There are exceptions (Tezuka’s Blackjack comes to mind) but for the most part in manga, the reader can expect that every adaptation will stay true to the original. I tend to find manga much more rewarding because I don’t worry so much that there’s a radical turn coming up that completely transforms the series.

Is it? If the creator decided to write Ranma 1/2 vol 36 as a Sci-Fi Apocalypse, would it be sacrosanct? If they had stopped after vol 1 and said “I don’t care anymore, do whatever you want”, and someone volunteered to write vol 2-35 – with the blessings of the creator, but not the guidance – out of their love for the characters and the potential for storytelling, would those stories be inherently crap?

Yes, corporate ownership places The Brand before storytelling. And yes, this will often limit the stories (that are allowed to be) told, and at the same time (paradoxically) create more stories simply to have something to publish. But all these Cassandran prophecies about how anyone else doing Ranma 1/2 would be the end of life as we know it, or how no character created before your lifetime can have any ressonance are complete BS.

Yes, the independant creator has a few less restrictions placed on their talent. But it doesn’t guarantee their talent. Any number of original works are soulless tripe. And many more were done in the hopes of making money, no matter how “creative” the creator may be. It is only this blind worship of the individual artist – and corresponding demonization of the corporation – that keeps people from remembering that 95% of everything is crap.

Why would anyone want to read about characters that have been around long before they were born, and will probably still be around doing the same routine long after they are dead.

Honestly, I don’t think that is the problem. Personally speaking, most of my favorite characters were created long before I was born. But maybe that is just me.

Anecdotally, I do have nieces and nephews who are big Batman and Spiderman fans (and for that matter, Scooby Do). All of which were created long before they were born. And the do react well when I give them comic books featuring them as presents.

However, they do react much more ecstatically when I give them DVD videos.

So I don’t think the problem is that the characters were created long ago. I think that we’ve become a much more video centered culture.

There is a good counter-example to this: Harry Potter. There you have an essentially super-hero character that is popular in both book and video formats.

Hence, a magical girl series like Amethyst can suddenly become a dark story where the heroine switches between whimpering and getting beaten… and suddenly there’s little point in reading Amethyst. You wouldn’t see that happen in Japanese comics, Ranma is always Ranma because the creator is allowed to end it when she walks away.

Dave: great estimate work. Thank you for adding that.

To throw oil on the fire: so that means, if we continue estimating, that the total size of the female audience for superhero comics is about (.08x300K =) 24,000 women? My husband went to a college larger than that!

I don’t think that’s a “what if?”–it’s true. Many people are willing to toss in an occasional graphic novel into their book reading habits these days, but not many want to go down to the local comic shop every week to read their stories in installments. The total size for traditional super-hero comics seems to be about 300,000, which definitely a niche, not mainstream.