William F. - why not keep the original hero and create a new one? Because no one wants to be first and everyone wants to be second. As my friend Mr. Hague noted... " 'regular' readers are pretty much just fans of the logo and the name." A new character would likely either be a somewhat duplicate example of an existing hero, such as Captain America or Superman, and considered a rip off of an existing hero; or it would be an original character* and written off as an entirely unknown entity not worthy of attention when the readers want to buy the latest duplicate of Daredevil (but he's deaf! And Jewish! IT'S AMAZING!)

If there were new audience, then I think there would be room for new comics and characters. Shucks, if Marvel ended up wagging the dog, there might even be a market for new characters introduced in the movies. It makes me miss "Showcase" and "The Brave and the Bold" - DC's old tryout comics.

But right now, my impression is that the reader base is the one that's been around, and that wants to see THEIR characters in THEIR type of stories. New is anathema to them, and won't attract their dollars.

*And yes, there are plenty enough original concepts left for super heroes and villains.

A Hydra-Cap story in 1975 would probably have been 2 or 3 parts. But today it was a dozen or so issues - and lots of tie ins.

If a character has endured for decades, then there are more than one version of the character that were successful. From my viewpoint the Michelinie/McFarlane Spider-Man was not (and still is not) Lee/Ditko's version (nor is it Lee/Romita's, Lee/Kane's, Conway/Andru's, etc).

The success of Michelinie/McFarlane certainly wasn't owed to being faithful to Lee/Ditko (I didn't like it, that's when I dropped the title)

Slott did many things in his ten-year stint and I enjoyed most of them.

Some of my preferred runs are Untold Tales and Sean McKeever's Mary Jane, so I do like the high school version but that has never prevented me from liking JMS' run (the run that made me return to following the character).

Now, the thread title is about the Hulk. Al Ewing decided to return to the horror roots of the character and that works beautifully. I like the Herb Trimpe Hulk, the Buscema Defenders Hulk, Peter David's Hulk, Bruce Jones' Hulk, Jason Aaron's Hulk (with Banner as a crazy Dr Moreau). These are all very different.

With only four issues, Al Ewing may prove to be the best writer. But most people wouldn't consider the Lee/Kirby run as horror. So does that prove the original version is the best? Remember Lee/Kirby Hulk got cancelled after six issues. But I'd say it was because it lacked an identity. Kirby tried to give him more powers with cosmic rays, including the power of flight, which Lee fixed at the writing stage! When you look at it, neither the FF, Spider-Man, Iron Man, nor Thor had a clear identity. They all faced the same array of aliens, monsters and freaks. And then Spider-Man narrowed to urban crime, Thor to mythology, Iron Man to corporate adventure and the FF to sci-fi.

But you have to wonder if what made these characters enduring was the multiple interpretations possible at their inception rather than the precise identity they settled on later.

This whole thread is why I started a similar topic a few weeks ago about whether these gradual distortions of the characters over time was inevitable from the start.  Like computer files transferred from one storage system to another, they slowly build up corrupted data.  It seems there was no way all the people working on these characters for so long could possibly all keep the same understanding intact as they were passed from one team to another.  I wish it could have been.

I think Marvel editors and creators know there's nothing new left to keep the attention of mostly the same readers they've had for decades.  I'm speaking in terms of the super hero genre.  There are lots of new settings and characters in independent comics.  All Marvel can do is try to split the main heroes into other versions like Red Hulk or Old Man Logan or Ultimate Spider-Man, or create younger versions like Ms. Marvel to pass on as much from the popularity of their original characters as they can.

Doesn't bug me at all. The LOGAN movie was much better than the comics story that inspired it!

I'd have less of a problem with Miles Morales if he wasn't calling himself "Spider-Man." 

That the Ultimate line collapsed and was folded into the mainstream Marvel Universe is unfortunate, especially as it kicked Miles back into second-class status. A separate identity all his own in which he might shine might be seen as a good idea, but it could also be seen as the last step in stripping him of his status as the Spider-Man of the Ultimate Universe.