QUOTE: 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.

Sure, but what exactly is that concept supposed to be?  From the beginning Peter and the cast changed and evolved.  After a few years they slowed it down a significant deal, but they never went backwards either.  Never read a Stan Lee issue where Peter had to start wearing glasses again for one reason or another.  He never did move back in with Aunt May. 

I know there are those who feel that the "core concept" is "young student superhero."  Fair enough.  But for those of us who feel that the "core concept" is "normal guy superhero" who goes through the same stuff any other person does (although it takes him longer), we have evidence for our side too, y'know?  After watching him graduate high school, move away from home, get his B.S., lose friends, gain friends, attend the weddings and funerals of his peers, have romantic ups and downs - sometimes leading to reconciliation and other times to break-ups, etc., etc., is marriage really that much of a stretch?

If someone wanted to Spider-Man to go on a bold mission into outer space to seek out new life and new civilizations, then yeah, I'd say it's time to move on.  But simply wanting him to stay on the course he's already on isn't "demanding they change the core concept."

Again with the "if you don't want it to be like the way it was, then you have outgrown it" arguement.

If i want something to change because I got bored of it, I have outgrown it. Fine.

Conversely, if you like something and then it changes and you don't like the changes, than IT has outgrown YOU.

What is the sense in insisting that it change back to sout you, wien I kept pace with the changes and enjoy them.

If you say that I have outgrown comics and should quit, then I say that comics have outgrown you and refer you to the back issue bins.

Again...Peter HAS grown up. He HAS changed. He DID get married. How is it that enjoying the medium in the way that is has been for the last 30 years mean that i have outgrown it. have I outgrown it or have I outgrown what YOU think it is?

QUOTE: 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.

You might not want to do that... :-)  The thing about L&O is that a random episode can appeal to hardcore fans and casual fans alike.  You don't need to know a thing about any of the cast members to understand (and in most cases appreciate) what's going on.  Something like Lost, you really do need to be a fan to properly enjoy an episode, because otherwise you miss a lot. 

It's true that shows like Lost do tend to be more likely to create "hardcore fans" than L&O.  But at the same time, it's more likely to lose people who simply don't want to make that kind of investment in a TV show or who feel there is no point in watching unless they want to spend $$$ to catch up on what they've missed.

IIRC, back in the day "fan favorite" tended to be a kiss of death, because it meant only the hardcore fans were watching/reading.

Spider-Man is more than just a guy with spider powers. Sure, if you're talented enough, you can make a wise-cracking married superhero interesting, but you've lost the original character in order to do this.

It's like giving Batman super powers, revealing he's from another planet, and forcing him to get a real job (maybe at a newspaper). The result might be good but why ruin 1 character to create another when you could just create 2 different characters.

The Peter Parker who appeared in the comics for the past 20 years, since the wedding, could have been a different hero entirely. I mean, we never really saw his supporting cast anymore and Aunt May was dead for part of that time.

But whatever you do, it's a mistake to eliminate a *unique* character (teenage superhero who is not a sidekick, who has money problems, and who lives with his elderly aunt).

It's true that shows like Lost do tend to be more likely to create "hardcore fans" than L&O.  But at the same time, it's more likely to lose people who simply don't want to make that kind of investment in a TV show or who feel there is no point in watching unless they want to spend $$$ to catch up on what they've missed.

*******

SER: You can't really argue against 18 years versus 6 (at best).

I will concede that LOST needs to be told the way it is -- sort of like Nip/Tuck. And I'm fine with the show not surviving for as long as a result. However, I often think that a lot of modern comics have fallen apart in the way that The X-FILES did. The X-FILES had the potential to be another L&O (I've always preferred the "monster of the week" episodes) but got so bogged won with its own mythology that it burned out.

It is somewhat fair to point out that a lot of possible viewers pass on Lost because they don't want to make that commitment to getting involved in the show on a weekly basis. It is in many ways like the comic industry over the last decades where if you miss an issue you are lost on the next one. But only to a point.

What is more of a commitment, making sure that you are home on Sunday night at 9:00-10:00 PM every sing week for the next six months (or whatever), or remembering to stop by the comic shop sometime that month to pick up the book?