Given the nature of the Hollywood covers, there'll always be a lot to pick apart, from the choice of photographer to the faces chosen for the line-up - even who makes the first page and who gets relegated to the fold-out.
I can see they've tried to avoid some of those criticisms - new photographer, a choice of three different covers, but that just leads into a fresh set of things to find fault with.
Yes, I would always like to see something glamorous, and no, I can't see this one being a keeper in my collection on the basis of those cover shots... but I'm holding out for the contents.
Back in Sep, there was some general discussion in the Cover Rumor thread about men-only VF Hollywood covers, where I mentioned:
Taking a long view of the Hollywood issues, they have done this several times in the past (1996, 2003, 2007), it's just that nobody remembers those covers with an all-male line-up because they were on the boring side.
And there have been many more all-women Hollywood covers, including 1995, 1997, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2016 and 2017. Over the years, the ladies haven't been deprived of having their moment (I do prefer an all-women cover simply because of the potential for red carpet dresses).
If anything, it was when VF was under a female editor that we stopped seeing all-female Hollywood cover shots, so I wouldn't be too fast to slam the replacement for potentially returning to the older idea of alternating between different types of line-up.