Skip to comments.Is 'Lord of the Rings' better than 'Game of Thrones'
Posted on 06/21/2014 10:00:35 AM PDT by Perdogg
Peter Jackson's Middle Earth franchises 'The Hobbit' and 'Lord of the Rings' had for a long time been the cream of the crop for fantasy entertainment, but now there's a new contender for the throne in HBO's 'Game of Thrones'
'Lord of the Rings' is regarded by many as one of the best film trilogies of all time, fantasy genre or otherwise, it's third film smashed Academy award records and to this date holds the record for highest number of Oscar wins, winning in every category it was nominated.
'Game of Thrones' doesn't quite have the same awards success, although it is the most pirated show on television and recently more people have watched 'Game of Thrones' than 'The Sopranos' making it HBO's most popular show of all time.
(Excerpt) Read more at uk.movies.yahoo.com ...
As is the case in most circumstances, the books are much better than the movies.
That said, Game of Thrones has been called Lord of the Rings for grownups. I think it’s true to a point.
I guess the question is with regard to the video versions.
A very different question from which book is better.
To address that, should be noted that Martin is merely building in a genre Tolkien created, which I’m sure Martin would be the first to admit.
Have been a huge Tolkien fan for 50 years. Have probably read LOTR an average of once/year since the age of 7. The themes and ideas in it have influenced me greatly.
Tried reading GoT when it first came out. Got maybe three books in and gave up.
GoT is inarguably more “realistic” in its portrayal of human character than LOTR, but I got tired of the unrelieved anti-heroism. Honor and duty were the basis of society in medieval times, and those who violated them too egregiously paid a steep price. Dishonorable nobles found it difficult to get their vassals to follow them with any enthusiasm.
Did not get any of this from GoT. There was exactly one truly honorable character, and Martin bumped him off quickly. Nobody every paid a price for dishonorable behavior.
In medieval times, many men, not all and not necessarily most, but many men fought and died for what they saw as their honor. Projecting modern attitudes towards honor into a medieval society turned me off of GoT.
Possibly it got better after I gave up. :)
I’m just about done with the fifth and most current book in GoT. All I can say is that reading the fourth and fifth books might change your mind about honorable characters. I’ve also read Tolkien’s trilogy as well as The Hobbit and The Silmarillion.
Both Martin and Tolkien are masters of character development but it’s important to note that, in the main, Martin does not use racial classifications in the same way as Tolkien did, at least not in the Seven Kingdoms. If you think of Westeros as a large “kingdom of men”, as Tolkien might put it, that might make the analogy better.
For me, Martin gets bogged down in food. I really don’t know why he spends so much time telling us what characters had for dinner, because only rarely does it mean anything.
Tolkien uses allegory in a brilliant way. Martin describes human nature and the potential for treachery in a way few others do. I find both to be excellent reading.
Both are just a lot of BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH talking, boring , you could take all of the episodes of Game of Thrones and compress them down to one episode ,OH same goes for that Vikings snooze fest
Comparing movies, GOT is porn. LOR is biblical.
I suppose that men and elves might be considered different "races," due to their occasional interbreeding.
I believe the other "races" of Middle Earth are more appropriately called species.
We've never had to deal with a world where there are multiple intelligent species. In such a world, our present definitions of racism wouldn't make any sense.
Dwarves and ents and orcs and trolls aren't "human" races at all, they're of entirely different species. In some cases the differentiation is even higher up the taxonomic scale. Ents would arguably be of a different Kingdom than Men.
The JRRT body of literature is allegorical in many aspects: at its heart, a reflection on life and death, woven in, the Christian doctrines of redemption the struggle between good and evil, the afterlife, those who watch over us, strength in the spirit life, etc. JRRT was heavily influenced by Old Norse myths, yet also Arthurian, Celtic and Norman. He was intent to reconcile Christian and philosophical traditions of his day with ancient mythological heritage influential in Britain. The result is a body of literature far richer than the silver screen can portray.
I never read the GOT series nor other literature by GRRM. I did try to watch the series but there were to many beheaded victims for Mrs FE to allow the video to play for long. GRRM has a reputation as a brilliant man with a vivid mind, and he is a prolific American writer. I would like to know more about what influences him - certainly he has unlocked the key to Hollywood and the appetite of audiences today. All the “kids” (trainers at the gym, friends of my children) are GOT fanatics.
Both franchises stand alone and the similarities between them are few and far between, so which one is better? It’s subjective at best, but The Lord of the Rings was a unique and distinct piece of story telling from a master in the art and it is considered by many to be the original modern fantasy work. Pretty much all of the fantasy genre novels from authors that have come afterward, owe their existence to J.R.R. Tolkien and his middle earth creation.
The books have their moments, but most of the “porn” is HBO’s additions to the festivities. Especially the homosexual crap. It’s hinted at here and there in the books, but if I hadn’t had the show slamming it in my face, I probably would’ve missed it in the books.
“Comparing movies, GOT is porn. LOR is biblical.”
I agree (but my word choices might have been different).
LOR grows better with age and repeat viewings. It is rich and noble and ageless. I doubt GOT will age well.
My impression of GOT was, “If you want to watch porn, just go ahead and watch some porn, but don’t cover it over it with some noble disguise.” If it didn’t need the gratuitous porn to get viewers, it wouldn’t include it - without it, my guess is that most would find it rather ho-hum, if not altogether lacking in interest and “merit”.
One is a Lord, the other a Game.
Game of Thrones is soap opera. As is Mad Men.
I am wondering if Tolkein could typed or afford a typist how much more material he would have produced.
“Game of Thrones is soap opera. As is Mad Men.”
GOT is Caligula. LOR is Caesar Augustus.
That is what I like about HBO GO and on-demand and Netflix, etc. I can marathon TV series. They are much more interesting that way. I have frequently gone through 3 or 4 episodes in one sitting.
My cable on-demand, however, seems to only show those series for short time. HBO GO has them all the time.
It’s hard to get attached to any GoT characters, because the minute to do, they die.
At this point I have decided it no longer worth liking anyone besides the surviving Stark children (including john snow), daneries, and tyrion because everyone else is obviously going to die
I have read and enjoyed both. I’m looking forward to the final volumes of “A Song of Fire and Ice,” to give the series its true name. Where LOTR is lyrical and soaring, ASOFAI is vulgar and earthy. The plotline of LOTR is simply threaded; that of ASOFAI is Byzantine. Both have compelling characters. LOTR is the world as we would wish it to be, noble, predictable, and dignified; ASOFAI is the world as it often is, mean, capricious, and demeaning. I only hope GRRM lives long enough to finish the saga.
LotR has the ring of authenticity about that GoT will never have. Tolkien modeled his world on medieval society as it actually existed, while Martin’s is just a shallow facsimile populated by soap opera characters. It shows in the silly names he chose for his cities: King’s Landing? Winterfell? Why not just name them “Capital City” and “Northern City” and be done with it.
There’s nothing particularly grown up about wanting to watch fake sex. That’s more adolescent.
That’s a good question. My impression is that Tolkien was just as interested in compiling dictionaries and genealogies and composing poems as he was in a narrative structure ... maybe even more.
I always thought that R.R. in his name had to be a direct homage to Tolkien.
GoT is inarguably more realistic in its portrayal of human character than LOTR, but I got tired of the unrelieved anti-heroism.
LOTR is epic or as a poster said, biblical. Somehow, though, that heroic saga quality doesn't convey a more rounded view of life, which GOT in a way does. LOTR seems a bit more one-note. I got a bit tired of the epic-heroic quality, while the hobbit world that might have added variety really didn't work for me -- a little too much English sentimentalism.
Arguably, though that very concentrated or unified Wagnerian character of the stories may mean that LOTR will last longer than GOT, in the same way that generations did feel the need to pass down and record their epics and sagas while they let stories and anecdotes that conveyed other sides of life pass away into oblivion.
I only know the video, though, not the actual books.
Game of thrones is porn. Take out the porn and few would be watching.
GOT is vaguely with the realm of possibility without having the baggage of different mythological creatures as heroes.
Martin was a BIG fan of Jack Vance (probably one of the best of the genre). Jack Vance used food a lot because people are always hungry. Vance could write superb Fantasy and SF.
I have nothing to compare LOTR to ... I have never read or watched, and have no inclination to either read or watch, any portion of GOT.
Agree on all points. I would add only that we can't answer the thread title's question until/unless A Song of Ice and Fire is completed.
"Fellowship" started something wonderful and it was my favorite of the three. I didn't mind the necessary changes to keep the story moving and to add dramatic tension at the end. Ended on a positive, hopeful note.
Game of Thrones, the show, got me to read "A Game of Thrones", the book, which had been on my shelf for a few years, having had won it in a book raffle. Had I read it when it originally came out, I might not have picked up the second book. Lots of good stuff in the book, but there didn't seem to be an ending. Yes, it's a series, but the book still needs an ending, and this one seemed no closer to tying up the storylines. Everything across the Narrow Sea seemed for naught or rather nothing mattered except the last page or so. Yes, events had to happen, and the twists were questionable, but did we need to slog through it all?
I enjoyed Peter Dinklage and have "hated" Charles Dance since I watched "Bleak House". As for the rest... not much to say without spoiling things for curious people reading this thread.
And my reaction was "Winter is coming??? STILL??? That was the first frickin' line of the first frickin' book and it still isn't here yet?????"
Ahem. I, er, stopped reading reviews at that book.
Same with Spartacus as porn.
Lord of the Rings
Game of Thrones
Harry Potter for the win!
I have to say absolutely that LOTR is better. I only watched 5 minutes of GoT and had to turn it off when they cut to a scene of two queers just finishing up, still hot and sweaty. Yuck. I do not want to see that stuff.
Have you seen a picture of Martin?
True, but even Tolkien said in the intro that people should not make historical interpretations.
I think LOTR is far superior
I consider Game of Thrones to be porn with a plot
I think he made a point of not matching things up. That would have been boring.
I didn’t endorse it. Just repeating what I have heard.
You’ve a shock coming... I won’t say more.
Elric rocked my world many years back; deryni I just discovered a few years ago and it was amazing
The orcs in Tolkien began as elves and were twisted by dark powers into the orc ‘race’. Orcs and elves more closely related than men and elves in Middle-Earth canon.
Fairly obviously, Melkor "twisted and corrupted" orcs at their very DNA level. To the point they weren't "twisted Elves" anymore, they were something else entirely.
In the entire canon, there isn't even a hint of a possibility of redemption for orcs. They had been corrupted past the point where that was possible. Although anything is possible for Iluvatar.
Using possible future gene engineering methods, it's possible to envision people being able to do something similar to humans. Changing them to the point where they aren't really human any more, and can't go back.
There are hints of the possibility that Men/Elves and Orcs might still be interfertile, but for Men/Orcs, not Elves/Orcs. This could be mainly because Elves were by the end of the Third Age scarce, and Elf captives would be a lot less common to the Dark Powers than Men captives. It doesn't seem likely there would be many volunteers among either Men or Elves, male or female, for a breeding program involving Orcs. :)
However, given the presumed magical powers of Sauron and Saruman, such a breeding program might involve something analogous to in vitro fertilization, not sexual intercourse.
BTW, the Orcs being "grown" in the movie by Saruman is not canonical. Every indication is that Orcs reproduced in a way roughly similar to all the other intelligent species. Though probably much faster.
Agree, if we specify that LOTR is Augustus only after he acquired that title.
During the 15 or 20 years Octavian spent fighting to gain that position of unchallenged supremacy, he did stuff that makes the GOT characters look like squeamish wimps.
I agree with this analysis, mostly.
However, I believe there's more in it than you may realize.
LOTR was written by a man who was born and grew up at the height of Western Civilization's self-confidence. His stories display an ultimate faith in the worth of the civilization and its ideals, no matter how often those ideals fail to be achieved.
In the movies that is best shown by Sam's great speech about some things being worth fighting for.
Martin has obviously, at least to me, been brought up in the cynicism of our present elite. The book is not about a battle between Good and Evil, or a battle between civilizations, it's about a squalid struggle for power within a civilization. To Martin, and people like him, that's all that is Real. The relevant point is not whether they are right or not, it's that their perception is to them all that exists.
So to me, GoT is based on the modern liberal worldview, LOTR is based on the older worldview held by many conservatives.
Note that I have seen only segments of the GOT series, and read only about the first three books in the GOT series, and that was a long time ago, so I may not be entirely accurate in this charactierization. OTOH, I know Tolkien inside-out.
Excellent observations, Sherman Logan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.