I generally don't mind departures from the source material when they're done well, but I also don't know why, when a work is being adapted for the screen for the first time, the adapter feels a compulsion to change things that don't need to be changed, just for the sake of change.

The FIRST screen adaptation of a work should just be, as much as is feasible, a straight adaptation of the work. Because there should be at least ONE screen version of a thing that is simply "that thing, but on sceen". In this first adaptation, it should still be permissible for the adapter to make changes, but these changes should be limited to pragmatic, necessary changes due to something in the original work simply not being feasible. If someone were to adapt War and Peace into a limited series, I would expect some plot beats to get moved around and some characters/plot elements to get merged or excised, simply to get the right pacing so that the plot moves forward every episode. That's fair and reasonable - because it's necessary.

It's when Hollywood inevitably decides to REMAKE or REBOOT a property that I want to see the new adaptation try weird twists on things. A new Dracula movie from Dracula's perspective, Batman but with the fantastical elements removed, Romeo and Juliet but as 20th century street gangs, Emma but in Beverly Hills in the 1990s, etc... these are fine because straight adaptations already exist.

If I had bought a ticket to see "Les Misérables" but when I watched it it was actually "Les Misérables... but as pirate ninja zombies in space", I would have been severely annoyed. If I wanna see just a straight adaptation of something, that should always be on the menu. Save the weird twists for the second, and third, and fourth iterations, when the itch to just see the exact thing, but visually on screen, has already been scratched.

This show is so unrealistic. Everyone knows you can’t buy a gun from a licensed dealer after being dishonorably discharged.