I think about what you're saying, and there's also the idea of context. As an example, the Wyler version is, in its own way, NOT really a very strict adaptation of the novel, since it literally cuts half the story out.
So at the time it was considered a radical departure. The film was SO good, that future versions would take that film's lead and start cutting out the second generation of action that's in the book. That's what was so striking about watching the Fiennes version; at the time it really threw fans of the story for a loop. I watched both of those films in a grad school film class back in the day, and much was made of their structure and their relationship with the source material.
I think at this point in the 21st Century, so few people will even know what Wuthering Heights is (when was the last time a Tik Tokker, even an English one, used the word "wuthering" in a sentence LOL), that there will be next to zero discussion of anything remotely like that. As an example, Robbie herself in the past few weeks has openly stated her complete unfamiliarity with the story before getting hired to make the movie. The movie seems to be personal to Fennell, at the same time clearly not for Robbie.
I hear what you're saying. But you reach a point in which what someone is making is simply not the source material at all, and all you did was slap on a couple of the same character names and incidents and give it the same title. I guess that works for many people.