I’m sure most of us have seen this wonderful work of art on the cover of Wonder Woman 1984 #1 by Eisenburg. Yes, it’s terrible, empowering, and whatever else you want it to be. The responses on twitter are quite comical actually. Do any distasteful covers from the past hold any value?
People like Milo Manara variants, so yea, ugly covers have their fanbase and value.
Hey, I like that variant!
1 Like
I like it.
. Meh. Not for me.
Reminds me of an old Sega Master system game cover art.
1 Like
That cover is ridiculous. I literally don’t even know what character is being depicted on that cover. It looks like some random, nobody girl dressed up as WW for Halloween in an okay, half finished, homemade costume (and I should know…I own, and have worn, a fully finished, homemade WW costume for Halloween).
artist draws aliens, so she drew an alien in a ww costume
It’s so ugly, now I have to have it…
1 Like
We need these pictures…
Ummm… no we don’t!
In all seriousness, I think that was the artist’s intent. It’s not supposed to be Diana.
Edit: Found the tweet from the artist; it’s an alien character wearing an everyday version of the WW outfit.
wonderbread woman
2 Likes
Well, good job then by the artist. Lol. That does change my perspective, somewhat. I appreciate the info. 
1 Like
I’ve never heard of that stipulation before. The contract itself is under a NDA, but I’ve never heard of a store being refrained from advertising the print run.
Stadium, as much as I do not agree with them, uses the words ‘print run’ for all their exclusives, including the Marvel variants they do. In fact, all the stores, including CX, used to advertise with ‘print runs’.
Yeah, probably different NDA for different shops… I just know of one retailer who claimed such things once, which is pretty much breaking the NDA I think… so I won’t say who… 
Maybe it’s the way they use it as well… print run can mean a lot of things… IDK… I think it’s all kind of silly.