That's fair.
For my part, I can distinguish between the various incarnations so I don't really see an issue.
My view is that even if I can distinguish between different variations (eg. I can keep in mind and tediously remind others that I like S2-S4 of The Simpsons specifically, rather than just "The Simpsons"), they still become mixed together in an unfortunate jumbled mess that's confusing and misleading to others who aren't familiar with it, and that will inevitably affect perception of a great thing in a negative way. For example, a common attitude I've encountered with Watchmen is one where people lose interest in checking out the Watchmen graphic novel because they watched the movie and had a lukewarm reaction to it. I find that very unfortunate and regrettable.
On the flip side, when something has the integrity to stubbornly preserve what it is (like, say, Bill Watterson with Calvin and Hobbes), I find that incredibly satisfying and one of the most respectable and appreciated things someone can do. When someone talks about Calvin and Hobbes being brilliant, there are no confused/misled perceptions, and there are no caveats or missteps to look out for. It just stands on its own and is exactly as advertised.
That said, when a huge deviating risk is taken and it works equally as well as the original, that's admittedly a really cool feeling too. But ideally, I'd want that to come in the form of spiritual successors that don't affect a thing's reputation if it doesn't work out. (unless the original artists are the ones working on it, that's another story)