Jump to content

What really happened to Shore's King Kong score?


Sandor

Recommended Posts

Recently I watched the old production diary over kongisking.net (http://img-nex.kongisking.net/kong/movies/PPD-13WeeksToGo_qt6_low.mov) featuring Howard Shore recording his score for King Kong. I also watched the recently released diary focussing on James Newton Howard's scoring and recording process. The funny thing is: observe Peter Jackson in both reports. He's there with Howard, actively involved in the process. He's talking to him, laughing with him...praising him. These aren't two men with "artistic differences"! In the new diary it is "revealed" that Jackson hasn't even met James Newton Howard personally! They have to converse over a satellite connection

Remember how Shore rescored one of the last scenes from The Two Towers back in 2002 where Sam is giving his convincing monologue to Frodo? Shore isn't the kind of man who stubbornly sets his own rules, who is unwilling to conform to the wishes of a director: Shore is a humble, somewhat passive person who reportedly was depressed when his score for Ransom was rejected.

My theory: Jackson was in no way displeased with Shore's score, but when he showed the rough cut of King Kong the executives at Universal were worried. Something had to be done about the movie. Jackson however was rightfully defensive: it's like someone wanting to change something about your children. That's not something you take very lightly. King Kong will be an amazing film, but - like The Lord Of The Rings - it will have it's Jacksonesque moments, it's almost artistic elements. The studio felt: if this extremely long film is going to succeed it needs to be more commercially appealing.

At first they wanted to trim it down from three hours + to something more like two, two and a half hours max. And that was something Jackson didn't want. He didn't fall for New Line's pressure back in 2001 and he wasn't going to do it now.

The fact is; no matter how good Shore's music is, it's on the outset not commercially appealing. At least not the executive's mind. Peter had to fight for his 3 hours, but along the way he had to make one or two concessions.

First the goofy tooth of Kong.

Second the score Shore had already recorded.

In order to keep the length of Kong, Jackson agreed. Sadly. I for one was really, really looking forward to Shore's King Kong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Recently I watched the old production diary over kongisking.net (http://img-nex.kongisking.net/kong/movies/PPD-13WeeksToGo_qt6_low.mov) featuring Howard Shore recording his score for King Kong. I also watched the recently released diary focussing on James Newton Howard's scoring and recording process. The funny thing is: observe Peter Jackson in both reports. He's there with Howard, actively involved in the process. He's talking to him, laughing with him...praising him. These aren't two men with "artistic differences"! In the new diary it is "revealed" that Jackson hasn't even met James Newton Howard personally! They have to converse over a satellite connection

Remember how Shore rescored one of the last scenes from The Two Towers back in 2002 where Sam is giving his convincing monologue to Frodo? Shore isn't the kind of man who stubbornly sets his own rules, who is unwilling to conform to the wishes of a director: Shore is a humble, somewhat passive person who reportedly was depressed when his score for Ransom was rejected.

My theory: Jackson was in no way displeased with Shore's score, but when he showed the rough cut of King Kong the executives at Universal were worried. Something had to be done about the movie. Jackson however was rightfully defensive: it's like someone wanting to change something about your children. That's not something you take very lightly. King Kong will be an amazing film, but - like The Lord Of The Rings - it will have it's Jacksonesque moments, it's almost artistic elements. The studio felt: if this extremely long film is going to succeed it needs to be more commercially appealing.  

At first they wanted to trim it down from three hours + to something more like two, two and a half hours max. And that was something Jackson didn't want. He didn't fall for New Line's pressure back in 2001 and he wasn't going to do it now.  

The fact is; no matter how good Shore's music is, it's on the outset not commercially appealing. At least not the executive's mind. Peter had to fight for his 3 hours, but along the way he had to make one or two concessions.  

First the goofy tooth of Kong.  

Second the score Shore had already recorded.  

In order to keep the length of Kong, Jackson agreed. Sadly. I for one was really, really looking forward to Shore's King Kong.

I must admit, I do find it hard to believe that Jackson would scrap Shore's score because of "artistic differences". Your theory sounds much more likely - but I think it's probably somewhere in between the two. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't think they rejected a score by someone who had a hit (Shore, LOTR) to replace him with someone who has a very shaky track record.

A 'hit' doesn't garantee anything. Universal knows that. In the entertainment industry a King today could be tomorrow's beggar.

James Newton Howard definately has the ability to create a score that is "industry-friendly" no matter his "shaky" track record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have wondered a long time what was the real reason fro Jackson rejecting Shore's score. I can't think of anything. I know Jackson was very much involved with the music and I think he had a pretty good idea what the finished score was going to be like. And he apparently liked it. What ever made him change his mind?

Shore is a film composer. He is not Bernard Herrmann or Max Steiner with flammable ego but a craftsman like any good film composer should be atleast in part. He can conform his ideas to director's needs. Film composer has to be flexible and be sometimes prepared to sacrifice artistic merit to produce a funtional score.

Peter Jackson was (happily) a director who allowed also Shore's artistic side to show and that made LOTR trilogy so brillant. He did not give an impression of a ruthless tyrant when it comes to film scoring. And I do not know if a funtional score should be rejected for the sake of commercial success. As for the funtionality of the score I have no idea as does nobody else here but the film industry is in a bad shape if rejecting a score to make more money with reputedly "more crowd pleasing, play it safe music" becomes a norm.

And by sacking Shore the studio lost a lot of money. First changing a whole symphony hall in NZ into a recording studio and the hiring of the orchestra and the recording of the score cost a lot of money. And it was all a waste of time and money and energy. It wasted Shore's and Jackson's time and creativity. James Newton Howard scored the movie in LA and did not use the studio put up in NZ so taking down the studio from the concert hall must havecost money too. It is ridiculous how much money was wasted and it makes sacking Shore ever more puzzling. Jackson apparently has enough money lying around to pay Shore for work he had done for nothing and cover the cost of futile recording sessions in NZ. That is good and prudent film making. :roll:

I am sad that Shore was cast out but this rejecting of scores is a commonplace happening in film indsustry and this specualtion over the reasons for Shore's rejection has gotten little out of hand. Still it would be nice to know the real reason behind the decision PJ made. This "artistic reasons" is so very vague reason to reject the score.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have it on good authority that it was tossed because, basically, Jackson didn't like a lot of it, asked Shore for changes, Shore wouldn't change it, so Peter had to let him go. Jackson isn't out to ruin Shore's career, hence the "amicable" press release. Hopefully, their friendship will give them the opportunity to work together again in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have it on good authority that it was tossed because, basically, Jackson didn't like a lot of it, asked Shore for changes, Shore wouldn't change it, so Peter had to let him go.  Jackson isn't out to ruin Shore's career, hence the "amicable" press release.  Hopefully, their friendship will give them the opportunity to work together again in the future.

Ok that's that. Now I (atleast) can get back to waiting my LOTR box in peace not having to worry about emnity between Shore and Jackson. I hope they will collaborate in the future (Hobbit perchance? ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly I am too tired to care about why Jackson dismissed Shore's score. I pointed out how pointless the rejection was but obviously Jackson felt something was not right. For me the specualtion ends here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't he say he'd never do something like that again after having to write and recored Air Force One in little under a month?

3 weeks actually.

And you wave another big pay check under his nose and i'm sure he might have reconsidered.

Besides, JHN has 2 months for this right, hardly a rushed schedule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pointed out how pointless the rejection was

How can you say it's pointless if you haven't heard the score? :) It might be total crap. Or have you heard the score?

Pointless from economic point of view at least. The score might have been crap but why did Jackson keep scoring the movie instead of sending Shore packing? Now there is a question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess we may never know whether it was studio pressure or genuine creative differences, but I simply don't buy the 'Peter didn't like a lot of it' and 'Shore refused to change it' thing. Surely he made synth mockups and jackson approved them first? And I just can't see Shore refusing to change something, he doesn't seem the sort of guy.

Gotta say I'm more on Roald's side with this :)

Now roll on FotR!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess we may never know whether it was studio pressure or genuine creative differences, but I simply don't buy the 'Peter didn't like a lot of it' and 'Shore refused to change it' thing. Surely he made synth mockups and jackson approved them first? And I just can't see Shore refusing to change something, he doesn't seem the sort of guy.

Gotta say I'm more on Roald's side with this

HOORAY!!! :ola:

HOORAY!!! :jump:

HOORAY!!! :joy::joy::joy::joy:

HOORAY!!! :);)

HOORAY!!! bowdownbowdownbowdownbowdown

SOMEONE AGREES WITH ME!!!!

It's PARTY TIME NOW!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think what you want, believe what you want about Jackson and Shore, but the truth is, after the first round of scoring sessions, Peter asked for changes that Shore didn't make - I don't know why he wouldn't make them or whether there were synth mockups, or what changes Jackson was asking for, but the truth is as I told it. There is no evidence of anger between them, in fact it sounded like PJ was sad that he and HS couldn't come to an agreement about it, as I'm sure HS is. I don't think either person was being unreasonable or stubborn, I just think they did not see the score the same way and the gap was too big to span this late in the game. It has nothing to do with "the kind of guy" PS is or HS is.

JNH did not have 2 months, either. The score has already been recorded, at least partially, last week. The announcement of the replacement was made on Oct 14, so that is about 5 weeks from hiring to recording.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't think they rejected a score by someone who had a hit (Shore, LOTR) to replace him with someone who has a very shaky track record.

And why exactly is his track record so shaky? :sigh:

~Sturgis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just what I was going to ask. Clearly it's not, as evidenced by the fact that he was chosen to replace Shore. And even if you're comparing hits, JNH wins there too. He's already an established and respected composer in the industry; Shore's time in the spotlight has most likely expired.

Ray Barnsbury

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I really like his work on Mrs. Doubtfire, especially "Dinner is Served." Or was that "Meeting Mrs. Doubtfire?" No, wait, it was "Bridges Restaraunt."

:sigh:

~Sturgis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happened? Who cares! :sigh::)

It's done and over with, no need to keep crying about it....so Howard Shore got replaced by James Newton Howard, again who cares? (Well besides some of the ones posting here...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happened? Who cares!

Gee, you really don't understand the idea of a messageboard do you? Your reaction would, from a certain point of view, be applicable to *all* topics started here. Harry Potter and the GOF? "What happened? Who cares!" A new John Williams CD? "What happened? Who cares!" Your top 10 soundtracks? "What happened? Who cares!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recently I watched the old production diary over kongisking.net (http://img-nex.kongisking.net/kong/movies/PPD-13WeeksToGo_qt6_low.mov) featuring Howard Shore recording his score for King Kong. I also watched the recently released diary focussing on James Newton Howard's scoring and recording process. The funny thing is: observe Peter Jackson in both reports. He's there with Howard, actively involved in the process. He's talking to him, laughing with him...praising him. These aren't two men with "artistic differences"!

Well, they are perfectly aware of the camera, and I think that has a lot to do with it. If you know that in five days it's going to be on the internet, you better try not to let slip anything wrong. Have you ever heard something bad coming out of those production diary's? There where other problems too with the production of Kong, things like strikes and protests from unions...

In the new diary it is "revealed" that Jackson hasn't even met James Newton Howard personally! They have to converse over a satellite connection

Yess, and in this diary Jacksons looks more like himself. He's gigling because James has so much to do and so little time, exactly as he was doing with RotK. He's going to deliver the picture, JUST in time, and battling with that time, clearly amuses him.

My theory: Jackson was in no way displeased with Shore's score, but when he showed the rough cut of King Kong the executives at Universal were worried. Something had to be done about the movie. Jackson however was rightfully defensive: it's like someone wanting to change something about your children. That's not something you take very lightly. King Kong will be an amazing film, but - like The Lord Of The Rings - it will have it's Jacksonesque moments, it's almost artistic elements. The studio felt: if this extremely long film is going to succeed it needs to be more commercially appealing.  

The fact is; no matter how good Shore's music is, it's on the outset not commercially appealing. At least not the executive's mind. Peter had to fight for his 3 hours, but along the way he had to make one or two concessions.

I don't think the studio executives had much to do with it. I think they were very well awared that music form Howard Shore would be much much more commercially appealing than music from Newton Howard. I don't think that James Newton Howard has ever done a world wide tour for a symphony based on a score he has written? I was there in Antwerp, and there were a lot of people who generally don't like 'classical music'. They were there because they fel in love with the music of the trilogy. It was going to be their first and probably last classical concert.

I think that what happened was exactly what the press said. Jackson didn't like the music. We don't know why, I don't think that we ever are going to know why, but Jackson didn't liked it.

the score Shore had already recorded.  

In order to keep the length of Kong, Jackson agreed. Sadly. I for one was really, really looking forward to Shore's King Kong.

I don't think that it works like that... 'Ok, Peter, you can keep the length, but then you'll have to find a new composer.' It actually sounds more logical to keep the music and trim down the film.

But perhaps there will be a Collecter's Edition of King Kong with the music from Howard Shore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that it works like that... 'Ok, Peter, you can keep the length, but then you'll have to find a new composer.' It actually sounds more logical to keep the music and trim down the film.  

But perhaps there will be a Collecter's Edition of King Kong with the music from Howard Shore.

I'm sorry Bart, but sadly it DOES work like that. Sometimes studio bosses know that SOMETHING needs to be done to "save" a movie, but because they are not filmmakers they often don't know what. They will try to manipulate anything. For a director that is a frustrating proces and believe me: Jackson did NOT want to trim down the film. If you read his reports on making The Lord Of The Rings you will know that the length is very, very important to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it seems the story as is unfolds over that amount of time. If you have a working story in 3 hours, cutting it down to 2 will remove much connective material. The film will feel truncated.

Imagine FotR being cut down to two hours (one THIRD of the movie gone!). Tell me what parts you would have kicked, and how the story was still supposed to be complete. Same thing here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, except that FOTR was already a drastic reducting of the first third of a very large book.

The new King Kong has it's origins in the 1930's film, which lasted under and hour and a half.

What the hell have they added?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the hell have they added?

Character stuff (which is usually worth having in PJ's movies) and the spider pit sequence, as far as I know.

As far as I'm concerned, I trust PJ to make the movie as long as it has to be.

Marian - who only recalls one PJ movie that actually drags in parts (Bad Taste, which basically has no plot and little structure and for that works very well for a 4 year improvisation :)).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.