I tried the first episode of Shogun last night while my girlfriend was at work. I wish changes to the source material didn't bother me so much. Nonsense changes such as one girl was supposed to be ugly but was hot, and another was supposed to be Portuguese but was turned into a Spanish guy. Or motivations. Infuriating and senseless. I wish I could understand why they do this. Very few directors even care enough to address the reasons, or have reasons other than they wanted to put their own spin on the story. The changes to The Watchmen made perfect sense to fans of the comic and worked well telling the same story.
I know it's a personal issue and most people are completely able to enjoy a show based off of a book they've read that modifies the source material heavily. I hear complaints about The Foundation and since I've never read the series, it doesn't affect me. But when I've read and loved the book all I can think of is, "Why'd the do this? Or change that? Why couldn't they get a director that actually respected the source material?"
It's something that never ceases to amaze me. Before, I was shocked when I saw little differences, like a confusion between two minor characters at the very beginning of
Game of Thrones, or more important reshuffling of the story structure in
The Expanse. I slowly came to accept those differences, but more recently, I've seen a series,
Silo, that only had a part of skeleton in common with the books. Ah well.
I think - but I'm really not sure - that directors do that for several good reasons. There are obvious ones like updating the story to today's audience, because some ideas are perhaps outdated, less relevant, or even less relatable; adapting the story flow to the media, because the rhythm is perceived differently on screen; or removing chunks to squeeze the story in the available duration. More recently, it looks like some directors are also suffering from wokeism.
There must be other reasons that I understand less. It's as if artists had to create something, and took the source material as an inspiration but not necessarily as a blueprint. Perhaps they wanted to express an idea or a message of theirs, and they found a book that offered a good support but required sometimes heavy changes to express it. Or perhaps they need to add something personal.
(When I say 'director', it may involve other people like writers, producers, ... I'm not intimately familiar with the process and all its variations.)
The worst thing is the episode was good. It's good and I still can't just appreciate it for being a good show loosely based on a novel I love. I wish I could though. For now I'll just shake my fist at the sky and mutter angrily.
I just watched the two first episodes and enjoyed them, though I didn't read the book and don't remember the older series enough to comment on the changes.
You could try to see it as a variation or another interpretation instead of looking for an authentic adaptation? After all, the original book is loosely based on an actual person who lived long ago, and both the book and the miniseries could be different ways to tell the same story (as people often do when they relate something). None of them is really true.