QUOTE: But of the three, which provides a better "gateway" for the people that are supposed to be audience?

All of them.  When I was a kid, I didn't care what the deal with Peter was; I wanted to see Spider-Man fighting the Hobgoblin.

I think it comes down to this:

The basic concept of Spider-Man was devised by Lee and Ditko, and won the character all of the acclaim that he deserved.

If you no longer finds that concept interesting, and so you want the concept to mutate into something else that's "more interesting", then that probably means you're bored. Which means you should find something new that does interest you.

And the Lost vs. Law and Order analogy is perfect.

I've never watched Lost, and have no interest in doing so, partly because I have no desire to jump into the middle of a dense mythology that I have no prior knowledge of.

But I love Law and Order (and only began watching it a year or three ago). Every episode is perfectly accessible and self-contained, and despite the simple "formula" of the series, I've never gotten bored.

You can also write Captain America as it was created by Simon & Kirby.

You won't have many readers, but you can write and draw it that way.

Part of Lee and Ditko's basic concept, based on what we see in those first thirty-eight issues, was that Peter matured and changed, and that the "web" of the storylines stretched out over multiple issues and several years. 

+++++++++

And then, after a certain point, it pretty much went into neutral.

Peter was in high school for three years, real-time. He was in college for 13 years, real-time. And then graduate school for about 15 years, real-time.

QUOTE: That's merely different, not "more accurate". BUFFY also suffered from the need for a "Previous on 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' " prolog on many episodes, something which LAW & ORDER has managed to avoid. And something which decades of TV dramas managed to avoid. STAR TREK TOS gave us one summation in three years, and that was for the second part of a continued story. The vast majority of TV shows worked like that -- and worked very well.

Unless I misunderstood, Michael's analogy has nothing to do with the status quo, and everything to do with the storytelling approach.  With the "soap-operaish" storytelling that's been part and parcel for Spider-Man (hell, Marvel comics as a whole) since almost the beginning, actual self-contained issues along the lines of TOS or Law and Order are few and far between.  An A plot may be covered in one, but there would still be ongoing sub-plots.  If you read the latest issue of Amazing, Peter's single, but it's hardly "self contained."  I'm not even talking about the anal crowd's continuity woes:  Spider-Man doesn't appear, it ends with a cliffhanger, there's a subplot with some crimelord, and there are three stories in the back that are there to set-up the next three months worth of plots.

If I did misunderstand the first time around and Michael was referring to how, cast member changes aside, Law and Order is still basically telling the same stories now that they've been telling since season 1, that makes more sense to me.  However, I'd still say something like Friends would be a better example, because there's a continuing narrative, even if there tends to be more "illusion of change" than real change.  The appeal of Law and Order reruns is that (once again, other than cast changes) you can come in cold, leave cold, and not miss a thing.  Spider-Man has never been like that.  Pick up a random issue (other than a fill-in) and chances are you're in the middle of something going on that won't be resolved that issue.

JB-

Could you write compelling, interesting super hero stories that included a backdrop with the main charachter being a guy at age 26, married with a kid or two? I think you could. I think a lot of writers in the business could.

Why could you not write those stories using a 26 year old Peter Parker? I understand that you PREFER Peter in the setting of the younger context, but you could write the story that I described.

I have laid out reason after reason whey I think having Peter (and various other charachters) mature and develope passed their original premise. All I see as counter reasons is the claim "Peter is SUPPOSED to be this way. So there!"

I never said that keeping Peter the way that you want him is not viable, but I have not seen one single reason that the way that I want is not viable. It is like the people on your side of the arguement want me to prove my way is better, and in the absense of that proof to just then assume that your way is better. Honest discourse doesn't work that way. Either prove your point is right, prove my point is wrong, or agree that both sides have their merit. I fully agree that there is an appeal to your side. It just isn't for me. Can you not agree that there is merit to my side? That is all that I am saying.

It isn't like my preference is to actually change what has been there. The fact is that Spider-Man has been the way that I want him to be for at least as long as he way the way you want him to be, and he has been there much more recently. You want to wipe all of that out (and I guess Joe Q agrees with you. Imagine that happening!) and return the charachter to the way he was in the 70s. I accept what was in the 60s and 70s as part of what made the charachter who he is. you want to erase what he has become since the 70's. 

You see, your way excludes everything but that limited backdrop, my way includes it as an essential element in a larger picture. I may be wrong. It happens a lot. Just ask my girlfriend. Or my boss. Or my Dad. They will tell you all about how wrong I can be. But in this case, how can that be considered selfish?

I agree completely that in the 60's Peter as the "Charlie Brown" of superheroes had a huge appeal and was the key (along with the pure brilliance of the work done featuring him) to his success and popularity. But why would you think that what was brilliant then would be even moderately successful now? Sure it could be, but it also could sink like a rock.

It isn't like adult Super Heroes have never had any appeal. Batman was never shown as a teenager. He maintained popularity pretty well. What could be harder for the average teenage potential comic buyer to relate to than a millionaire genius? What about the millionaire genius who has a cool suit of armor but can't get with all of the hotties because of it like Tony Stark? What about the reporter who actually pretends to NOT be as cool as he really is? Is there anything more diametrically opposed to a kid's point of view than that? Despite these aspects, Batman, Superman, and Iron Man have all held up pretty well despite these aspects of them. It is because these charachters are defined by MORE then these aspects of them. Just like Spider-Man is defined by MORE then just the teenage loser side of the story.

I like the charachter because of the other aspects, and feel that this part is fine, but better taken as the part of a whole of life's experiences. You want to downplay some of the other areas and focus on those aspects. Why one inherently better then the other?

About the Law $ Order vs Lost analogy....

Someone may be more inclined to sit through a random episode of Law & Order absolutely. But look at it in the long run.

Someone who watches and likes both shows would go out of his way to make sure that he catches the next ep of Lost, where if he misses the next L&O it's no big deal.

If someone loans a friend L&O season 1 on DVD or Lost season 1 on DVD, what one would have the friend itching for the next installment?

Getting someone to pick up an issue is important, but if they don't feel compelled to get the next issue, then it didn't work.