Yes. And I personally don't really get why so many film and series studios fail to see this. Most successful adaptations do this (be it adaptations from books, comics or games). And a lot that have failed don't. Offcourse there are always exceptions. But most classics I can think of, especially in "nerd" territory, are quite faithful or at the very least respectful to the source. Recent examples would be Dune, Fallout, and The Last of Us. And sometimes you do need to deviate. One Piece is an example, but that one for sure treated the property with love.
I feel one of the big factors of the "videogame curse" of the past is that almost none of those films seemed to really respect the source material.
Quality is almost entirely divorced from faithfulness, IMO.
Jurassic Park the novel is far more violent and jam-packed with screeds about fractals than the movie, which butchered Hammond from being a corporate shark to being a kindly grandfather. The novel opens with the park already having failed--dinosaurs had gotten loose on the mainland before any meddling. Muldoon uses antitank weaponry to blow velociraptors into salsa. The lawyer was actually a badass only sane man (the guy who panics and gets eaten is a publicist).
Jurassic Park, the film is a masterpiece.
Our pop culture understanding of Frankenstein as a childlike Brute has zilch to do with the novel, and everything to do with Boris Karloff's iconic turn.
Even in recent super hero movies, for all their efforts to show how they aren't afraid of yellow spandex like they were in the 2000s... they cull and mix. And combine a lot. Obadiah Stane was a business rival of Tony's who struck while Tony was at a low point professionally, personally, and in his heroics... until he was Tony's old friend secretly plotting his fall. Civil War did not have Tony Stark's interdimwnsional GITMO.
Like, they key element to an adaptation igniting intetest tends to be quality, not faithfulness. The two aren't opposed, but they aren't entwined, either.
