Can you spot the subtle difference between JLA covers

[icon_uk]

Newsarama has posted the final cover to Jim Lee's JLA #1 which isn't quite the same as the originally released version.



Here are  the full size images side by side...



And since I was in a giffing mood...



And here is the David Finch variant


I have to say, whilst it IS nice to see Wonder Woman at the front, the collar makes it look like she's wearing a bow tie, a look which can look absolutely delightful on some woman, but doesn't quite work for Diana.

Comments

I get what you're saying but..

[steverodgers5]

I was meaning more the addition to his arms. Seems unnecessary, for him. (Can't really subscribe to the notion that some folks have, that Thor is somehow not as durable/bulletproof as the likes of The Thing and Hercules..)
And it often looks awful. (Especially on screen..) I kind like the old colurful look of Kirby's costume. It's bold like Superman's iconic look. And I think when you encase him in a more generic dull grey suit of armour you lose a lot of the striking visuals that Thor has.

(And I really don't really think Thor's gonna mind showing of his biceps. Have you seen the latest clips/screen grabs of Thor in the avengers movie? Chris Hemsworth certinly hasn't beeen slacking in his work outs LOL!)

P.S The only exception to all this was in the later Walter Simonson issues. i.e When Hela cursed him with brittle bones, then he really did need a suit of armour to keep himself from getting injuries in the types of battles he regularly gets in. And even that didn't help him much against the Midgard Serpent!