Steve Ditko actually wrote about Spider-man... A LOT 5 5

[Prince Namor]

Not a fan of Colletta - his Kirby stuff isn't as bad because Jack was a full pencil artist (though he still regularly made it less bombastic) - and his work with the lesser full pencilists was just overly bland. He was inexpensive and fast - a tailor made MVP for assembly line comics. 

[Ken Aldred]

I thought this was quite interesting...

 

[Prince Namor]

Back to Ditko - He created 19 villains in the first 38 issues and he seemed to follow Jack's example - both had come from monster stories and horrific tales of terror and their bad guys followed that trend. Look how ugly their villains were: Mole Man, Vulture, Skrulls, Doc Ock, Dr. Doom, Green Goblin...

Romita and Buscema never understood this - they streamlined the Marvel Universe and made it prettier (Romita by comparison created 3 villains in his first 38 issues - The Rhino, Shocker, and Kingpin) - it worked great in Spider-man's favor, as the real world Romita created made it a soap-opera that gave the book more depth. For the FF, it slowly turned the book into a pale rehash of the same old stories.

[Ken Aldred]

13 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

Eric Stanton was a BDSM/Fetish artist who also shared work studio's with Ditko from 1958-1968. One of his long running characters was called 'Sweeter Gwen'. It is believed the two men helped each other with inking, backgrounds, talking out ideas, etc. 

Not quite what I was thinking about when I said romance comic, more Betty and Veronica, but educational nonetheless.

[kav]

6 hours ago, Ken Aldred said:

I thought this was quite interesting...

 

Damn not a single mention of Colleta's most destructive work-inking Curt Swan in Superman and Action Comics.

[Ken Aldred]

1 hour ago, kav said:

Damn not a single mention of Colleta's most destructive work-inking Curt Swan in Superman and Action Comics.

He ruined a lot of artwork while at DC in the mid seventies. 

[kav]

12 minutes ago, Ken Aldred said:

He ruined a lot of artwork while at DC in the mid seventies. 

Compare Anderson vs Colletta:

[kav]

I know Curt Swan didnt draw such skimpy backgrounds.

[Ken Aldred]

23 minutes ago, kav said:

Compare Anderson vs Colletta:
 

That's terrible. Empty and extremely boring to look at, when compared to Anderson or Klein.

 

 

[kav]

23 minutes ago, Ken Aldred said:

That's terrible. Empty and extremely boring to look at, when compared to Anderson or Klein.

 

 

Even John Forte, who was a terrible artist, was able to ink Swan superbly.

[N e r V]

9 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

Back to Ditko - He created 19 villains in the first 38 issues and he seemed to follow Jack's example - both had come from monster stories and horrific tales of terror and their bad guys followed that trend. Look how ugly their villains were: Mole Man, Vulture, Skrulls, Doc Ock, Dr. Doom, Green Goblin...

Romita and Buscema never understood this - they streamlined the Marvel Universe and made it prettier (Romita by comparison created 3 villains in his first 38 issues - The Rhino, Shocker, and Kingpin) - it worked great in Spider-man's favor, as the real world Romita created made it a soap-opera that gave the book more depth. For the FF, it slowly turned the book into a pale rehash of the same old stories.

So not to in any way shape or form take anything away from Ditko or others who have such creative minds but if you look at any number of characters who have great rogues galleries such as say Batman or The Flash you’ll find a large number of great villains come into existence very quickly in the characters first few years. This is out of necessity since you are basically starting from scratch. As any series matures comics would begin to use a rotation of villains with new ones coming along as needed.

Look up the first 3-4 years of Batman and The Flash I mentioned above and you’ll see the same process of a lot of villains and characters being introduced early on so this was never something unique with Ditko or Kirby. Again I’m cautioning everyone that this isn’t a slight to creators talents but it is a common element found in comic series.

As for Mr. Romita he did a lot of creating in his career that you could look up. As art director for Marvel you could thank him for 2 of their biggest characters in The Wolverine and The Punisher which John Romita designed/created. Not to mention Brother Voodoo, Luke Cage, Kingpin, Rhino, Shocker, and Bullseye. He also gave Spider-Man Robbie Robertson, George Stacy and Mary Jane since his drawing is what fans know not Ditko’s hidden version which we’ll probably never know what his version might have looked like.

Just like it was Dan Decarlo’s look that Archie became known for John Romita provided Marvel’s look on merchandise for decades. 

[N e r V]

2 hours ago, kav said:

I know Curt Swan didnt draw such skimpy backgrounds.

 

2 hours ago, Ken Aldred said:

He ruined a lot of artwork while at DC in the mid seventies. 

I remember when Byrne took over the Fantastic Four the first time in the 1980’s and Joe Sinnott was panned hard too for destroying Byrnes look. When he took over the series again after his X-Men run he got Terry Austin back with Sinnott no where in sight.

Sometimes artist/inker combos don’t work even if both are talented in their own ways. 

[Prince Namor]

2 hours ago, N e r V said:

So not to in any way shape or form take anything away from Ditko or others who have such creative minds but if you look at any number of characters who have great rogues galleries such as say Batman or The Flash you’ll find a large number of great villains come into existence very quickly in the characters first few years. This is out of necessity since you are basically starting from scratch. As any series matures comics would begin to use a rotation of villains with new ones coming along as needed.

19 in 38 issues is extreme - and many of them regular villains for many years. Not sure of anyone who has 19 in the first 3 years.

2 hours ago, N e r V said:

Look up the first 3-4 years of Batman and The Flash I mentioned above and you’ll see the same process of a lot of villains and characters being introduced early on so this was never something unique with Ditko or Kirby. Again I’m cautioning everyone that this isn’t a slight to creators talents but it is a common element found in comic series.

Those are two extreme examples - two of the better rogues galleries ever created - and in the case of the Flash, just not as good or as plentiful as what Ditko did. I'm not sure anyone did. 

2 hours ago, N e r V said:

As for Mr. Romita he did a lot of creating in his career that you could look up. As art director for Marvel you could thank him for 2 of their biggest characters in The Wolverine and The Punisher which John Romita designed/created.

No question - great everlasting characters that he played a part in designing, EIGHT YEARS after he came back to Marvel.

2 hours ago, N e r V said:

Not to mention Brother Voodoo, Luke Cage, Kingpin, Rhino, Shocker, and Bullseye.

Not quite half way to 19... with many extra years to do them. 

2 hours ago, N e r V said:

He also gave Spider-Man Robbie Robertson, George Stacy and Mary Jane since his drawing is what fans know not Ditko’s hidden version which we’ll probably never know what his version might have looked like.

Just like it was Dan Decarlo’s look that Archie became known for John Romita provided Marvel’s look on merchandise for decades. 

I'm not knocking Romita. He's probably one of my two favorite mainstream comic book artists of all time. But he didn't create villains the way Ditko did, or at the pace Ditko did. Not sure anybody ever did. 

There's plenty he was far superior to Ditko at, but creating villains, consistently, wasn't one of them. Even HE admits that.

[N e r V]

Uh, I don’t know. Here’s Lee/Kirby top 19 from the FF first 38 issues:

1 mole man

2 skrulls

3 miracle man

4 dr. Doom

5 kurrgo

6 puppet master

7 impossible man

8 red ghost

9 watcher

10 mad thinker

11 super skrull

12 Rama tut

13 molecule man

14 hate monger

15 diablo

16 attuma

17 dragon man

18 medusa

19 frightful four

* nick fury of CIA

Not knocking Ditko as I said but I’d think the above is impressive since several above not only were all over the a Marvel universe but races like the watcher or Skrulls were part of its foundation of its universe.

 

[Ken Aldred]

3 hours ago, N e r V said:

I remember when Byrne took over the Fantastic Four the first time in the 1980’s and Joe Sinnott was panned hard too for destroying Byrnes look. When he took over the series again after his X-Men run he got Terry Austin back with Sinnott no where in sight.

Sometimes artist/inker combos don’t work even if both are talented in their own ways.

Another great match for John Byrne’s art was Bjorn Heyn, who inked his pencils brilliantly in FF 232, and then disappeared into obscurity. 

[N e r V]

Had some time tonight to also list the Lee/Ditko run of notable villains too:

1 the chameleon 

2 the vulture

3 doc ock

4 the sandman

5 the lizard

6 electro

7 the enforcers

8 mysterio

9 green goblin

10 kraven the hunter

11 the scorpion

12 princess python

13 spencer smythe/spider slayers

14 the molten man

 

Now contrast that with Lee/Romita notable villains from issue #39 thru #95 (Kane began after).

1 the rhino

2 the shocker

3 the kingpin

4 the prowler

5 the kangaroo

Pretty sparse, huh? But there is something of note in this run that Lee/Romita did here vs the Lee/Ditko run. Several villains prior to this had several appearances in those first 38 issues. But after the Kingpin was introduced in issue #50 his storyline as a Spider-Man villain occupied more than 1/3 of the Spider-Man comics for the next 35 issues. That was by design and in the process the Kingpin became not just a major Spider-Man villain but a major Marvel villain. 
 

Lee/Ditko took Spider-Man in one direction and Lee/Romita built on that and did their own thing in yet another direction. Lee left the series around the time of the famous drug issues so he ended on a high note. Romita left even earlier but stuck around making important contributions to the series for the next few years. 
 

I think they all were important to the Spider-Man legacy but their contributions to the series were different so I find it unfair to compare them. 
 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 26, 2020 by N e r V

[VintageComics]

7 hours ago, N e r V said:

I remember when Byrne took over the Fantastic Four the first time in the 1980’s and Joe Sinnott was panned hard too for destroying Byrnes look. When he took over the series again after his X-Men run he got Terry Austin back with Sinnott no where in sight.

Sometimes artist/inker combos don’t work even if both are talented in their own ways. 

I actually loved Sinnott's work on those early Byrne pencils. Sinnott made art look like classic, superhero comics no matter who he was inking.

What I didn't like is how Byrne changed his style in #232 onward. Everyone had big heads and the bodies of teenagers and it drove me crazy when the issues came out. I was a big fan of his work on X-men but honestly, I really forced myself to look past things I didn't like about his new style in his 2nd tenure on the FF.

I think Byrne changed his art style to look more contemporary because Frank Miller was starting to make a big impact at Marvel around this time (1981) and everyone's styles were changing in an effort to either mimic Miller or push the envelope and compete with him (my opinion).

Austin's inks are great but Byrne's new style pencils really kind of ruined it for me.

[VintageComics]

37 minutes ago, N e r V said:

I think they all were important to the Spider-Man legacy but their contributions to the series were different so I find it unfair to compare them.

Agreed. Romita took the focus off of the villains, which eventually became just backdrops to Peter Parker's personal life.

I'd never made the connection to the romance work Romita did until someone mentioned it in this thread but it makes perfect sense as to why Spider-man took the direction he did once Romita took over.

[Unca Ben]

Ditko was also great at creating supporting characters.  yeah, some of these characters were alter-egos of Spidey's villains, but they also played big roles in Peter's private life.
I'd say Spidey had one of the largest and most interesting supporting cast of any super-hero character.
Aunt May
Uncle Ben
J. Jonah Jameson
John Jameson
Flash Thompson
Liz Allen
Betty Brant
Ned Leeds
Frederick Foswell / Patch
Curt Connors & family
Anna Watson
Mary Jane Watson
Gwen Stacy
Harry Osborn
Norman Osborn
Prof Warren

These characters made regular appearances in Ditko's stories.  They all had distinctive looks and personalities (give Stan some credit on the latter).
Ditko even had minor repeating characters like Aunt May's doctor (Bromwell?) and Pete's high school principal (Davis) and high school teacher (another Warren).

Kirby was awesome at creating universes, Ditko was awesome at creating communities neighborhoods (as in friendly. heh).  The most interesting stuff in Ditko's ASM run was Peter's private life. (IMO)

It's interesting that Spidey's costume completely covered his face, which was uncommon at the time, so we didn't see Peter's expressions when he was Spider-Man, but Ditko balanced this with an extensive personal life for Mr. Parker.

Genius.
 

Edited February 26, 2020 by Unca Ben

[sfcityduck]

7 minutes ago, Unca Ben said:

 

It's interesting that Spidey's costume completely covered his face, which was uncommon at the time, so we didn't see Peter's expressions when he was Spider-Man, but Ditko balanced this with an extensive personal life for Mr. Parker.

Genius.
 

Which is why the most important hallmark of Spidey's personality, while in costume, was his dialogue.  And that's why so many people feel that Stan Lee was integral to Marvel's success.

Deadpool is a throwback to Spidey in that way.  

Me, I think that great comics are a marriage of art and pictures.  Ditko's Spidey was visually unique, spider-like, and the perfect H.S. superhero.  A Kirbyesque look would never have worked as well.  But, Stan's dialogue breathed a lot of life into Ditko's pictures.  

I've never really thought the guy who drew a costume was the real creator of a character.  After all, costumes change.  To me, the real creator is the guy who gives a character personality.  In comics, that usually takes both the artist and the writer.  

An obvious example, Wolverine did not become Wolverine until Claremont and Byrne started to breath real life into the character.