The point is, Dennis, it shouldn't be necessary.

Why?  This statement implies theres some moral, ethical or some sort of superiority of a character line with ONE version rather than with multiple iterations aimed ostensibly at different age groups.  I don't see it.

And I don't think Marvel does that now. 

That's your opinion and you are absolutely entitled to it.  However, I simply do not see this as a major issue when there is a far greater issue of getting more readers of all ages to comics, period.  People are not staying away from comics because they are confused by multiple versions of the same character.  By yoru own argument, Joe No-Comic-Reader isn't even aware of these differences.

While this is a lively and interesting debate and I greatly enjoy talking to you about it, this is a non-issue in terms of it's affect on readership and quality and for better or worse, the fact that the Spider-man in comics right now feels different than the one you and I grew up with.

  An opinion that I don't share.

  I've expressed several obnoxious opinions.  Which one are you referring to? 

Here is the opinion as stated in my last post:

"However, I simply do not see this as a major issue when there is a far greater issue of getting more readers of all ages to comics, period.  People are not staying away from comics because they are confused by multiple versions of the same character. "

What is it about that exactly that you disagree with.  Is getting new readers not a greater issue than whether Spider-Man has a secret identity or not?  Or are you claiming that somehow thousands of new readers are just busting down the doors of their local comic shops, grabbing spiderman and going "hey, what gives?" when they see three different titles and running away?

And there's too many Matts.  From now on, Matt Linton is now to be known as Matt Fred.

Wait a minute...

I see everything as connected, Dennis.  Market the product the best way you can and I still don't see how the original core character is done a service by being a near-30 year old teacher, married to a hot former supermodel/aspiring actress, living with his aunt in Avengers Tower and now unmasking before a national audience.  You can debate with me until the cows come home that these things don't matter, or don't matter as much as marketing, but I neither see that nor buy it.  Getting new readers is one thing, a great thing, but changing a formerly all-ages character into something wholly unrecognizable and then saying, well, there's other titles out there to discover that character (by the way, in name only) if you don't like ASM and, oh, by the way, we've just created yet another version if you don't like the four already being offered, is something that doesn't sit well with me.  Make the change in new titles, keeping (as I've said throughout this debate) internal consistency (ie. a young Peter Parker in one title is the same character, only in college, that we see in another), and that's cool, but I don't get making the change for changes sake all in order to keep a dwindling aging and vocal fan base.

"Damn, dude, 69 posts in one day?  Looks like Rob Hewitt's old record is gonna be kitty litter before too long..."

What's the record, I'm a dork and on vacation so let er rip!!!!!

"But there's little point in drawing new readers in if they're just going to leave in droves once they realize how difficult it is if they just want to read a Spider-Man comic."

Well, it that a problem?  You feel it is, we may have to agree to disagree.

However, I do believe I have ably and sexily smashed any notion that IN PRINCIPLE a character MUST stay consistent to be marketable.

Even if I didn't, I was still sexy.

Market the product the best way you can and I still don't see how the original core character is done a service by being a near-30 year old teacher, married to a hot former supermodel/aspiring actress, living with his aunt in Avengers Tower and now unmasking before a national audience.

Maybe someone will like that.  Maybe we need to market to 30 year olds who wish they were teachers and married to supermodels.  I'm halfway there!

Seriously, though, how much of that do you think is pemenent?  Besides, people were howling when I was 16 and Mary Jane admitted she knew Peter's secret.  I like it.  So what're you gonna do?

 but I don't get making the change for changes sake all in order to keep a dwindling aging and vocal fan base.

I'm not claiming I believe this is what's happening, but if it were, sure, that wouldn't be the best thing.

Dennis Carero wrote: Seriously, though, how much of that do you think is pemenent?

Don't know.  Get back to me when the supposedly "temporary" story of the Spider-totem isn't affecting Peter (five years and counting) or the marriage is done (16 years and counting) or his Aunt May doesn't know his secret (five years and counting) or he isn't living in Avengers Tower (two years and counting).  Sorry if I find the "it's just temporary" argument a little specious at best.

On this message board, the argument has been made over and over, that Spider-Man would sell better if he hadn't been aged and married (because readers could relate to him more).  First of all, if that were true, wouldn't Ultimate Spider-Man be the best selling Spider-Man title?  Is it?  Second of all, I don't know the age of everyone here, but it seems to skew a little older than "teenager."   Heck, it seems to skew a little older than Pete's current mid-to-late 20s age.   So I don't understand why so many of you complain about not being able to relate to him.  I'm 35, and even without a super-model spouse, I still relate to him.  And I like the fact that he's aged and changed. It adds a level or realism that makes his adventures a little more compelling than say, the adventures of Bugs Bunny!   Anyway, I stopped reading "Spider-Man" a couple years ago, not because of his age or marriage, but because he's being handled by the worst comic book writers and editors ever!  Instead of bashing Mary Jane, we should be bashing the real albatros around Spider-Man's neck....J. Michael Straczynski.