Anyone else think Byrne's Man of Steel was better than Miller's Year One?

[Jim Kelly]

I think there are three essential alterations in Year One--which I call mistakes--that either Denny O'Neil missed or approved of:

1. Alfred is already Bruce's butler.
2. Gordon comes to Gotham from somewhere else--instead of having been a cop in Gotham for a long time.
3. Gordon doesn't have a daughter.

There might be others, but my brain isn't coming up with any at the moment. I didn't really care for any of these "mistakes" in the story.

Others say that Pennyworth being the butler early on is an improvement--well, it does give Bruce someone to talk to. So for expository reasons, Alfred plays that part that Bill Finger brought in Robin to play. On the downside, it gives Bruce a kindly father-figure to raise him--which ought to mute the sense of tragedy in Bruce's life. It makes more sense that Bruce had a horrible childhood after his parents death and thus was never able to come to terms with his loss, remaining stunted in his emotional development. If he has Alfred in his corner, it's hard to figure out why Bruce is so cranky--especially in the O'Neil edited comics that followed Year One, which is the cranky pants era of Batman.

As far as where Gordon comes from--it works for the particular story that Miller is telling in Year One--but in a larger sense not much is gained. Most other tellings of the Batman origin have returned to the old state of affairs. In BATMAN BEGINS, Gordon is already a beat cop in Gotham when the Waynes are murdered. And in GOTHAM, he's the homicide detective working their case.

The omission of Barbara as Gordon's biological daughter is the worst mistake. I realize that Denny O'Neil hated the character--and probably Miller did, too. But if they were going to write Barbara out, then she should have been left out completely. Yet O'Neil keeps her in Batman continuity--so she can later be shot by the Joker. I sometimes wonder about the psychology of these writers and editors who take their frustrations out on these fictional creations by having violence done to them (Keith Giffen was the same way with characters he didn't like). Keeping Barbara in continuity requires a big stupid explanation to explain how she can be Gordon's daughter yet not his daugher in Year One. Why couldn't she just be away at a private school--if Miller didn't want to use her in Year One?

[Grim Ghost]

The whole thought balloon vs. 1st person "diary" captions deserves it's own thread. But I did want to make a brief comment on that. I think both are good in different situations. I think it was short sighted of many modern writers to do away with the thought balloon. I don't see why both can't be used in different stories, or possibly even in the same story if done correctly. They both serve the same basic purpose, it is just going about it in a slightly different manner. The idea of 1st person captions being somehow superior is ridiculous.

I don't care much for Year One or Man of Steel, but Year One has aged better so I'll go with that story as being better.

[Great O.G.U.F.O.O.L.]

Others say that Pennyworth being the butler early on is an improvement--well, it does give Bruce someone to talk to. So for expository reasons, Alfred plays that part that Bill Finger brought in Robin to play. On the downside, it gives Bruce a kindly father-figure to raise him--which ought to mute the sense of tragedy in Bruce's life. It makes more sense that Bruce had a horrible childhood after his parents death and thus was never able to come to terms with his loss, remaining stunted in his emotional development. If he has Alfred in his corner, it's hard to figure out why Bruce is so cranky--especially in the O'Neil edited comics that followed Year One, which is the cranky pants era of Batman.

Hey, I thought you prefered pre-Crisis Batman who wasn't so cranky

Personally I didn't have a problem with this change because it didn't affect the way I thought of either character. The impact of having your parents violently taken from you cannot be covered easily. It just reinforced Alfred's image as a paternal figure to Bruce, an image that had already started appearing pre-Crisis.

[Jim Kelly]

Hey, I thought you prefered pre-Crisis Batman who wasn't so cranky

Personally I didn't have a problem with this change because it didn't affect the way I thought of either character. The impact of having your parents violently taken from you cannot be covered easily. It just reinforced Alfred's image as a paternal figure to Bruce, an image that had already started appearing pre-Crisis.

I do prefer the pre-Cranky Batman, but I think there's a logical inconsistency in the post-Cranky Batman that should be underlined. I'm not against logical inconsistencies, but the Cranky fans seem to think their iteration is the best, most logical, conistent expression of the character.

I don't like any change that rules out past stories. If there is a change there has to be a very good reason for doing it. I remember that the Waynes' butler was Alfred's father. That's an interesting bit of continuity that could have been developed more. I don't think of Alfred as Bruce's father. The ages of the different characters have changed over the years, but if you take the classic Batman--then Gordon seems the age of Bruce's father, Alfred seems like an older brother and Robin a son.

I'm not against tragedy in Bruce's young life. But I don't think it should result in Mr. Cranky-Pants. Bruce overcomes the bad stuff, makes a new life for himself and builds his own family. He's stoic, but he's no Debbie-Downer. On Christmas, Batman helps a petty crook find a Christmas present for his little daughter and sings carols with the GCPD. If someone beats up Robin and leaves him for dead, Batman will turn into a living angel of vengeance--but the Caped Crusader will also help out the Penguin when his Aunt Miranda comes to town, by making Cobblepot look good in her eyes.

Mind you, the first full origin of Batman I ever read was the imaginary story in WORLD'S FINEST COMICS 167 (June '67)--"The New Superman and Batman Team"--by Cary Bates, Curt Swan and George Klein. In that one, Batman (aka Clark Kent) begins his career with the assistance of his butler, Alfred.

A few issues after that Jim Shooter wrote another compelling origin story for Batman and Superman--"Superman and Batman--Brothers," in WORLD'S FINEST COMICS 172 (December '67). Another imaginary story with Swan and Klein art. Between the two of them, I think Bates and Shooter wrote the finest out-of-continuity origin stories for Batman and Superman. There, in the middle of the '60s, you find a lot of the ideas that latter-day writers are now lauded for "inventing."

[sta8541]

I do prefer the pre-Cranky Batman, but I think there's a logical inconsistency in the post-Cranky Batman that should be underlined. I'm not against logical inconsistencies, but the Cranky fans seem to think their iteration is the best, most logical, conistent expression of the character.

I don't like any change that rules out past stories. If there is a change there has to be a very good reason for doing it. I remember that the Waynes' butler was Alfred's father. That's an interesting bit of continuity that could have been developed more. I don't think of Alfred as Bruce's father. The ages of the different characters have changed over the years, but if you take the classic Batman--then Gordon seems the age of Bruce's father, Alfred seems like an older brother and Robin a son.

I'm not against tragedy in Bruce's young life. But I don't think it should result in Mr. Cranky-Pants. Bruce overcomes the bad stuff, makes a new life for himself and builds his own family. He's stoic, but he's no Debbie-Downer. On Christmas, Batman helps a petty crook find a Christmas present for his little daughter and sings carols with the GCPD. If someone beats up Robin and leaves him for dead, Batman will turn into a living angel of vengeance--but the Caped Crusader will also help out the Penguin when his Aunt Miranda comes to town, by making Cobblepot look good in her eyes.

Mind you, the first full origin of Batman I ever read was the imaginary story in WORLD'S FINEST COMICS 167 (June '67)--"The New Superman and Batman Team"--by Cary Bates, Curt Swan and George Klein. In that one, Batman (aka Clark Kent) begins his career with the assistance of his butler, Alfred.

A few issues after that Jim Shooter wrote another compelling origin story for Batman and Superman--"Superman and Batman--Brothers," in WORLD'S FINEST COMICS 172 (December '67). Another imaginary story with Swan and Klein art. Between the two of them, I think Bates and Shooter wrote the finest out-of-continuity origin stories for Batman and Superman. There, in the middle of the '60s, you find a lot of the ideas that latter-day writers are now lauded for "inventing."

Beautiful.

[superduperman]

I think the reason Year One holds up better than MOS is because it is universally adaptable to any number of different versions of Batman. Whereas MOS is clearly designed for one specific version of Superman. I would argue that Year One works as a stand alone story that doesn't need to belong to any particular continuity. As for no daughter, even Miller admits she just kind slipped his mind.

[kingaliencracker]

I love the post-Crisis Superman. But Man of Steel came about only because DC reneged on Byrne in allowing him depict Superman from the very beginning of his career and instead wanted Superman "up to speed" by the time the monthlies relaunched. As such, it's a very broad and simplistic story without anything truly remarkable outside the changes to canon (which would have been done in the monthlies anyway). I'm not saying it's bad. I enjoy MoS very much. I just think it reads more as a guidebook than a masterpiece in storytelling.

Year One, continuity gaffes aside, IS a masterpiece in storytelling and characterization. It's not anywhere close to a guidebook and is rather just an awesome story about the start of Batman's career.

So yeah, I give the nod to Year One.