Comics Why I was very saddened by the artistic shift of Ditko to Romita Sr. in the 60's

[antonydelfini]

This is why i was so saddened by the departure of Steve Ditko and the arrival of John Romita Sr. in the Amazing Spider-Man:

Some critics note that Romita's work, in a sense, turned the Ditko elements of the Amazing Spider-Man title on its head. Recall, if you will, that Spider-Man originally represented a hopeless and mistreated nebbish bludgeoned by circumstance and bullied by all manner of predatious alpha males. Romita's treatment, however, took away a few points of the character's outsider essence; his pencil seemed unable to make even ugly things ugly, so the new art gradually turned Peter Parker into a vigorous and handsome alpha male himself, plus invested him with a female companion (Mary Jane) detailed with such an eyesome manner that Romita's renderings of this character belong in the category of Great Comics Cheesecake (see the work of Nick Cardy and Will Eisner). The eye, at this point, made a lie of Peter Parker's claims to misery; how could such a handsome young man connected with such a knockout female significant other allow himself the luxury of unhappiness?
-http://www.fortunecity.com/tatooine/niven/142/talentpo/tp16.html

The changes Romita gave to Peter did it for me. I was already investe and inlove in seeing a Peter that is ordinary looking, always looked down by others, always an outsider, so why change all that into Peter beings all of a sudden good looking and very sociable and cool? If they started it that way, Peter as a handsome and sociable guy, then i wouldn't be mad because they did not change anything. But since they started out with a different Peter, one that is always hopeless and bullied and considered many as uncool, i already felt love and investment in that character. It's like falling in love with a Bruce Wayne that is rich handsome and popular alpha male and then suddenly turning him into a skinny ugly bullied guy. Do you guys agree with me?

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Steve Ditko's Artwork is my favorite but John Romita Sr. artwork was awesom to. they both brough the characters to life with their beautiful artwork IMO.

 

[antonydelfini]

Steve Ditko's Artwork is my favorite but John Romita Sr. artwork was awesom to. they both brough the characters to life with their beautiful artwork IMO.

Dude i know they're both awesome but that is now what i am talking about.

 

[CConn]

Only a Spider-Man fan would find a reason to criticize one of the best comic artists ever. Stop stupidly wallowing in negativity, it's utterly pointless.

 

[antonydelfini]

Only a Spider-Man fan would find a reason to criticize one of the best comic artists ever. Stop stupidly wallowing in negativity, it's utterly pointless.

I was actually aiming to have an intelligent argument with other posters. I am not dismisiing the fact that Romita Sr. is one of the all time great Spidey artists, I'm talking about the changes he brought to the character. Is that really pointless? If you do not agree with me, just explain why. That is all you have to do. Explain why turning Peter into a handsome and sociable dude from a lonely and ordinary looking outsider is a great transition and I will respect your opinion whatever your reason might be. But do not go here and post that I'm all wrong without explaining why I'm wrong.

 

[CConn]

I was actually aiming to have an intelligent argument with other posters. I am not dismisiing the fact that Romita Sr. is one of the all time great Spidey artists, I'm talking about the changes he brought to the character. Is that really pointless? If you do not agree with me, just explain why. That is all you have to do. Explain why turning Peter into a handsome and sociable dude from a lonely and ordinary looking outsider is a great transition and I will respect your opinion whatever your reason might be. But do not go here and post that I'm all wrong without explaining why I'm wrong.

I never said you're wrong. Please, actually read everything I'm say instead of assuming things. I said this is a pointlessly negative conversation. And hinted that it's ungrateful of us as fans to criticize such a great artist and such a great comic run. That's all.

But, in any case, I'll play by the rules. You want a good little argument about why you're possibly worng? I'll give it to you...

The reason it was alright for Romita to change Peter from a geek into hip cat - the reason it was alright for Peter to be changed, whereas doing it to Bruce Wayne or somebody would've been unheard of - is simply because of where Peter was at that point in his life. He was a teenager. An awkward one. And A LOT of times - in real life - people who were awkward, people who were the geeks in the glasses - go into college, and find themselves, and find some self-esteem, and grow out of their awkward looks and so forth. It honestly makes more sense for Peter to - eventually - grow out of his geekiness than wallow in it. Because - in real life - few people are geeks forever. And, I can outright tell you, no one is who they were in high school. Romita grew Peter up - and, IMO at least - made him even more human by doing so. He progressed Peter rationally and realistically instead of just letting him remain stagnant. And that's exactly what writers and artists should strive to do in comics; rational, well-written, progression. IMO, Romita should be praised for what he did. Not criticized.

 

[antonydelfini]

I never said you're wrong. Please, actually read everything I'm say instead of assuming things. I said this is a pointlessly negative conversation. And hinted that it's ungrateful of us as fans to criticize such a great artist and such a great comic run. That's all.

But, in any case, I'll play by the rules. You want a good little argument about why you're possibly worng? I'll give it to you...

The reason it was alright for Romita to change Peter from a geek into hip cat - the reason it was alright for Peter to be changed, whereas doing it to Bruce Wayne or somebody would've been unheard of - is simply because of where Peter was at that point in his life. He was a teenager. An awkward one. And A LOT of times - in real life - people who were awkward, people who were the geeks in the glasses - go into college, and find themselves, and find some self-esteem, and grow out of their awkward looks and so forth. It honestly makes more sense for Peter to - eventually - grow out of his geekiness than wallow in it. Because - in real life - few people are geeks forever. And, I can outright tell you, no one is who they were in high school. Romita grew Peter up - and, IMO at least - made him even more human by doing so. He progressed Peter rationally and realistically instead of just letting him remain stagnant. And that's exactly what writers and artists should strive to do in comics; rational, well-written, progression. IMO, Romita should be praised for what he did. Not criticized.

IMO, Romita should be praised for what he did. Not criticized.[/quote]

Anybody can criticize anybody. In movies, comics, literature, even the best gets criticized. There's nobody out there who should be immune from critics. If there's somebody people should not criticize, it's God. Maybe Romita is god to you.

And A LOT of times - in real life - people who were awkward, people who were the geeks in the glasses - go into college, and find themselves, and find some self-esteem, and grow out of their awkward looks and so forth. It honestly makes more sense for Peter to - eventually - grow out of his geekiness than wallow in it. Because - in real life - few people are geeks forever. And, I can outright tell you, no one is who they were in high school. Romita grew Peter up - and, IMO at least - made him even more human by doing so. He progressed Peter rationally and realistically instead of just letting him remain stagnant.

That's very true in a sense. But his physical looks changed a lot too? He actually became a hunky looking guy! It's one thing to gain confidence and stuff, that's great character development, i really like the fact that he got it on with MJ, but to make an ordinary looking guy suddenly look like a hunk is wrong! If Romita just drew an ordinary looking Peter but with confidence, not ugly nor handsome, instead of turning him into a handsome guy, I would have loved it instead of just like it. And that is where the rational and realistic progression you said is negated.

 

[antonydelfini]

I never said you're wrong. Please, actually read everything I'm say instead of assuming things. I said this is a pointlessly negative conversation. And hinted that it's ungrateful of us as fans to criticize such a great artist and such a great comic run. That's all.

But, in any case, I'll play by the rules. You want a good little argument about why you're possibly worng? I'll give it to you...

The reason it was alright for Romita to change Peter from a geek into hip cat - the reason it was alright for Peter to be changed, whereas doing it to Bruce Wayne or somebody would've been unheard of - is simply because of where Peter was at that point in his life. He was a teenager. An awkward one. And A LOT of times - in real life - people who were awkward, people who were the geeks in the glasses - go into college, and find themselves, and find some self-esteem, and grow out of their awkward looks and so forth. It honestly makes more sense for Peter to - eventually - grow out of his geekiness than wallow in it. Because - in real life - few people are geeks forever. And, I can outright tell you, no one is who they were in high school. Romita grew Peter up - and, IMO at least - made him even more human by doing so. He progressed Peter rationally and realistically instead of just letting him remain stagnant. And that's exactly what writers and artists should strive to do in comics; rational, well-written, progression. IMO, Romita should be praised for what he did. Not criticized.

IMO, Romita should be praised for what he did. Not criticized.[/quote]

Anybody can criticize anybody. In movies, comics, literature, even the best gets criticized. There's nobody out there who should be immune from critics. If there's somebody people should not criticize, it's God. Maybe Romita is god to you.

And A LOT of times - in real life - people who were awkward, people who were the geeks in the glasses - go into college, and find themselves, and find some self-esteem, and grow out of their awkward looks and so forth. It honestly makes more sense for Peter to - eventually - grow out of his geekiness than wallow in it. Because - in real life - few people are geeks forever. And, I can outright tell you, no one is who they were in high school. Romita grew Peter up - and, IMO at least - made him even more human by doing so. He progressed Peter rationally and realistically instead of just letting him remain stagnant.

That's very true in a sense. But his physical looks changed a lot too? He actually became a hunky looking guy! It's one thing to gain confidence and stuff, that's great character development, i really like the fact that he got it on with MJ, but to make an ordinary looking guy suddenly look like a hunk is wrong! If Romita just drew an ordinary looking Peter but with confidence, not ugly nor handsome, instead of turning him into a handsome guy, I would have loved it instead of just like it. And that is where the rational and realistic progression you said is negated.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Although I kinda agree in principal, this is an argument that's also 40 years late and a bit redundant at this point. If JR didn't change Peter Parker's look some other artist would have done it eventually. Now think of all the changes artistically he's been through SINCE John Romita Sr (Spidey's giant felix eyes (ala McFarlane), Peter Parker's aging and de-aging over the past couple decades, Buscema's Peter Parker looks different from JRJR's Peter Parker who looks different from Bagley's Peter Parker who looks different from Larsen's Peter Parker... yada yada yada you get the point). Peter's look has changed so many times since the 60's that he no longer bares a resemblance to Ditko's version or Romita's version. Sad but true.

 

[CConn]

Anybody can criticize anybody. In movies, comics, literature, even the best gets criticized. There's nobody out there who should be immune from critics. If there's somebody people should not criticize, it's God. Maybe Romita is god to you.

No, Romita isn't God to me. All I'm saying is, it seems like, 90% of the posts made in this particular board are about bellyaching.

That's very true in a sense. But his physical looks changed a lot too? He actually became a hunky looking guy! It's one thing to gain confidence and stuff, that's great character development, i really like the fact that he got it on with MJ, but to make an ordinary looking guy suddenly look like a hunk is wrong! If Romita just drew an ordinary looking Peter but with confidence, not ugly nor handsome, instead of turning him into a handsome guy, I would have loved it instead of just like it. And that is where the rational and realistic progression you said is negated.[/quote]As I said, it often happens in real life that people grow out of awkward physical appearances. Y'know, they lose the ache, noses and mouths that seem overly large are diminished as a person's face matures and grows. That's perfectly normal. As for Hunky? Maybe Peter started working out, or more likely, maybe battling bad guys every single day actually build muscle on Peter. If that's unrealistic to you, you're not living in reality.

 

[CConn]

Although I kinda agree in principal, this is an argument that's also 40 years late and a bit redundant at this point. If JR didn't change Peter Parker's look some other artist would have done it eventually. Now think of all the changes artistically he's been through SINCE John Romita Sr (Spidey's giant felix eyes (ala McFarlane), Peter Parker's aging and de-aging over the past couple decades, Buscema's Peter Parker looks different from JRJR's Peter Parker who looks different from Bagley's Peter Parker who looks different from Larsen's Peter Parker... yada yada yada you get the point). Peter's look has changed so many times since the 60's that he no longer bares a resemblance to Ditko's version or Romita's version. Sad but true.

I wouldn't particularly say it's sad.

Every single comic artist out there has his (or her) own style. That's what makes them unique, that's what makes them, well, talented. antonydelfini brought up Batman, and y'know, Batman looks totally different when he's drawn by, say, Neal Adams, and then, say, Andy Kubert.

It's a totally different design and interpretation. But that isn't a bad thing, it's just different artists having their own styles and techniques and interpretations.

Spider-Man shouldn't still look like Ditko and Romita's designs. Just as Batman shouldn't look like Bob Kane's design. It's been 40 years, the artists have changed, the methods of making the art has changed, and that should be reflected in the finished product.

I just can't imagine why anyone would want anything in comics to remain forever the same, forever stagnant. Obviously, different isn't always better, but when it is better - or at least - just as good, it is good.

 

[Joker]

Just as Batman shouldn't look like Bob Kane's design.

he should still have that old original costume though...boy was that thing bad ass

 

[CConn]

he should still have that old original costume though...boy was that thing bad ass

That really should have come back at some point.

Really.

 

[Dragon]

But honestly- there wasn't nay major changes other than the stylistic differences that John and steve had anyway. I'm sure no one wanted John to try and mimic Steve's style.

And it isn't as though Steve's version of Peter wasn't handsome- hell- the guy had the most popular girl at midtown High chasing him around in Liz Allen, not to mention the very lovely Ms. Brant. And it was while Steve was still on the book that both Gwen Stacy and MJ (albeit unrevealed) were both introduced. A guy doesn't score that much hotness being unattractive (Well without a big bank account or being a TV comedian anyway).

 

[freemadison]

Although I kinda agree in principal, this is an argument that's also 40 years late and a bit redundant at this point. If JR didn't change Peter Parker's look some other artist would have done it eventually. Now think of all the changes artistically he's been through SINCE John Romita Sr (Spidey's giant felix eyes (ala McFarlane), Peter Parker's aging and de-aging over the past couple decades, Buscema's Peter Parker looks different from JRJR's Peter Parker who looks different from Bagley's Peter Parker who looks different from Larsen's Peter Parker... yada yada yada you get the point). Peter's look has changed so many times since the 60's that he no longer bares a resemblance to Ditko's version or Romita's version. Sad but true.

My favorite Parker's were by JRJR and Bagley

 

[Doc_OCK_4MUGEN]

If we should complain about an artist it should be about Humberto Ramos or Francisco Herrera... now those two don't know how a human looks...

 

[Dark Spidey]

If we should complain about an artist it should be about Humberto Ramos or Francisco Herrera... now those two don't know how a human looks...

Yeah but that's their style. I've actually learned to appreciate it on some level. Their Spider-Man poses are pretty cool.

 

[DACrowe]

I liked hte progression. His changing was Peter growing up and prrogressing (something writers/artists forget about today). While I do agree that it is a little abrupt that after Ditko leaves for good with ASM 38 I believe by ASM 42 Peter is completely hip and cool and by ASM 50 he is a hunk.

You'd see more of a small baby step rogression. Something I honestly see Sam Raimi doing in the movies for the record, but that is a different thread. But back then pacing and depth of exploration wasn't the driving force of Spider-Man comics or any comics. It was the WAM and the BAM. Lee/Romita delivered that but lost some of the quirkiness of Ditko's world. However, in its place they discovered what has been the golden age of Spidey comics and where comics like Ultimate or Spider-Man: Blue try to imitate and is the biggest source of inspiration for the tone of the movies and cartoons (though you can see heavy Ditko influences in the movies and '80s Stern/DeFalco storylines/storytelling in the '90s cartoon, etc, etc, yadda yadda)....the point is it brought something new.

As much as I liked Ditko's slow progression (I think Peter losing his introverted geeky qualities as being his principal image began with Master Planner which in many ways was the climax of Peter's early Ditko years and high school years) he was less interested in the normal life of Parker and Betty Brant, Liz Allen, etc. were bland. Under Romita's touch Gwen grew a personality (mind you not written the deepest but again it was '60s comic books) Harry Osborn became much more than some prick, Flash Thompson grew a personality and a growing character arc of his own to the point where he was Peter's closest friend in the '80s who looked up to Parker and was his best man at his wedding (something I hate Joey Q and Peter David for retconning for absolutely NO REASON recently).

And it was era of the Coffee Bean gang. It was maybe not realistic for that big of a transistion so quickly but neither was the rest of the comics and the pay off was worth it IMO. Even if Peter going from introverted geek who has trouble talking to Gwen or dealing with Betty in fivei ssues goes to a guy openly hitting on MJ every five seconds. If you want a slower progression watch the movies.

For the era and time it worked. Albeit a transistion period would be worth seeing and now when we have flashbacks to "forgotten" or "untold" events Peter seems a little more humble and geeky if still a hip cat, though.

 

[stillanerd]

But honestly- there wasn't nay major changes other than the stylistic differences that John and steve had anyway. I'm sure no one wanted John to try and mimic Steve's style.

And it isn't as though Steve's version of Peter wasn't handsome- hell- the guy had the most popular girl at midtown High chasing him around in Liz Allen, not to mention the very lovely Ms. Brant. And it was while Steve was still on the book that both Gwen Stacy and MJ (albeit unrevealed) were both introduced. A guy doesn't score that much hotness being unattractive (Well without a big bank account or being a TV comedian anyway).

Well, everybody knows that Ditko couldn't draw women (and probably couldn't have pulled off Romita's Mary Jane in a million years), although he was improving artistically with each issue.

But it was more than just stylistic changes when Romita took over. The overall tone, with regards to Peter's relationships between supporting characters, really changed as well. For example, before Romita took over, Peter is still pinning over Betty, but immediately after Romita takes over, Peter practically regards her as almost a sister rather than the love of his life. Ned and Peter were practically coming to blows and then they reach a mutual understanding. Peter and Gwen's banter was on the level of those romantic comedies where the two of them can't stand each other and yet can't help but be drawn to each other to where they became more flirtacious. (This actually lead me to think that Ditko most likely originally wanted a love triangle with Betty and Gwen--with a preferance towards Betty--with MJ as a running gag as the unseen "beauty" that Peter never has time to see). And it isn't long after that when Peter's ready to move out and room up with Harry, who mere issues ago each thought were stuck-up snobs. Also, Peter is a lot more confident and talking "hip-cat" slang than he did when Ditko was doing the art; he even buys a motorcycle as a reflection of his new hipper attitude. Obviously, you can say that Peter "matured" and that, as in real life, he became more assertive and not regarded as the unpopular nerd as he was in high school. But actually, because more college age kids where reading Spidey, Stan probably figured he could make Peter relate to his audience better by making him less of a "square." I'd also argue that, among other things, that this was part of the "creative differences" between Lee and Ditko that lead to their break-up. (Remember also that Ditko was actually plotting most of the stories and Stan Lee did the dialogue). And, looking through the letters pages of those older issues, there were quite a few fans who didn't like this "hipper" version of Peter Parker and preferred the "squarer" Peter Parker when Ditko was on the title. It certainly would be an interesting exercise to imagine what Amazing Spider-Man would've been like from a story and character development standpoint if Ditko had remained on the title.

 

[Venomfan]

wouldnt a lot of those problems be Stan Lee's fault and not Romitas?

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

I agree with DACrowe. Peter grew up over the years. When He was in Highschool, he was a very nerdy person. But after a while and yers go on, he got more Hansom. Same thing happens in the Spidey films. People get older and their appearances change over time and thats what has happened to Peter over the years. I think it would be unrealistic if the Characters looks didn't change over the years.

 

[CConn]

I said it before Crowe.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Let's look at basic facts; superheroes tend to be handsome.

 

[3dman27]

Aside From The Thing That Is

 

[mre]

This is why i was so saddened by the departure of Steve Ditko and the arrival of John Romita Sr. in the Amazing Spider-Man:

Some critics note that Romita's work, in a sense, turned the Ditko elements of the Amazing Spider-Man title on its head. Recall, if you will, that Spider-Man originally represented a hopeless and mistreated nebbish bludgeoned by circumstance and bullied by all manner of predatious alpha males. Romita's treatment, however, took away a few points of the character's outsider essence; his pencil seemed unable to make even ugly things ugly, so the new art gradually turned Peter Parker into a vigorous and handsome alpha male himself, plus invested him with a female companion (Mary Jane) detailed with such an eyesome manner that Romita's renderings of this character belong in the category of Great Comics Cheesecake (see the work of Nick Cardy and Will Eisner). The eye, at this point, made a lie of Peter Parker's claims to misery; how could such a handsome young man connected with such a knockout female significant other allow himself the luxury of unhappiness?
-http://www.fortunecity.com/tatooine/niven/142/talentpo/tp16.html

The changes Romita gave to Peter did it for me. I was already investe and inlove in seeing a Peter that is ordinary looking, always looked down by others, always an outsider, so why change all that into Peter beings all of a sudden good looking and very sociable and cool? If they started it that way, Peter as a handsome and sociable guy, then i wouldn't be mad because they did not change anything. But since they started out with a different Peter, one that is always hopeless and bullied and considered many as uncool, i already felt love and investment in that character. It's like falling in love with a Bruce Wayne that is rich handsome and popular alpha male and then suddenly turning him into a skinny ugly bullied guy. Do you guys agree with me?

I believe it was Stan Lee who wrote the stories. Romita drew the pictures.
If you recall Ditko left Spider-Man because of differences of opinon with Lee on what he thought Spider-Man should be.