If 2.5 years is recent… then, sure. But I didn’t trade the old model in for this one… 
Lol
I watched it, it came on right after Funhouse, which is an underrated gem
1 Like
I was “half watching” Funhouse.
Was working on computer and my TV is on right behind me. Was kind of cheating and turning my head more than once in a while 
Dammit…was hoping this was going to turn into a soap opera thread…
It looks a little melty. Maybe a wee bit too close to that star
2 Likes
Looks like shalla bal from the movie.
Except much better
It’s rare when Middleton misses…even mediocre covers are usually decent. This is one exception.
Her face don’t look right. Almost robotic.
1 Like
All the covers for #1 are trash.
And the story was meh. Clearly aimed at kids.
Linda Danvers returns…
I was thinking the Artgerm cover looked like the Milly Alcock version of Supergirl based on the trailer for the upcoming movie. So I went back and watched the trailer on a computer screen instead of my phone and realized almost all of Supergirl’s scenes have her face created/altered by AI.
That cover is bad.
3 Likes
Really? This is the A cover for issue #1 relaunch?
All of the open order covers are sub par. I’ll wait for the inevitable second print…
2 Likes
Seems like editorial asleep at the wheel. Cropping in tighter and making sure a Major Character isn’t covering half their face would have helped, but yeah – this doesn’t seem like a #1A cover.
This cover confuses me faw shaw.
2 Likes
I will say that he tries different styles and compositions. Agreed that this doesn’t really succeed, but I give him credit for trying. So many just stick with their one thing.
1 Like
I’m a fan of Jock’s stuff, but I"ll admit this isn’t one I’m feeling.
“How can I draw as little as possible” … 
2 Likes