I wouldn't say I think comic art can be "too detailed." I think it can certainly use or prioritise detail badly, but what's "too much detail" in one style or rendering is going to be a perfect amount for another.
But I do feel that photorealism, specifically, isn't ideal for the medium of comics. I don't mean uncanny valley or stiff art -- I actually started feeling this way when I first saw Alex Ross's work on Superman pages, and no one can say that isn't gorgeous. Nor would I say it's hyperdetailed -- it's stylised and simplified in a way, with really striking rendering. They're freakin beautiful illustrations. My thing is..... they feel like illustrations.
I don't know the right words to describe it, but it evokes something so photo-like in its light placement and rendering that, while it's really incredible work from an illustration perspective, each panel feels.... sort of like a movie still. Which means it doesn't move. Those panels aren't characters moving through space and time -- they're a snapshot of a specific moment. For me, the effect is similar to watching a slideshow of storyboards instead of a cartoon.
I thought back to everything I'd read from Scott McCloud about the weird ways your brain relates to and identifies with the smiley face more than the perfectly rendered portrait, and I have to wonder if that has something to do with it. When a comic's art evokes artful photos, illustrations, even beautifully shot movie stills, you the reader become entirely removed from the scene. It feels to me like you don't participate in it the same way you do when the style is stretched.
I have no idea if others feel this way -- after all, Alex Ross is an extremely well-respected cartoonist -- but I've definitely always felt that this sort of style, while it makes for breathtaking illustrations, just doesn't serve the medium of comics as well as other styles could.