First, on the two #1 covers:
I prefer the first one but, like others have said, with the second ones coloring. The first one is a bit too light. However, as much as some may feel that Sue looks insane on the original cover, she just looks sprayed over on the second cover (which, technically, she is) and doesn't look much like Sue (not that the first one does, but she looks MORE like Sue than the second one).
Also, I dislike the fully-flamed on Johnny because it's another "spray-on" job and looks that way. Reed in both versions looks stupid; like a giant "smiley" teddy bear doing a Barney the Dinosaur impersonation.
Ben looks good in both, IMO. And so does Johnny's expression. The background addition of the "cosmic rays" looks cool on both, but better on the second where it is colored a bit better.
On that unused cover:
I like it. I think that, yeah the covers should represent the reality of the characters, but that you guys are also just griping about it for nothing. Not only is it an unused cover, it's also a cover to a friggin' comic book...NOT a book on physiology!
Relax and enjoy the image for its novelty-factor (which is pretty high) and the detail (which I always appreciate on a close-up shot by Hitch).
As for whoever that guy was who said Hitch was getting too much praise and stuff. Sure he was. But he's good. Damn good. Of course he has some weaknesses, all artists do. There's no need to pick on Hitch just because he was popular.
I mean, look at Bruce Banner (in the restaurant) in #2 of vol.1 of The Ultimates. There are bits where he looks NOTHING like Bruce Banner. That ticked me off and took me out of the story, and yet I don't care enough to search for the secrets of face muscles so I can work out if it's possible for Bruce's face to look like that or not.
So...bwahahahahahahahahaha! I'm crazy!