A YouGov survey shows that 45% percent of surveyors prefer the book to the movie, 32% find them equally as good, 5% prefer the movie, and 9% don’t read the book. The Hound of the Baskervilles by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle follows the mystery of the murder of Sir Charles Baskerville from the point of view of Dr. Watson, the admirable companion of Sherlock Holmes, a master of deduction. The 2002 BBC movie adaptation, directed by David Attwood, follows the same story, but both major and minor plot details differ as well as the characters. Comparing The Hound of the Baskervilles book to the movie, the two differ in development, details, and events, and characters, along with their traits, which supports the survey data showing a book's superiority
…show more content…
It takes many words to describe the characters and gives the plot depth with the abundance of characters. The book contained many minor characters as well as detailed descriptions of the characters. For example, the first chapter opens as Holmes and Watson are working to solve the mystery of Sir Charles Baskerville’s murder and through their conversations, the reader is able to draw many conclusions about each character. In the final chapter, Watson and Holmes are readdressing the events leading up to the resolution and as they describe the events, the reader learns all about Stapleton’s past and present. The movie adaptation contains most of the minor character but excludes some, and does not provide as much detail in building the characters. For example, the movie left out characters included in the book. The movie left out Cartwright, a young boy who was hired to assist Holmes as mentioned in the fourth (Doyle 56-57). Mr. Frankland, an old neighbor of Sir Henry Baskerville, is also absent from the film adaptation as well as Laura Lyons, who had a close and important relationship with Sir Charles Baskerville. In conclusion, the movie adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles takes less time explaining the characters compared to the …show more content…
For example, the book opens on Watson and Holmes examining the walking stick of Sir Charles Baskerville, where the reader slowly is introduced to the characters and the story. As for the movie adaptation, it opens on an autopsy is being conducted on Sir Charles Baskerville where the viewer is directly introduced to the plot. Also, the book contains the story of Sir Charles Baskerville’s relationship with Laura Lyons, which is very much connected to the resolution of the story but is not included in the movie adaptation. The movie was less specific than the book but still included major and minor details from the book. The movie contains different events in place of others in order to enhance the plot but this also acted against itself because it left out important details from the book. For example, the movie struggled to fit many interactions between the characters, so a Christmas party was held to fill in. There, the viewers were able to see how the characters acted in each other's company. For example, the viewers are able to see the way Sir Henry aspires a relationship with Beryl and Stapleton’s reaction. The question asked by Mortimer in the first chapter of The Hound of the Baskervilles book, “Would you have any objection to my running my finger along your parietal fissure?” (Doyle), is said by
It takes many words to describe the characters and gives the plot depth with the abundance of characters. The book contained many minor characters as well as detailed descriptions of the characters. For example, the first chapter opens as Holmes and Watson are working to solve the mystery of Sir Charles Baskerville’s murder and through their conversations, the reader is able to draw many conclusions about each character. In the final chapter, Watson and Holmes are readdressing the events leading up to the resolution and as they describe the events, the reader learns all about Stapleton’s past and present. The movie adaptation contains most of the minor character but excludes some, and does not provide as much detail in building the characters. For example, the movie left out characters included in the book. The movie left out Cartwright, a young boy who was hired to assist Holmes as mentioned in the fourth (Doyle 56-57). Mr. Frankland, an old neighbor of Sir Henry Baskerville, is also absent from the film adaptation as well as Laura Lyons, who had a close and important relationship with Sir Charles Baskerville. In conclusion, the movie adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles takes less time explaining the characters compared to the …show more content…
For example, the book opens on Watson and Holmes examining the walking stick of Sir Charles Baskerville, where the reader slowly is introduced to the characters and the story. As for the movie adaptation, it opens on an autopsy is being conducted on Sir Charles Baskerville where the viewer is directly introduced to the plot. Also, the book contains the story of Sir Charles Baskerville’s relationship with Laura Lyons, which is very much connected to the resolution of the story but is not included in the movie adaptation. The movie was less specific than the book but still included major and minor details from the book. The movie contains different events in place of others in order to enhance the plot but this also acted against itself because it left out important details from the book. For example, the movie struggled to fit many interactions between the characters, so a Christmas party was held to fill in. There, the viewers were able to see how the characters acted in each other's company. For example, the viewers are able to see the way Sir Henry aspires a relationship with Beryl and Stapleton’s reaction. The question asked by Mortimer in the first chapter of The Hound of the Baskervilles book, “Would you have any objection to my running my finger along your parietal fissure?” (Doyle), is said by