Thesis : “The Hounds of Baskerville”, a new adaptation of Sherlock Holmes, I think, is good because the events are made clearer and the setting fits the story better. Sherlock also seems to be smarter.
It is said that book adaptations are bad. But I don’t think so. The Hound of The Baskervilles was adapted well, in my opinion. The setting is better, Sherlock appears smarter and some of the events are more clear.
The Hounds of Baskervilles” has a few events that are based on The Hound of The Baskervilles. Baskervilles has a research lab, which implies that Charles and Henry were murdered. The novel makes it seem like Charles died by natural means, which wouldn’t have been as interesting. But on page 25, Dr. Mortimer wrote, “There are no reasons whatsoever to suspect that Sir Charles Death could be any other than Natural Causes.” In the adaptation, people pay attention to Henry and his strange behavior because they want answers. The movie also makes the death of the villain more clear, even though Frankland in the film is the antagonist. Stapleton in the book is the antagonist. Watson said in The Hound of The Baskervilles page 208 that there was “no chance” to find Stapleton’s footsteps because of the rising mire. Stapleton had the option of escaping, but the mud might have covered them. He could also have escaped because he knew Sherlock would be searching for him on the island. The Hounds of Baskerville’s depiction of Frankland is clear, and it makes us aware that he doesn’t survive. The movie’s adaptation is excellent because it shows Frankland getting blown up.
The Hound of The Baskervilles was set in a more appropriate setting. It seems more plausible to me that an unnatural creature came out of a secret research facility rather than just appearing out of the blue on a moor. It would be interesting to see if our guess was correct, because Sherlock denies that the mutated hound exists. The novel takes place on a moor and in the first few chapters, it does not seem that Charles has been murdered. Dr. Mortimer stated on page 25 that “there is no reason whatsoever to suspect foul play or to imagine that Sir Charles death can be anything but natural.” On page 30, Mortimer, a man of education, believed that Charles had been killed by a mystical dog. Also, in the film the Grimpen Miasma was replaced by the Grimpen Minfield. Both places play a major role in the plot, and I think it would be more interesting to watch someone or something blow out of a minefield than being slowly sucked into a mire. It’s just another way that I am right.
Third, Sherlock is smarter than in “The Hounds of Baskerville”. The Hound of The Baskervilles is similar to “The Hounds of Baskerville”, in that both Sherlock and Watson are solving a crime. Watson does the bulk of the writing in the book. On page 75, Sherlock tells Watson, “I’d like you to just report facts… leave the theory-building to me.” This is fine with me, but I would rather read that Sherlock thought for a long time before he came up with the answer. It was really cool that Sherlock deduced what happened in a movie. Sherlock had more work because the film was set in a research center. He had a lot to do: he was forced to think up ways to get in, question the people present, find out if Charles’ death was caused by mutated animals or someone, then he was required to discover who was responsible, how and why. To me, it was more entertaining to watch Sherlock go through all of that rather than read about his reading Watson’s reports, spying on others, and figuring out the who, why, and how. It’s my third proof.
Some people may disagree with me. They might claim that the movie’s plot was different and ruined the whole story. Although the plot of the movie was different, it didn’t ruin the story. They did it so that those who had read the book would be able to enjoy the movie. Otherwise, they’d know the story. The movie is still interesting, despite the different plot. This is because the film is full of surprises, which keep the audience’s interest. This movie is an excellent adaptation.
The Hounds of Baskerville, to my mind, is a successful adaptation. It has a clear storyline, an excellent setting, as well as making Sherlock seem like a brilliant detective. It was Sherlock who deduced the truth about the murder. The Hound of Baskervilles movie isn’t the only one that does a good job of adapting a novel. There are many good movies that are based off of books. Even if the differences are small, they are still very good.
