Thesis: I think that “The Hounds of Baskerville” is a good adaptation, because it made some events clearer, the setting suits the story a bit more, and Sherlock seems smarter.
Movie adaptations of books are said to be always bad, but I think I think they are not always bad. I think that The Hound of The Baskervilles has a good adaptation. I think that because it made some events clearer, the setting suits the story a bit more, and Sherlock seems smarter.
First, The Hounds of Baskerville” made some event from The Hound of The Baskervilles. In the movie Baskervilles is a research facility, which suggest that Charles was murdered, and Henry was going to get murdered. In the novel it seems like Charles died from natural causes, which would not have been interesting, on page 25 Dr. Mortimer said “ There is no reason whatever to suspect foul play, or to image that Sir Charles death could be from any but natural causes.” The adaptation gets people’s attention easily, because we want to know what happens to Henry, because he is acting weird. Also the villain’s death is clearer in the movie, although Stapleton is the villain in the novel and Frankland is the villain in the movie. In The Hound of The Baskervilles on page 208 Watson says “There was no chance in finding footsteps in the mire, for the rising mud oozed swiftly upon them,” Stapleton could have escaped, the mud could have covered his footsteps. Also,he could have gone another way, because he’s smart enough to know Sherlock would search for him at the island. “The Hounds of Baskerville” clearly shows Frankland get blown up, and we know he does not survive that. That is one reason why the movie is a good adaptation.
Second, the setting of “The Hounds of Baskerville” suits the story better than the setting of The Hound of The Baskervilles. It makes more sense to me that a supernatural creature broke out of a secretive research facility, than a supernatural creature popped out of nowhere in a moor. The movie adaptation setting could make use theorise that a mutated dog broke out of there and killed Charles, which makes it interesting because Sherlock denies the existence of the hound, so we want to check if we guessed right. The novel’s setting is in a moor, and the first few chapters do not suggest that Charles was murdered, on page 25 Dr. Mortimer said “ There is no reason whatever to suspect foul play, or to image that Sir Charles death could be from any but natural causes.” Also, the fact that it takes place in a moor makes the story a bit mystical, Mortimer, an educated man, thought a mystical hound killed Charles, on page 30 he said “ Mr. Holmes, they were footprints of a gigantic hound!”. Also, the movie changed the Grimpen Mire into the Grimpen Minefield. Those places are important in the story, and I would watch a minefield blow something or someone out rather than a mire slowly sucking someone in. That’s another reason that proves me right.
Third, Sherlock seems smarter in the “The Hounds of Baskerville”. The Hound of The Baskervilles and “The Hounds of Baskerville” are both about Sherlock solving a mystery. In the novel, Watson does most of the work on page 74 Sherlock said “ I wish you simply to reports facts… you can leave the theorising to me.” I do not mind that, but I rather read about Sherlock thinking for some time and then coming up with the solution to the problem. I thought it was cool when Sherlock deducted what happened in the movie. Also, since the setting for the movie is a research facility, it gave more work to Sherlock. He had to think of how to break in, question people, figure out if it was a mutated animal who killed Charles, or if it was someone who did it, finally he had to figure out who did it and why they did it and how. To me it is more interesting to watch Sherlock do all that, than read about him reading reports from Watson, spy on people and finally figure out who did it, how and why. That is my third argument to prove me right.
Some people will not agree with me, and might say the movie has a different plot which ruined the story. It is true that the movie had a different plot, but it did not ruin it. For example, the Stapletons played different roles, Mr. Stapleton was not even in it, I think they did that so people who already read the book can enjoy the movie, otherwise they will know what happened. You cannot deny the fact that the movie is interesting despite having a different plot, because almost everything is unexpected, which keeps the viewer’s attention. So, the movie is a good adaptation.
In my opinion “The Hounds of Baskerville” is a good adaptation because cleared up some events, had a very good setting, and made Sherlock seem like a genius. Quick reminder, the movie made the villain’s death clearer, made Baskerville a research facility which can explains the murder, and Sherlock did all the deducting. “The Hound of Baskervilles is not the only good movie adaptation from a book. Not all movies based on books are bad, a lot of them are good even if they have slight differences from their book.