Well, i give you a flawed example here.
game of thrones.
Game of thrones is a flawed example because the series didnt turn out so well in the end.
But in the middle, the Series did one thing very well, it glanced over those parts of the books that made no sense. GRRM had, multiple times, wrote himself into a corner and had entire chapters wehre ntohing relevant was hapening (Lets look for Sansa in a place of the world wehre nothing plot relevant is going on and also where the reader knows Sansa isnt currently at).
The Series didnt do that, the series had many flaws, but ironing out the mistakes in the original is something that an adaptation can do.
Furthermore, id like to point to Jodrowskis comment about adapting Dune, he said he was going to rape it. Rather strong words, but they ring true. An adaptation will always, per definition, clash with the original authors vision to some degree.
ebcause if it were the original authors vision, you wouldnt need an adaptation to begin with.
The question is not wether or nto an adaptation should be different, the question is wether or not the change is good or bad, or which things are changed.
