Don't forget that Peter married a clone of Mary Jane in the 90s cartoon.

UGH.

SO anyone first exposed to Spider-Man in between 1986 and 1994 was most likely exposed to the comic books. Sure, some kids would have seen re-runs, but most would not. Just as some of the people that got started in 94-97 would have read the comics before seeing the cartoon. I call that a wash.

So what are there more of? Current spider-Man readers that got hooked between 1986 and 1994 plus the ones that started after 1997 OR ones who started before 1986 plus the ones that started between 94 and 97?

********************************

Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends aired in syndication for a while between 1986 and 1994. It turned up on the Marvel Action Hour, I think, during the early 90s and was on cable until the mid '90s.

"If someone has never seen or heard of Iron Man and somehow they pick up a comic book, the specifics of the book make no difference whatsoever really."

I think when people talk about harming the character, they're referencing the fact that these characters have an established history of a certain basic portrayal being popular with a large number of readers over an extended period of time.  When you alter than portrayal in a significant way, whether it's married Peter Parker or teenage Tony Stark, the question is...will the new portrayal have the same level of sustained appeal?

I think Peter David told some very good Smart Hulk stories, but I don't think Smart Hulk has nearly the broadbased appeal of Childlike Hulk or Savage Hulk.

And on the subject of audience exposure to Married Spider-Man, remember that comics pretty much ceased to be a mass-market product in the mid 90s.  So even if the marriage has been the status quo for 20 years, for only about half that time has Married Spider-Man been exposed to a widespread, mainstream audience of comic readers.

Mike 

Greg- (the obviously inferior version who lacks the essential third G)

You actually have a comic shop near you? And it has an actual kid's section? Youare living large my friend.

What ages are we thinking about when we are talking about kids anyway? Under 8? Those are the comics geared toward them. Why would a 19 year old Peter Parker appeal to an 8yr old any more or less than a 27 year old Peter would anyway? I can see the arguement that a 16 year old Peter might appeal more to the 12-17 year old crowd (I disagree, but I can see the point) than a 25 year old one.

It's ridiculous for anyone to claim that people are more exposed to comic book characters, any character, though comic books than they are via television, movies, merchandising, etc., etc.  The 1967 Spider-Man cartoon ran for years in syndication after it's initial run.  That's how I saw it as a child in the early 70s.  I was also exposed to Spider-Man at an early age, before his eponymous comic, via THE ELECTRIC COMPANY.  Millions of kids were.  Those spots ran through the 70s.  Even though the Spider-Man television show only lasted a season, it wasn't for nothing that Marvel advertised to new readers that the comic they were holding in their hands was the same character they saw on TV (as they did with THE INCREDIBLE HULK):

SPIDER-MAN AND HIS AMAZING FRIENDS ran for five years first-run and at least another five in syndication.  As is mentioned here, it's still being run on various stations across the cable dial.  The FOX show as well as the MTV animated series exposed a whole new generation to the character, and it's indisputable that one of the biggest motion pictures of all-time, SPIDER-MAN, exposed the character to millions upon millions of people who had only a cursory knowledge at best. Merchandising, from games (video, board and cards), action figures, clothing, books, etc. have been around for over 30 years. 

To say the comic books are more influential, exposing people to the character more than film, television, and merchandising, is showing a marked lack of understanding of how important the latter mediums are and, sadly, how lacking in influence the actual comic books are in the grand scheme of things.

Greg- (the obviously inferior version who lacks the essential third G)

You actually have a comic shop near you? And it has an actual kid's section? Youare living large my friend.

What ages are we thinking about when we are talking about kids anyway? Under 8? Those are the comics geared toward them. Why would a 19 year old Peter Parker appeal to an 8yr old any more or less than a 27 year old Peter would anyway? I can see the arguement that a 16 year old Peter might appeal more to the 12-17 year old crowd (I disagree, but I can see the point) than a 25 year old one.

++++++++++++++

Yup, yup, and the 10-and-under crowd.

The only people I ever see near the main comic wall would be adult fanboys and the occasional teenagers.

Yeah, okay, superheroes shouldn't be geared towards kids. My mistake. Anyone who wants Spider-Man to stay in high school or college and never grow/change should read Archie instead.

Does that sound about right?

Matt Reed- Just because a lot of people watch the cartoon, that has very little to do with the comic book market. You yourself say how many more people see the shows than read the comics, or have EVER read the comics. I am referring to the portion of those millions that have gone on to read the comics. A far smaller number. Does it matter what the average 15 year old boy thinks about Spider-Man if he has no interest in reading the comic books? So what if millions of kids were exposed to the Spider-Man cartoons in the 60s 70s 80s or whenever? The vast majority of them NEVER MADE THE JUMP TO READING THE BOOKS. And since in all of the TV shows and movies Peter Parker was young and not married, and the overwhelming majority of people that have seen any of that did NOT read the comic books, how can someone argue the case that that particular take on the charachter is so appealing to the masses and if the books were written that way fans would start reading the comics? Most of the people who watched the first two Spider-Man movies have no idea that he is no written that way because they will never read the books. So how can it be that having Peter as an older charachter be keeping people from reading the books, if all of those people aren't going to read the book to know the difference?

About the whole cartoon idea and it's influence. I bet that well over three quarters of the people that read Batman every month are people that had a very early exposure to the Adam West TV show. Does that mean that the show should be the basis for the way the comic charachters are portrayed? Of course not. That would be stupid. Why is it that you think that a new potential reader would necissarily grab onto the child-like Hulk particularly more than the smart Hulk? If we are talking about former readers possibly coming back...that version of the Hulk was one one that was popular during the height of the industry, so obviously it has a wide recognition factor with former comic readers. Remember, there were two different versions of the smart Hulk, one by David, and one several years before. From 1982-1985 and from 1990-1996 the hulk was smart. I bet those combined months sold as well as any other comperable time periods.

Mike Bunge- I think we could probably look at some numbers from somewhere to dispute your idea about the hulk. The Peter David smart Hulk was very commercually successful. I have no numbers in front of me but I bet that it stacks up pretty well with any other era of the title as far as sustained sales. Exactly what does "broadbased appeal"mean to you? I think that the focus should be on potential comic readers, not just everyone out there that happens to know the Hulk's name.

Greg-

As far back as Stan and Jack, the comics weren't targeted toward the under 10 crowd. They were targeted at teenagers. They were written in a way that a younger kid could enjoy them, but they were not targeted at them. When talking about "kids" in terms of this discussion, I think about the 12-17 year olds that were the meat and potatoes of the industry back in the 80s.

Since the consumer base for comics has grown older, I think that it would be increasingly hard for them to maintain the 40 and 50 year old readers if they (for the first time in 30 or so years) actually started targeting the mainstream books toward 8 year olds.

"I think we could probably look at some numbers from somewhere to dispute your idea about the hulk. The Peter David smart Hulk was very commercually successful. I have no numbers in front of me but I bet that it stacks up pretty well with any other era of the title as far as sustained sales. Exactly what does "broadbased appeal"mean to you? I think that the focus should be on potential comic readers, not just everyone out there that happens to know the Hulk's name."

I would suggest that the success of Smart Hulk had more to do with Peter David's writing ability than the essential nature of the character.  Disconnect the character of Smart Hulk from the history of Childlike or Savage Hulk and what do you really have,  a big green Superman?

And the point you're missing is that everyone out there that happens to know the Hulk's name is, or at least should be, a potential comic reader.

Mike

"As far back as Stan and Jack, the comics weren't targeted toward the under 10 crowd. They were targeted at teenagers."

I think it's probably more accurate to say they were written at a teenage reading level, than that they were targeted at teenagers.  Other than Spider-Man, the Human Torch and the X-Men, it's hard to say the original Marvel character were more targeted at teenagers than DC's characters.

Mike