Compare And Contrast The Hound Of The Baskervilles

The 1902 novel by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, named The Hound of the Baskervilles, is a thrilling entry in the Sherlockiverse, containing wit, humor, drama, affection, and, what would normally be necessary for a novel in this genre: mysteries. From the whereabouts of Seldon, to the matter of Laura Lyons, to the mystery for which the novel is named, of course regarding the matter of The Hound of the Baskervilles. The 2002 film by the same name, directed by David Attwood, was a justly screen adaptation of the novel, which was able to properly retain the original story without corrupting any of the structural elements of the novel. The film does indeed retain, and in some cases improve upon the various elements of the original tale, including the

He is not dissimilar to his novelized counterpart within the film, aside from one strong detail. While in the book, Dr. Mortimer was both a medical professional and a craniologist, the role of craniologist falls upon Stapleton in the film. His profession of naturalist as well was changed to an archeologist. The craniologist of the novel, that being Mortimer, only ever uttered a single line of any importance regarding craniology, that being “It is not my intention to be fulsome, but I confess that I covet your skull.”(9). While comical humor when placed on print, when spoken in word, it seems more creepy than humorous. It would make sense, therefore, to have the villain speak these words. And, while it would not be unlikely for a doctor to be a craniologist, a naturalist wouldn’t quite fit the job. And so, his profession was changed. This does not modify the message of the book too seriously; if anything, it improves the quality of the story to not have Mortimer be the craniologist. And as for his wife, who barely got a single mention in the book, she became a medium in the film, through which the characters are able to speak to Sir Charles Baskerville. The character was given a part in the story, that neither interrupted the narrative, nor became too terribly significant such that it deviated too far from the novel. Overall, the characters were improved upon, and not in a way that worsened the quality of the

It was a previously mentioned topic about the land itself, that had an interesting premise to it, that being “‘A false step yonder means death to man or beast.’” (97). It was clever of Sir Doyle to include it in his initial rendition, but the manner in which it was employed into Attwood’s modified scene was both unexpected and a good factor in the conclusion to Stapleton’s story. The change in the date of the entire narration was another clever idea that didn’t necessarily need to be put in, but was still a general improvement. It provided an excuse to have a general gathering during which Holmes could meet Stapleton, something that the style of which the film industry likes very much to have happen. It also made Sir Charles footsteps in the beginning of the tale not just a product of the fact that “‘The day had been wet,’” (20). It allowed for the courtship of Sir Henry with Beryl, the the original scene from the novel of this event having been cut out for the film. And the gathering was simply a visually attractive event that was just enjoyable to