The dodginess of adapting Jane Eyre

You know, I've seen three BBC adaptations of Jane Eyre - the 1973 one, the 1983 one and the 2006 one.
Only one of those three actually gets it right, which is quite astounding.

We're told in the novel that Rochester actually loses one of his eyes, and he himself calls his arm a "mere stump".
In both the 2006 and 1973 versions, Rochester retains both eyes and gains barely visible scarring from the fire.
In the 2006 version, he has almost full use of both arms - the "mere stump" becomes a bandaged hand - and the 1973 version has his 'lost hand' constantly in his waistcoat pocket, which is a bit of a cheat.

Of course, the 1983 version... Rochester loses an eye, a hand, gains some fairly painful-looking scarring on his face.
It's the most accurate by far.

You'd think the BBC would use the far-advanced technology now available to them to make those burns, those losses, all the more horrific and real... but then they remove the losses altogether!
It doesn't make much sense, does it?