I used to be a BIG proponent of "change and growth" for characters.  My argument for Kyle Rayner was always that while I agreed that the Hal-to-Kyle changeover was handled poorly, a new generation deserved their own Green Lantern that was appropriate for their time, just as Hal Jordan was essentially a sleeker, sci-fi update of Alan Scott for the 1950s.  What I failed to notice is that it wasn't like Julius Schwartz suddenly said "Well, we've got to get rid of Alan Scott because the kids today just won't buy him."  The character- and indeed, the entire superhero genre- had laid dormant for about five, six years, which was literally an entire "generation" of comic book readers back then (the commonly cited idea being that a majority of comic book readers stopped reading when they reached adolescence, at which point a new generation of younger readers stepped in to take their place, and so on.  Schwartz had a choice between bringing back an old character who hadn't been published in several years or taking the basic idea behind that character and creating a new take on the character that would, presumably, be more commercially viable.

On the other hand, there has never been a period where Hal Jordan's been dead as a commercially viable character.  Even when he was a villain and, later, killed off, the hue and cry for his return as Green Lantern didn't diminish.  And quite frankly, the fact that he'd been around for 25 years or so when I was a kid never bugged me- I never even really conciously realised that the character was that old.  That's the key:  I don't really think kids- who were and should be the primary audience for mainstream superhero comics- notice or even CARE that they're reading about a decades-old character, or that Hal's fighting Sinestro for the umpteenth time or that he's still fretting over the fact that Carol Ferris loves Green Lantern, but won't give Hal Jordan the time of day.  If YOU'RE getting tired of the character, maybe it's time for YOU to move on, not the character, since the adult who's been reading mainstream superhero comics for over a decade shouldn't be the target audience for mainstream superhero comic.  If those readers stick around too long, they start to get tired of the character and cry loudly for "change" and "development"...which is how we get Peter Parker, Lord of the Spider-Totem, running around in an armoured suit.

As for less drastic changes...yes, JB did make Johnny Storm a bit more mature and gave him (and the rest of the team) a new Fantastic Four uniform, but he didn't change anything about the essential core concept of the character.  His powers and persona were largely the same as they'd always been.  Furthermore, I'd argue that by the time of the Galactus trilogy (if not earlier), Johnny wasn't a "cornball kid" anymore.  Lee and Kirby made him a far more mature and nuanced character after his tragic romance with Crystal and college admission.  The bottom line is, he never suddenly went nuts and started beating up...I don't know...Dorrie Evans, the way Hank suddenly went nuts and started beating up Jan.  There's a whole world of difference between subtly tweaking a character and utterly trashing them for shock value, and I'd say the fall of Hank Pym falls into the latter category.  Thank heavens later writers saw fit to try to redeem him, but the original story shouldn't've happened in the first place. 

Gregg, I don't know.  You can go on and on about who SHOULD be the audience/target audience for mainstream comics, but all that really matters is who IS the audience for mainstream comics.  Sadly, I do not know the answer to this question.  I am 35 and STILL reading comics.  In a high school of 2100 students, I know of 2 who read or have read comics.  IF they are NOT the audience, then they SHOULD NOT be the target audience.

If WE are the audience, then (IMO) some steps should be taken towards allowing for our characters, because we do consider them to be our characters, to grow, develop, and change within continuity, in either one of two ways... 

ONE 1. 

Comic book time is 4 times slower than real time.  This means that in 40 years of publishing, let's say, The Avengers, only 10 years have passed on Earth-Marvel.  Break it down further.  Four years of stories covers one year of time.  Four months of stories (One arc) takes one month of time.

This allows for genuine progress within continuity without moving too far beyond the growth of the audience.  It would also allow for the Dick Grayson to eventually become Batman...

Comic book time is 4 times slower than real time.  This means that in 40 years of publishing, let's say, The Avengers, only 10 years have passed on Earth-Marvel.  Break it down further.  Four years of stories covers one year of time.  Four months of stories (One arc) takes one month of time.

Comics could stand to have LESS fanboy nonsense, not more.

TWO 2.

Continuity only applies within the confines of a current series or between series currently being published.

Case in point, John Byrne's DOOM PATROL.  I like the Doom Patrol.  I like the original Doom Patrol.  I did not like Grant Morrison's Doom Patrol, nor the Doom Patrol that was published just before JB's Doom Patrol.  Since the previous series were cancelled, a la the Golden Age Green Lantern, I do not think continuity should have been an issue to John Byrne, the readers, or to anyone, at all, regardless of his decision to begin the series in new time or if he decided to ret-con the Doom Patrol.

If JB's series had continued to sell and/or be published, he and anyone that would take over after him should have been expected to opperate within continuity for the sake of the readers, the characters, and the series.

Since the series was cancelled, whoever takes over the property should not have to be shackled by something that has already been cancelled.  However, since Doom Patrol is not being published currently, and since the series was just recently cancelled, a good editorial decision might be to use the characters with regard to their very recent continuity.

Infinite Crisis might make my Doom Patrol example a moot point, but my point makes Infinite Crisis moot itself.

Again, DC decides to introduce a new Superman or Wonder Woman.  They do not need a Crisis.  They need John Byrne, George Perez, and two new first issues.  Superman #1 by John Byrne and Wonder Woman #1 by George Perez can move forward without the gravity of what went before.  Their new continuity would be "defined" by the numbering of the series.

Now, of course, a company could decide to have a massive crossover to try and boost sales before "re-creating" their New Universe in an "explosion" of new titles begining with new first issues, but they would do well to remind themselves not to try to connect the new feature characters with their previously cancelled counterparts.

Thisis where DC went wrong and may go wrong again.  Crisis either gave you a new universe with new characters or it did not.

If I were editor-in-chief of the "Detective Comics Group," I would adhere to both of these rules.  Time would move forward at a four times slower pace in my comics, and my creators would be limited only by their imaginations...and sales!

Of course, I would hire JB to do whatever he wanted to do too!

What is fanboy nonsense?  Is that what John Byrne and Roy Thomas, just to name ONE, were up to when they took over the medium?  Shouldn't comic book creators have a true love for the characters and the medium?  What I think you mean to say is they should probably come up from within the industy as opposed to coming from TV and/or movies.  Do not worry, I can write educatioinal and scientific papers, but I cannot write comics.  I do not even know how to write comics.  I imagine very few do.  I think this is why the "Marvel Method" was so popular back in the day.

What I do know is what I like, and what I would like to see, and like yourself (I would guess), I like to talk about those likes here within the forum.

It must be absolutely AWESOME to trot out the 'it's my opinion so it's OK!' defense every time something stupid comes out of your mouth.

Your comments continue to speak for themselves.

Gee! Has it been seven years already?

What would you do in regards to character growth within titles?  Change nothing?  Continue to have crises and ret-cons every five or ten years?  Is that so better than starting a title over?  Do you have an opinion?  Or is your imagination limited to posting pictures of Dana Carvey and calling my opinions stupid?

Just tell me you were never in the service.  Tell me that I do not have to change my position that little ladies like yourself will never have the balls to do something about anything, that all you can do is bitch...