So after the first five years, you turn Coke into Beer Coke, then after five years Whisky Coke, then after another five Coffee Coke, then Orange Vitamin Coke, then your consumer dies.

This is just a humorous example right? There is no such thing as beer coke is there? Is there !? 

'Cause they DO have the coffee coke now(coke Black). Have you seen the future or something? Is BeerCoke a UK only product? Tell me it's not real.

Matt, different versions of Bugs Bunny have been created at times and run concurrently today.  While the WB sells plenty of original Bugs Bunny merchandise and places it at the front of the marketing, there are additional versions that include the baby Bugs Bunny which currently plays mornings on cartoon network.  Then there is also the Buzz Bunny version. 

Multiple versions of a product exist everywhere.  Consumers are smarter than it sounds like some are giving them credit for.  To many, Spider-Man, Batman and Superman are not the nuances and deep routed concepts that we have found over time.  I think to many they are simply the people in the suit that fight extraordinary crime.  I would argue that the baseline concepts or discriptions have not changed for these heroes. 

Joe, you miss the basic point that a baby Bugs and the original Bugs are the same character.  I'll even be so bold as to say that they both appeal to the same all-ages audience, as the baby Bugs and company are just as subversive as the originals.  The same cannot be said of Marvel.  USM doesn't resemble, in any way but character names, those of the MU ASM proper, which isn't really consistent with the Marvel Age title.  In other words, yes, the WB has different versions of it's characters, but one couldn't confuse the baby Bugs as being a different character from the original.  I'd be hard pressed to find a commonality between the MU proper Spider-Man and any of the other off-shoots.  Where there is internal consistency of character with the WB franchise, there seems to be a devil-may-care attitude with respect to the various incarnations of superheroes over at Marvel. If you don't see a problem with that, so be it, but I do.

Joe Mayer wrote: I would argue that the baseline concepts or discriptions have not changed for these heroes.

Read any of the overly talky, distinctly lacking in action JMS issues?  By and large, that's what they are and certainly not "people in the suit that fight extraordinary crime".  You could, if you so choose, argue that the basic concept and/or description of Spider-Man hasn't changed in 40+ years, but I'd have a really hard time buying that given everything that JMS has troweled on the character in five years, not to mention what I consider to be the first big change in his character/description; aging him out of a school setting entirely:

"Joe, you miss the basic point that a baby Bugs and the original Bugs are the same character."

Bug and Baby Bugs are as much the same character as the Ultimate, Marvel U and Marvel Age Spidermen.   Perhaps even more so since to the average person, they look basically indistinquishable.

"The problem is that wouldn't be necessary if they hadn't been changed in the first place, and it adds another level of confusion for any potential new readers, or parents looking to buy their kid a Spider-Man comic. "

This is immaterial to the point.  We are where we are. And multiple iterations of a character can co-currently exist if the market will support it. 

And any product, irregardless of its merit (or lack of) can be killed by confusing and unclear marketing.  To continue using the current motiff, that's like saying Coke will no longer sell if you stop advertising it and hide it in the supermarket.

You put the product out there and you let them know it's there and what it does.

Oh and to answer a question I missed, in the New Universe, when a month passed from comic to comic, a month passed in the comic.  Or at worst, say a story continued from on issue to the next, there would be a space of two months of comic time between it and the next issue.  And you know what?  It worked.

I'm not saying that the eternal youth of a comic character is a BAD way to do things.  I'm just saying its not the only game in town.

Dennis Calero wrote: Bug and Baby Bugs are as much the same character as the Ultimate, Marvel U and Marvel Age Spidermen.   Perhaps even more so since to the average person, they look basically indistinquishable.

So they look the same (and certainly not now, as MU Spider-Man proper isn't even in his classic outfit). Big deal.  It doesn't take too much digging under the surface to discover that they're characters living in different worlds.  Baby Bugs and classic Bugs live in the same world.  They are the same character.  USM Spider-Man and MU proper Spider-Man are not.  And neither of those are the same as Marvel Age Spider-Man. Three different characters.  Baby Bugs = Classic Bugs.  Big difference.

"and certainly not now, as MU Spider-Man proper isn't even in his classic outfit)."

Come on, work with me Matt, you and I both know that's temporary and b now is a tradition.

" Baby Bugs and classic Bugs live in the same world.  They are the same character. "

How exactly can you make this claim about a character that has NEVER lived in a comic book style consistent universe!  Warner Bros. cartoon characters have no determined past or future, no commonly accepted home, but are characters whose circumstances are constantly in flux to serve the purpose of whatever cartoon they happen to be in!  Seriously, I understand the point you're trying to make, but this is an example that borders on the ridiculous.

USM, MU SM and MASM all have the same basic origin, the same identity, the same basic powers and same basic life circumstances.  In all the ways that count to most people, they are the same, only with different tones designed to appeal to different people, and what, intrinsically, is wrong with that?

You forgot to mention the MU2 Spider-man, who is, to me, THE spider-man that I grew up with win the mid 80's.  There's something for everybody, and if the market supports it, that's as it should be.

Whether people are actually aware of which product is right of them it s a TOTALLY seperate issue.

Thinking more about the popular analogy to Coke here with regard to Spider-Man.  I would posit that ASM, USM and MASM aren't akin to Coke, Diet Coke and Coke One at all.  Let's look at this analogy a little closer.  ASM is the original, akin to Coke.  ASM now is not Coke, but New Coke.  The flavor has changed and it doesn't taste the same as the original. Maybe someday we'll get New Coke ASM to change back to Original Coke formula.  It may have changed a little of the formula, dropping sugar for high fructose corn syrup, but it'll feel like the original, something New Coke ASM doesn't even come close to doing.

USM isn't Diet Coke.  Diet Coke is trying to be low calorie equivalent of the original.  It's trying emulate the same taste with fewer calories than Original Coke.  USM isn't trying to do that.  It's a totally different product altogether.  Sure, it's got Peter Parker, Aunt May, Mary Jane and a dead Gwen Stacy, but it's not really anywhere close to the original.  USM Peter Parker has a totally different life, history and experience than MU proper Peter. Origins are different, villains are altered from the original MU ASM, and ancillary characters are totally different from their MU counterparts.  I'd say USM is similar to ASM only in that it's a comic book, in the same way Sprite is similar to Coke in that it's a soda pop.

I would, however, equate MASM to Coke One. It's closer to being the original than Diet Coke (USM) ever will be.

Dennis Calero wrote: How exactly can you make this claim about a character that has NEVER lived in a comic book style consistent universe!  Warner Bros. cartoon characters have no determined past or future, no commonly accepted home, but are characters whose circumstances are constantly in flux to serve the purpose of whatever cartoon they happen to be in!  Seriously, I understand the point you're trying to make, but this is an example that borders on the ridiculous.

No, it does not.  The two characters are the same.  They act the same, they talk the same, they live in the same world.  USM and ASM don't even come close to residing in the same world, let alone the same universe.  There is no internal consistency of character.  This is why Disney, to switch gears from the WB, has had such long-lasting popular characters.  Their development is closely guarded.  You can have Mickey be a baby or throw him into outer space and he's the same Mickey we've always seen.  Same with every single one of their characters.  The same cannot, in any world or universe, be said of Marvel characters.  There simply is no internal consistency from comic to comic, let alone from comic to television, or comic to film.  To say that there is, or that it's totally fine not to have internal consistency of character, boarders on the ridiculous to me.

The flavor has changed and it doesn't taste the same as the original.

Isn't this a matter of opinion?  And regardless, Diet Coke tastes different than Coke.  More different than even New Coke was different.  Again, it's a matter of personal taste.

they live in the same world

Says who exactly? What world is that?  The one in which bugs is travelling one cartoon, is working as a bellhop the next?  Care to create a timeline that logically explains his changes in look, voice, vocation and venue?  This example just doesn't make any sense.

USM and ASM don't even come close to residing in the same world, let alone the same universe.  There is no internal consistency of character.

They are both named Peter Parker, they both wear the same costume (and if you don't think ASM will be changing his costume back...), the both have the same powers, same villains etc etc.  How close to each other do they have to be exactly for it to no longe rmatter?  Try explaining to the average shmoe the fact that these two characters live in different worlds so they are actually different characters.  Let me know how that goes.

This is not even to bring up the fact that no matter the house style, different artists make the character look different.  Or should JR JR start tracing Ditko to be sure the character is the "same?"

"You can have Mickey be a baby or throw him into outer space and he's the same Mickey we've always seen.  Same with every single one of their characters.  The same cannot, in any world or universe, be said of Marvel characters."

Again, I understand the point you're trying to make, but you need to let this analogy go.  After all Spidey, Cap America, et al have been in outer space, under water etc and have remained the same character. 

And again, to be realistic, show a kid Bugs and Baby bugs, now show him ASM (when hes in his regular costume) and USM and ask him which characters are more alike?

There simply is no internal consistency from comic to comic, let alone from comic to television, or comic to film.  To say that there is, or that it's totally fine not to have internal consistency of character, boarders on the ridiculous to me.

The level to which you seem to require characters to remain the same borders on the  unrealistic.  There has never been a character in the history of fiction that has been in existence for more than 4 decades that has retained that level of consistancy with no alternative versions, not King Arthur, not Perseus, not Superman, not Mickey Mouse, not anybody.

If you honestly think that ASM now is the same as who was introduced 40-odd years ago, I can't help you.  In other words, to answer your question, I don't think it's a matter of opinion at all.  Read Lee's run and then read JMS' run.  Not the same character at all, except in name only.

QUOTE: Says who exactly? What world is that?  The one in which bugs is travelling one cartoon, is working as a bellhop the next?  Care to create a timeline that logically explains his changes in look, voice, vocation and venue?  This example just doesn't make any sense.

Don't be obtuse, David.  Baby Bugs is the same as Original Bugs, only he's younger. 

QUOTE: This is not even to bring up the fact that no matter the house style, different artists make the character look different.  Or should JR JR start tracing Ditko to be sure the character is the "same?"

Ah, the ages old "change the debate" tactic.  Didn't say that, imply that, or even touch on that, but good on ya for trying to switch gears to get away from the original debate.

QUOTE: There has never been a character in the hisotry of fiction that has been in existence for more than 4 decades that has retained that level of consistancy with no alternative versions, not King Arthur, not Perseus, not Superman, not Mickey Mouse not anybody.

Sure there has in recent memory.  Bugs has been the same character for over 50 years.  Same with Mickey. That they may have started out differently, due in large part to crude animation and the sensibilities of the audience, doesn't negate the fact that the Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse my parents were watching in 1950 are the same as they are today, a few slight cosmetic alterations aside.  They are the exact same character acting in the exact same manner no matter the situation.  You don't see that ASM and USM are different?  Cool.  I do, and I won't let go of an appropriate analogy just because you don't think it works. Mickey, Bugs, Spider-Man, Batman, et al. are intellectual properties.  That the two former characters reside mainly in film and television and the two latter reside mainly in print is really neither here nor there.