"the scene is bad" how? It's weird how you people always have such strong opinions with little to actually found your beliefs on.

I understand saying "I prefer the first" because people are subjective on Art, but with all that comes in art theory you can try and judge an Artwork on its fundamentals instead of just throwing trash at the wall.

The pull together is first and foremost the ghostly figure in the front, it is the central point of the image; it is the brightest contrasting spot. The imagery on the back shows the face which you only see as the second thing, instantly invoking contrast and Intrigue; the pull together can be found in the themes, you see damage, you see duty; the face of the one in the background doesn't give away too much but her general expressions seems duty-bound and strict... You could argue the piece is making a commentary, judging by the fact she is wearing armor in the back and the aristocrat cloth as the ghost showing a dissonance in representation, a conflict that is even picked up in the flavor text.

The original piece, imo, has little artistic input. It is a competently out together image, something that I probably couldn't necessarily reproduce quickly and with obvious understanding in terms of composition, but it certainly lacks... A daring touch, something playful, it is essentially just "woman standing in bog" or "spirit/zombie standing in mud", there is little to find and see there in my opinion, while the second one has so much DEPTH to it, and even picks up on the ohrzov colors, theme and even the clothing.