But see what you did there? You heavily implied a false choice between professional, state-of-the-art effects and good storytelling. My ideal Lost World adaptation would feature both. Unless you'd like to argue that that's not possible?
I'm not talking about an ideal adaptation. I'm defending the 1992 adaptation, saying that it's a good and enjoyable story regardless of the quality of its effects. It would still be good with better effects, but that's a matter of budget, and I don't think good stories should be discriminated against on the basis of money. They did the best they could with what they had, and that's not a bad thing.
If you like this movie, I'm happy for you. Maybe it's good in spite of the dino hand puppets. But it sure as heck isn't a faithful adaptation of Doyle's novel.
Like I said, "faithful adaptation" is something of a contradiction in terms. An adaptation is supposed to adapt
, i.e. to change something to fit new circumstances, whether it's a new medium or a new generation of audiencegoers. A good adaptation captures the essence of the original while bringing something fresh to it. If it were just a note-for-note copy, what would be the point? If you want the original story, read the book.
The first two Harry Potter films are the most faithful adaptations of their respective novels, and they're also by far the weakest films in the series. I'd rather have a good adaptation, regardless of its fidelity, than a faithful adaptation regardless of its quality. Can an adaptation be both good and faithful? Theoretically, sure. But that doesn't mean faithfulness should be the priority. Quality should be the priority, and if making a good movie or TV series requires being less faithful to the source, then you change it and more power to you.