>>14278
>There shouldn't be a need to ignore or retcon shitty stories because they shouldn't exist to begin with.
Nobody thinks they should exist. Nobody is going to sit here and say that it's good for bad things to exist.
>If these characters are supposed to be taken seriously then the way the world is presented needs to be as well. With linear progression that actual evolves & eventually ends the characters stories. Not keep them going forever.
That does happen. Ultimate Peter Parker died. The universe continued, but his story ended. They did a later volume also called Ultimate Spider-Man, but it was a new story with a new protagonist that took place after the ending of the previous story.
>Manga & fiction series novels can do this. Why can't american comics get this simple idea right?
They do. You just ignore the endings because you don't like the idea that other stories happen in the same universe, yet you also completely ignore the stories that don't happen in shared universes.
>No you can't just keep excusing these shit with "Well this run is good" & expect people to actually want to read comics. No. Either a series is good as a whole or it's shit.
Well that's just retarded. I can find flaws in anything. It doesn't mean those things can't still be overall enjoyable. But also, you're double retarded in this particular instance. A later entry in a series does not retroactively make the whole series bad, unless it's really the type of thing where everything is just a chapter and it was always intended to be viewed as only one story. Whatever shitty James Bond movie comes out next won't make Goldfinger a bad movie. New Doctor Who or Star Trek doesn't go back in time to the 1960s and make those series bad. Now, modern comics do increasingly rely on very long-form stories that are many chapters long. A bad ending to a particular story arc can make that story bad. But to say that Dan Slott's run on Spider-Man retroactively makes Ditko's stories bad is absurd.