I agree in that I consider both, particularly the first one: The more I like the original story, the more harshly I am likely to treat any changes to it.
Examples:
1) Todd McFarlane's original Spawn comics...they're the originals, they're important, but not so terribly great. Ergo, Spawn: The Animated Series's changes I hardly care about. That animated series is in fact superior to Todd's original comics.
2) Song of Fire vs Game of Thrones.....some (not all!) of Game of Thrones's streamlines and changes were more acceptable to me than others because the Song of Fire & Ice novels aren't as great to me as they are to some fans. Fire & Blood (and The World of Ice & Fire) is actually my favorite Martin book, so I'm gonna be a lot harsher on House of Dragons's changes (if I even watch the show).
Other things I consider:Blade Runner and the Shining would be the two films I'd use to illustrate my above point, both take drastic turns from their sources...but they are both absolute masterpieces of film.
-Is the "drastically inaccurate" adaptation a masterpiece of film/TV? For me, I can acknowledge both that 1) I greatly prefer King's book to Kubrick's film but that 2) Kubrick's film is a masterpiece of film.