Game of Thrones vs. The Lord of the Rings

[jpotter33]

So I've had a long-standing debate with my buddy over two arguments regarding the two fantasy series, and I wanted to get some input from other fans on this blog.

1) I claim that these two represent two separate levels of fantasy, with LOTR representing a "higher" level of fantasy than that of GOT. (Disregard Gamble's traditional separation, because I don't think they're very helpful in this debate.) He argues that they're the same level of fantasy, only GOT tends to deal with more political/adult topics. He bases his claim on the fact that they both contain dragons, magic and curses (to a degree), giants, and other typical fantasy characteristics. I argue that LOTR takes it to another level of fantasy with its dependence on hobbits, trolls, elves, orcs, wizards, and other more magical and mystical elements. Do you think they constitute the same level of fantasy or differing levels?

2) I argue that GOT is the better of the two, and he argues that LOTR is the better fantasy series. I understand that these things are purely subjective in nature, but which series do you think is the better fantasy and why?

I take this video as irrefutable evidence that GOT is better 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgqUI6e1T5E

[jpotter33]

Also, for those Game of Thrones nerds who prefer the show over the books like myself, if you have an hour to kill I highly recommend this video. It explains all of the history, background, and lore of Westeros. It also fully explains Robert's Rebellion from several different perspectives, which is quite interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPI_xA1SoRg

[D.o.s.]

Are we talking on-screen or on paper?

I would posit that GoT is much closer to historical fiction than 'fantasy proper,' if that makes any sense. I would also say that they're entirely different stories (particularly the books), so a comparison doesn't seem to be very legitimate.

[Eja117]

I agree GOT is much closer to historical fiction.

I also feel GOT is more entertainment based and more money based whereas LOTR was more personal and finer piece of literature. It aims to ask and answer questions about life, humanity, and our place in it.

As fun as GOT is I think in 50 years it's gone whereas LOTR will be around for thousands.

[pearljammer10]

LOTR all day everyday.

[Roy H.]

In terms of "which is better", I think it's LOTR hands down.  Tolkien told an epic adventure -- and established an entire world -- in a series that lasts about as long as one of Martin's books.

I like ASOIAF, but there's a ton of filler.  I'd much rather read 1100 greatly-written pages than 7,000 pages that are desperately in need of an editor.

[Eja117]

That video is 4 and a half minutes I can never get back but I'm fine with that

[jpotter33]

Are we talking on-screen or on paper?

I would posit that GoT is much closer to historical fiction than 'fantasy proper,' if that makes any sense. I would also say that they're entirely different stories (particularly the books), so a comparison doesn't seem to be very legitimate.

The issue I have with that interpretation is their settings.  The world of GOT is unequivocally in a world that is not Earth, where Tolkien vehemently defended the fact that his world is Middle Earth, or the Earth's ancient past.  So I think that's true regarding their story lines, but I think that's hard to defend given their respective "worlds".

[jpotter33]

In terms of "which is better", I think it's LOTR hands down.  Tolkien told an epic adventure -- and established an entire world -- in a series that lasts about as long as one of Martin's books.

I like ASOIAF, but there's a ton of filler.  I'd much rather read 1100 greatly-written pages than 7,000 pages that are desperately in need of an editor.

There's probably not a comparison in the books. I haven't read LOTR, but I've read most of ASOIAF. Martin is a bit long-winded, but I've heard there's no comparison in the books and Tolkien blows him out of the water.

I should've clarified that I was meaning the on-screen adaptations. Perhaps it's just taste, but I almost find the LOTR a little "goofy" or "kiddish" at times. I still love the series, but it lacks a sense of "seriousness" or something i  my perspective that I can't quite elaborate into words.

[Eja117]

Are we talking on-screen or on paper?

I would posit that GoT is much closer to historical fiction than 'fantasy proper,' if that makes any sense. I would also say that they're entirely different stories (particularly the books), so a comparison doesn't seem to be very legitimate.

The issue I have with that interpretation is their settings.  The world of GOT is unequivocally in a world that is not Earth, where Tolkien vehemently defended the fact that his world is Middle Earth, or the Earth's ancient past.  So I think that's true regarding their story lines, but I think that's hard to defend given their respective "worlds".

I'm not sure I'm following you on this.

[jpotter33]

That video is 4 and a half minutes I can never get back but I'm fine with that

TP for lasting through it lol

It's pretty stupid, but I just love all of the references in it.

[Eja117]

This thread is good. It is inspiring a fine tangent thread in me and I'll try to wait on it

[jpotter33]

Are we talking on-screen or on paper?

I would posit that GoT is much closer to historical fiction than 'fantasy proper,' if that makes any sense. I would also say that they're entirely different stories (particularly the books), so a comparison doesn't seem to be very legitimate.

The issue I have with that interpretation is their settings.  The world of GOT is unequivocally in a world that is not Earth, where Tolkien vehemently defended the fact that his world is Middle Earth, or the Earth's ancient past.  So I think that's true regarding their story lines, but I think that's hard to defend given their respective "worlds".

I'm not sure I'm following you on this.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of historical fiction is that it is a narrative that takes place in the past, usually but not always retelling a historical story (or at least something similar to it).  The essential element is the narrative takes place in the past. But there's no real indication that ASOIAF is set in the past at all. Rather, Westeros is set in an entirely different world and universe from Earth, so that's why I'm not sure it can be classified as historical fiction.

Granted, the entire medieval system of swearing fealty, lords, and kings is definitely a storyline of historical fiction. However, I'm just not sure you can classify it as historical fiction given that it's in a different universe than ours and not necessarily in the past.

[Eja117]

Are we talking on-screen or on paper?

I would posit that GoT is much closer to historical fiction than 'fantasy proper,' if that makes any sense. I would also say that they're entirely different stories (particularly the books), so a comparison doesn't seem to be very legitimate.

The issue I have with that interpretation is their settings.  The world of GOT is unequivocally in a world that is not Earth, where Tolkien vehemently defended the fact that his world is Middle Earth, or the Earth's ancient past.  So I think that's true regarding their story lines, but I think that's hard to defend given their respective "worlds".

I'm not sure I'm following you on this.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of historical fiction is that it is a narrative that takes place in the past, usually but not always retelling a historical story (or at least something similar to it).  The essential element is the narrative takes place in the past. But there's no real indication that ASOIAF is set in the past at all. Rather, Westeros is set in an entirely different world and universe from Earth, so that's why I'm not sure it can be classified as historical fiction.

Granted, the entire medieval system of swearing fealty, lords, and kings is definitely a storyline of historical fiction. However, I'm just not sure you can classify it as historical fiction given that it's in a different universe than ours and not necessarily in the past.

In that case I'd say you're worrying too much. Call it....quasi historical fantasy fiction or something.

[Eja117]

I can't really agree that GOT is a better film (on any level) than LOTR. LOTR won best picture and is on the AFI top 100 list.

I was in shock after Fellowship. I didn't think a fantasy film could be like that. I thought it changed the game and might have been one of the single biggest bar raisers I had ever seen in terms of that kind of film.

I grant you GOT might be more serious, but a ton of violence and nudity doesn't make things serious. It makes things fun.  LOTR didn't need that in the same way.  I feel like if Peter Jackson made a film about a couple of dwarf merchants who just take a long trip to sell some wares and not a lot happened it would still possibly be a very satisfying film. I'd be like "We get to see the Blue Hills? The coast? Awesome!"

GOT is nothing like that. It's just really good and entertaining. But there's not a lot about it that blows me away except for plot twists and the opening theme.