Leitmotif.
Spoilers Lord of the Rings TV series
- Thread starter Cyrus
- Start date
Many do not want adaptation but strict literal presentation.
There was an article about Jane Austen's adaptions and people who were well versed in her work gave their opinions on the 2 best adaptions. One was the BBC's fairly strict adaption 6 hour adaption of Pride and Prejudice , and the next was an adaption of Emma, the film "Clueless".
Just showing two completely different takes of adaptions, one being fairly close to the source material (certainly more so then any of the film versions of Pride and Prejudice, and one that is a very lose adaption of a novel, that has besides theme nothing in common to the original.
Just showing two completely different takes of adaptions, one being fairly close to the source material (certainly more so then any of the film versions of Pride and Prejudice, and one that is a very lose adaption of a novel, that has besides theme nothing in common to the original.
On the issue of the look of the show, and people feeling it's following Jackson's work. This technically would be incorrect. Jackson was exceedingly influenced on the previously published works of Alan Lee and John Howe. This dramatically shaped his films (kind of like Giger's earlier work was the inspiration for the later film Alien).
With John Howe being the principal designer on this film, it likely will be tied to much of his design aesthetic, which again long predates Jacksons film.
With John Howe being the principal designer on this film, it likely will be tied to much of his design aesthetic, which again long predates Jacksons film.
I'd expect the Second Age might look somewhat stylistically different anyway as the forging of the One Ring happens ca. SA 1,600 or about 4,800 years before its destruction in the Third Age (ca. TA 3,000). That's a separation in time 200 years greater than between the present day and the building of the Great Pyramid of Giza in our world. We see the ruins of Eregion in Peter Jackson's movies but most of it has crumbled into dust.
The first thing you mentioned is not, by definition, an adaptation. Mentioning Clueless and the reaction to it does serve to emphasize my point about the stupidity of objecting to adaptations changing things about the source material, though.
I think a strict adaptation from one medium to another is indeed an adaptation. Since the words from the page aren't literally being shown on the screen it has been legitimately adapted.
Last edited:
^ If you're making a filmed or staged version of a story but otherwise not changing anything about it, you're translating it, not adapting it.
There isn't an Oscar for best translated film.
Okay. Though, Douglas Adams, in The Music of the Lord of the Rings, which includes a Foreword from Shore himself, specifically refers to Shore's work in terms of Themes.
I'm pretty sure Shore refers to them as leitmotifs in the expanded editions for the Lord of the Rings soundtracks. I don't have the liner notes with me here (in storage in another state) otherwise I'd double check.
Shore himself referred to his work in terms of themes:
Shore himself signed the book, so I can safely say that referring to his work, in terms of theme, is something he, himself, endorsed:
Then I guess he uses both. No big deal.
Well, given the pedantic reply to my comment on theme, it's worth providing as much context as possible. Here you have an explicit delineation between theme and leitmotif:
I’m gonna sign up for Amazon Prime, prolly within that first week of release.
Counting down!
Counting down!
Right .... let's take an article over Shore's own terminology on the matter.
Also, you do realize that this article refers to how Shore makes use of theme, yes?
"Shore, while working on the film, decided to create several main themes. In addition to the Fellowship theme mentioned above, it is also the Ring theme, the Lothlorien Elves theme, the Hobbits of the Shire theme, the Isengard theme, the Mordor theme, the Gondor theme, and the Rohan theme."
So the distinction is, at best, a pedantic one. Or, more practically, ignores how Shore, himself, referred to his own efforts.
I never claimed Shore referred to recurring themes as leitmotifs but that is what they are called in music theory. All I typed initially was the word itself as I was pleased to hear the technique perpetuated by Bear McCreary. Do you think Shore would object to the use of that term for a major element of his compositional style that even predates Richard Wagner's application of it in the 19th century?
Similar threads
