>>723472117
The more apt comparison is Terry and Miguel, because both are successors done right. Miles is treated as a REPLACEMENT of Peter, not a successor. He's poorly-written, has the same powers (but better), has the same supporting cast/opponents, the same setting, and is just a less likeable character than Peter with less interesting problems.

Miguel and Terry are both great successors because they stand separate from their predecessor. They have different powers, skillsets, settings, supporting casts, and rivals. Terry is an apprentice to Bruce, Miguel is TOTALLY separated from Peter, but both work. They both bring something new to the table because they aren't just meant to be the original but better. They have different plotlines to face and different issues to overcome, using different toolsets to do it. Most importantly, Terry and Miguel are likeable characters with fun personalities.

>>720104625
Kind of weird how the real, actually good "successor" to both is the futuristic version for two entirely different reasons. But both have a lot of similarities.
>Terry is a good successor because he's a genuine apprentice
>Miguel is a good successor because he's entirely separate
>they both stand alone by having entirely different personalities, worlds, skillsets, and supporting casts from the original
>bigger focus on corporate and sci-fi crime because of the futuristic setting that gets away from the street and gang crime that was the basis of both original heroes
Everybody loves Miguel and Terry, which shows that the problem has literally never been having successors. It's just that most successors fucking suck ass.