Hello, moviegoers! Today I want to introduce Pyramid of Fear, also known as "Young Sherlock Holmes" and ú"Young Sherlock Holmes and the Pyramid of Fear".

Pyramid of Fear is a Mystery movie which asks the question "What would have happened if Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson had meet while they were at school, and been forced to solve a crime?" As you can imagine, it is a non-faithful-to-canon interpretation of Doyle's most famous character, and the film tells us straight that the plot is original, not an adaptation from an Arthur C. Doyle story, and that in contradicts the canon.

So that aside, what does this movie offer.

The first thing I noticed while playing the movie is that it builds athmosphere very effectively. Something that bothers me so much is that modern movies are failing hard at setting scene and athmosphere, to the point there are Karlof movies from the 50s that do a better job. Here, English gentlemen look like English gentlement, hawkers look like hawkers, and the setting is quite well done.

The plot involves Holmes and Watson trying to solve a series of crimes after somebody they know dies in mysterious circumpstances and the Police refuses to open an investigation, regarding the death as a suicide. As is to be expected, it is full of instances of Holmes displaying superhuman powers of observation and deduction, but overall I think the film has more in common with Indiana Jones than with mystery thrillers.

Holmes comes across as a bit of an arrogant kid who knows it all, including
the fact he _does_ know it all. He manages not to be exactly dislikeable because you can tell right away he is a friendly dude and his heart is in the right place. On the other hand, Watson is as useless as it gets. He should get his last name changed from Watson to Burden. He eventually gets his moment in the spotlight, overcomming his useless burdeness, which is sad in a way... since he is no longer a complete dead weight, he won¤'t be able to apply for a government handout for disability :-(

The bottom line is that, while the caracters are ok, they are not the reason why you would watch the movie.

It is a movie from Spierberg, and it shows. The special effects are top tier, specially when you consider it is such an old movie. The bad guys in the story use a powerful hallucinogen to get people killed - they administrate it to their victim, and the victim starts having hallucinations which eventually force them to do something stupid (such as jumping through a window) and get them killed. The hallucination effects are great and include the first instance of a computer generated realistic character, a badass knight made of pieces from a broken stain-glass window.

The detective work shown in the movie is not impressive. It is sufficient, and certainly it will get you engaged, but I cannot stop thinking they could have done some things differently. There are some instances of A Clue Appears -> Holmes Checks an Information Source (book or whatever) -> A Voiceover Tells is the Conclusions Drawn from the Clue. I think they could have done less Voiceover exposition and found awn way to convey the information better. Still, the investigation is always moving forward so you don't get to get bored, and this is an achievement.

The adventure and action scenes are fine and, make no mistake, there
is more fencing, more sneaking into unholy temples and more rescuing the damsel in distress than detective work. At some point the film felt like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Also, the chants of the evil cultists are quite memorable and some people I know thinks those are the reason why you should watch the movie :-) In fact they go the Saturn Award for Best Music.

In conclusion: and ok juvenile flick that, while not groundbreaking, has aged very well and is still enjoyable today.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Pyramid of Fear (1985)
By: Arelor to All on Mon Aug 30 2021 06:36 am

Hello, moviegoers! Today I want to introduce Pyramid of Fear, also known as "Young Sherlock Holmes" and ú"Young Sherlock Holmes and the Pyramid of Fear".

I remember seeing that in the 80s. Coincidentally as you post this, I've been thinking about that movie recently and have been wanting to watch it again but haven't yet.

Nightfox

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

On 2021-08-30 7:36 a.m., Arelor wrote:

Hello, moviegoers! Today I want to introduce Pyramid of Fear, also known as "Young Sherlock Holmes" and "Young Sherlock Holmes and the Pyramid of Fear".

I do remember this. Was kind of OK. Really more an action movie.

But that's the problem with Sherlock, it's hard to translate to movies
and TV. But I must say that Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss did great with
the series "Sherlock".

Most never know what to do with Watson. He ends up being a buffoon in
most portrayals. In the book Watson is the narrator, he's the one
telling the adventures he experienced with Sherlock. In a way he's the
proxy of the reader. But in movies that role is kind of redundant.

But to come back to this movie it was generally better than other non canonical Sherlock stories.

Thanks for the reminder :-)

---
­ Synchronet ­ MtlGeek - Geeks in Montreal - http://mtlgeek.com/ -

Re: Re: Pyramid of Fear (1985)
By: Ennev to Arelor on Mon Aug 30 2021 03:38 pm

On 2021-08-30 7:36 a.m., Arelor wrote:

Hello, moviegoers! Today I want to introduce Pyramid of Fear, also known a "Young Sherlock Holmes" and "Young Sherlock Holmes and the Pyramid of Fear

I do remember this. Was kind of OK. Really more an action movie.

But that's the problem with Sherlock, it's hard to translate to movies
and TV. But I must say that Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss did great with
the series "Sherlock".

Most never know what to do with Watson. He ends up being a buffoon in
most portrayals. In the book Watson is the narrator, he's the one
telling the adventures he experienced with Sherlock. In a way he's the
proxy of the reader. But in movies that role is kind of redundant.

But to come back to this movie it was generally better than other non canonical Sherlock stories.

Thanks for the reminder :-)

Hey, Pyramid of Fear could have been worse. They could have done as they did with Sherlock Holmes 2009 with Robert Downey Jr. and turn both Holmes and Watson into fighting machines.

Not that Sherlock Holmes 2009 was bad. It was entertaining. However, OMG the parts in which Holmes pre-plans fights in his head and then plays them like a scripted computer program. Good fun but not very Doylesque :-)


--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

On 2021-08-30 7:03 p.m., Arelor wrote:

Not that Sherlock Holmes 2009 was bad. It was entertaining. However, OMG the parts in which Holmes pre-plans fights in his head and then plays them like a scripted computer program. Good fun but not very Doylesque :-)

Oh yeah, you know what? I never saw them, just the advertisements were
signs enough to stay away.

That's what I don't get, why do these characters have to be "Sherlock" etc ?

That's what I have with reboot in general or where some series are going
like Star Trek etc. Why do we have to keep the name when it becomes
something else? Do we lack so much imagination?

It's not like instead of producing a new series, we decide to adapt Buck Rogers to make it a Star Trek instead of inventing new characters.

Are we too lazy to invent new situations and characters ?

All this looks more and more like the fanfic would have found on
LiveJournal in 2002.

Sad

---
­ Synchronet ­ MtlGeek - Geeks in Montreal - http://mtlgeek.com/ -

Re: Was about : Pyramid of Fear (1985) now it's something else
By: Ennev to Arelor on Tue Aug 31 2021 08:05 am

That's what I have with reboot in general or where some series are going like Star Trek etc. Why do we have to keep the name when it becomes something else? Do we lack so much imagination?

The Star Trek reboot movies use the characters of Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and others, doing missions on the starship Enterprise in the 23rd century. That's Star Trek..

It's not like instead of producing a new series, we decide to adapt Buck Rogers to make it a Star Trek instead of inventing new characters.

I like that Star Trek is stil an ongoing thing. But I'd rather have seen them push forward (as they have done with Star Trek: Picard), and/or see something set between the original series and the Next Generation. We didn't see much of that era; we only saw small glimpses, such as one episode showing the Enterprise C and a movie that briefly showed the Enterprise B.

Are we too lazy to invent new situations and characters ?

It's always good to see new things too.

Nightfox

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

On 2021-08-31 11:35 a.m., Nightfox wrote:

En> It's not like instead of producing a new series, we decide to adapt Buck
En> Rogers to make it a Star Trek instead of inventing new characters.

I like that Star Trek is stil an ongoing thing. But I'd rather have seen them push forward (as they have done with Star Trek: Picard), and/or see something set between the original series and the Next Generation. We didn't see much of that era; we only saw small glimpses, such as one episode showing the Enterprise C and a movie that briefly showed the Enterprise B.

I just miss that in a way it's was more optimistic in the past, even
during TNG etc.

But Discovery and Picard, it's more dark, pessimistic. In
TNG/Voyager/DS9 thing where no always looking bright for the federation
etc, but the federation held to it's value mostly and resolved things.

Event Discovery that is a prequel to TOS don't feel like that.

So I prefer that they go forward in time instead of tying to insert
stuff inside the already established timeline. It's way harder for
writers, they are stuck with situation where they have to take into
account of continuity and with such a long history it's almost
impossible to do, also it gives them a lot more freedom because now they
can do what they want, don't have to remember that species X only
appeared in TNG, and that conflict with species happened for Y reasons,
so you can't play with that because you now brake canon and people get
pissed.

Or you do like a series like Orville, it's smell like tng but it's not,
so you don't have rules to follow and are free to establish your own.

---
­ Synchronet ­ MtlGeek - Geeks in Montreal - http://mtlgeek.com/ -

Re: Where in the Star Trek universe now
By: Ennev to Nightfox on Tue Aug 31 2021 02:04 pm

I like that Star Trek is stil an ongoing thing. But I'd rather have
seen them push forward (as they have done with Star Trek: Picard),
and/or see something set between the original series and the Next
Generation. We didn't see much of that era; we only saw small
glimpses, such as one episode showing the Enterprise C and a movie
that briefly showed the Enterprise B.

I just miss that in a way it's was more optimistic in the past, even during TNG etc.

I miss that too.

But Discovery and Picard, it's more dark, pessimistic. In
TNG/Voyager/DS9 thing where no always looking bright for the federation etc, but the federation held to it's value mostly and resolved things.

I thought DS9 was a little dark at times. DS9 seemed a little different than other Star Trek series.
Even Star Trek: Enterprise seemed a little dark at times.

So I prefer that they go forward in time instead of tying to insert
stuff inside the already established timeline. It's way harder for writers, they are stuck with situation where they have to take into account of continuity and with such a long history it's almost
impossible to do, also it gives them a lot more freedom because now they can do what they want, don't have to remember that species X only appeared in TNG, and that conflict with species happened for Y reasons, so you can't play with that because you now brake canon and people get pissed.

Even if they go forward in time, they'd have to deal with Star Trek's history.. And it seems the writers have already had trouble with Star Trek's continuity sometimes, even in the 90s. There are a couple glaring mistakes I can think of off the top of my head:

- In the Star Trek TNG episode "Relics", Scotty said he thought Kirk brought the Enterprise out of mothballs to come rescue him. However, before that, Scotty was with Kirk on the Enterprise B (in the movie 'Generations') when Kirk was presumed dead after their encounter with the Nexus. Generations was written after Relics; it seems they forgot about Scotty's line in Relics though.

- In the movie Nemesis, they had a photo of Picard at the academy. However, he looked different than they showed Picard at the academy in the TNG episode "Tapestry".

Nightfox

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Was about : Pyramid of Fear (1985) now it's something else
By: Ennev to Arelor on Tue Aug 31 2021 08:05 am

On 2021-08-30 7:03 p.m., Arelor wrote:

Not that Sherlock Holmes 2009 was bad. It was entertaining. However, OMG t parts in which Holmes pre-plans fights in his head and then plays them lik scripted computer program. Good fun but not very Doylesque :-)

Oh yeah, you know what? I never saw them, just the advertisements were
signs enough to stay away.

That's what I don't get, why do these characters have to be "Sherlock" etc ?

That's what I have with reboot in general or where some series are going like Star Trek etc. Why do we have to keep the name when it becomes something else? Do we lack so much imagination?

It's not like instead of producing a new series, we decide to adapt Buck Rogers to make it a Star Trek instead of inventing new characters.

Are we too lazy to invent new situations and characters ?

All this looks more and more like the fanfic would have found on
LiveJournal in 2002.

Sad

This subject pops very often, because it is so true.

They make a reboot of some franchise, but the reboot is nothing like the original. The new Star Trek is rather Fast and Furious in Space, and while it has its merit, it does not feel like Star Trek anymore.

Films are a devaluating asset and you can only profit big time from making one if you put a whole, obscene amount of money in it. When you put a whole, obscene amount of money in something, you want to minimize the risk of losing it, so how do you accomplish that?

You pick a known name or theme, which guarantees that at least some people will come and buy tickets, and ride on the reputation other people earned 40 years ago.

And it works. That is why they do it.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Was about : Pyramid of Fear (1985) now it's something else
By: Nightfox to Ennev on Tue Aug 31 2021 08:35 am

That's what I have with reboot in general or where some series are goin like Star Trek etc. Why do we have to keep the name when it becomes something else? Do we lack so much imagination?

The Star Trek reboot movies use the characters of Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and others, doing missions on the starship Enterprise in the 23rd century. That Star Trek..

I don't consider myself much of a Trekkie, but Star Trek used to be about the Enterprise crew facing _alien_ situations. The episodes came across as more brainy than action packed.

The films came across as more action packed than brainy. I think there is a qualitative difference right there.

Dunno... Following the current thread, imagine I write a Holmes fanfic in which Holmes solves his cases by torturing the suspects until they confess. Somebody comes and, in an horrorified tone, screams "This is not Sherlock Holmes!"

I could argue that Holmes is about Sherlock solving crime mysteries, and since my fanfic is a story about Sherlock solving a crime mystery, my fanfic is 100% Holmes.

The argument wouldn't fly, and rightly so :-)


--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Was about : Pyramid of Fear (1985) now it's something else
By: Arelor to Nightfox on Tue Aug 31 2021 05:02 pm

I don't consider myself much of a Trekkie, but Star Trek used to be about the Enterprise crew facing _alien_ situations. The episodes came across as more brainy than action packed.

The films came across as more action packed than brainy. I think there is a qualitative difference right there.

Seems like that's mostly always been the case, even with the Star Trek Original Series movies. The first Star Trek movie was probably an exception, as I think they tried to be more brainy with it, but I've heard a lot of people consider the first Star Trek movie to be fairly slow and boring. I can see why people say that. Star Trek V may have tried to be more brainy too. But many of the Star Trek movies seem to be more action and fun than brainy. A couple of the most popular ones were Star Trek II (The Wrath of Khan) and IV (The Voyage Home) - The Wrath of Khan was basically a villain movie, and The Voyage Home was a light-hearted fun movie. For the TNG movies, I've even heard criticism that they were more action-oritend than brainy, and Picard did things in the movies that he wouldn't have done on the TV show.

Nightfox

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

On 2021-08-31 4:02 p.m., Nightfox wrote:

I thought DS9 was a little dark at times. DS9 seemed a little different than other Star Trek series.
Even Star Trek: Enterprise seemed a little dark at times.

Yes but the philosophy still prevailed somehow. For Enterprise they'll
will say that Humanity and what would become de federation was still
finding it's way. But I get you.

- In the Star Trek TNG episode "Relics", Scotty said he thought Kirk brought the Enterprise out of mothballs to come rescue him. However, before that, Scotty was with Kirk on the Enterprise B (in the movie 'Generations') when Kirk was presumed dead after their encounter with the Nexus. Generations was written after Relics; it seems they forgot about Scotty's line in Relics though.

In a way I blame the movie, move was out in 1994 end the episode
"relics" was aired in 1992. So I get the screenwriter and producer
overlooked this. But yes, I agree with you.

Like finding Spock a brother in Startrek V was no so great. But doubling
that down with Spock having a sister. meh.

- In the movie Nemesis, they had a photo of Picard at the academy. However, he looked different than they showed Picard at the academy in the TNG episode "Tapestry".

Nightfox

So I guess, in conclusion, continuity was never perfect. Just I feel it
got uncomfortably worse :-)

I guess in the end when we where watching theses show it was a form of
escape. Now the situations and relationships are too much real life. And
also you get pushed the "WOKE" agenda a bit too hard, they should try to
be more subtle. It's weird that it's coming out of my mouth being more
of a liberal than a conservative. I must be getting old

---
­ Synchronet ­ MtlGeek - Geeks in Montreal - http://mtlgeek.com/ -

On 2021-08-31 5:53 p.m., Arelor wrote:

You pick a known name or theme, which guarantees that at least some people will
come and buy tickets, and ride on the reputation other people earned 40 years ago.

And it works. That is why they do it.

Yes, I guess that's the tactic. Investor want guaranteed return so you
place safe bets on known franchise, but you lessen that franchise over
time. It's a short term strategy but they want the money now.

---
­ Synchronet ­ MtlGeek - Geeks in Montreal - http://mtlgeek.com/ -

On 2021-08-31 6:02 p.m., Arelor wrote:

I don't consider myself much of a Trekkie, but Star Trek used to be about the Enterprise crew facing _alien_ situations. The episodes came across as more brainy than action packed.

The films came across as more action packed than brainy. I think there is a qualitative difference right there.

I guess with a movie you have 2 hrs to fill and some budget so special
effect are easier to budget.

On a TV series you have to spread that budget around, can't have as much
space fights so you go brainier, but it enable to explore interesting
topics about the human conditions or developing relationship between characters. Something you can't afford in a movie.

---
­ Synchronet ­ MtlGeek - Geeks in Montreal - http://mtlgeek.com/ -

Ennev wrote to Nightfox <=-

- In the Star Trek TNG episode "Relics", Scotty said he thought Kirk brought the Enterprise out of mothballs to come rescue him. However, before that,

Sco

tty was with Kirk on the Enterprise B (in the movie 'Generations') when Kirk was presumed dead after their encounter with the Nexus.
Generations was written after Relics; it seems they forgot about
Scotty's line in Relics though.

Scotty'd also been sitting in a transporter buffer for how many years? Maybe
a bit or two got flipped in the time he was in there.



... Do the last thing first
--- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Re: Re: Where in the Star Trek universe now
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Ennev on Thu Sep 02 2021 06:38 am

- In the Star Trek TNG episode "Relics", Scotty said he thought Kirk
brought the Enterprise out of mothballs to come rescue him. However,
before that,

Sco

tty was with Kirk on the Enterprise B (in the movie 'Generations')
when Kirk was presumed dead after their encounter with the Nexus.
Generations was written after Relics; it seems they forgot about
Scotty's line in Relics though.

Weird - I wrote the text you quoted, though your message seems to be attributing the quotes to Ennev, and your relpy is directed to Ennev. What message reader are you using?

Scotty'd also been sitting in a transporter buffer for how many years? Maybe a bit or two got flipped in the time he was in there.

I've thought the same thing.

Nightfox

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

On 2021-09-02 9:38 a.m., poindexter FORTRAN wrote:

Scotty'd also been sitting in a transporter buffer for how many years? Maybe a bit or two got flipped in the time he was in there.

LOL, good one :-D

---
­ Synchronet ­ MtlGeek - Geeks in Montreal - http://mtlgeek.com/ -

Nightfox wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-

Weird - I wrote the text you quoted, though your message seems to be attributing the quotes to Ennev, and your relpy is directed to Ennev.
What message reader are you using?

Stock Synchronet.



... Flip a coin. Increased vascular pressure marks the threat response.
--- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.