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.