SUPPORT FILMTRACKS! CLICK HERE FIRST:
Amazon.com
Amazon.co.uk
iTunes (U.S.)
Amazon.ca
Amazon.fr
eBay (U.S.)
Amazon.de
Amazon.es
Half.com
Glisten Effect
Editorial Reviews
Scoreboard Forum
Viewer Ratings
Composers
Awards
   NEWEST MAJOR REVIEWS:
     1. Avengers: Endgame
    2. Shazam!
   3. Dumbo
  4. Captain Marvel
 5. HTTYD: The Hidden World
6. The Lego Movie 2
   CURRENT MOST POPULAR REVIEWS:
         1. Batman
        2. Star Wars: The Last Jedi
       3. Apollo 13
      4. Edward Scissorhands
     5. How to Train Your Dragon
    6. Jurassic World: Kingdom
   7. First Man
  8. Solo: A Star Wars Story
 9. Justice League
10. Ready Player One
Home Page
Menu Options ▼
Comments about the soundtrack for Troy (Gabriel Yared/James Horner)
About the "Monsters" Who Decided to Replace Yared...

Timmy B.
<Send E-Mail>
(cache-dtc-ab12.proxy.aol.com)
Profile Picture

  Responses to this Comment:
Christian
Christian Kühn
David
About the "Monsters" Who Decided to Replace Yared...   Sunday, May 16, 2004 (11:51 a.m.) 

The statement which was released by Yared is obviously inherently and also ungraciously biased. Beyond this, we have statements based on interviews with those at the condemning test audience which have been included in articles but from there tainted by bias from readers. To analyze what may be the case beyond what we are told through both these means, I find it best to refer to specific quotes from Yared in his statement:

"My overall concept was to create a classic yet modern score, epic and yet subtle and emotional; classic in its elaborated harmonies, architecture and structure, harking back to classic forms (such as the fugue based on Priam's Trojan theme)."

"After the test screening on the 10th March though, everything had changed. The focus group at the preview decided my music was 'overpowering and too big, old fashioned and dated the film'."

Despite the fact that the score was "unfinished", the descriptions of what was agreed on by many "not to work" are concerning fundamental ideas of the score which could not be changed by the same composer logically (within a limited time frame). The score would not flow as well if he replaced all that seemed not to fit, I feel, since it would not fit with his original vision of the score which influenced all parts of the score. It would've seemed choppy, I suppose, being two visions colliding, two probably rather distinct visions--the one decided to have need of change and the one decided to be needed. Thus, if a new composer was hired with a new vision from the director, etc., the score would be able to be "adjusted" but as a whole, not biased by the former score/former vision. (To ask the original composer to re-write the whole score would be much harder on the composer than being fired (I think) and less practical seeing that he will have a hard time not being influenced by his prior vision (especially having to re-write it in a small time-frame)).

I feel opinions shown at test screenings are crucial to the success of a film--people come in to view it with fresh perspectives, unlike those who've been working with the film for a long time. It does seem, however, that the film crew was not very organized or secure in the opinion of the music since they gave it up so easily. This tells me that maybe they should've invited "unbiased"* parties to give opinions on the music earlier in the process, I suppose. It does seem that the film crew who decided to be influenced by the test audience do value the intelligence of listening to "unbiased"* third parties, so I suppose the only reason why they did not test such opinions sooner was that they were unorganized.

From what Yared describes of his score, it sounds fantastic in and of itself. This is quite different from the idea of whether or not it was fantastic *overall* for the film. He sounded in his statement as if he's never heard of such a concept and he sounds as if he feels betrayed by the entire film crew and everyone in the world except his fans... I think he sounds a bit spoiled and unimaginative of how "unbiased"* third parties could see that a different fundamental approach to scoring might be more effective. (I've described in two or three prior posts my opinion of how and why a "classic" approach to scoring "epic" scenes is not necessarily very effective anymore. These were in response to one of the original posts on this subject of Yared's removal.)

"Wolfgang was over the moon and could be heard in the corridors of Abbey Road Studios singing the main themes, he was enchanted with the music and began to wonder about the temp music he’d been using thus far for the test screenings. So it came that Wolfgang used all his charm to persuade me to allow him to use some of our unfinished monitor mixes to replace the temp music. Despite my misgivings he seemed so keen and proud of the music that I agreed providing he promised that it would be used just to help him for the previews and would not be judged at all since it was work in progress - completely unmixed and often without all of the final overdubs."

Well, maybe Yared isn't very cooperative and Petersen had to lie to him to get him to use the music for the test audience... (who knows?) The music was indeed finished in its fundamental ideas and it makes sense that Petersen would want to test all fundamental aspects of the film he could on an "unbiased"* third party.

The whole idea of a score being rejected is inherently tragic to me, of course. But, film composers should accept that it's bound to happen and maybe even to them... I think that *all* rejected film scores should *always* be released, but that's my biased opinion as a film score lover.

Tim

*The idea of test screenings is to see what people think about the film who are "unbiased" in not being involved in the film creation process.


Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Christian
<Send E-Mail>
(80.58.33.235.proxycache.rima-tde.
net)

  In Response to:
Timmy B.

  Responses to this Comment:
Timmy B.
Re: About the "Monsters" Who Decided to Replace Yared...   Sunday, May 16, 2004 (1:11 p.m.) 

excuse my english:

it is really painfull to read your lines because u destroy the meaning of the authoral process in doing a movie or owning the final work.

The unbiased concept wich is people not involved in the film process giving its opinionn is just crazy. There is a difference on testing reactions from leting people decide about whole parts of a movie. Everybody has an opinion and it is obvious u can use people´s oppinions for your own interests.
What is getting almost everybody so sad is that in this case the manipulation of warner´s being worried about using a commercial name is very obvious not because of what Yared may say but because Yared´s music is not only not bad from a Hollywood point of view but it is just superb. And this is a fact.
The reason there is specialiced crew is because they have an artistic and even commercial background in making movies and that is why their opinion should be more important.
Yared´s score could have easily gone to the Oscars and make Troy a more respectable movie. But now u have people laughing at the song of the end credits.
And this is Warner´s mistake. Being coward, spending too much money in a soundtrack when it was not necessary at all in a movie already too expensive. Having a final soundtrack worse that the one u had at the beggining. Having paid 2 composers and all the musicians twice!!!!
That´s what i call being not only unorganised but just incompetent (ineficient). At least try to make a benefit from Yared´s score and do a commercial release. But i´m sure people at Warner, being so intelligent, already though about it.
So please, make the commercial release of Yareds music soon, before everybody forgets about the issue, so Warner can make more money.

Thanks.

Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Timmy B.
<Send E-Mail>
(cache-dtc-ab12.proxy.aol.com)
Profile Picture
  In Response to:
Christian

  Responses to this Comment:
Christian
Re: About the "Monsters" Who Decided to Replace Yared...   Sunday, May 16, 2004 (7:58 p.m.) 

> excuse my english:

> it is really painfull to read your lines because u destroy the meaning of
> the authoral process in doing a movie or owning the final work.

> The unbiased concept wich is people not involved in the film process
> giving its opinionn is just crazy. There is a difference on testing
> reactions from leting people decide about whole parts of a movie.

Well I think a consistent reaction against a film score (an unusual event) by those in the testing audience is good reason to do some re-thinking! I explained what I consider possible explanations to why this decision was made so late.

What is getting almost everybody so sad is
> that in this case the manipulation of warner´s being worried about using a
> commercial name is very obvious not because of what Yared may say but
> because Yared´s music is not only not bad from a Hollywood point of view
> but it is just superb. And this is a fact.

You cannot say Yared's score was superior to Horner's without seeing how the music fits with the film even though Yared's music on its own may be far more interesting to many than Horner's.

The reason there is
> specialiced crew is because they have an artistic and even commercial
> background in making movies and that is why their opinion should be more
> important.

It wasn't the test audience who decided to replace the score. And, anyway, I think by this statement you're ignoring the fact the tendency to be biased toward a piece or art that you yourself created. If the art isn't just for your own enjoyment, you need to test how others react toward it. And in the case of film music, the music should never seem to distract from the film itself, but when you are used to hearing it, you are biased toward it.

Tim


Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Christian
(80.58.33.235.proxycache.rima-tde.
net)

  In Response to:
Timmy B.

  Responses to this Comment:
G.K.
Timmy B.
Re: About the "Monsters" Who Decided to Replace Yared...   Monday, May 17, 2004 (12:15 a.m.) 

You also forget that people´s bad reaction to the score may had been because it was not well mixed. When people say the score doesn´t sound good there can be a lot of reasons.
I´ve heard both scores and the style is not so different. And i´ve seen the movie and James Horner´s score is quite distracting. Very noisy inside the movie and my friends laughed at the song (their oppinion is very unbiased). So it makes me wonder what really happened. From your answers it just sounds as you are just trying to justify a political decision. Because you replaced something that it seemed not to work with something very similar.
Of course u won´t tell us the truth so we can leave the conversation here.

If u want an unbiased oppinion: fire Diane Kruger, she´s no Helen by any means (and this is a bad mistake!!!). Give Orlando Bloom some acting lessons. And give an Oscar to Eric Bana and the production designer.

Thanks.

Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


G.K.
<Send E-Mail>
(p508c7314.dip.t-dialin.net)

  In Response to:
Christian

  Responses to this Comment:
Timmy B.
Re: About the "Monsters" Who Decided to Replace Yared...   Tuesday, May 18, 2004 (3:55 a.m.) 

>Well I think a consistent reaction against a film score (an unusual event) by >those in the testing audience is good reason to do some re-thinking!

Now, I guess you're missing the point that it was only ONE test audience whose opinion decided over Yared's fate, so it wasn't a "consistent reaction" by any means.

>You cannot say Yared's score was superior to Horner's without seeing how the >music fits with the film even though Yared's music on its own may be far more >interesting to many than Horner's.

Five words: The-Lord-Of-The-Rings. Best example of how terrific a score can work in the film as well as on its own if the composer is given enough time (which Yared had, obviously).

>It wasn't the test audience who decided to replace the score. And, anyway, I >think by this statement you're ignoring the fact the tendency to be biased >toward a piece or art that you yourself created. If the art isn't just for >your own enjoyment, you need to test how others react toward it. And in the >case of film music, the music should never seem to distract from the film >itself, but when you are used to hearing it, you are biased toward it.

You know, Troy was created by Wolfgang Petersen and his crew. THEY have ideas in THEIR mind and THEY know best what it takes to realise their ideas and intentions. Petersen worked together with Gabriel Yared to make the score fit his vision. And obviously the score DID fit his vision.
The problem is that the producers obviously had no backbone when it came to defending their vision. A bit comparable to the Matrix: people decided the important thing about matrix were the stunts and fights, so the Wachowskis turned Reloaded and Revolutions into funny action flicks.



Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Timmy B.
<Send E-Mail>
(cache-dtc-ab12.proxy.aol.com)
Profile Picture
  In Response to:
G.K.

  Responses to this Comment:
G.K.
Re: About the "Monsters" Who Decided to Replace Yared...   Tuesday, May 18, 2004 (12:30 p.m.) 

Ughh...

> Now, I guess you're missing the point that it was only ONE test audience
> whose opinion decided over Yared's fate, so it wasn't a "consistent
> reaction" by any means.

A consistent reaction *within* the test audience.

> Five words: The-Lord-Of-The-Rings. Best example of how terrific a score
> can work in the film as well as on its own if the composer is given enough
> time (which Yared had, obviously).

I think the music was horrible for the film, mostly. But that is because I have very specific standards for what works well in film: music that does not assert itself over the picture in a way that can be seen as generally distracting. Besides that, though, time is not an ultimate guarantee of creating something thought to generally be of good quality. Of course.

> You know, Troy was created by Wolfgang Petersen and his crew. THEY have
> ideas in THEIR mind and THEY know best what it takes to realise their
> ideas and intentions. Petersen worked together with Gabriel Yared to make
> the score fit his vision. And obviously the score DID fit his vision.

As I've said, you can easily become positively biased toward your own work. To consider the opinions of those uninvolved in the creation of the work is very wise. It would've been wise to do this earlier in the creation of the film, like I said. I gather that this most likely was not done with the music because of the serious reaction to one test audience. I find it best to give the benefit of the doubt to those who show to make radical decisions: to not assume they're stupid, inept, crazy, etc. Think about it.

>
The problem is that the producers obviously had no backbone when it
> came to defending their vision.

That's not obvious. What an arrogant assumption.

Tim

Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


G.K.
<Send E-Mail>
(p508c7de9.dip.t-dialin.net)

  In Response to:
Timmy B.

  Responses to this Comment:
G.K.
Re: About the "Monsters" Who Decided to Replace Yared...   Thursday, May 20, 2004 (6:05 a.m.) 

> Ughh...

> A consistent reaction *within* the test audience.

Even worse if you let only a bunch of people that have no knowledge about movie scoring at all decide over the fate of the composer.

> I think the music was horrible for the film, mostly. But that is because I
> have very specific standards for what works well in film: music that does
> not assert itself over the picture in a way that can be seen as generally
> distracting.

Well, everyone has got his own opinion on that, but there's certainly a difference between music that >stands out distracts creating something thought to generally be of good quality. Of course.

If a composer has more time for a score, he'll put more effort into it and the better it will become; that should be logical even to you.
Of course time doesn't guarantee that a composer really DOES put more effort into his scores, but Gabriel Yared certainly wouldn't have come this far if he'd been lazy (good morning, Mr. Horner).

> As I've said, you can easily become positively biased toward your own
> work. To consider the opinions of those uninvolved in the creation of the
> work is very wise.

Yes, maybe it's a good idea, but if you do it, please don't overvalue these people. If you really want some unbiased people to judge over your movie's score, then pick someone who has some knowledge about film scores.

>The problem is that the producers obviously had no backbone

> That's not obvious. What an arrogant assumption.

Well, let me gather the facts; Petersen worked together with Yared, and was pleased with his work. He was so convinced about the quality of the score that he used unfnished work for his pre-screenings. Every audience was pleased, but then one test audience didn't like it, so Warner was worried that the Soundtrack wouldn't sell and so Petersen kicks Yared and didn't even think it was necessary to tell him that personally.
Now that is a self-confident, upright and honest man we're talking about.


Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


G.K.
<Send E-Mail>
(p508c7de9.dip.t-dialin.net)

  In Response to:
G.K.

  Responses to this Comment:
christian from spain
Timmy B.
Re: About the "Monsters" Who Decided to Replace Yared...   Thursday, May 20, 2004 (6:11 a.m.) 

> Ughh...

> A consistent reaction *within* the test audience.

Even worse if you let only a bunch of people that have no knowledge about movie scoring at all decide over the fate of the composer.

> I think the music was horrible for the film, mostly. But that is because I
> have very specific standards for what works well in film: music that does
> not assert itself over the picture in a way that can be seen as generally
> distracting.

Well, everyone has got his own opinion on that, but there's certainly a difference between music that *stands out* from the film because of its own beauty and music that *distracts* from the film because of its jump-into-your-face loudness and go-nowhere style.

If a composer has more time for a score, he'll put more effort into it and the better it will become; that should be logical even to you.
Of course time doesn't guarantee that a composer really DOES put more effort into his scores, but Gabriel Yared certainly wouldn't have come this far if he'd been lazy (good morning, Mr. Horner).

> As I've said, you can easily become positively biased toward your own
> work. To consider the opinions of those uninvolved in the creation of the
> work is very wise.

Yes, maybe it's a good idea, but if you do it, please don't overvalue these people. If you really want some unbiased people to judge over your movie's score, then pick someone who has some knowledge about film scores.

>The problem is that the producers obviously had no backbone

> That's not obvious. What an arrogant assumption.

Well, let me gather the facts; Petersen worked together with Yared, and was pleased with his work. He was so convinced about the quality of the score that he used unfnished work for his pre-screenings. Every audience was pleased, but then one test audience didn't like it, so Warner was worried that the Soundtrack wouldn't sell and so Petersen kicks Yared and didn't even think it was necessary to tell him that personally.
Now that is a self-confident, upright and honest man we're talking about.



Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


christian from spain
(80.58.33.235.proxycache.rima-tde.
net)

  In Response to:
G.K.

  Responses to this Comment:
Timmy B.
Re: About the "Monsters" Who Decided to Replace Yared...   Thursday, May 20, 2004 (8:28 a.m.) 

Mr. Timmi B.

it is obvious that u didnt like the score
it is obvious that one test audience didnt like it

tell me something, and dont be a coward
were producers already thinking about firing Yared before the test audience?
do u think that Yared has been treated as he deserved?
do u think that there was any respect for his work or him?
do u think that your opinion is unbiased?
were there any argues between Yared and the producers before the firing?

i have read how complicated was to shoot TROY,how expensive, how risky and difficult. And easily a nervous producer made a mistake

right now there are 3 hundred unbiased oppinions that Yared´s score is much better.
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?gyared
Could u admit that someone has done a mistake?

thanks

Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Timmy B.
<Send E-Mail>
(cache-mtc-aa20.proxy.aol.com)
Profile Picture
  In Response to:
christian from spain

  Responses to this Comment:
ed
Re: About the "Monsters" Who Decided to Replace Yared...   Thursday, May 20, 2004 (1:46 p.m.) 

> tell me something, and dont be a coward
were producers already
> thinking about firing Yared before the test audience?

I don't know since I was not involved the creation of this film.

do u think that
> Yared has been treated as he deserved?

No.

do u think that there was any
> respect for his work or him?

I think so but I think that Petersen should have thought about the benefit of having a score of a different style accompany his film much earlier in the process--like during one of his first meetings with Yared.

do u think that your opinion is unbiased?

No. When I used the term "unbiased" before, I was referring to opinions unbiased by being involved in the creation of the film and thus viewing it without any prior attachments to the film in the way of influencing their end opinion of it.

>
were there any argues between Yared and the producers before the
> firing?

I don't know.

> i have read how complicated was to shoot TROY,how expensive, how risky and
> difficult. And easily a nervous producer made a mistake

Who knows...

> right now there are 3 hundred unbiased oppinions that Yared´s score is
> much better.
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?gyared

Yes, and I'm one who signed that. Yet, the petition does not state that Yared's score is better on its own or better in the film than Horner's, just that it deserves to be released to the public in some form.

Tim


Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


ed
(dsl-80-46-148-206.access.uk.tisca
li.com)

  In Response to:
Timmy B.

  Responses to this Comment:
Timmy B.
G.K.
Re: About the "Monsters" Who Decided to Replace Yared...   Sunday, May 23, 2004 (10:29 a.m.) 

I think you guys are just a..TAD BIT TOO PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS! how bout u meet up and have a fight? u no, throw your handbags around? haha...losers.

Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Timmy B.
<Send E-Mail>
(b13-16.datanet.nyu.edu)
Profile Picture
  In Response to:
ed

  Responses to this Comment:
Ed
christian from spain
In Response to Ed's Post   Monday, May 24, 2004 (4:13 p.m.) 

> I think you guys are just a..TAD BIT TOO PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS! how bout u
> meet up and have a fight? u no, throw your handbags around? haha...losers.

*This* is a ridiculous post. There are only certain types of people who would even consider (let alone decide to) post something of this nature.

[I don't consider this thread an argument since no one has responded to what I wrote in a way I find to intellectually challenge anything that I wrote. I just keep responding because I like to have the last word, especially when someone else's last word is stupid and has thrown of the merit I see in my words which I think deserve to be the last. ]

Sometimes I ignore posts like this, but I just couldn't ignore this (not respond to it). I'm not offended by it; it just kind of makes me pity the person who wrote it in their childish "bullying" attitude which signifies an immature way to deal with insecurity. I pity them even more because it seems that they wanted to offend me; they didn't even succeed in that. I think they deserve to have this pointed out; this is mainly why I respond to them. Not that I care what they think of "me", but I also felt the need to explain why I think they're wrong in accusing me of "arguing". But, yes, I am passionate about this topic, the topic I see as looking at speculative situations with uncertainty. That's the topic I'm discussing in this thread. I guess that makes me a "loser"? Even though I see arguing out of passion for a composer as somewhat immature, does it make someone a "loser"? It's something I don't enjoy but it doesn't mean someone's an "inferior" being because they are more defensive for a composer than I am. Calling anyone a loser shows lack of empathy, condescendence, as well as a "bullying" attitude. To me, this all shows a strong lack of security and intelligence. I think this should be pointed out more often so people feel less drawn to act in this way and maybe actually realize this...

Tim



Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Ed
(dsl-80-46-131-208.access.uk.tisca
li.com)

  In Response to:
Timmy B.

  Responses to this Comment:
Timmy B.
Re: In Response to Ed's Post   Wednesday, May 26, 2004 (10:01 a.m.) 

"To me, this all shows a strong lack of security and intelligence. I think this should be pointed out more often so people feel less drawn to act in this way and maybe actually realize this..."

My friend...here are a few points which I think is the cause of your outburst:

1. Consider this quote. What you have said above, actually highlights your attitude to all of this, to even respond to what Ive said shows YOUR lack of insecurity and intelligence!!

2. Were you dropped on your head, early on in your life?

3. I think, what Christian has said, in the early part of this thread has had a DEEP deep emotional impact on your life. I wont be surprised that you wake up in the middle of the night, shocked to think that you sometimes dont make sense!

4. You could be a Brad Pitt stalker?

5. "Bullying???!" - mate, you really have got the wrong end of your short stick. I was merely suggesting that while it takes you hours to write such pointless essays, why dont you just fight it out..you know, handbags maybe?

I hope that you seriously consider about what I've said - who knows, you might admit your wrong once in a while......



Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Timmy B.
<Send E-Mail>
(cache-mtc-aa20.proxy.aol.com)
Profile Picture
  In Response to:
Ed
Re: In Response to Ed's Post   Wednesday, May 26, 2004 (8:00 p.m.) 

> 1. Consider this quote. What you have said above, actually highlights your
> attitude to all of this, to even respond to what Ive said shows YOUR lack
> of insecurity and intelligence!!

In light of the quote you highlighted, I explained my reason to respond to your post in the post you are responding to.

> 4. You could be a Brad Pitt stalker?

He's hot, but I don't stalk him.

> 5. "Bullying???!" - mate, you really have got the wrong end of
> your short stick. I was merely suggesting that while it takes you hours to
> write such pointless essays, why dont you just fight it out..you know,
> handbags maybe?

A sort of bullying. Doesn't take me hours. People are different.

> I hope that you seriously consider about what I've said - who knows, you
> might admit your wrong once in a while......

Hahaha Wrong about what?

Tim


Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


christian from spain
(80.58.33.235.proxycache.rima-tde.
net)

  In Response to:
Timmy B.
Re: In Response to Ed's Post   Saturday, May 29, 2004 (1:03 a.m.) 

im with u on this one tim


Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


G.K.
<Send E-Mail>
(p508c5d9e.dip.t-dialin.net)

  In Response to:
ed

  Responses to this Comment:
Ed
Everyone needs a passion   Wednesday, May 26, 2004 (9:01 a.m.) 

> I think you guys are just a..TAD BIT TOO PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS! how bout u
> meet up and have a fight? u no, throw your handbags around? haha...losers.

"Passionate about this"? Well, film music can be a passion, believe it or not.
Wouldn't life be flat and boring if everything went allright?


Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Ed
(dsl-80-46-131-208.access.uk.tisca
li.com)

  In Response to:
G.K.
Re: Everyone needs a passion   Wednesday, May 26, 2004 (10:04 a.m.) 

Well, surely if everything goes allright - then life would be fine!

I mean, look at Tim - he's far from allright...is he fine?...I think not.

Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Timmy B.
<Send E-Mail>
(cache-mtc-aa20.proxy.aol.com)
Profile Picture
  In Response to:
G.K.
Re: About the "Monsters" Who Decided to Replace Yared...   Thursday, May 20, 2004 (1:32 p.m.) 

> Even worse if you let only a bunch of people that have no knowledge about
> movie scoring at all decide over the fate of the composer.

Again: arrogant. The use of music in a film shouldn't just appeal to soundtrack fans. If so, the film would only be targeted to fans of soundtracks.

> Well, everyone has got his own opinion on that, but there's certainly a
> difference between music that *stands out* from the film because of its
> own beauty and music that *distracts* from the film because of its
> jump-into-your-face loudness and go-nowhere style.

I agree. The music in E. T. and Titanic does stand out tremendously, but I also think it works well in both the films. As long as the music seems to feel "parallel" to the film, I suppose that even if it "stands out", it usually won't seem "distracting". I should've acknowledged this before. And, people find different things distracting...

> If a composer has more time for a score, he'll put more effort into it and
> the better it will become; that should be logical even to you.

Well, if the composer doesn't have consistent vision, even if he puts effort into it over a long period of time, it may not be "improved" from one's perception of it.

> Well, let me gather the facts; Petersen worked together with Yared, and
> was pleased with his work. He was so convinced about the quality of the
> score that he used unfnished work for his pre-screenings. Every audience
> was pleased, but then one test audience didn't like it, so Warner was
> worried that the Soundtrack wouldn't sell and so Petersen kicks Yared and
> didn't even think it was necessary to tell him that personally.

Facts? It was only one test audience who saw the version of the film with Yared's music in it. Also, how is it a fact that Warner was worried that the soundtrack wouldn't sell? The point of the dissent in the audience was how the music matched the film, not the music itself.

Now
> that is a self-confident, upright and honest man we're talking about.

I'm not defending Petersen's actions of not telling Yared to his face or his actions of not making such a decision earlier to request a different style of scoring earlier.

Tim


Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Timmy B.
<Send E-Mail>
(cache-dtc-ab12.proxy.aol.com)
Profile Picture
  In Response to:
Christian
Re: About the "Monsters" Who Decided to Replace Yared...   Tuesday, May 18, 2004 (12:18 p.m.) 

> You also forget that people´s bad reaction to the score may had been
> because it was not well mixed. When people say the score doesn´t sound
> good there can be a lot of reasons.

I've addressed this and other posts (if you want to do a search on the subject in the forum) and I implied it in the one you responded here. People were reacting to the style of the score, not how loud or unbalanced it was in its sound.

I´ve heard both scores and the
> style is not so different.

Have you seen both scores against the film?

And i´ve seen the movie and James Horner´s
> score is quite distracting.

I'm sure it is. But, I presume that Yared's is more distracting and the people who decided to dump Yared made sure that Horner's was written in a way to "improve upon" Yared's in what was considered to be his "faults".

Very noisy inside the movie and my friends
> laughed at the song (their oppinion is very unbiased).

Well, the song is of a certain style that makes some laugh. Also, the lyrics are laughable. I don't think the music is that bad, but it's arranged in a rather "cheezy" way, in a style that many find cliche, uneffective, over-dramatic, and generally silly but one that some may like; I'd like to meet those some.

From your answers it just sounds as you are
> just trying to justify a political decision.

I'm trying to avoid pointing the finger and acknowledge possibility of what we don't know about the situation.

Because you replaced
> something that it seemed not to work with something very similar.
Of
> course u won´t tell us the truth so we can leave the conversation here.

I'm not one of the film's producers.

> If u want an unbiased oppinion: fire Diane Kruger, she´s no Helen by any
> means (and this is a bad mistake!!!). Give Orlando Bloom some acting
> lessons. And give an Oscar to Eric Bana and the production designer.

Yes, I've heard that much of the acting was sub-par.

Tim

Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Christian Kühn
<Send E-Mail>
(251.vauban.fr.studentenwohnheim-b
w.de)
Profile Picture
  In Response to:
Timmy B.

  Responses to this Comment:
Timmy B.
Simon Day
Re: About the "Monsters" Who Decided to Replace Yared...   Sunday, May 16, 2004 (5:05 p.m.) 

> The statement which was released by Yared is obviously inherently and also
> ungraciously biased.

Well, I'd like to see you being unbiased about something into which you poured a year's worth of work.

> Beyond this, we have statements based on interviews with those at the
> condemning test audience which have been included in articles but from there > tainted by bias from readers. To analyze what may be the case beyond what we > are told through both these means, I find it best to refer to specific
> quotes from Yared in his statement:

> "My overall concept was to create a classic yet modern score, epic
> and yet subtle and emotional; classic in its elaborated harmonies,
> architecture and structure, harking back to classic forms (such as the
> fugue based on Priam's Trojan theme)."

> "After the test screening on the 10th March though, everything had
> changed. The focus group at the preview decided my music was 'overpowering
> and too big, old fashioned and dated the film'."

> Despite the fact that the score was "unfinished", the descriptions of what
> was agreed on by many "not to work" are concerning fundamental ideas of the > score which could not be changed by the same composer logically (within a
> limited time frame).

I think that between March 10th and the date when the film had to be locked, Yared would have had enough time to change things. He wasn't given the chance.

> The score would not flow as well if he replaced all that seemed not to fit, > I feel, since it would not fit with his original vision of the score which
> influenced all parts of the score. It would've seemed choppy, I suppose,
> being two visions colliding, two probably rather distinct visions--the one
> decided to have need of change and the one decided to be needed.

Where is your evidence of that, Timmy? I know that you're supposing this, but please tell me why you think Yared wouldn't have been able to make certain changes and yet make the whole thing work and sound well?

> Thus, if a new composer was hired with a new vision from the director, etc., > the score would be able to be "adjusted" but as a whole, not biased by the
> former score/former vision.

That would mean to write a totally new, totally original score. For Yared, that would have been impossible to do.

> (To ask the original composer to re-write the whole score would be much
> harder on the composer than being fired (I think) and less practical seeing > that he will have a hard time not being influenced by his prior vision
> (especially having to re-write it in a small time-frame)).

That statement makes so sense whatsoever.

> I feel opinions shown at test screenings are crucial to the success of a
> film--people come in to view it with fresh perspectives, unlike those
> who've been working with the film for a long time.

I bet any money I have (which isn't much) that 99.9% of any test audience doesn't know deadly squat about film-music, so it is even more disturbing to know that ONE test screening (as far as I know) can have so much of an effect.

> It does seem, however, that the film crew was not very organized or secure
> in the opinion of the music since they gave it up so easily.

You mean Wolfgang Petersen and the films' producers, right?

> This tells me that maybe they should've invited "unbiased"* parties to give > opinions on the music earlier in the process, I suppose.

I've never heard of "unbiased parties" being invited to view post-production and give their opinion on it, because frankly, they know nothing about it.

> It does seem that the film crew who decided to be influenced by the test
> audience do value the intelligence of listening to "unbiased"* third
> parties, so I suppose the only reason why they did not test such opinions
> sooner was that they were unorganized.

Again, a nonsensical statement.

> From what Yared describes of his score, it sounds fantastic in and of
> itself. This is quite different from the idea of whether or not it was
> fantastic *overall* for the film.

I have yet to come upon a score on which the composer worked for almost a year and it does not turn turn out to be a marvellous companion to the film. I resent anyone who claims that this was different with Yared and Troy.

> He sounded in his statement as if he's never heard of such a concept and he > sounds as if he feels betrayed by the entire film crew and everyone in the
> world except his fans...

What "concept"? And I would feel betrayed, too, if the director, who's heaping praise upon you, doesn't have the backbone to ´"help" his composer.

> I think he sounds a bit spoiled and unimaginative of how "unbiased"* third
> parties could see that a different fundamental approach to scoring might
> be more effective.

A normal test audience isn't intelligent enough to make a sound judgement on a film score. I wonder what they would have said if Horner's score would have been the original one.

> (I've described in two or three prior posts my opinion of how and why
> a "classic" approach to scoring "epic" scenes is not necessarily very
> effective anymore.

On the contrary! It is all the more effective in these days when so few scores are allowed to sound classical.

> "Wolfgang was over the moon and could be heard in the corridors of
> Abbey Road Studios singing the main themes, he was enchanted with the
> music and began to wonder about the temp music he’d been using thus far
> for the test screenings. So it came that Wolfgang used all his charm to
> persuade me to allow him to use some of our unfinished monitor mixes to
> replace the temp music. Despite my misgivings he seemed so keen and proud
> of the music that I agreed providing he promised that it would be used
> just to help him for the previews and would not be judged at all since it
> was work in progress - completely unmixed and often without all of the
> final overdubs."

> Well, maybe Yared isn't very cooperative and Petersen had to lie to him to
> get him to use the music for the test audience... (who knows?)

You obviously don't, or you wouldn't make such a terribly unfounded statement.

> The music was indeed finished in its fundamental ideas and it makes sense
> that Petersen would want to test all fundamental aspects of the film he
> could on an "unbiased"* third party.

Test audiences nowadays are more often than not the doom of a originally good film.

> The whole idea of a score being rejected is inherently tragic to me, of
> course. But, film composers should accept that it's bound to happen and
> maybe even to them...

Too many of them already do and go silent. I think that Yared's open letter was a very daring way to make himself heard on this matter, although I am afraid that he did more damage to his career than helping it. But then again, he is not your usual Hollywood composer (Thank God for that!), and if nothing else, Anthony Minghella will continue to use his scores in the future.

> I think that *all* rejected film scores should *always* be released, but
> that's my biased opinion as a film score lover.

An opinion that for once I totally agree with.

> Tim

> *The idea of test screenings is to see what people think about the film
> who are "unbiased" in not being involved in the film creation
> process.

Thanks, Mr Teacher. And another piece of un-wanted advice: for some reason, I have had a difficult time to understand your post. There's nothing wrong with your English, but either by accident or on purpose your phrasing and grammar are quite complicated...

Wonder what'll happen now,

CK

Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Timmy B.
<Send E-Mail>
(cache-dtc-ab12.proxy.aol.com)
Profile Picture
  In Response to:
Christian Kühn
Re: About the "Monsters" Who Decided to Replace Yared...   Sunday, May 16, 2004 (7:43 p.m.) 

> Where is your evidence of that, Timmy? I know that you're supposing
> this, but please tell me why you think Yared wouldn't have been able to
> make certain changes and yet make the whole thing work and sound well?

> That would mean to write a totally new, totally original score. For
> Yared, that would have been impossible to do.

The latter answers the former for me.

> I bet any money I have (which isn't much) that 99.9% of any test
> audience doesn't know deadly squat about film-music, so it is even more
> disturbing to know that ONE test screening (as far as I know) can have so
> much of an effect.

I'm of the school of thought which says you don't shouldn't have to be a "film music fan" to decide if you think the music is distracting from the film (from a perspective not focusing on the music more than usual). Like many film makers these days, I see that a more minimalist approach to film music is a better one and that a composer has failed as a *film composer* (not necessarily a composer) if most sense more distraction than possible from the film because of the music.

> You mean Wolfgang Petersen and the films' producers, right?

Yes I copied/pasted parts of a post here where I used the term "film crew" when I should've said "execs".

> I've never heard of "unbiased parties" being invited to view
> post-production and give their opinion on it, because frankly, they know
> nothing about it.

That's the point, I think.

> And I would feel betrayed, too, if the
> director, who's heaping praise upon you, doesn't have the backbone to
> ´"help" his composer.

I explained possible excuse for Petersen and others involved in this situation. Still, it's obvious Yared wasn't communicated with well, no matter how it all actually played out between Petersen and the producers.

> A normal test audience isn't intelligent enough to make a sound
> judgement on a film score. I wonder what they would have said if Horner's
> score would have been the original one.

It's not the usual reaction to have so many people find a film score so offensive...

> On the contrary! It is all the more effective in these days when so few
> scores are allowed to sound classical.

I explained the opinion of mine in a post in response to one of the original posts on the subject of Yared's score's rejection. If you do a search and read it, you'll know more what I'm talking about.

Tim

Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Simon Day
<Send E-Mail>
(parax23-b220.dialup.optusnet.com.
au)

  In Response to:
Christian Kühn
Re: About the "Monsters" Who Decided to Replace Yared...   Tuesday, January 24, 2006 (4:38 a.m.) 

>Christian, you giant Twit(-a word pun or a pregnant goldfish-) before venting your spleen with what I can only describe as egocentric ignorance,parading around verbally thinking your a film critic of note while pulling off literary gymnastics that would make the English Olympic Gymastics team seem like supreme beings, please PLEASE learn to speak properly 9 Or buy a dictionary of slang) before swinging your proverbial sword like your a young Alexander.
The saying is DIDLY SQUAT, not deadly squat!!!!!!
If you can actually come up for a rational explanation of what deadly squat means (someone accidently sitting on a sharp spike or pogo stick aside) then plesae inform me Id love to know.
Respectfully yours.
S Day

Well, I'd like to see you being unbiased about something into which you
> poured a year's worth of work.

> I think that between March 10th and the date when the film had to be
> locked, Yared would have had enough time to change things. He wasn't given
> the chance.

> Where is your evidence of that, Timmy? I know that you're supposing
> this, but please tell me why you think Yared wouldn't have been able to
> make certain changes and yet make the whole thing work and sound well?

> That would mean to write a totally new, totally original score. For
> Yared, that would have been impossible to do.

> That statement makes so sense whatsoever.

> I bet any money I have (which isn't much) that 99.9% of any test
> audience doesn't know deadly squat about film-music, so it is even more
> disturbing to know that ONE test screening (as far as I know) can have so
> much of an effect.

> You mean Wolfgang Petersen and the films' producers, right?

> I've never heard of "unbiased parties" being invited to view
> post-production and give their opinion on it, because frankly, they know
> nothing about it.

> Again, a nonsensical statement.

> I have yet to come upon a score on which the composer worked for almost
> a year and it does not turn turn out to be a marvellous companion to the
> film. I resent anyone who claims that this was different with Yared and
> Troy.

> What "concept"? And I would feel betrayed, too, if the
> director, who's heaping praise upon you, doesn't have the backbone to
> ´"help" his composer.

> A normal test audience isn't intelligent enough to make a sound
> judgement on a film score. I wonder what they would have said if Horner's
> score would have been the original one.

> On the contrary! It is all the more effective in these days when so few
> scores are allowed to sound classical.

> You obviously don't, or you wouldn't make such a terribly unfounded
> statement.

> Test audiences nowadays are more often than not the doom of a
> originally good film.

> Too many of them already do and go silent. I think that Yared's open
> letter was a very daring way to make himself heard on this matter,
> although I am afraid that he did more damage to his career than helping
> it. But then again, he is not your usual Hollywood composer (Thank God for
> that!), and if nothing else, Anthony Minghella will continue to use his
> scores in the future.

> An opinion that for once I totally agree with.

> Thanks, Mr Teacher. And another piece of un-wanted advice: for some
> reason, I have had a difficult time to understand your post. There's
> nothing wrong with your English, but either by accident or on purpose your
> phrasing and grammar are quite complicated...

> Wonder what'll happen now,

> CK


Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


David
(82-35-76-58.cable.ubr02.dals.blue
yonder.co.uk)
Profile Picture
  In Response to:
Timmy B.
Re: About the "Monsters" Who Decided to Replace Yared...   Sunday, June 20, 2004 (9:21 a.m.) 

I have to say, I agree with Tim. Maybe I'd go even further than him. Film-making is about making money, like it or not, in the Hollywood system. Films (as a rule of thumb) make money where they appeal to a broad cross-section of people. These people are not going to be the film score conoscenti. They're going to be the general public. If the general public, or a cross-section of them in a test screening, *do not like the score*, then it makes *commercial* sense to get rid of it.

Troy was an *extremely* expensive film to make. The studio needed to make sure every element of it had as broad an appeal as possible if they were to have a hope of getting enough bums on seats to recoup their investment. That's how the system works, and people sometimes get marginalised by it. It's a bit, I think, naive to imagine that a studio is going to let "artists" run amok with 200 million dollars of the studio's money, without ever checking up on their investment.

Yared's score may be good. It may not be. I haven't heard it but I'm sure it's a wonderful piece of music. Being a wonderful piece of music is not enough to be a good film score. For instance, IMO, Vangelis's 1492 is an extraordinary piece of music. It is also one of the worst examples I've seen of a score which fits so badly with the movie that it actually damages it.

Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display



Copyright © 1998-2019, Filmtracks Publications. All rights reserved.
The reviews and other textual content contained on the filmtracks.com site may not be published, broadcast,
rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Christian Clemmensen at Filmtracks Publications. Scoreboard created 7/24/98 and last updated 4/25/15.