But he wasn't it under Michelinie. Under Michelinie he was an adult.

Like I already said my Spiderman matured corectly under Stan Lee, Roger Stern and David Michelinie.

It was Parker/Spiderman at 3 ages of his life.

 The problems came after the Departure of Michelinie when the teen temper was mixed with the adult life. Then he became a loser. Cause he stoped to be a character and became a caricature.

Peter Parker's "loser" status can be seen as a direct result of trying to juggle two identities.  His inability to hold a decent job is no different than his failing in his studies back in his college years or running off in the middle of a battle with the Green Goblin in order to visit his sick aunt in the hospital.  Truth is, if Peter had not become Spider-man, odds are he'd be quite successful today (in a way, that's the premise of Amazing Spider-man #50).

Fact remains that the average non-comics reader doesn't know the first thing about Peter Parker or Spidey's origins, and that is NOT what is meant to attract new, and especially young, readers.

What you're saying is that it's ok to lose the aging readers in order to attract newer, younger readers.  I say a moderate, well executed progression can provide a richer book that can still be appealing to new comers.  The real problem is that these days, the so-called "growth" is neither moderate nor well executed.  No kid would want to read a comic where Peter Parker whines and sulks about this and that for 80%-90% of it.  But give him thrilling (and not over the top) Spidey heroics and he might find the few pages depicting Peter Parker's personal life and struggles a welcome bonus.

I think that when it is well done, like the mariage of Spiderman under Michelinie it serve the character. The problem was that the following writers didn't seem to know how to write the character anymore. they didn't really addapt to the change. And all these crossovers didn't help.

Under Michelinie the mariage was interesting, the relation between pete and MJ cleverly explored. That's true too for Kraven's last hunt by De Mateis. But most of the other writers, no matter how talented they were (and I include later spiderman stuff robot-writen by DeMateis), didn't seem to know what to do with the maried Spiderman.

I enjoy Infinite Crisis: because of the last page. (near 20 years that I'm waiting for that!)

To John Mietus:

Yes I see the difference but I don't agree. For 16 year old Spiderman we have the Lee/Dilto version. We need reprints, no imitations, no weaker version.

I'm happy that spiderman became an adult.

We need reprints, no imitations, no weaker version.

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

Who are those "we"? Talk about yourself alone, if you please.

I'm happy that spiderman became an adult.

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

There, much better! "You" are happy, even though there is little significance to your statement.If you are currently 20something, that means that the medium appeals to you but probabaly loses a lot more potential new readers of a lot younger age.

The phrase that you used above is exactly the selfish attidute JB described earlier. JB (and others in the forum) are expressing the idea that the benefit of the character, and ultimately the business, is to make the package more attractive to a wider pool of younger audience, which, might I add, will never dwindle. The current fanbase (the one we belong in) is becoming smaller and smaller everyday.

Of course, Marvel and DC have found alternative ways to collect money, through films and toys. How long this income will last is everybody's guess. Mine is that it won't. Once the films "die" (the movie goers lose interest, that is), the toys won't be far behind.

One of the first characters to 'age' appreciably in comics was Supergirl. She started out as an barely teen girl, got adopted, finished high school and went onto college and then went out and got a series of "real" jobs.

Kara had aged realistically over a period of 6-8 years in the Wesinger era.

And yet her character tenet basically remained the same and yet dealt with the new changes in her life in a somewhat balanced matter. Which is probably why she was the biggest casualty (along with Barry Allen) of the Crisis

Okay, you need to do some homework before this discussion can continue. Both Marvel and DC have tried on more than one occasion to make forays into the areas of the marketplace effectively "owned" by Archie, and both have failed. Archie is there because they got there first, and staked out a territory that is enormously popular for them today. But it's not a territory that allows for much "new material" -- especially when those trying to make those inroads have made no real efforts to understand the marketplace.

Thanos...

I'm 34 but even as a kid (I was 9/10 years old when I began superheroes comics) I liked to see the characters mature. One of the thing that I liked in the Claremont/Byrne X-men was that they were young adult (around 24 year old I think) and not imature teens. I liked too that Peter Parker became more adult than in the Lee/Dikto issues that I was reading in reprint all along with the Marv Wolfman Amazing (I began to buy each month with Len Wein last issue -the break up with MJ, "Big Wheel" etc... even if I had read some Wein and Conway issues before from friends) the Claremont/Byrne Marvel Team-Up and ocasionaly issues of the Stern/Romita JR Spectacular Spiderman.

I always liked some maturing in comics. And that's why I wasn't attracted at all by Superman: Always the same thing, always the same stories.I was a fan of Batman because of the detective side of the character and the great villains.

Superman at the time, I liked him only in the movies with Christopher Reeves or as a member of the Justice League. Supergirl was more interesting.

And I was a fan of Barbara Gordon as Batgirl.