I agree generally.
Your advice was pre-taken: I haven't read those comics, I will not be watching this show. These are studio-driven cash-grabs that spit in the face of Watchmen.
I will take some humility time here to admit that there are ideas that I would have thought were dumb and been proven wrong later. Best example? A musical of Les Miserables. If I had been pitched that idea, I would definitely have passed on it, and it is a top-quality musical. Most of the time, though, some of this quality level stuff is predictable.
Again: I generally agree with your philosophy about art being simultaneously needed and not-needed on a piece-by-piece basis. But I would say that there are details that make this tricky.
One: I think there's a big difference between a board of executives forming committees and coming up with an idea (which this TV show stinks of) and an artist generating and idea and fighting to see it made (the original comic book). I acknowledge that mainstream stuff is always a blend of the two (the committee has to, ultimately, hire artists to make it happen, the artist has to go through a committee to see his or her vision realised).
Two: While not a "rule" per se, there is something distasteful about using a creator's vision so nakedly. Sometimes defiance like this turns out well (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest), but it feels really bad when executives exploit an artist's work for money, and it feels even worse when they do so in ways the original artist would hate.
Three: I think most people feel a sting when something tremendous and transcendent is used cheaply. Most people have had something they love or loved be given the moolah treatment and it feels feels like the thing you loved has been tainted or tarnished. That's a bad feeling. And when it happens, I think people come to places like this to rail against it for catharsis.