The eternal question

Now we have slowly reached the conclusion and results. I tried to be objective, but in some cases it still slipped into subjectivity. But, I hope, in a well-written subjectivity) the article turned out not to be an analysis of film adaptations, but rather an analysis of what was viewed. So to speak, I shared my impressions of what I saw. So, the results (of course, everything was clear already from the first or second chapter, but nevertheless): 3rd placebbc, 7 points I was thinking that it would probably be better to compare the film adaptations of Lenfilm (USSR), Granada and Universal with Redbone or films with Christopher Lee. Because there are too big differences with them and the BBC. But, as I said in the introduction, I took as material the film adaptations that everyone knows.  The fact is that the series is very good, but if this is Sherlock Holmes, then everything here is too exaggerated and hyperbolic. If smart, then a human computer; if he gives in a little, then he’s a stupid idiot; if eccentric, it means eccentric to the core; if he is reserved, then he is a tactless sociopath; If it's a mystery, it means it's mind-blowing. no balance. In fact, many modern film adaptations are guilty of this. I understand that everyone already knows the original story, so something new is needed. And I'm asking myself the same question for the umpteenth time. Looks like this will be my new “The eternal question” from now on. Why do you return to this hackneyed book again, and again, and again, since no one is interested in it anymore? What's the problem with starting to write from scratch? Why think out the author's thoughts and receive a barrage of criticism from indignant Conan Doyle fans? Between Doyle and all modern Sherlocks there is only one point of contact - names. That's why I prefer to call characters by their first names rather than their last names. If we consider this as a separate work, then the detective line here is simply brilliant.  2nd place, 8 points The film itself is shot in the style of “English tediousness”. He is so boring that his thoughts constantly wander into the distance. Eventually it got to the point where I was putting together a puzzle while watching it. It’s even a little bit about the pace of the story, but about something else, but I just couldn’t figure out what. And after much thought, I finally realized what was missing from the film adaptation! I felt like I had read a book. And that's not a compliment. In Doyle's stories, readers were only interested in the detective. Everything else - Watson, the background, the riddles - was not important. Here is a detective, here he is thinking, here he is using deduction, here he is explaining the case and now it is solved, let’s go to the violin concert in the evening. I expected something more from the film adaptation than a meticulous retelling of the story. The characters could have been made more voluminous so that they would also be interesting to watch, without changing the plot.  1st place USSR, 16 points. Soviet film is the complete opposite of the BBC series. It's a very bad detective story, but in every other way it's the best. There are wonderfully written characters, excellent music, cheap but amazing filming for those times and, of course, the inimitable performance of actors who live their roles, especially the two main performers, Vasily Livanov and Vitaly Solomin. Filmmakers back then created for the sake of art. Not for money or fame. they lived their business! The attitude was different and... So, stop! Something again carried me into the thoughts of a person whose soul remained in the USSR... Yes, I’m significantly behind my generation... But oh well, that’s not about that now. I don’t even know what else to add, in fact, I already said everything in the previous chapters. So that's all)