I don't think this is fair, if the sense is he is more villain-ish.  SPider-man has changed a lot, although I think his connection to the Lee and Ditko Spider-man is similar to our connection to out youth-meaning his changes occurred slowly, over time.  Most were little, and when you look backl, it all adds up big, but it is still the same person.  Unlike, say, the dramatic changes to other characters (which may or may not have occurred because of some big event-i.e. Daredevil getting his life destroyed).

However, he does not act more villain like or less heroric. Gwen, certainly.  But except for the period when the "spider" had taken over, right before the clone saga, Spider-man always does the right thing (at least eventually), doesn't kill, etc.

I also think, even with audience turnover, some characters would still have to be rebooted. Kids and generations change.  First they want Sinatra sounds, then the next generation wants Elvis sounds, then Beatles, then whoever-Bon Jovi whatever. 

Some characters are universal across the generations, give or take, and some are not-they aren't relevant to that new group of kids, or the kids have different experiences that make them want different things, or the kids reject their "older brothers" generation of heroes.

It happens with toys, movies, cartoons, music "sounds" etc.

Which begs the question "When is enough , enough" when do fans say the h*ll with it and stop buying reboots. I would think the ultimate solution would do a total reboot and start with issue 1 and do issue by issue at that point. That way they can erase Spider-man Clone, Death of Lantern to name a few.

If it was good enough for Doc Savage......

Mike

The problem with reboots these days is that they coming far too fast and unexpectedly and the reasons for engaging in some of them are questionable.

As I see it, there are three reasons why reboots of long-standing characters are undertaken:

1.  E-G-O.  That's "ego", pure and simple.  Many times it's Hollywood or "Best-Selling Author" style ego in which a "famous" author, screenwriter or fan-favourite comic writer has an idea for one of the characters s/he grew up with and really wants to muck around with it.  The company usually decides to let the writer have his/her way, hoping to increase sales by promoting the writer's name with the book and the company name.  The company is so busy seeing dollar signs, it fails to consider what kind of damage might be done to the character or series over the long run.  Sometimes it works, but most of the time, it will have to lead to another reboot somewhere down the line when succeeding writers do not know how to follow the first writer's lead in dealing with changes that have been made to said character.  This is why we have had to endure "Indentity Crisis", the "Uber" Batman,  revelations that Norman Osborn raped Gwen Stacy and gave her two children; among other nonsense. 

2.) The second reason for reboots is the laudable goal of finding newer, younger readers. While this is a respectable goal, I question the idea that reboots will increase readership over the long run.  Because of the reboot, for every new reader gained, you will have ten confused older readers who are complaining about all the mucking around.  It's not worth the risk in my opinion.  There is no guarantee that you will even keep the newer readers that have been gained once the rebooted series settles into its inevitable routine.  Let's see if all those new "New Avengers" readers are still with the book after twenty issues.

3.) The third reason for reboots is to cover up mistakes.  Bad writing and editing that has made a series unreadable and inaccessable to new readers. The problem with this is: too many reboots can have the same effect as too many bad stories within the established continuity. Does it even matter anymore that Legion of Super-Heroes has rebooted again?  The feeling of lost confusion that I associate with this book is still present.

No, reboots are not the answer.  The answers are good writing and good editing over the long term and not cheap marketing gimmicks.  The companies that own our favourite characters have to take better care of them.  They have to resist the urge to tell stories that take the characters in directions that are unsuitable. They have to be aware that characters can be degraded over time, if the wrong stories are done.  

 I have no problem with the idea of comic books geared towards adults, I don't understand why ALL comics have to be.

 I like some of the more adult oriented comics, but I'd rather Superman just be a book about a guy who does good and fights the bad guys...why can't we have both?