>Anon. You are frustrating me a lot with how hard you're shilling for comics.
I'm not. You admit that some are good. That's all I'm saying.
>Just because some individual issues are really good does not make up for the vast majority of shit.
I never said it did. I said to just read the good ones.
>A series of books isn't good just because one chapter is amazing while the rest is meh or shit.
No, but if one is good then I don't care if later sequels are shit. Did you know there are so many Oz books that even the fans say some later ones are less important and that the main ones are called "The Famous Forty?" Does that make the original book retroactively bad? Obviously not. There are like a million Swamp Thing comics, but if you are ignoring Saga of the Swamp Thing because of some other comic book that came out 30 years later, then you're missing out. If you ignore the work of Jack Kirby because of some other assholes who made shit stories with characters he created after he died, you're missing out. If you think Sherlock Holmes is shit because you didn't like the time Will Farrell played him, then you're missing out.
>Writers have a contempt for their readerbase if they have any sort of criticism or disagree with their politics. There's too much left leaning bias in the industry itself.
Agreed. Don't read works by those people. I generally stay away from practically anything written in the last five years, at least. This wasn't much of a problem before then. It barely existed a decade ago. Also, those people write shit stories anyway because they hate the genre and they hate art in general, only wanting to make propaganda instead. So unlike the works I advocate for, you're not missing out by not reading their garbage.
>Having no consistent art even in indie books is jarring especially when there's no storyboard consistent designs.
A lot of indie books do have consistent art, though. At the very least, usually you get consistent art within a single story. I'll give you that it can be very jarring when an artist changes in the middle of a story, though. It's becoming an even bigger problem in modern times as artists who don't give a shit and openly hate the genre deliberately make characters ugly and draw badly on purpose. They're also the ones who tend to ignore past continuity, and would be the ones that don't care about drawing off model. They just don't care. Don't read their stuff.
>Women are no longer allowed to be drawn attractive. Artists are embarrassed to draw superheroes like superheroes to the point of constant terrible redesigns.
See above. Very recent problem. Just don't read those.
>The expectation to read 5 others book ongoing to understand something is a scam to get more of your money.
Agreed. Sometimes those stories can actually be fun if you pirate them. More often it's just padded bullshit. Don't bother with those. This has slowly become more and more of a problem since the late '80s. Go read stuff from the '80s and earlier. Lots of great stuff there, and it's completely unaffected by this.
>Legacy characters can exist but they're pointless because no one actually ages so they'll never really step into their role. Even if they do the original will always come back.
Wally West. Even after Barry came back, there are good Wally stories that use his growth. But also, there are 25 years of Wally stories when Barry was dead, and Barry eventually coming back doesn't retroactively make those stories bad. Not to mention that Barry is a legacy character in the first place. You have a similar thing going on with Green Lantern, Hawkman, and a bunch of other JSA guys.
Also, Dick Grayson is a good example of growth, even if he only ever gets to be a temporary Batman, he's certainly grown since his introduction, mostly in a very gradual and fulfilling way, which makes it rather believable.
Blue Beetle is another pretty successful example of a legacy character. All three versions are pretty good, despite being wildly different from each other, and they generally show respect to the previous versions, and use them well for motivation and drama.
>They were war propaganda by jews
Superman was invented in 1938. They only started getting used as propaganda specifically because they were already popular. It was largely jews, though. And literal mobsters.
>turned to marketable IPs with no structure
Except they do, or at least did for decades. You claim these problems existed forever, but they're all reliant on the idea that each issue needs to have a story that is strongly related to the ones before and after it, and that didn't happen very much until the late '80s. It practically never happened at all until the '70s. Before that, most stories were standalone. If anything, you could argue that older comics followed too rigid a structure. I don't think you've read very many older comics, since your complaints really don't work with them and specifically don't work with their structure, which is very different than the type of structure usually used in modern comics.
>& are now woke leftist soapboxes with terrible art.
Don't read those ones. Just read the good ones. That's what I do. There are actually a lot. Even if it's just due to the sheer number that have been published, there are a lot of good ones.