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

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	#1
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	#2
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	#4
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	#5
Mithalwen Pilgrim Soul Join Date: May 2004 Location: watching the wonga-wonga birds circle... Posts: 9,463	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

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-17-2005, 09:42 AM	#6
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)