I think, as I said, the distinction is pedantic and misses the entire point of discussion. As for what Shore would think? He is on record, as I've noted with his own words, as referring to his own work in terms of theme, rather than leitmotif.
No it is absolutely an adaption. And while that version is easily the most faithful to the source material it isn't a 100% translation of the text.
I was fairly shocked by that result myself. Though I also don't pretend to be a staunch devote to Austin's work (though I do like a lot of it).
I expect Shore adjusts his terminology according to his audience. The average person in the street would not know what the word "leitmotif" means so I expect he would seek to avoid obfuscation. The word "theme" is less specific but it encompasses "leitmotif", which is a recurring theme that is associated with a particular character, concept or context in a work of literature or music. However, I admit I am a pedantic and pretentious blowhard.
The change of director did seem to help. The movies became progressively darker in tone towards the events in Deathly Hallows as did the lighting in many of the scenes to the point of making the action almost invisible. However, I haven't read the books so I have no idea how faithful the movies are to the source material. Even if I had read the books, I doubt I would care about any changes. For some reason that I can't fathom, I do care about radical changes in adaptations of Tolkien's works that use them as vehicles to convey the adapters' own agendas. Peter Jackson avoided that for the most part, although he does seem to go unnecessarily over the top as a director on occasion. Dial it down, mate.
What audience is he "adjusting" to in a book specifically analyzing his work on LOTR, by an author he invited into his creative process? That he uses "theme" so readily and as a matter of course means that is how he thinks of his own work. If he wanted to describe his efforts in LOTR or to create new musical ideas on The Hobbit as leitmotif, he would have used that term. Instead he used theme both in conversation and in writing.
QED
I still maintain that he used leitmotif in the extended editions of The Lord of the Rings soundtracks but I don't have access to the booklets to prove it.
Welcome to Hollywood. Yet the audience keeps rewarding such behaviors enough.
An excellent question though one I doubt will have a satisfactory explanation beyond what authors a person puts value on.
I heard the term used 50 years ago in reference to Wagner's Ring cycle (different ring obviously) but it seems the term was first applied to music composed by Carl Maria von Weber. Wagner preferred his own term "Hauptmotiv" (principal motif) to "Leitmotiv" (leading motif). I only have the standard soundtrack collection and that doesn't have a booklet. But, anyway, no big deal as you state.
Her transphobia puts her on my shit list.
