BBC 2007 documentary In Search of Steve Ditko

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Based on just the Documentary Credit was definitely an issue for both Stan and Steve, if it was just about money Marvel could've written a huge Cheque for Steve and made that back by the next issue.

If it was about about Money, then you are looking at a number bigger than a "huge Cheque".

By all rights, Ditko deserves royalties for every toy Spider-Man sold, every appearance in any commercial or cereal box, every cartoon, and so on and so forth. Same as say authors of books gets, or George Lucas got for every Star Wars merch sold.

Then you got the fundamental issue that Ross gets Stan to admit. Stan openly says it, he thought up Spider-Man. (From his perspective) He is willing to give Steve some credit but ultimately he was the one who thought Spider-Man up not Steve Ditko.
Whereas Steve from his perspective clearly doesn't think that's good enough.

This is a what if question but if Stan had had a different Artist than Steve would Spider-Man have been as big ?

All Stan Lee came up with, as per Jack Kirby (the first artist who he approached and who invented the idea of the hero living with his Aunt and Uncle), was the name of the character and the idea that he be young. Everything else that defines Spider-Man comes from Steve Ditko. That includes the costume, the colors of the costume, the entire concept of powers, the web-shooters, and also Peter Parker's looks.

Peter Parker in AF#15 is a dead ringer for Ditko in his high school yearbook, and Midtown High School was modeled on the high school in Pennsylvania that Ditko attended.

Ditko peter.jpg

If you consider the fact that most of Spider-Man's income is generated by merchandize and toys, i.e. people see Spider-Man in costume and know his powerset long before they find out he's Peter Parker or hear talk of "Great Power" and "Great Responsibility", then the fact is that Spider-Man's income is largely based on Ditko's design and not anything Stan Lee did.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

If anything, you could argue that Marvel hurt the Green Goblin's appeal after Ditko left. The Green Goblin under Lee/Romita was turned into a regular guy that is only evil when he suffers from amnesia in gag-like ways. This is also where the myth that the Green Goblin had a split personality comes from, or that Marvel was trying to copy Lex Luthor when they made Norman evil again.

According to Gerry Conway, Stan generally preferred to write likeable characters because he saw his characters as an extension of himself. That's why Peter's supporting cast became a bit more likeable in the Romita era. I mean, in the case of Peter's friends that kinda made sense, but in Norman's case it made no sense. If Norman isn't evil and in control of his actions, there is no reason he should be Spider-Man's archenemy. There is nothing at that point that connects them thematically, besides Norman being rich and Peter being poor (which is true about a lot of Spider-Man villains). If that Norman is also your only exposure to Norman, I don't blame anyone who didn't want him brought back. I mean, why would they? There is no "meat" in the Lee/Romita Norman to work with.

People won't know there's another side to the story if one guy is intensely private, and neglects to give straightforward answers.

There is another side to the story by default of there being two people involved in the situation of Ditko leaving. If Ditko didn't want to disclose anything, it doesn't mean there are no longer two sides to the story and that it's ok for others to spread rumors.