The problem with that sort of argument is that it is very vague and undefined. Really, anything could fit into that description of not "leaving the franchise intact for their successors." It's too broad. And the definition really differs from person to person. And it really seems to imply the lack of any sort of real significant development or change, which people seem to enjoy. It really just seems more like an attempt to justify undoing developments in the book that people have a personal problem with, or that altered the story to a status quo they dislike.
I have no problem with people disliking a status quo. I just don't feel that they have to make up larger, more moral arguments to try and diminish said status quo to attempt to justify why it should be undone or ignored.