Is 'Lord of the Rings' better than 'Game of Thrones'

yahoo ^

[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.

[eclecticEel]

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.

[Tax-chick]

There’s nothing particularly grown up about wanting to watch fake sex. That’s more adolescent.

[Tax-chick]

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.

[KC_Lion]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Orc98R0tvvE

[Tax-chick]

LOL!

[x]

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.

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.

[aimhigh]

Game of thrones is porn. Take out the porn and few would be watching.

[Mike Darancette]

GOT is vaguely with the realm of possibility without having the baggage of different mythological creatures as heroes.

[Mike Darancette]

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.

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.

[BlueLancer]

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.

[ConservingFreedom]

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.

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.

[Tanniker Smith]

"The Lord of the Rings": Yes.
"The Hobbit": eh. Your mileage may vary.

"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.

[Tanniker Smith]

I started reading a review of "A Dance With Dragons" when it was published and immediately stopped. I was still on the first book. I realized two things: first, it listed the name of a character, who I now knew lived until at least the fifth book; second, it mentioned that winter was coming to Westeros.

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.

[SgtHooper]

Same with Spartacus as porn.

[minnesota_bound]

Lord of the Rings
Game of Thrones
BAH!

Harry Potter for the win!

[Flying Circus]

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.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

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.

Have you seen a picture of Martin?

[Nepeta]

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.

Go read the chapter "The Scouring of the Shire" at the end of Return of the King. This part was left out of the movie. In the book, the Shire has not escaped unscathed while the four hobbits were off in the world. They've got work to do when they come home to clean up the place and chase out the scum, but even when they are done, some things will never be as they were.

Tolkien was a veteran of WW1, and was deeply affected by the experience. A lot of people think the book is an allegory of WW2, but it is not.

[Perdogg]

True, but even Tolkien said in the intro that people should not make historical interpretations.

[GeronL]

I think LOTR is far superior

I consider Game of Thrones to be porn with a plot