MovieChat Forums > The Hound of the Baskervilles (1939) Discussion > Unfortunately, there are plotholes

Unfortunately, there are plotholes

posted 15 years ago by Galvorn_Guard
9 replies | jump to latest

Spoilers follow!

Specifically, in the climax. After the attack on Henry Baskerville, Stapleton follows Holmes back to the cage in which he kept the hound. When Holmes drops down into the cage(!?), Stapleton locks him in, returns to Baskerville Hall, and attempts to kill Henry again.

If Stapleton is intent on killing Sir Henry and claiming the estate, then he must be planning to kill Holmes as well. The problem is that, since he believes that Holmes is aware of his evil plans, it would be logical to assume that Watson is also informed of everything. Therefore, any further attempts on Sir Henry's life would be pointless.

Lastly, the omission of Holmes' request that Sir Henry walk rather the drive home that evening forces the viewer to conclude that Holmes is staking his elaborate efforts to bring the villain to justice in the mere chance that Sir Henry would walk home. In my opinion, these additions and omissions only hurt the film.

[–] jtyroler 14 years ago

Jeez Louise - couldn't you have put SPOILER ALERT on this post? So far, I've come across 3 threads that describe the ending without saying that they're giving away the ending to the movie. It wouldn't be a big deal if this was a comedy, but, it's a MYSTERY - totally spoiled when people give away the endings without any warning.

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 14 years ago

I'm not disagreeing that it would be nice for folks to have "spoiler" warnings on message board posts, but it just ain't gonna happen, and IMDb isn't going to start policing it.

So with that in mind, it is generally NOT a good idea to read message board posts prior to seeing a film if you dislike spoilers.

http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

[–] leroykevin 13 years ago

Jeez Louise - couldn't you have put SPOILER ALERT on this post?

IMO I would assume "PLOTHOLE" would be some what of a hint that they are going to talk about the ending.

[–] PreachCaleb 10 years ago

Stop clicking on posts if you haven't seen the movie.

Does IMDB hate apostrophes?

[–] Pseudo-geordie boy 8 years ago

did you really complain about spoilers for a film from 1939 that is based on a story from 1902? surely there can't be many people that don't know the ending of The Hound of the Baskervilles. by the way, they all did it in Murder on the Orient Express

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 14 years ago

Nah, characters not being "perfect" hardly constitutes plot holes. And in the latter case, we can easily assume that Holmes deduced that he'd walk home for the very reason that Henry gave. If you're expecting Holmes to not be able to do that, you're hardly expecting him to be "perfectly Holmes", but then you consider the first point a plot hole just because Holmes wasn't perfect. That's not consistent.

http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

[–] Galvorn_Guard 11 years ago

The first point wasn't a plot hole: it was Holmes being movie-dumb, and putting himself in extreme danger while the killer was nearby.

The first plot hole is that Holmes assumed (without any logical reason) that Henry would walk home. "Knowing" Henry would do so isn't perfect; it's God-like, and not something Doyle's Holmes did.

The other plot hole is Stapleton making the second attempt on Henry's life, another addition. The game is up, anyone knows he is the killer, and he will never have the Baskerville inheritance. We're asked to believe Stapleton is a brilliant monster, yet he makes the basic mistake of returning to the scene of the crime *after* his plan has utterly failed. When you say your character is brilliant then have this pointless action, that is a plot hole.

In here, only the mind can grant you power.

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 11 years ago

Way too long ago for me to comment on it further, unfortunately. I'd have to watch the film again.

http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

[–] Nobbes 11 years ago

The first plot hole is that Holmes assumed (without any logical reason) that Henry would walk home. "Knowing" Henry would do so isn't perfect; it's God-like, and not something Doyle's Holmes did.

Well, maybe Holmes assumed it, because Sir Henry did it before.
Sir Henry and Watson were invited by the Stapletons. After the meeting, Frankland offered them to take them to the Baskerville manor. But they decided to walk. Watson noted everything what happened. So Holmes knew this. So maybe he thought that Sir Henry would again walk instead of going by carriage. And Holmes implied the case to be closed (making believe the convict was the killer). So Sir Henry was "safe" walking (this is the point. Sir Henry believes that there is no danger anymore. So why not walk home?). And it was again Frankland who offered him a ride and he denied it.