John Mietus wrote: I've talked to my LCS owner about this numerous times, and he always says the same thing: he can count on one hand the number of people who walk into his (locally well-known) shop looking for a comic about a character after a movie has been made about that character.

Well known to whom? Everyone in the town/city you live in knows that shop is there and carries comics?  That's my issue.  Most of my friends who gave up reading comics a long time ago wouldn't know where to find them, not even knowing that there are specialty shops geared toward selling comics.  If the adults don't know that, how can the kids?

Please show me one even slightly verifyable source that says that those three creators have anything other than affection for the variety of adaptions to the charachters that I am fond of.

Can you show me anywhere that said that Jack Kirby disliked the idea of the Hulk being smart for a while? Can you show me anywhere that says that Steve Ditko thinks Spider-Man getting married was a bad idea? Has Stan Lee ever said that he hated the idea of the brooding, strung out, Daredevil? Have any of them made any solid, substantive claims that the charachters that they created have been harmed by the various evolutions that they have gone through? In one of these threads someone actually had the balls to say that Captain America was invaledated when they started writing stories about him that weren't set in WWII. He may not have known that it was Jack Kirby that helped create him, and Jack Kirby that helped bring him back in the 60s. So I guess in some people's mind you have to stick with what the creator did exclusively, but only things the original creator did that YOU liked.

So who is the one that is being so goddam egotistical?

Me for saying that I think that my tastes in what are enjoyable, well crafted comic books is a good barometer for what is actually good.

OR

You, for saying that you are able to speak for Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, and Steve Ditko. You are saying that they disapprove of versions of the chrachters that I find acceptable. You think so obviously, so therefore they must think so? Show me a case where any of them said that they thought that the Peter David Hulk was an inferior take on the charachter. Or the Frank Miller Daredevil. Or the Walt Simonson Thor. Or the Red and White Iron Man. Or the married Scarlet Witch. Or the Wasp who was confidant and a capable leader. The list could go on forever.

Basicly, I am saying that I think I have good taste, and you are saying that these particular creators necissarily disagree substantitively with my opinions, based on the fact that you seem to.

A small question pointed at JB, or any other pros that may be reading this since JB generally doesn't look at books that he used to work on...

Are there cases where you, as a writer, look at something done later to one of your creations that you think "that was a real great angle. I wish I had thought/had time to/been allowed to do that when I was still writing him."?

Obviously Mig De Silva "knows" for sure that Stan, Jack and Steve never thought so.

I don't like the direction Spider-Man has taken recently, but he's been around for 40+ years. Maybe theres not much more to explore, at least with the current storylines. 

But you can't totally blame the writers.  They have editors, and the editors have bosses too. Maybe the writers would love to go in a different direction with Spider-Man but they don't have the authority to do so. Reading JB's FAQ really gave me an insight into the process.

QUOTE: he can count on one hand the number of people who walk into his (locally well-known) shop looking for a comic about a character after a movie has been made about that character

Given the current market, it would probably be more telling to ask the manager of a Barnes and Noble if the trades moved any better while the movie was out. 

Well known to whom? Everyone in the town/city you live in knows that shop is there and carries comics?  That's my issue.  Most of my friends who gave up reading comics a long time ago wouldn't know where to find them

If the UK is anything to go by availability is not really the main problem. Our version of the newstands (newsagents) still stock comics and magazines aimed at the young just as they did 30 years ago. Although sales figures are respectable for a small country when it comes to the comics aimed at the younger crowd the Beano sells 110,000 units per week and the Simpsons 100,000 per week. Adventure/action based books are represented now just by 2000AD (when it comes to non reprinted material) who seem to survive on 20,000 copies sold per week. I presume if it were not for the money they recieve from licensing characters like Judge Dredd they would have folded to.

When I was a kid I moved up from comics like the Beano as a six year old through to war comics like Battle and Warlord and then eventually graduated to the Marvel reprints when I was about 9 or 10. It is still possible to do that in the UK it is however not happening anymore.

John Mietus wrote: ... Matt Hawes, if you're paying attention, how's it for you?...

I don't really notice much change. There's probably more interest before a movie based on a comic book is actually released, and that's from existing fans and speculators trying to acquire the back issues because they think the books will rise in value after the movie is released.

Even when some new readers pick up a comic because of a movie, it's usually a lapsed fan returning to comics because the movie rekindled an old interest and not really new blood, so to speak.

"If the adults don't know that, how can the kids?"

I bought my early comics off the rack at a corner store in the Mission Dist and when I really got into them back in the mid-eighties, I started by hitting a local 7-11, but soon, I got into going to the comic book store - which, to a 9 year old, was like the coolest thing on earth... for like... 10 seconds.

Even as a kid, I was disgusted by dirty old men hanging around, flipping through "Cherry Poptart", discussing what it would be like to "bang" Kitty Pride, and how sophisticated Cerebus was.   ugh... and even as a kid, I realized what a fucking scam the whole thing was - "Wow, that issue just came out, and you're selling it for $10, why?"  "Shupply and de-mahnd, kid."  "uh... why don't you just order more?"  "Get out of my shtore!" - ugh... but anyway - tangent of how much I despise the DSM, comic book stores and frankly, comics, aside, I found the stores by either just seeing them on the street, looking them up in phone books (in the vague hope, even as a 9 year old, to find one that didn't suck shit through a straw), or more often than not, by word of mouth from other 9 year olds.

My point being, if kids had any interest in finding the dens of inequity that we call comic book stores, it wouldn't be hard at all.  But why should they?  Comics should die the death they deserve and John Byrne should move into the more respectible field of books and literature - even publishing his sequential art in book format, anything to escape the nightmare that is modern comics.