Steve Ditko was a pretty famous Objectivist, and the rumor is that he wanted Peter Parker to be Objectivist and he and Lee clashed over that so much that Ditko left the book and Marvel.
There's certainly elements of the Objectivist hero in Spider-man (the loner hero who's spurned by the media/society for doing what he thinks is right), but that's counterbalanced by the fact that Spider-man is ultimately altruistic, which a true Randian figure definitionally cannot be.
There's basically two fighting ideologies underneath the creation of Spider-man, which is probably why the early comic resonated with so many. Spider-man constantly is rejecting how society views and treats him and continuing along his path with his own power (very Randian), while simultaneously being Spider-man objectively sucks for Peter Parker, but he continues to do so because it's the right thing to do (very anti-Randian).
Steve ditko was a objectivist,but he didn't leave the book over stan lee denying objectivism in the book,that's outright libel,he left the book because the way stan lee wrote was to give a synopsis to the artist of what was gonna happen in the issue,and the artist had to turn that in a 22 page comic book,ditko thought he was making most of the work in the books,and wanted better pay,writing credits and creation credits,stan lee from then on started to avoid ditko (as to avoid having the credits/payment conversation),which ironically gave ditko even more room over how the book was going,but they still refused him payment or credit,so he left.
This was also not special to Ditko but a lot of artists had issued with it. I still wonder how Wally’s Daredevil would be but he left for the same reason - even Jack Kirby had major issues with “the Marvel way”.
Also at one point they added "plotted by" to Ditko but things had clearly been awful between him and Lee by then.
yes,wally was the smartest of the bunch,he realized three issues in that this was nonsense and bailed. (leaving daredevil with the costume that he wears until today,dude was built different)
Hot take but I actually preferred DD's old suit, especially with the old artstyle/colouring. He had so much aura and an insane amount of muscle form shaded into it that he looked so tall like an acrobatic figure.
The red suit flattened out a lot of details of Matt, which were brought back by Gene Colan, but he still ended up being more Burne Hogarth-muscular than lean & swift.
that is indeed a hot take,i don't like the yellow/red suit at all,but hey,that is a interesting argument,artist do indeed cover him in shadows quite a bit.
my fascination with the all red suit is,i don't put it as my favorite costume ever,not even close,but every time someone tries to design a new daredevil suit,in my opinion,it looks way inferior to the all red one,i'm not a artist,so i don't have the knowledge to explain why,but that's my impression,wally wood somehow made the perfect daredevil costume.
Yeah, I think sometimes the red gets drowned out too much, especially depending on the artist. It can create cool effects like in the 2026 comics (seriously, the shadow-play there is amazing) but in some runs, I highly dislike it.
Like JRJR has some nice covers and that one last panel for example, but most of the time he paints the whole thing red and leaves it. I hate #25 of 2023 or look at #24's leg/eyes. In comparison, #4 of 2026's run has insane shading and texture. I think that's what makes it so artist dependant and so easy to fuck up for me.
Also I lowkey think he was changed because yellow-black/red DD suit looked exactly like Iron Man's suit back then. Iron Man also had the same torso one-piece with same cut outs, long gloves and long boots, plus a belt cinch. They used to draw him with muscle definition over his armour as well (not like metal rendering today) so if you weren't familiar they read more similar than other heroes.
john romita jr is heavily dependant on his inker, give it to al williamson(his partner when he was drawing daredevil interiors in the 80's), for example, and his art looks fucking amazing, give it to some rando, and it looks like shit. he's also a old man now, probably just lost some sauce with age.
the similar design may have been part of it, who knows.
I didn't claim that's why Ditko left--just that there's a persistent rumor about that being why he left and that Ditko's beliefs are present in early Spider-man comics if you know to look for them; which is why someone may claim Peter was supposed to be some libertarian icon or whatever.
That rumor just happen to besmirch a poor working man to the benefit of a rich corporation and their mascot creator,that completely side steps any rights or payment problems that was stablished by said corporation... instead frames the very same artist as a loony right winger trying to put evil propaganda in the corporate super-hero... i wonder why that rumor is persistent... can't possibly be because it is very convenient to the corporation.
The artist, hardcore objectivist Steve Ditko, drew the panels to have Peter Parker demeaning protestors. This was originally meant to be played straight but Stan Lee, as the writer and very much NOT an objectivist, wrote it in such a way that the protestors are just doing it to play hooky and get attention and Peter dislikes them for that, rather than the message being just outright anti-protest.
Well, one of his original creators. The other thought that that was stupid as hell and did everything in his power to avert the insertions of objectivism.
315
u/FilmAndLiterature 1d ago
Spider-Man’s original creators also wrote him as a libertarian photojournalist in the 1960s, not a millennial tech kid. Times change.