Does an adaptation need to depart from its source's internal logic to fully succeed as a screen work?

There seems to be a meaningful distinction worth drawing between adaptations that treat fidelity to source logic as the primary obligation and those that identify which elements of the original are structurally load-bearing versus which exist because of constraints specific to prose or the page. Fantasy material makes this especially visible, since so much of what drives a fantasy novel, the rules of magic systems, the cosmological scaffolding, the layered worldbuilding that accumulates across hundreds of pages, is doing work that cinema or limited series television simply cannot replicate through the same mechanisms. The question I keep returning to is whether the adaptations that end up feeling like genuine screen works in their own right are precisely the ones where the filmmakers made deliberate decisions to reconceive internal logic for the medium, rather than attempting a faithful transfer. A film that builds its own coherent visual and structural grammar, even at the cost of departing from the source's rules, might actually demonstrate a deeper engagement with the source than one that tries to preserve every system and ends up with something that feels like an illustrated summary. There is obviously friction here. Audiences who arrive at an adaptation through the source material often experience departures from established logic as failures of comprehension or respect, even when those departures are the condition under which the screen work becomes something worth evaluating independently. But that friction might be a feature of the category rather than evidence against it. For the purposes of this list, I am curious whether people think departing from source logic is actually a prerequisite for an adaptation to qualify as a great screen work in its own right, or whether faithful translation can occasionally produce the same result through different means.