Comics, as a medium encompassing many genres, do not specifcally have to be aimed at kids.

In the context of the discussion (specifically Spider-Man and generally Marvel and DC) the comics should be aimed primarily at kids.

I see no need to 'turn them into cartoons' but simply to look back to when things actually worked (that is, sold a lot more issues). Insist the characters have to be drawn 'on model' by everyone. Aim for a wide audience; write for the kids but not only the kids. Everyone can enjoy the ride if they want to play along. No tortured continuity. Guest appearances but no crossovers that require you to collect every title (personally I think they should go back to fewer titles, but I can't see that happening). Most importantly they should be driven by telling stories that are good to read not ideas and events that they think will sell more units.

••

Put "superhero" in front of "comic books" and you're onto something.

Comics are like movies and TV. There's absolutely nothing that should be verbotten in the format, but that doesn't mean all possible genres have to be aimed at all ages. Just as there doesn't have to be a DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES for the kindergarten set, there doesn't need to be SPIDER-MAN for adults.

This is not to say adults cannot read and enjoy Spider-Man -- my Dad used to read and enjoy the comics I would occasionally leave in the bathroom -- but they need to be read and enjoyed for WHAT THEY ARE, not what an increasingly older and shrinking audience thinks they SHOULD be.

The most rapid decline in sales began with the shift in content toward an older audience. This is right there in the Statement of Ownership. Anyone with eyes and a pocket calculator can trace the effect. Yet the steady shift to a predominance of fans-turned-pro running the show has led not to a correction, but to a blind-eye, business-as-usual approach.

AKA, business suicide.

Even the grey covers with brown logos disappeared!

__________________________________

I'm intrigued. Could someone please post one of those covers?

THEY GET IT, BUT THEY DON''T DEPT.

In reading about "The Death of Gwen Stacy"  I discovered that one of th reasons she was killed off was that her relationship with Peter would lead to marriage and age the the character. And that not what Spider-man is about.

1) They got that a married Spider-Man would damage the concept.

2) They didn't get that as comic characters, Peter and Gwen could remain a young un-married couple forever.

Is this where superhero comics went off course?

Killing Gwen may have been a mistake, but I don't think it was where comics went off course. There were still another 15 years of very good comics after that.

The death of Gwen Stacy didn't cause the trading card/variant cover fiasco, the proliferation of pin-up shots, of decompressed storytelling, of writing for the trade, of characters coming back from the dead, etc.

I was thinking more of "pros" not really getting what superhero comics are about. (the first card to fall) Why should they, as part of the creative team, worry about Peter and Gwen getting married when the only way it could happen is if they wrote it? Thats totally the wrong mind set. They can't be that creatively limited. I love alot of what Roy Thomas and Gerry Conway have done (they were editor and writer of Spider-man at the time) but they seemed to have their heads in the wrong space back then. Too much confusing the needs "reality" with  the needs of the characters/series.