My opinion is: If the general public enjoyed the Spider-Man movies so much, (and going by the massive profits on both, they did) and Marvel is geared towards providing the best business model for their products/franchises, why isn't there a single Spider-Man title out there reflecting "movie" continuity (I.E. still at school, taking pictures for the Bugle, crazy for MJ and allowing her to know who he is), and available everywhere?

Seems the public want the basic, Lee/Ditko model (with a few tweaks) to me.

If you're trying to say massive amounts of people are seeing the movie, then checking out the comic, saying "not for me" and then booking, I'm sorry.  Kids are watching the movie, buying the video game, and that's it.  THAT's the problem. 

You are of the opinion that an audience of 18+ is a good thing-- that's the general principle that will keep the two sides of this argument apart. 

An audience made up of SOLEY of 18+ would of course be a bad thing.  But how would an audience theoretically made up of all ages be a bad thing?

If you did have a book in which spider-man was eternally 16 and another in which he aged in slow comic book time, and they both did well, what would be the harm?  No one has answered this question.

Perhaps you should learn a little something about the history of the industry? Especially those times when the books have sold the best? (Excluding speculator infestations, of course.)

Of course with all big ups and props, JB, how does the history of our industry bolster the idea that I'm questioning here: in theory, what is the moral or ethical superiority of a one character line of products verses one that encompases mutliple iterations of that character aimed at various audiences.

When I was growing up, there were Star Trek power records aimed clearly at kids and pre-teens and novels clearly aimed at older audiences.  It wasn't confusing at all.  They looked totally different!  But they both had characters named Kirk, Bones and Spock!  Remember, the issue isn't whether or not M***** is doing it well, but whether it can be done at all!

I understand that some people think that this model is not working in it's current form at M***** now, but even if one feels that way, why can't it work ever?

And why exclude speculator infestations?  That's like saying read American history, but skip the part about Japanese internment camps, because, since that was not nice, it didn't happen.  There's got to be something to learn there.

What I mean by that is that implies you're telling me "Look, I'm right, check out this history, but skip the part that tell me I may be wrong." 

And I remember a LOT of people in the mid-90's who bought comics solely out of the love for the books. Did a higher percentage of readers buy books ONLY for their perceived future value?  There's a more complex story than that there.

And to say this is kind of like saying "Well, if you have THAT opinion, you obviously can't have actually read or know anything about the subject."  Which hurts, John.  It really, really, really, hurts.  Sniff.

In fact, I've read both Steranko's histories of comics, several general books on comic history as well as lovely informative texts by the TwoMorrows people, including the wonderful "John Byrne" book they just put out (which I LOVE, btw.)  In an industry that has supported several concurrent Superman and Batman books, all with slightly different points of view, what would be the big to do about USM and ASM?  I think the real issue is some people just don't like those books.

And besides, however things have been in the past, I don't think fan's reading habits are ever set in stone. 

So far I've gotten two things out of this discussion:

Product lines with one consistent character (and the definiton of consistant here is extremely specific) will sell better.

Coke, the Muppets, Warner Bros cartoons all belie this conclusion, carrying, to varying degrees, multiple marketing lines.  And given all the other problems our industry is facing, mainly that young children do not go to comic stores, this seems to me the most specious of reasoning.

And saying that "Yes, there are distrubution problems...etc" but that this is a major part of the problem is like saying "Yes, the car's engine is totalled, but the real reason it won't go is because the car is painted blue!"

Comic book characters can't change and remain relevant to a children's market.  Or at the very least, once a character evolves into a popular form, it should stay relatively the same.

Maybe there's something to this, maybe if I were to go about designing a comic meant for children, I'd consider this as a guiding principal.  But again, I have to go back to point number one, in which I so heroically countered that multiple lines of product, skillfully marketed to the right audiences, is a good thing. 

Using a character to please 8 yo's!  Good

Using the same character to please everyone? Great!

In the end, bear with me please while I repeat a certain point I just made:

What would be the big to do about USM and ASM if they both sold well?  I think the real issue is some people just don't like those books.

And that's everyone's perfect right.  It doesn't necc. mean they shouldn't exist in principal.

You touch on another issue, tough, Robert, which is that if the comics hadn't changed so much they would be much closer to the movie than they are now.  I think that's a big part of why in the last 5 or so years we've seen Ultimate Spider-Man, Marvel Adventures Spider-Man, and Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane* all focusing on a Spider-Man that's closer to the original version and the movies.  The problem is Marvel trying to have their cake and eat it too.

That is a good point, Matt.

On various ancillary products (such as t-shirts), artwork of Bagley's Ultimate Spider-Man is being billed solely as "Spider-Man".

But a character is a character is a character.

The broad strokes of Ultimate Spider-Man may be the same as Classic Spider-Man (costume, powers, etc.), but everything else (personalities, story roles, history, etc. ) is totally different.

Thus, Ultimate Spider-Man is not Spider-Man. He is Ultimate Spider-Man, a separate and distinctly different character.

Classic Spider-Man was there first. He was the first incanration of the character ever created (as well as the best and longest-lasting).

That version is, and always shall be, Spider-Man.

Movie Spider-Man is a different character.

Marvel Age/Adventures Spider-Man is a different character.

Any version which is not that character as originally created is a different character. An imitation (usually a poor one, too).

The broad strokes of Ultimate Spider-Man may be the same as Classic Spider-Man (costume, powers, etc.), but everything else (personalities, story roles, history, etc. ) is totally different.

Totally different in the sense that Dr. Strange, The Thing and Spiderman are totally different?

Classic Spider-Man was there first. He was the first incanration of the character ever created (as well as the best and longest-lasting).

The best?  Isn't that a subjective statement?

That version is, and always shall be, Spider-Man.

To you, absolutely.  But that doesn't make it right or wrong in any objective sense.

The broad strokes of Ultimate Spider-Man may be the same as Classic Spider-Man (costume, powers, etc.), but everything else (personalities, story roles, history, etc. ) is totally different.

Totally different in the sense that Dr. Strange, The Thing and Spiderman are totally different?

Classic Spider-Man was there first. He was the first incanration of the character ever created (as well as the best and longest-lasting).

The best?  Isn't that a subjective statement?

That version is, and always shall be, Spider-Man.

To you, absolutely.  But that doesn't make it right or wrong in any objective sense.

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

1. Who is "Spiderman"?

2. Let's see, now...The original incarnation of Spider-Man revolutionized the industry and sold like gangbusters back in the day. If today's version was introduced back in 1962, however, I doubt Spider-Man would still be around today.

I don't think it's a much of a stretch to say that Lee and Ditko's version was better than any version being put out today.

3. Since Lee and Ditko's Spider-Man was there first, that version is, by defintion, Spider-Man, the standard version by which the character is defined. Any subsequent version/incarnation is merely an offshoot.

(Sarcasm off -- remember, Stan and Jack came close to making this mistake with the X-Men. They made them students, with lessons and classes and demerits -- and not too long after the first issue came out, they went "Oops!" and had the team "graduate". X remained the titular leader, but the school was virtually forgotten as a core element. They understood that their audience of pre-pubescent males wanted to forget about school when they were reading their comic books!)

Since Lee and Ditko's Spider-Man was there first, that version is, by defintion, Spider-Man, the standard version by which the character is defined. Any subsequent version/incarnation is merely an offshoot.

So by your definition, the only "real" Spidey is the Lee/Ditko one.  Well, I mean, and I'm not trying to be a smart ass, we're never going to see that again.  So what is it that you propose?

***

Oh, come on, d00d! Every 12 year old wants to read about a superhero who is a married schoolteacher!

(Sarcasm off -- remember, Stan and Jack came close to making this mistake with the X-Men. They made them students, with lessons and classes and demerits -- and not too long after the first issue came out, they went "Oops!" and had the team "graduate". X remained the titular leader, but the school was virtually forgotten as a core element. They understood that their audience of pre-pubescent males wanted to forget about school when they were reading their comic books!)

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

And of course, in the movies, the X-Men are the teachers at the school. Yikes!

Since Lee and Ditko's Spider-Man was there first, that version is, by defintion, Spider-Man, the standard version by which the character is defined. Any subsequent version/incarnation is merely an offshoot.

So by your definition, the only "real" Spidey is the Lee/Ditko one.  Well, I mean, and I'm not trying to be a smart ass, we're never going to see that again.  So what is it that you propose?

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

I...don't know.

Spider-Man has been broken for so long, that it's easy to cite all of his problems.

But it's hard to figure out a workable solution.

I...don't know.

Spider-Man has been broken for so long, that it's easy to cite all of his problems.

But it's hard to figure out a workable solution.

You know what, I want to point out that I am really appreciative of the fact that you're willing to listen to my point and say "you know what, I'm not sure."  I think at different points in this discussion, I've been willing to conceed "Yes, that is a problem and I don't know hwo that would be resolved."

It actually takes an incredibly mature person to say their point of view doesn't answer all questions.

You see, one of the things I've been saying all along is when someone opines "The only Spidey is the original creation" I can go ok, fine, that's a totally valid POV.

But then when someone says "Well, THIS THIS AND THAT change were okay, but all these others aren't..." well now you're just expressing an opinion.  You can no longer claim you think change is always bad.

I...don't know.

Spider-Man has been broken for so long, that it's easy to cite all of his problems.

But it's hard to figure out a workable solution.

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

The symptoms of Spider-Man's problems are pretty easy to fix. It's fiction. He's not a real person. You could change course with the next issue. The disease is the industry right now.

I'm not sure what the true issue is though: Are the creators insane or are they cynically giving the obsessed fanboys what they want? And are they the larger part of the comics-reading public right now because of the damage the direct market did?