Ever notice how shadows go blue in chromes too, when you're under a blue sky? People called Matisse and Monet figured this out a long time ago, because
shadows under an open sky ARE blue. But folks got used to the look of certain chrome films and learned to use their characteristics creatively. In fact, I
can remember when a number of outdoor photographers were infuriated when "excessively blue" Ektachrome 64 for discontinued. The difference is, that
you can see the effect with a chrome on the lightbox, but cannot easily judge it with a neg. But most color neg films are engineered to warm up neutrals, even in the shadows, to favor "pleasing skintones". This doesn't mean the color is realistic, but that the film is wisely marketed to a certain popular kind of application. Ektar doesn't doesn't muddy or lump together the neutral in this manner. If you have one kind of lighting in the sunlit areas, and a drastically different color temp in the shadows, this is likely to become quite apparent. However, if the overall lighting is bluish, that's easy to correct with a warming filter. No difference with chromes. I prefer to shoot at box speed and then compensate for the filter factor. That way the exact dye insufficiency is targeted, rather than just overall exposure. But if you prefer just to shoot at a moderately lower ASA, it will probably help printability, but not quite as accurately. The dye curves on Ektar are pretty steep, and it can become fussy with high-contrast scenes, where you really need the full dynamic range of the film. It will buy you about a stop of latitude either side of what a typical chrome film can, but that's about all. When the shadows drop, they drop hard.
So just let Ektar be Ektar. It's a wonderful landscape film.