>>28006
It's exactly the same. The original Halloween has eight continuity-sequels (meaning I'm discounting Season of the Witch). The fact that they're in two or three different continuities doesn't negate that. Most of those sequels are terrible. But if Curse of Michael Myers doesn't make the original bad, and doesn't prevent them from making good sequels later (there is nothing in H2O that actually requires it to be a different continuity than 4, 5, and 6, either. The original draft even referenced 6 before they decided it would be simpler to just not remind the audience), then why does random issue of Spider-Man make another random issue of Spider-Man bad, or even more bizarrely, make the first issue of Spider-Man bad?
Also, notably, even with different continuities, the series makes good use of callbacks to previous entries that might not even be canon to the current film. The 2018 movie is full of references to previous films, sometimes even taking old concepts and doing them again, trying to do them better, like the doctor trying to control Michael, as in Curse. Because in-universe continuity isn't all there is to continuity. And comics do the same thing all the time, remaking old stories to flesh them out or fix concepts that didn't work quite right. Why would it be okay for one to do it and not the other? You say because they have different continuity structures, but then Halloween is the worst example you could have used, since its multiple continuities are somewhat analogous to things like DC's multiverse. Especially with some things being canon to multiple continuities, and some entries basically being remakes that fix old concepts.
And I like Halloween so I humored you, but you didn't address the point. Star Trek is a series known for tight continuity. Even if we ignore the alternate timeline, even if we ignore the later series, we can just look at the original cast material. People hate Star Trek V. Nobody thinks it ruins Wrath of Khan. Hell, a lot of people don't even like The Motion Picture (even though it's the best one), but they still like Wrath of Khan.
See, here's your problem. You don't read comics and have a fundamental misunderstanding of how they work. And you show it with this quote.
>it's not a fair comparison because comics don't operate on that same logic of just erasing or ignoring a sequel in canon like movies do.
That is precisely how comics work. Plenty of stories have been ignored later, relegated to nothing but trivia and cameos, because people didn't like them. And they literally do erase things sometimes, more than movies do. Sometimes even big important stories end up getting downplayed until they can be ignored, if people don't like them. Or sometimes they take those concepts and make them better. Like Emerald Twilight/Zero Hour. People hated that Hal Jordan became evil, so they went out of their way to make him a good guy again and make it justified and believable. And they could have just killed Parallax after and been done with it, and never spoke of it again, but instead they took the concept and made it better, and it lead to the most popular Green Lantern stories ever.
Or for another example, there is The Outsider from Batman. He was Batman's big nemesis for an extended arc in the '60s, and then they found out he was Alfred with a broken brain, and they cured him and vowed to never speak of it again. And they never did, except one story 40 years later where Batman realized the Nightwing he was talking to wasn't the real one, because in order to prove himself he mentioned The Outsider, something only the two of them knew about, but Batman recognized that the real Dick vowed never to speak of it again, and therefore must be a fake. I don't need to go into this much detail, but it's a perfect example of how you can ignore something if you want, but also still use it later if you want. Even if it was bad, you can use it for something good. Or ignore it. Whatever.
You don't read comics or even know how their basic story structures work. They're retarded, but not in the ways you think. I also suspect you don't watch movies, since you seem to think that there are no movie series with long running continuities. But go ahead and keep thinking that something that happened on Enterprise in 2005 somehow ruins the original pilot of Star Trek from 1964.