 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm looking forward to Korzeniowski's score because he's my favourite composer these last couple of years!
His Single Man and W.E. are masterpieces!
But I have a question:
Now, when a composer writes the score, they do midi mock-ups of it.
I mean they don't hear the score for the first time when it's recorded.
So, hadn't the producers/director realized from Horner's midi mock-ups that the score didn't suit their needs?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 12, 2013 - 12:02 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
SchiffyM
(Member)
|
Don't the producers and directors or powers that be ever consider all the passion and sweat that so many people have put into a score? It just feels so inconsiderate and almost selfish and very disrespectful. The words "loyalty" and "trust" mean nothing it seems for some in the business.
I felt the same way when it happened to Goldsmith on TIMELINE and Shore on KING KONG.
It's just a movie for heaven's sake, not the end of the world. Everyone who ever threw out a Goldsmith, Shore or Horner or any other great score is simply an idiot. Whatever reasons. They ultimately lose. What is happening with COMMUNICATION between a composer and a director?
Nipotente, I admire your own passion, but it's misplaced. It's a director's job (and a producer's) to make the best film he knows how to make. If one of the contributors -- be it a writer, actor, costume designer, art director… what have you -- is not giving him what he needs to do that, that person has to be replaced. All these people put in their passion and sweat. But if the director (or producer, or studio head) allows that to sway what he puts in the final film, he is a weak director indeed. To use your term, he would be an idiot.
If you hire somebody to paint your house, and he paints it blue when you wanted it white, would you just accept the blue house because you didn't want to be disrespectful?
And yes, there is communication between composer and director. But sometimes, it still doesn't work out. And sometimes, a director may think a film needs one kind of music, and when the music is put to film he realizes he was wrong. Until the whole thing is finished, all anybody's doing is guessing. To not change course in this case would make the director, yes, an idiot.
Some replacement scores are (in my opinion) better. Others are worse. And some don't make a damn bit of difference. There's no one rule. I don't have any idea why you'd say they always ultimately lose.
No, it's not the end of the world. But these days, even a cheap movie costs $25 million to make, and most cost many times more than that. If a studio has put (say) $150 million into your movie, do you really think you could tell them "Well, I don't love the score, but the composer worked so hard, I'd hate to disappoint him"?
To take such a stand would make him -- that's right -- an idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 23, 2013 - 5:32 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
mastadge
(Member)
|
At the end of April 2013, I was asked to write an alternate musical score for the new adaptation of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, starring Hailee Steinfeld and Douglas Booth, directed by Carlo Carlei, with a screenplay by Julian Fellowes (Downton Abbey), produced by Amber Entertainment, Swarovski Entertainment Ltd and Echo Lake Pictures.
The score was recorded at Warner Bros. Eastwood Scoring Stage in Los Angeles on June 25-28 with a 67-piece orchestra, a choir and a soprano Tamara Bevard. The violin and piano solos were performed by Roger Wilkie and Randy Kerber (both of whom worked with me on A Single Man).
I am pleased to inform you, that as of today, my score has been accepted. -- from his facebook.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
