the right thing. It just comes down to what you value more—a stranger’s life or standing on a summit.

Anniek asked "Are you trying to impress me with all of your miles Bill S? Speaking of couch potato, how long did it take to write up that last rant?"

No, I am not trying to impress anyone. My point was that most of the people who have replied in the negative about the show are active climbers and in the outdoors a lot.

How long did it take to write? About 5 minutes. Doesn't take long when you know how to type and aren't making a typo or grammatical error every sentence or two. For how I spent my time today, 5 hours was spent on the trail (I do volunteer patrolling for the local Open Space District), an hour on the computer (mostly paying the bills with ePay for my spouse and son who are in New Zealand and dealing with the tax people for some problems with my late mother-in-law's estate), and several hours on the phone with members and logistics people for an upcoming expedition. Tomorrow, I will be spending about 3-4 hours wrapping up the paperwork for the climbing instructor course I taught last week. I don't have a couch, and no room amongst all the climbing, camping, and ski gear for one, so no couch potato-ing here.

nica, take close note of the fact that the people who are praising the show are non-climbers, and the people who are expressing criticism are climbers who feel strongly that the show misrepresents climbing and climbers, and that it centers on a guide who has a very negative reputation in the climbing community. Although he hasn't said it, most here know that Brian is a very active climber, contributing several articles to the American Alpine Journal.

By the way, annie and nica, you probably do not realize the history of this forum. Some years ago, the predecessor of this board was started by a fellow in New England for climbers and backpackers who wanted to talk climbing, backpacking, and other backcountry stuff. In our various travels around the country and world (there are climbers here from other countries as well), many of us climbed and hiked together (and still do). In April 2000, one of our group disappeared on Mt Shasta. The website became a communication center for people from literally all over the continent heading for Shasta to help in the search. Many of the people knew of John only by reading his posts, so they were basically strangers, travelling on their own money, across the continent to help. This wasn't even a case of stopping to help a stranger who is lying on your climbing route. Unfortunately, the search was not successful, and John's body not recovered until 6 weeks later (his partner, Craig's body was found fairly early on).

As things developed, the original owner of the site was moving on to other things not long after. Dave and Alicia bought the site, saving it from disappearance, and have maintained it ever since. Many of the regulars are still here and posting over 6 years after John's accident.

So, annie and nica, you are talking here to a group of people who have had a very personal involvement with a climbing tragedy. We have seen and experienced the outpouring of the climbing community. That's why shows like Everest: Beyond the Limit are so offensive - we know what climbers are really like, and the vast majority are not like Russell Brice.

And, this one took about 6 or 7 minutes to write, after I signed back on to the site.

Bill- Thanks for the background, I can appreciate your last post and where everyone is coming from. I don't believe that Sharp deserved to die but before everyone is lashing out about how evil these climbers were for not helping to save him, I think we need the full story. If indeed Sharp could have been saved but was left for dead it is tragic. From everything I have read it seems as if he was too far gone. If he was so close to camp and could be saved I would think a rescue effort would have been mounted. If this isnt the truth then shame on everyone for choosing a summit over saving a life. From everything I have read, Sharp was asleep when people passed him on the way up. He was thought to be in a coma and near death. People stopped and tried to get him up but he wasn't responding. He was conscience 11 hours later which surprised people. In hind site I bet everyone wishes they would have helped but hindsite is always 20/20. From the sounds of it Sharp was thought be on the verge of death and wouldnt even wake up. Why do you feel over 40 people would just step over a savable person?

You started the couch potato comments. Its not as if watching a one hour show once a week makes you a couch potato. You don't know my life, what I have done, what mountains I have trekked, what countries I have traveled to. I am not a climber. I can't know what it is like to be on the top of Everest or to encounter a person near death when you don't believe they can be saved. I can see why Mark Inglis is getting so much crap for stepping over Sharp on his climb to the top. He himself was recued and knows what it is like to be on a mountain close to death. He could have said "I am not going any further, let's turn around and save this guy and we'll try our summit bid in a few days" I like to think people aren't evil. I would think if they thought Sharp could be saved they would have tried.

Annie commented - "You started the couch potato comments. Its not as if watching a one hour show once a week makes you a couch potato."

The comment was not aimed at you personally or anyone who was posting in this thread. I am sorry if you took it that way. And I regret that you took it out of context.

My point was that everyone has, and makes, a life choice, with one extreme being "couch potato" and the other being "active adventure". hmmmm, well that makes it seem one-dimensional, where it is actually multidimensional.

Anyway, no matter what your life choice, everyone ends up dead in the long run - die from clogged arteries or die in a climbing accident (or crashing in a F-1 race, or at the receiving end of an AK-47 wielded by a terrorist or drug dealer shooting at someone else, or crushed under a building in an earthquake or tornado, or from a genetically transmitted disease from your ancestors, or ...). No matter what the cause, you die sooner or later.

At the one extreme (ooooo, there's that word), you can choose to just sit and watch fake "reality" shows, hyped "extreme" movies or TV shows, or the other escapist junk that the networks are pandering. Or you can choose to do volunteer work in the ghetto (running the risk of getting caught in the crossfire between gangs). Or you can choose to meet and overcome the challenges of your personal physical and mental limitations (and everyone has physical and mental limitations, including those of us who are supposedly "whole" and the superstars of adventure).

Since you can't avoid death, my choice is to try to control my risks as best I can. By getting out into the hills and woods, I can minimize my risk of dying of clogged arteries. Yes, I increase certain risks (during yesterday's trail wanderings, I encountered a mountain lion - he was in plain sight for almost 5 minutes, roughly 200 meters away on a ridge across a ravine - low risk, and unfortunately I didn't have my camera with me). Others don't change - earthquakes around here, although I was right along the San Andreas fault, with one of the trails being named "Earthquake Trail" and going right along the fault scarp.

The show portrays climbers as being without conscience, lacking morals and ethics. It's one thing to choose adventure that has risks, if you are aware of and take account of the risks and your responsibilities to others. It is quite another to abandon someone and not only refuse to try helping, but to actually order your clients and employees to refuse aid. And it is also quite another to make a show portraying the expedition leader as heroic and caring and deliberately omit the fact that he gave the orders to refuse aid.

You can argue legitimately that in giving aid you should not make yourself another victim (we are taught that in our WFA and WFR courses). Don't compound the problem. But there is a huge difference between sacrificing a summit and not "achieving your dream" that cost you tens of thousands of dollars on the one hand, and at least attempting to get the guy who is still breathing and has a pulse back that one hour to camp where more aid can be given. Triage is legitimate, but not where the alternative is the summit vs possibly saving a life.

Hi All,
Please lets have some peace here. Most of us have lost someone in the hills. There's a reason that this isn't really a good place to bring up "fake" climbing shows:
This is "rec.climbing.useful". This has traditionally been a climbers forum, and climbers hate climbing movies - period - thats just the way it is.

Jim S

Watched the episode #2 from Tivo. It's great but why do they have to replay everything and repeat everything? How many times do I have to see the Indian guy spitting or puking and the scene where his eyes are bulging?? You would think that they would be able to get enough footage and interesting tape from all the weeks they were out there. I swear it was almost halfway through the show before they got to any new stuff. I love Tivo where I can fast forward over the repeat stuff. I did love the show though and can't wait to watch it next week. I hope they show tons more of Mogens Jensen, he is the best part of the show. I wonder if he is single....????

Annie asked "why do they have to replay everything and repeat everything? How many times do I have to see the Indian guy spitting or puking and the scene where his eyes are bulging??"

Because that is what this show is all about - Extreme! Risk! Danger! Death!

There were several things included that are to the credit of the film editors and producers. First, they showed that the Sherpas go to the summit first, and several times, hauling all the gear, placing the fixed ropes and oxygen bottles, doing all of the trail breaking so the clients only have to deal with the altitude and cold. The altitude and weather are challenging, yes, but having someone else move the gear up and putting in the route with fixed ropes reduces the challenge substantially. So the real credit for making the climb should go to the Sherpas, who mostly went unnamed. Note well that the clients did not carry much of their own gear - no tents, no food (except trail lunches and snacks), no cook gear, no sleeping bags - all that was relayed by the Sherpas. On most big mountains, every climber carries his/her own gear and part of the group gear and food. Everest, a few of the other Himalayan peaks, and Kilimanjaro are among the few exceptions (on Kili, you are required by law to hire local porters and guides, which may be done for you by a non-Tanzanian guide service at a big markup).

Second, the extended views of the Indian with HACE that you are so offended by, hopefully brought home the real risks of being unprepared and what AMS, HAPE, and HACE are like. It doesn't have to be like that, if you are prepared and proceed up the hill in the manner that has been well proven. They made a big deal of Brice pushing his Sherpas and clients to move up in 2 weeks less than is usual, but they downplayed the very much increased risk of doing so.

Oh yeah, about the repetitiousness - that's what climbing a big hill at altitude is all about. Lots of moving up and down to relay gear and supplies, lots of time spent waiting on the weather, lots of just exercising maybe by moving up and down between camps (or more commonly by real climbers, between caches). That's another very good thing that was included - lots of monotony and boredom, although the scenery makes up for it.

Hahaha...not sure if he is or not. But, as someone else said they repeat the stuff because that is what makes it more realistic. The trials that these people are going through on the mountain and seeing them do this over and over again is what they had to do, so it's just a better depiction of what it's really like out there.

I have my tivo set for tonight's episode.

Glad the firefighter backed out, he was annoying. Great show. The hour goes by much too fast! Mogens was adorable as usual. anyone else love this show as much as I do??

I caught it today on Tivo. It was SO good! I felt bad for the firefighter...seemed like he really wanted to make it up. And it was interesting to learn that the tragedy of 1996 not only affected the leader, but also one of the trekkers! It was so sad to hear about.

Hi all.

The actual reason they repeat scenes in reality TV is cost. They have to fill 43 minutes of hour shows and 23 or so for 1/2 hour shows. They do not have that much content so rather than shoot more footage, they re-purpose for much of each episode and give you only tidbits of new stuff each week. That way, the producers can achieve the most profit for the dollars put into it (trust me, not only do I know the climbing community pretty well, but have made documentary TV shows - some of those on climbing).

That is not the only reason reality TV is simply not that compelling - not to mention reality TV shot on Everest. Once a sacred place for only those who earned and worked for the opportunity to see it in person, not too mention attempt to stand on its summit, is now a circus and any pure alpinist would even bother with it. That sacred element was gone from Everest a long time ago. This show didn't create it, only added another portal to abuse it.

So, basically everyone is arguing about nothing. The point is, these climbers don't belong there, but they are not the first. The team leader is not that great, but most insiders already knew that. And, reality TV is a big waste of time for anyone who watches it. So, please move on as there is nothing you can do other than watch something else or better yet, read a magazine.

I have to wonder if they attempted their summit bit two weeks later if the firefighter would have done better.....

Love the show. I find it amusing how just because there is a documentary and more people attempting Everest these days that it is now soooo beneath a few people on here. Lame. I think a few people are just jealous that they can't climb Everest. :-)
Does anyone on this sight know Mogens Jensen?

LOL! We now have Everest groupies! Just like matadors and race drivers have their groupies. There's something about the "risk" and "smell of death" (that's from a Hemingway book) that seems to attract groupies (gushingly "Mogens was adorable"!).

Annie opines "I find it amusing how just because there is a documentary and more people attempting Everest these days that it is now soooo beneath a few people on here. Lame. I think a few people are just jealous that they can't climb Everest. :-)"

Ya completely missed the point Annie (and nica, too). There have been plenty of documentaries about Everest, and well-done ones, too. Among the best are the original one of the first ascent in 1953, the one of the first American ascent in 1963, and the IMAX one by David Breashears. Everest: Beyond the Limit is NOT a documentary. As pointed out by many, it is a pathetic attempt at "reality TV", with a huge emphasis on the "extreme" and "people come up here to die".

"Jealous" and "beneath"? Consider that several of the people who have responded have climbed far harder routes on far harder peaks. An interesting aspect is that in hearing comments from people who have watched the episodes, people seem to fall into 2 camps - those who liked ("loved") the show and those who have a strong distaste for it. The "liked" category are pretty much all people who "couldn't" climb Everest (a large fraction of whom seem to be very much overweight or otherwise non-athletic - to quote one woman who I talked to last night "my camping days are over, and besides I would be scared out of my wits to try something like that"). The "strong distaste" group are virtually all climbers, with the strongest distaste being expressed by currently active climbers, especially those who know of Brice's reputation.

A major contributor to the deaths and injuries on Everest is the very factor you seem to think makes real climbers consider Everest as "beneath" them, namely that more people are attempting the climb. With the huge crowds, there are bottlenecks at critical points in the climb. Climbers are forced to spend a large amount of time waiting around for the slow to clear the fixed lines or move through the bottlenecks. This was a major contributing factor in the 1996 disaster. No, the reason for the comments on the "circus" and the crowds is that with so many people (literally hundreds on the 2 main routes, all jockeying for position for the couple weeks of weather window), the risk escalates.

Everest was, as Clepley noted, a place where you earned your way to attempt the mountain, not a place where your gear was carried up the hill by underpaid, exploited Sherpas, and you followed clipped to a fixed line, in an expedition arranged by a white sahib who commands "his" Sherpas and climbers to ignore and abandon a dying climber.

Chomolungma, Goddess Mother of the World, demands proper tribute, and will exact it one way or another.

Annie,
that's an interesting point. I am not sure. I feel as if attempting to summit is a combination of skill, preparation, as well as luck. The weather seems to have been what really got to him at that point when he gave up, but two weeks earlier or later, the same thing may have happened.

Mogens...I don't know him...but he seems INSANE! I can't beleive he is trying to summit without any oxygen! Especially since he is asmathic. That would be a HUGE feat for him.

I believe he doesn't make it with the preview for next week. I wish he would just slap the oxygen tank on and get it done! I agree that it is crazy giving it a try without oxygen. To be honest I don't really get why anyone would want to torture themselves like that! He was wearing a wedding ring so it looks as though he is taken.
I hope they do a season two and have some of the people try again. Maybe they should get some more drama going. Have a divorcing couple, a stripper, a mentally unstable guy etc etc. (had to add that to push a button or two...)

Reading some of this dialog it also dawns on me that those engaged in this conversation fall into two other camps:

Group 1: Knows what a true mountain experience is - solitude, beauty, challenge, peace, respect, humanity, nature...

Group 2: Has no idea what I am talking about describing group 1. Thus, does not care that Everest and its spirit is being destroyed (temporarily as noted earlier). All this group is evaluating is wether or not they are being entertained.

It is perfectly fine to want to be entertained. Entertainment is fantastic. But the difference here is that THIS entertainment is coming at the expense of something that is sacred, precious and fragile. Something that we should ALL cherish and respect. If you want to be entertained by "rugged" sexy people watch the show Lost. I do. But I have also spent time in and climbed some of the most beautiful and challenging mountains in the world. And, live in a metropolitan city. Thus, I feel that I have perspective. And opportunity to fall into either group.

Nicely put, clepley. It is clear that nica and annie fall into your group 2.

Part of this is perhaps because the objections of the climbing community haven't always been made explicit.

1. The distaste is not for the clients. Since everyone has physical, mental, and emotional limitations, anyone who sets a challenge for themselves and seeks to meet it is to be admired, as long as they do not endanger others. Thus, the asthmatic Dane attempting the climb without oxygen, the double amputee (a friend of mine who is a double amputee was featured on a much more reasonable Discovery Channel show that emphasized his working to overcome the challenge), even the former Hell's Angel who is seeking to overcome the limitations of his injuries. The LA Fireman who made the decision to turn back found his limits and wisely decided to turn back. The Dane knows the risks and high probability of not succeeding without oxygen. But he chose his own rules of the game.

2. The first problem arises from featuring Russell Brice, the expedition leader and head of HimEx. The show portrays him as caring, whereas his reputation in the climbing community is one of exploitation of the Sherpas, shortcutting gear (such as the low quality of the oxygen supplies he contracted for), and disregard for the safety and well-being of others on the mountain. This showed in the ordering of his Sherpas, guides, and climbers to abandon Sharp, as has been well documented. Then to top it off, even while Sharp's famil