Therefore, when I say a cover looks like colorforms, I mean that it appears as though the artist drew a backdrop and then used photoshop to place a separate image on to the backdrop, giving it a disjointed feel that is similar to what colorforms look like.

Thanks.

Whether people view the image like that or not, I believe that was Bernet's intent, and his intent seems to be to subtly take the reader from a scene of "Oh lord! Some varmits are torturing Jonah Hex!" to "Oh wait...confederate flag? And are those Union soldiers?"

I think that's a nice, nuanced approach by Bernet, rather than having the cover be the union soldiers in the forefront, clearly torturing Jonah.

This cover beats you over the head with this.

The "hero" is the Confederate.

The "villains" are the Union. The "villains" are the emancipated black Union soldier, present for a lynching of a Southern soldier.

All of this, though, is not immediately present in the image - at first glance, it's just Jonah Hex being tortured. The extra information is subtler, in the background (and by what Jonah is draped in).

No closer inspection necessary.

But hey, let's check the dictionary - "1. a subtle difference or distinction in expression, meaning, response, etc."

Works for me, but I can see how it might not for you.

There is NOTHING subtle about the Jonah Hex cover. Slightly faded figures against a single colored background does not equal subtlety. It's shorthand for ghostly, it's readily apparent on the first glance.

Nuanced and Subtle would be the Fables cover, where the tentacles are disguised as a wartime backdrop in the shadows. If you glance at it you get the overall impression but don't immediately see the details that lead to it. It gives a feeling, but it's not immediately obvious why.

The Jonah Hex cover is a number of images together, nothing is disguised or hidden, it is far from subtle, it beats the point over your head.

Are you going to be posting up the Grant Morrison Interview from newsarama, it's just so funny.

I do agree that the original is a superior cover, though.

http://www.comics.org/coverview.lasso?id=40947&zoom=4

The new one is not so much an homage as an update, I think.

I have to disagree on just about everything, but mainly on these points:

Well, I certainly don't have to disagree, but you made it look like so much fun!

The green background issupposed to look creepy (Kryptonite is scary);

Not scary creepy - weird, smelly person talking to themselves sitting next to you on the train creepy.

the Chaykin Guy Gardner cover features static pose and smile, is a banal and overused sentiment with this character and not nearly as appealing as Gibbon’s Guy Gardner, who is in action with tentacle imagery;

Gibbons' Guy is well-drawn, but he's not doing anything special.

Chaykin's Guy has panache! And the sentiment IS the character! Like having a cover with Batman being menacing!

But if you don't that particular take on Guy Gardner, I can perfectly understand why it would not be appealing to you as a cover.

the Outsiders cover falls apart because Acuna did not get the faces (particularly Grace’s) and figures right, the layout is perfectly fine;

The layout is all over the place! It looks like Metamorpho is sucking a boomerang up his ass! But yeah, the faces are all off. Although I'll take that Grace over the actual one!

the Karl Kerschl cover does indeed make me want to buy Secret Six;

Well, I can't very well disagree with your personal opinion, so that's cool!

the Freedom Fighters cover idea is far from silly;

It's a superhero all decked up like one of those terrorist videos we see on the internet every once in awhile - seems pretty silly to me! The very height of taking oneself too seriously! Again, though, I can see how "silly" can certainly be in the eye of the beholder!

the Boys cover is brilliant;

Again, can't very well argue with that! I think it's boring (and talk about static) and you think it is brilliant.

Damn mileage varying!!!

I’ve seen the reflection trick on the A Man Called Kev used to greater effect and beauty elsewhere, here it’s clumsy;

Wait, this isn't the first time it's been used? Oh crap, it must suck then! My bad!

Seriously, though, again, I differ, but that old mileage is varying again!

none of your top five should be in the top five;

Well argued!

and the Jonah Hex cover is not “nuanced” in any way, shape or form.

Except for the shapes and forms of the drawings on the cover!

Seriously, though, here we have the "bad guy" (Confederate soldier) being tortured by the "good guys," along with a black soldier, watching a man get lynched - only all the Union soldier stuff (particularly the black soldier) are in the background, with the eye-catching torture scene popping out to the viewer, with the viewer having to take a second glance to notice that the varmints who are torturing Jonah Hex are the "good guys." I thought it was a nice subtle difference with "accepted" roles.

Whole lot of what I call “extracted panel” covers this time: covers that might just as well have been panels from inside the book, since they’re competently drawn action shots without much thematic weight or special visual “pop.”

Good call, Omar. I think the Green Lantern Corps cover is a great example of that. Looks almost literally like it IS a panel from the inside comic!!

And that Kitson cover for LSH basically is a 30-something year-old cover — there were a couple of covers from Avengers during the Korvac Saga that had the same basic idea and layout.

I know the issue you're referring to (#176, right?), but I don't think it's trying for nearly the same scale as this Legion cover. And I think that's mainly because they DIDN'T have the technology then to pull it off, so they had to go with what they did on that cover, which was reduce the size of the figure (and the light emanations). If they tried to fill the whole cover with it, I think it would have looked much worse than this Legion cover (not that this Legion cover is some amazing cover or anything).