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.