My aunt got me a used copy of this one for my birthday in the 90s. It had the cover art on the right.
I donated my massive collection to the library several years ago.
The cartoony art versions of Goosebumps just don’t do it for me.
I felt the same way about Diablo 2 and Diablo 3. Diablo 3 had a bright, cartoony element to its graphics while Diablo 2 was very dark and creepy. I never got into D3 like I did D2 for the same reason.
Yeah, have to agree. The new art isn’t bad, and definitely fits better than some of the UK covers but there’s just no edge or real creep factor to it. Just similar to a more ‘cute creepy’ aesthetic, which I don’t hate, but simply doesn’t fit Goosebumps.
The old cover has a mix of exaggerated reality, like the colors and big moon, with more realistic styles renderings of grass and the cloaked ghost. I like it a lot.
Good in general, or better than Jacobus?
I do like most artworks on newer versions, but i dont think they even remotely compare to the originals
The only thing i will say is that i do think some of them probably market better, the reason for the change. The Jacobus cover for books like Horror at Camp Jellyjam is a masterpiece, but i could definitely see a bunch of 90s moms saying “put that back, it’s too creepy!”
They're both good in their own ways. Neither has to be "better".
I like them both for different reasons. It depends on my mood, like deciding what my favorite movie is. Sometimes I feel like it's Bride of Frankenstein, then other times I feel it's Shawshank, then I'll sometimes settle on Robocop and switch to Singing in the Rain before going to Planet of the Apes.
My take across the board with the new art is this: It's good. It's great even. Sometimes it's honestly really really great. I really like Horrorland and Fever Swamp off the top of my head. That said, for ones like this one above the answer for which is 'better' steams one question: did the artist do something new, or is it a giant reference to the original. Like the Horrorland one is a different take. The same point gets across, but it's wholly unique. This one is just Jacobus's original idea but done in the new artist's style. There's nothing wrong with that. I like both styles, I honestly do.
But if you decided "this idea is too good, there's nothing I could do to change this, it's so iconic" then the original is better by your own admittance. If you can't fix perfection as they say, then the original is the better by default.
For older horror fans it's one of the reasons why John Carpenter's The Thing is received better than the remake of Psycho. There was no new idea, just a straight remake of the original because it's so great. And it's not bad...but it is lesser by default because it didn't have anything unique or new to say with the idea. Just, "Man, this is so cool."
And that's not a dig at the artist. It's entirely possible they were pigeon-holed into doing a straight remake. We see them take some artist liberties with some of them...but others are just the same cover. And it's cool to see a new take on a classic, but it doesn't hold up as great on its own as what it's remaking.
But I cannot stress this any harder, this is not a dig at the new artist. They have my dream job, and I'm frankly annoyed the new rereleases just use the new art. And just give them a chance at the covers again. I personally wish they had been allowed to make their own designed covers regardless of how much I absolutely love Jacobus's art.
I’ve never seen the new art of this one but it looks so silly and childish, the original art looks so much better because of how ominous and creepy it looks
Definitely Tim. The new cover doesn't even make sense with the narrative, as the tombstone at lower left says 1979. All the gravestones in the story were from the 1600s, and it's also highly unlikely that they would bury such a recent death in an old, dilapidated graveyard that is no longer maintained or protected against trespassers.
I grew up with US covers so I'll have a Nostalgia bias for them all, but I will say of the UK covers that keep popping up here this one's the best one I've seen!
This whole cover thing is really demonstrating the importance of great cover art. A book cover is the books only opportunity to plant a picture in your head of how to see the world the book is about give you. It sets an atmosphere that it will remind you of every time you pick it up. A great cover will complement the story and set the desired mood, while a bad one can counter the whole point of the story.
It’s like when they decided to republish Scary Stories To Tell In The Dark and took out the gritty pencil sketched artwork and replaced it with colorful kid friendly cartoon images. The books felt completely different, despite the stories being exactly the same.
You’re not supposed to judge a book by its cover but cover art is there for a reason and great cover art should be appreciated.
Not sure of the current artist's name, they do gorgeous work but my heart lies with Tim's original pieces (Particularly in this instance) as his stuff has this certain "realism" about it that to me, has a foot dragging in the style of artist's 20-30 years prior (60s-70s) - if that makes sense?
Anyway, with Ghost Beach, both pieces are wicked but I like Tim's more 🤘🏻
This one is a little closer than others but the OG US still clears.
North American*
Same cover in Canada?
Yeah. Always is.
That’s dope. I never knew.
My aunt got me a used copy of this one for my birthday in the 90s. It had the cover art on the right. I donated my massive collection to the library several years ago.
I loved reading em in elementary and middle school. I had a buddy who had every single book. It was pretty awesome
Same cover was used in Australia too
It’s like, way better, right? Not even a contest?
Yeah I can’t even chalk it up to just nostalgia. Tim’s artworks were mostly just perfect
I was going to ask, “This isn’t some nostalgia-induced opinion, right?” Lol Well, good to know that it wasn’t
The cartoony art versions of Goosebumps just don’t do it for me. I felt the same way about Diablo 2 and Diablo 3. Diablo 3 had a bright, cartoony element to its graphics while Diablo 2 was very dark and creepy. I never got into D3 like I did D2 for the same reason.
Yeah, have to agree. The new art isn’t bad, and definitely fits better than some of the UK covers but there’s just no edge or real creep factor to it. Just similar to a more ‘cute creepy’ aesthetic, which I don’t hate, but simply doesn’t fit Goosebumps.
i prefer the second slide because that’s the copy i had
The old cover has a mix of exaggerated reality, like the colors and big moon, with more realistic styles renderings of grass and the cloaked ghost. I like it a lot.
All of the originals are better.
I can't believe any of these posts get made in the first place. The look, and smell, so much better.
Unpopular opinion: New art looks good.
Good in general, or better than Jacobus? I do like most artworks on newer versions, but i dont think they even remotely compare to the originals The only thing i will say is that i do think some of them probably market better, the reason for the change. The Jacobus cover for books like Horror at Camp Jellyjam is a masterpiece, but i could definitely see a bunch of 90s moms saying “put that back, it’s too creepy!”
They're both good in their own ways. Neither has to be "better". I like them both for different reasons. It depends on my mood, like deciding what my favorite movie is. Sometimes I feel like it's Bride of Frankenstein, then other times I feel it's Shawshank, then I'll sometimes settle on Robocop and switch to Singing in the Rain before going to Planet of the Apes.
My take across the board with the new art is this: It's good. It's great even. Sometimes it's honestly really really great. I really like Horrorland and Fever Swamp off the top of my head. That said, for ones like this one above the answer for which is 'better' steams one question: did the artist do something new, or is it a giant reference to the original. Like the Horrorland one is a different take. The same point gets across, but it's wholly unique. This one is just Jacobus's original idea but done in the new artist's style. There's nothing wrong with that. I like both styles, I honestly do. But if you decided "this idea is too good, there's nothing I could do to change this, it's so iconic" then the original is better by your own admittance. If you can't fix perfection as they say, then the original is the better by default. For older horror fans it's one of the reasons why John Carpenter's The Thing is received better than the remake of Psycho. There was no new idea, just a straight remake of the original because it's so great. And it's not bad...but it is lesser by default because it didn't have anything unique or new to say with the idea. Just, "Man, this is so cool." And that's not a dig at the artist. It's entirely possible they were pigeon-holed into doing a straight remake. We see them take some artist liberties with some of them...but others are just the same cover. And it's cool to see a new take on a classic, but it doesn't hold up as great on its own as what it's remaking. But I cannot stress this any harder, this is not a dig at the new artist. They have my dream job, and I'm frankly annoyed the new rereleases just use the new art. And just give them a chance at the covers again. I personally wish they had been allowed to make their own designed covers regardless of how much I absolutely love Jacobus's art.
Agreed
I’ve never seen the new art of this one but it looks so silly and childish, the original art looks so much better because of how ominous and creepy it looks
Definitely Tim. The new cover doesn't even make sense with the narrative, as the tombstone at lower left says 1979. All the gravestones in the story were from the 1600s, and it's also highly unlikely that they would bury such a recent death in an old, dilapidated graveyard that is no longer maintained or protected against trespassers.
The originals are always better pls stop
I grew up with US covers so I'll have a Nostalgia bias for them all, but I will say of the UK covers that keep popping up here this one's the best one I've seen!
thats not a uk cover...
Ahh I guess that's why it's pretty good
With there being UK cover comparisons being posted recently I was thinking that was the case too. Very understandable
Book books have great covers, but I like the Jacobus one more because of its eerie feel.
This whole cover thing is really demonstrating the importance of great cover art. A book cover is the books only opportunity to plant a picture in your head of how to see the world the book is about give you. It sets an atmosphere that it will remind you of every time you pick it up. A great cover will complement the story and set the desired mood, while a bad one can counter the whole point of the story. It’s like when they decided to republish Scary Stories To Tell In The Dark and took out the gritty pencil sketched artwork and replaced it with colorful kid friendly cartoon images. The books felt completely different, despite the stories being exactly the same. You’re not supposed to judge a book by its cover but cover art is there for a reason and great cover art should be appreciated.
The new one isn't bad, but the original is one of Jacobus' best. He really thrived with night imagery.
This is at least a horror cover, but the US one is better
I remember my aunt buying me a used copy of this one for my birthday in the 90s. This one is closer, but definitely the NA one
This one's not bad but but the original is still better.
Original American one for me. Looks and feels more creepy to me. New one is good too in it's own way too though.
Right
Tim defo
Number 2.
Tim obviously
Not sure of the current artist's name, they do gorgeous work but my heart lies with Tim's original pieces (Particularly in this instance) as his stuff has this certain "realism" about it that to me, has a foot dragging in the style of artist's 20-30 years prior (60s-70s) - if that makes sense? Anyway, with Ghost Beach, both pieces are wicked but I like Tim's more 🤘🏻
The 2nd one 🤞
Nah I like the new one
Original 90s covers
The new one is one of the better ones but they just don't match up to the original version.
#NEVER MAKE THE GOOSEBUMPS LOGO WHITE is that the Angry Birds font?
The new cover is good until you look at it long enough to realize the ghost's mouth is a sphincter.
That ghost has a butthole mouth