Being overly literal is a bad thing.  A translation can be literal to a point that interferes with the comprehensibility of the result.

For example, look at the first sentence of the Bible:
 in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram

A completely literal translation is: "In beginning created God heaven and earth."  This is bad English.

Who gives a rat's behind?  Unless they also borrowed its protestant heresy-inspired mis-translations, I couldn't care less.

The King James version isn't all bad; and yes you can quote me on that. It just so happens that the King James was a beautiful work of English literature. So if they borrowed certain English turns-of-phrase, that would be completely acceptable for a Catholic bible. As long as the translation is still faithful to the Vulgate, it's fine.

Seriously, do you think the King James bible reads like a Superman comic or something, with similar content? There are only some problematic issues with certain parts of that translation.

Guess how conservative the Anglican church was back when the King James translation was made? I'll give you a hint: they didn't have female bishops yet.

By your argument I have to give up the Rosary, because Annibale Bugnini said the Rosary a few times, and he was a Freemason. He probably made the Sign of the Cross on multiple occasions -- we Catholics gotta ditch that habit as well. Because we don't want to "borrow from Annibale Bugnini's habits."

You know what expression comes to mind?
"Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater."

Meanwhile, something tells me that certain archaic D-R fans are all about Flat Earth, and that's their real motivation.
DO NOT go there; I'm just saying.

I gave an exaggerated example to make the problem clear.  A completely literal translation creates an ungrammatical and/or awkward result.  When a critic complains that a translation is too literal, that is what he is talking about.  

This is a completely different issue from how literally one ought to take Scripture as the Word of God.  

For the record,  I completely accept traditional Catholic teaching concerning Scripture.

Language change is a key concept when discussing translation issues.  This has nothing whatever to do with modernist attempts to change doctrine.  A person who does not understand how language change works is not in a position to offer a knowledgeable opinion on translations.  Similarly, change of circuмstances affects what material will be most useful in the notes and commentary.  This too is unrelated to attempts to change doctrine.

There is no good reason to claim that the original D-R is a "more precise version which reflects the original more perfectly."  This is nothing like the well-supported arguments for showing that the Tridentine Mass is superior to the Novus Ordo.  A better analogy for these false claims about the original D-R is the absurd claim that Catholics ought to receive Communion in the hand because this was the practice of the early Church.  Earlier does not mean better.  Claiming that it does is the error of antiquarianism.