Although I agree with Matt's take that comics featuring "classic" superheroes should be all ages, we could discuss how childhood itself is a very different thing than when we were kids. Are children more "adult" than we used to be? I don't know. I don't think "all ages" entertainment should be dismissed, but I also don't see too many G-rated movies in release any longer; even stuff aimed at kids is PG.

Maybe the terrain of childhood moves on and encourages us to rethink our definitions and paradigms.

That doesn't mean that I want to see Spider-Man dealing with mortgages and spider-offspring and the onset of male pattern baldness by any stretch-- he should've stayed a teenager (just like the X-Men should have) and never grown into his college years or gotten married. But that's my take-- others may (and probably will) feel differently about "their" Spider-Man.

And forget the Marvel Age stuff and Johnny DC.  I started collecting comics when I was 12, and I wanted real comics.  If you publish accessible, classic comics, you do not need to do this, especially DC, with all their titles and lines: Legends of the Dark Knight, JLA & JSA: Classifed, All Star Superman & Batman and Robin.  You could tell all kinds of stories separately from the main titles.  Throw in Vertigo and you could do whatever you want.

Heck, you do not even need continuity.  Batman is Batman, Superman is Superman.  Who cares what happenes in Superman/Batman (World's Finest)?  And Justice League, forget about it!  Does it really matter?  Do you really care?  It's make believe.

If you like Batman, read Batman.  If you like Superman, read Superman.  If you like to see them together, read Superman/Batman.  If you like all the heroes together, read JLA.  Why should DC have to make it all fit together?  Why do readers care?  As long as the characters are true to themselves, why do you have to explain how Batman is in Gotham, Metropolis, and on Mars all at the same time?  You don't!  He is not real!  These are comics.  The only continuity one should worry about is in the very nature of the character and in the titles themselves, as editors and creators should not contradict themselves too much within their work.

This is how it worked in the Silver Age of DC comics, and it worked.  It worked in Man of Steel too, because JB's Superman was still Superman, regardless of his changes.  One could argue he was more Superman than what Superman become.

The real difference between DC and Marvel is that Marvel was created by one writer/editor and 2 artists.  It was very easy to create a whole Marvel Universe, as opposed to the DC Universe, which had always been a mix of different universes created by different writers and artists working in separate titles. 

Julie Scwartz, however, was pulling a Stan Lee during the Silver-Age.  He too created a new universe availible in different titles, but his Superman & Batman were hardly seen in JLA and the big two were mostly out of his hands.  Regardless, his Superman & Batman were still Superman & Batman,  even though they were separate from their counterparts in the main titles.  He proved you could enjoy comics without worrying about continuity.  Who cares what happened in Mort & Bob's titles.  It didn't matter.

This could still work if you let it.  Look at what happened when DC tried to fix it the first time.  They couldn't let go of the past and the first new earth was more confusing with its inconsistencies than the multiverse was.

We didn't need a crisis to go from the Golden-Age Superman to the Silver-Age Superman, and we did not need one to get to Man of Steel either.  You just do it.  Marvel could have done it with Spider-Man: Chapter One.  Update the origin as necessary without changing the nature of the character, then move back into the regular series and tell classic stories.  Spidey no longer had to be married.  You could have done whatever you wanted.  I prefer the idea of a new first issue to help disconnect the title from the previous volume.  Superman #1, Amazing Spider-Man #1, and even Hulk #1 are good ideas.  They indicate a fresh start, not from the character, but from the weight of previous continuity.  I wish more people liked it, but money talks, and the market decides.  But I digress...

Although I agree with Matt's take that comics featuring "classic" superheroes should be all ages, we could discuss how childhood itself is a very different thing than when we were kids. Are children more "adult" than we used to be?

----

At least from what I've observed, no, they aren't. Certainly times have changed and kids are exposed to more things that used to be "taboo". But I don't think kids are any more sophisticated or mature than when I was kid. I think adults tend to forget how sophisticated they were as kids (speaking in relative terms).

Remember this.  I want to find a way to give everybody what they want.  If multiple titles sell, how is that bad?  If you do not like them, just buy one.  Better yet, buy the one you like.

Oh, you might not have every issue?  What a shame!

Remember this.  I want to find a way to give everybody what they want.  If multiple titles sell, how is that bad?  If you do not like them, just buy one.  Better yet, buy the one you like.

Oh, you might not have every issue?  What a shame!

---

And when the readers of the all-ages line grow up and desire a "mature" title?  And they look at the other line and find that continuity has outpaced them? Do you start another line for them as well?

There are ways of addressing themes that appeal to older readers in a superhero universe. I thought Gotham Central was a good example. Didn't have too many readers, which makes me think that the older fanboys are less interested in mature titles and more interested in having characters age along with them, which is why your idea won't work.