Mig Da Silva wrote: Does this somehow show us that we should use their model - of Spider-Man "aging" and "rebooting every decade" and thus being finite or repeatedly finite - on Amzing Spider-Man?

ARGGGGGGH!

NOT.

WHAT.

I.

SAID.

AT.

ALL.

You wrote that the market does not, will not, support finite series (bold mine):

Mig Da Silva wrote: The market does not want superheroes that age, nor finite concepts. I'm not saying i agree with it. I just read the market.

That's patently untrue.  It has and does support them.  Again, I've never said that using an aging and rebooting model, nor making ASM a finite series, was the way to go.  You can't reply to what I'm posting when you're really addressing someone else.  Makes it totally confusing and doesn't help the discussion at all.

And that's not the discussion we're having, Mig.  At all.  In any universe.  Dennis and I have only ever been pointing out that you're wrong with regard to the downfall of CrossGen, not that Marvel or DC should be assuming their business/creative model.  Somewhere along the line, you've grafted that idea into your argument without anyone ever suggesting it.

QUOTE: CrossGen is bankrupt. IDW and Dark Horse own how much percentage of the market?

And finite series in TPB from Vertigo regularly outsell superhero titles in TPB, so much so that titles like SANDMAN and PREACHER have never gone out-of-print.  Your point?  If you friggin' bring up Marvel and DC superheroes proper following that model, I swear that there will be a small corner of Hollywood that will implode. That's not the discussion.  It's your contention that there isn't a market for finite series.  You're wrong.

"Was there much change over the course of the New Universe or Valiant?  Either way (and I honestly am curious) in they may have worked creatively, but obviously not financially. "

Valiant did very well until something happened, what that was is a point of contention and I'm not getting into it, but everyone agrees "it" was an outside force and I think everyone involved would agree that if Valiant had been left to it's own devices, there might have been a big THREE now instead of two.

New Universe suffered from editorial problems right from the beginning, some of which I'm sure JB could enlighten us on if he felt it worth going into.

"What I do have a problem with is grafting that idea onto characters who were never created to "age" and "grow" in the first place all in an attempt to keep an aging fan base."

I kind of have a problem with this statement from both ends, so to speak.  One, Peter is not really aging all that fast compared to real time.  And did Stan Lee ever intend Pete to stay 16 forever?  I dunno, but I don't think so.

"I know, but Dennis was. At least that's what i understood with "why shouldn't Spider-Man age".

Either by accident or design, Mig, you are misrepresenting my point here.  I don't theoretically see a problem with ANY approach that generates sales.  I am against the sort of "one approach fits all" principal you're espousing, and the examples you're using to bolster your point are, frankly and with apolgies and respect, piss poor.

And in fact, harping on this issue as being the primary culprit in what is the "sad state of affairs" you thinking comics is in is in fact distracting us to the real issues of distrubution and competition form other media, issues that absolutely dwarf the relatively small problem we are discussing today.

If a child sees Spider-Man and wants that same level of story, he can buy the Marvel Age: Spider-Man title.  If the kid doesn't know the title is there, that is a failure of marketing, not product.

Again, my main point is that there is nothing inherently wrong with alternatiing lines of product (whether it's the Ultimates or Diet Coke) if they are marketed to reach the intended audience, and ideally positioned to deliver customers from one title to the next logical title.

The idea that Batman, Supes et all should not be made to fit any model of consumer, young or old, because of some internal principal, based on what you FEEL is right or wrong, is specious.  Where products are aimed at, how they are interprated or evolve should be based on the market.