# data[].attributes.headline
Sir Henry is much more concerned in the TV show than in the play.

# data[].attributes.subject
Sir Henry is much more concerned in the TV show than in the play.

# data[].attributes.body
In the play, Sir Henry took a more distant, resigned view to his fate, not particularly seeming to care what happened as much. However, in the TV show, he took a much more personal approach to the problem, directly involving himself in the plot against his life.

# data[].attributes.headline
There was a massive beast that was purported to be the cause and curse of the Baskervilles.

# data[].attributes.subject
There was a massive beast that was purported to be the cause and curse of the Baskervilles.

# data[].attributes.body
Both the movie and the play rotated around a large beast or hound that was mostly the same for both media formats.

# data[].attributes.headline
In the show it wasn't the hound that killed.

# data[].attributes.subject
In the show it wasn't the hound that killed.

# data[].attributes.body
In the TV show, instead of the hound being the one that killed Sir Charles, it was actually Bob Franklin.

# data[].attributes.body
In the TV show, Sir Henry witnessed the murder of his father, Sir Charles, but this did not happen in the play.

# data[].attributes.body
the description of the hound in both rendition of the stories is the same the hound was glowing and had red eyes

# data[].attributes.body
Honestly I prefer the play over the show because it seemed to be an overall better written story although it wasn't as funny to me it represents Sherlock Holmes better.

# data[].attributes.body
I think I preferred the television show over the play. The play was very fun to act out (cue entertaining Watson accents), but if I was just reading it, that would make it very dry and boring, but the movie was interesting and was fun to watch.