The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come doesn't have EYES!!! I think it looked faintly ridiculous.
In the book Dickens described him as just being a dark ghostly hooded figure, he never says anything about yellow glowing eyes. I hate it when film makers ignore the book and just do their own thing and just ruin a character/scene.
Its a lot scarier when its just a black hooded figure, and you can't see the face.
Oh captain, my captain.
I agree that the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come looks ridiculous and is a black mark on this production. They should've gone with a more traditional design. With that said, I think that this version is good overall and worth annual viewing.
shareGeeze for a story thats been retold countless times and in many many many many countless ways. God forbid they do something new................
share
yeah, i know. very minor detail to worry about. i like this version becaue it is the most entertaining while still being true to the book
"Its over now, the music of the night"
Unless I've remembered wrong, the text describes that burried deep within the darkness of the figure's head there were two small points of light were eyes might have been.
shareMy biggest problem with that ghost is that his hand was much too fleshy and healthy-looking. Doesn't have to be a skeleton, but it should be a LITTLE gaunt, I would think.
shareThe 'traditional design' of a Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come ? Do you think there is an industry standard ?
I would like to remind everyone that in the 1970 musical version, the ghost looks like a bit of cloth over a coat hanger dragged on wheels. This one is positively ghoulish by comparison !
My problem was with the hands. They should have been skeleton or long thin fingers. Even black gloves would have been an improvement. F- on the hands.
share