Howard Shore removed? Deja vu Saruman? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Child of the 7th Age · 10-14-2005, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Reports are coming in that Howard Shore has been replaced by James Newton Howard to score the King Kong film. From Soundtrack.net: Sources in the film music industry have indicated to SoundtrackNet that Howard Shore's score to Peter Jackson's King Kong has been dropped. Hired to replace him is composer
James Newton Howard. Due out on December 14, the film requires over two
hours of music, which must now be written over the next few weeks.

There is no indication currently as to why Shore's score has been replaced,
and all indications are that most - if not all - of the score has already
been recorded in New Zealand. The replacement score will be recorded in Los
Angeles. More details to come as we get them.

TORN/KIKN: Is currently trying to independently confirm or deny this rumor.
However James Newston Howard's unofficial site also lists this news.

This is all conjecture but I can't help wondering.

This came in from theonering.net in an e-mail notification. Is this wild rumor or real? It seems strange to redo the soundtrack at this late date in the game, especially given the quality of Shore's work in LotR. Can anyone confirm or deny?

More importantly in terms of this site......I couldn't help thinking of what happened to Christopher Lee's character in the Two Towers. I always had the feeling that Jackson and Lee had some sort of personal falling out, and this influenced how Jackson handled the scenes of Saruman's demise in the movie, getting rid of scenes that should have been left in. (I truly feel there's no defense for removing this material from the theatrical version.) There is also the fact that Lee was also omitted from the ending credits of RotK and didn't have a sketch included as the others did.

If this Shore thing is true, is this another instance of personal feelings coming in between Jackson and another artist with less than desirable results? It's interesting that in both cases the people involved -- Lee and Shore -- were experienced artists who were perhaps less professionally dependent on Jackson than some of the others associated with the movies. Or am I barking up a wrong tree?

Aiwendil · 10-14-2005, 05:21 PM

It's not that uncommon for scores to be rejected, even those of high-profile composers. Goldsmith, Horner, Herrmann, and Waxman are just a few of the more famous names that have been on scores turned down by the director or producers; and Shore has had at least one score rejected already. Often, it's done for legitimate artistic reasons. For example, anyone who listens to Alex North's famous rejected score to 2001 will immediately see that it is not in line with Kubrick's vision. If this rumour is true, it may simply be that Jackson was not happy with the way Shore approached the movie; Jackson may even have been right.

There are of course other cases - when a score is rejected for personal, political, or commercial reasons. This kind of thing is generally very unfortunate for all involved, since it can be seriously detrimental to the movie, can deprive film score fans of a great work, and can damage a composer's career. Famous examples are Herrmann's score for Hitchcock's Torn Curtain and, more recently, Gabriel Yared's score for Troy. Both were great scores (though in the latter case, this is judging only from the few cues that have made their way to the public), and I don't doubt that both movies suffered greatly from their lack.

So if this is true, I think it's wise to reserve judgement on it until more details come out, or the rejected score is made available.

Essex · 10-15-2005, 12:06 PM

'Confirmation' from kingisknog.net..................

Quote:

Peter Jackson made the following statement: "I have greatly enjoyed my collaborations with Howard Shore, whose musical themes made immeasurable contributions to 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy. During the last few weeks, Howard and I came to realize that we had differing creative aspirations for the score of 'King Kong.' Rather than waste time arguing with a friend and trying to unify our points of view, we decided amicably to let another composer score the film. I'm looking forward to working with James Newton Howard, a composer whose work I've long admired, and I thank Howard Shore, whose talent is surpassed only by his graciousness."

mmmmmmm so no Shore for the Hobbit then?

Lush · 10-15-2005, 04:23 PM

I'm weirded our by the Shore thing, but if it didn't work out, it didn't work out.

I'm not exactly sure what to make of the Christopher Lee thing. I can't imagine Peter Jackson jeopardizing a movie because of a personal falling-out with an actor. It seems too bizarre to me. Business is business. I could think of a million work-related reasons why Lee was omitted, but personal? As in, "I don't like you anymore, Lee, you don't get to do this"???

Any specific theories on this floating out there, Child? I'd love to get a hold of them.

Lathriel · 10-16-2005, 03:03 PM

I agree with you Lush There are just too many things at risk if you let something personal come in your way. But I do find that it is a little late to replace Howard Shore. Maybe the new James newton Howard will keep some of the things Howard Shore wrote because i can't see how you can write something in two weeks and get it recorded as well.

Aiwendil · 10-16-2005, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Maybe the new James newton Howard will keep some of the things Howard Shore wrote because i can't see how you can write something in two weeks and get it recorded as well.

Well, it happened on Troy. Gabriel Yared's finely crafted score, many months in the making, was replaced with one by James Horner a few weeks prior to the movie's release. Of course, James Newton Howard doesn't have quite the same reputation for assembly-line insta-scores as Horner does.

Elladan and Elrohir · 10-16-2005, 09:26 PM

This is rather shocking news. I certainly hope it won't have any effect on The Hobbit, if and when that film is made. That's one of the biggest things I'm looking forward to: One more Howard Shore Middle-earth score!

As for the Chris Lee thing, I doubt that was a personal falling-out. PJ's defense of the removal of Voice of Saruman from ROTK is, IMHO, more than adequate. Much as I love that scene, and as glad as I am that it was returned for the EE, it slows down the film and distracts from the overall plot. That's all we need, more distractions!

And of course they left his name and picture out of the theatre credits! What do you expect? You don't put that a dude starred in a movie he doesn't appear in. I mean, sure it's Chris Lee, and sure he's Saruman, and sure he's a phenomenal actor who does an awesome job, but still.

Anyways, the Lee thing aside, this Howard Shore news has me seriously worried. There's no way to tell from the story whether PJ is telling the truth, or whether he and Shore did in fact have a falling out. If they did, it may well be to the detriment of Middle-earth.

Mithalwen · 10-17-2005, 07:04 AM

I would have kept Christopher Lee in the theatre version and shortened a battle scene - but that is my preference.... I wouldn't be surprised if there was a "personal" thing - after all Lee was probably the most serious Tolkien fan among the cast and had met him - you can imagine potential tension.....

The music - well if it was simply not quite right for KK, I see no reason why Shore would not do the Hobbit -PJ is cleary happy with his take on Middle Earth if not giant apes...

Essex · 10-17-2005, 09:42 AM

In the book, Saruman's downfall had a direct correlation on the War of the Ring (ie sharkey in the shire, and the last blow of the War fell on Frodo's doorstep)

in the film, we had no such correlation, so the only reason for his confrontation with Gandalf at isengard was to tell them that 'they were all going to die' and that the enemy would strike somewhere else gandalf didn't know of. In the cinemtaic release we have pippin see the burning tree which leads gandalf to realise the white city will be struck next. now, the EE makes this point clearer - ie gandalf now realises what saruman was goading them with, but the cinematic version works (just) without the saruman/gandalf confrontation needed.

So I reckon it was more down to screen time than anything else. jackson no doubt had a maximum time he was set to for cinematic screenings (no matter what he says!) - a 7hour film will get half the bums on seats than a 3.5 hour film would. (yes i know, an exaggeration there but trying to make my point)

10-15-2005, 04:23 PM	#4
Lush Fair and Cold Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: the big onion Posts: 1,770	I'm weirded our by the Shore thing, but if it didn't work out, it didn't work out. I'm not exactly sure what to make of the Christopher Lee thing. I can't imagine Peter Jackson jeopardizing a movie because of a personal falling-out with an actor. It seems too bizarre to me. Business is business. I could think of a million work-related reasons why Lee was omitted, but personal? As in, "I don't like you anymore, Lee, you don't get to do this"??? Any specific theories on this floating out there, Child? I'd love to get a hold of them. __________________ ~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~

10-16-2005, 03:03 PM	#5
Lathriel Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Wandering through Middle-Earth (Sadly in Alberta and not ME) Posts: 612	I agree with you Lush There are just too many things at risk if you let something personal come in your way. But I do find that it is a little late to replace Howard Shore. Maybe the new James newton Howard will keep some of the things Howard Shore wrote because i can't see how you can write something in two weeks and get it recorded as well. __________________ Back again

10-16-2005, 09:26 PM	#7
Elladan and Elrohir Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Halls of Mandos Posts: 332	This is rather shocking news. I certainly hope it won't have any effect on The Hobbit, if and when that film is made. That's one of the biggest things I'm looking forward to: One more Howard Shore Middle-earth score! As for the Chris Lee thing, I doubt that was a personal falling-out. PJ's defense of the removal of Voice of Saruman from ROTK is, IMHO, more than adequate. Much as I love that scene, and as glad as I am that it was returned for the EE, it slows down the film and distracts from the overall plot. That's all we need, more distractions! And of course they left his name and picture out of the theatre credits! What do you expect? You don't put that a dude starred in a movie he doesn't appear in. I mean, sure it's Chris Lee, and sure he's Saruman, and sure he's a phenomenal actor who does an awesome job, but still. Anyways, the Lee thing aside, this Howard Shore news has me seriously worried. There's no way to tell from the story whether PJ is telling the truth, or whether he and Shore did in fact have a falling out. If they did, it may well be to the detriment of Middle-earth. __________________ "If you're referring to the incident with the dragon, I was barely involved. All I did was give your uncle a little nudge out of the door." THE HOBBIT - IT'S COMING

10-17-2005, 07:04 AM	#8
Mithalwen Pilgrim Soul Join Date: May 2004 Location: watching the wonga-wonga birds circle... Posts: 9,459	I would have kept Christopher Lee in the theatre version and shortened a battle scene - but that is my preference.... I wouldn't be surprised if there was a "personal" thing - after all Lee was probably the most serious Tolkien fan among the cast and had met him - you can imagine potential tension..... The music - well if it was simply not quite right for KK, I see no reason why Shore would not do the Hobbit -PJ is cleary happy with his take on Middle Earth if not giant apes... __________________ “But Finrod walks with Finarfin his father beneath the trees in Eldamar.” Christopher Tolkien, Requiescat in pace

10-14-2005, 05:21 PM	#2
Aiwendil Late Istar Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 2,224	It's not that uncommon for scores to be rejected, even those of high-profile composers. Goldsmith, Horner, Herrmann, and Waxman are just a few of the more famous names that have been on scores turned down by the director or producers; and Shore has had at least one score rejected already. Often, it's done for legitimate artistic reasons. For example, anyone who listens to Alex North's famous rejected score to 2001 will immediately see that it is not in line with Kubrick's vision. If this rumour is true, it may simply be that Jackson was not happy with the way Shore approached the movie; Jackson may even have been right. There are of course other cases - when a score is rejected for personal, political, or commercial reasons. This kind of thing is generally very unfortunate for all involved, since it can be seriously detrimental to the movie, can deprive film score fans of a great work, and can damage a composer's career. Famous examples are Herrmann's score for Hitchcock's Torn Curtain and, more recently, Gabriel Yared's score for Troy. Both were great scores (though in the latter case, this is judging only from the few cues that have made their way to the public), and I don't doubt that both movies suffered greatly from their lack. So if this is true, I think it's wise to reserve judgement on it until more details come out, or the rejected score is made available.

10-17-2005, 09:42 AM	#9
Essex Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Essex, England Posts: 886	In the book, Saruman's downfall had a direct correlation on the War of the Ring (ie sharkey in the shire, and the last blow of the War fell on Frodo's doorstep) in the film, we had no such correlation, so the only reason for his confrontation with Gandalf at isengard was to tell them that 'they were all going to die' and that the enemy would strike somewhere else gandalf didn't know of. In the cinemtaic release we have pippin see the burning tree which leads gandalf to realise the white city will be struck next. now, the EE makes this point clearer - ie gandalf now realises what saruman was goading them with, but the cinematic version works (just) without the saruman/gandalf confrontation needed. So I reckon it was more down to screen time than anything else. jackson no doubt had a maximum time he was set to for cinematic screenings (no matter what he says!) - a 7hour film will get half the bums on seats than a 3.5 hour film would. (yes i know, an exaggeration there but trying to make my point)