Game of Thrones vs. The Lord of the Rings

[Redz]

Definitely easier to compare the books than the films/tv productions.  Different formats.I love them both, but LOTR takes the cake fur me dye to is is sentimentality.

[mgent]

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.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts.  LOTR is better fantasy, but GOT blows it out of the water in terms of action and drama.    I think for those reasons, GOT simply speaks to a larger audience.  The whole adult element (language, nudity) adds a lot to that too.  Also you can't forget that GOT is 1000 times more girlfriend-friendly.

Stick me in the not fair comparison camp.  It's like trying to compare Twilight with Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

[Kane3387]

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.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts.  LOTR is better fantasy, but GOT blows it out of the water in terms of action and drama.    I think for those reasons, GOT simply speaks to a larger audience.  The whole adult element (language, nudity) adds a lot to that too.  Also you can't forget that GOT is 1000 times more girlfriend-friendly.

Stick me in the not fair comparison camp.  It's like trying to compare Twilight with Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

LOTR all day every day.

[nickagneta]

The Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit are pure fantasy fiction that set the standard in literature of world, language, and history building within a fictional fantasy genre. It is also a morality story depicting good versus evil and how ordinary good people are changed during evil times. Tolkien's experiences fighting in World War I and the actions and decisions he had to make during that awful time are mirrored in his works. The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings became so much more than just another fairy tale with Tolkien's masterful and beautiful writing.

Martin's a Song of Ice and Fire, on the other hand, is more of a high level fictional retelling of the War of the Roses and is set in a more realistic medieval setting that attempts to do homage to Tolkien by being a world and language building piece or work. In this way it is no better than dozens and dozens of sci-fi/fantasy works that have tried to replicate Tolkien in this manner. Where a Song of. Ice and Fire is so different and differentiates itself from so many others is the inclusion of so many adult themes and political intrigues built into a medieval fantasy setting.

Tolkien's ability to tell a story is brilliant but so is Martin's ability to build characters with deeply human flaws that blurs the lines between good and evil like few others have in the genre. Tolkien will always be my favorite but Martins works are special and excellent in their own right

[GreenGoggles]

The Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit are pure fantasy fiction that set the standard in literature of world, language, and history building within a fictional fantasy genre. It is also a morality story depicting good versus evil and how ordinary good people are changed during evil times. Tolkien's experiences fighting in World War I and the actions and decisions he had to make during that awful time are mirrored in his works. The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings became so much more than just another fairy tale with Tolkien's masterful and beautiful writing.

Martin's a Song of Ice and Fire, on the other hand, is more of a high level fi too am retelling of the War of the Roses and is set in a more realistic medieval setting that attempts to do homage to Tolkien by being a world and language building piece or work. In this way it is no better than dozens and dozens of sci-fi/fantasy works that have tried to replicate Tolkien in this manner. Where a Song of. Ice and Fire is so different and differentiates itself from so many others is the inclusion of so many adult themes and political intrigues built into a medieval fantasy setting.

Tolkien's ability to tell a story is brilliant but so is Martin's ability to build characters with deeply human flaws that blurs the lines between good and evil like few others have in the genre. Tolkien will always be my favorite but Martins works are special and excellent in their own right

Came here to say this pretty much. Martin's characters are deeper and more complex, and his world has a rich history. LOTR obviously has a much deeper, and fleshed out history than GoT and stands as the prototypical good vs evil story. They are different, the only thing they share is a medieval fantasy setting.

 Which do I enjoy more? I would say LoTR, the last two books in GoT had a lot of filler, and I am starting to wonder if Martin has made his world TOO complex, with too many loose ends to tie up. I don't think the ending to GoT will be satisfactory, I think a lot of questions could go left unanswered, and even worse, unexplored.

[jpotter33]

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.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts.  LOTR is better fantasy, but GOT blows it out of the water in terms of action and drama.    I think for those reasons, GOT simply speaks to a larger audience.  The whole adult element (language, nudity) adds a lot to that too. Also you can't forget that GOT is 1000 times more girlfriend-friendly.

Stick me in the not fair comparison camp.  It's like trying to compare Twilight with Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Haha TP for that little gem. Extremely true. My wife loves GOT, but she gives me a "go to Hell" look when I ask her to watch TLOTR with me lol

[Celtics4ever]

I think one can like the both of them.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts.  LOTR is better fantasy, but GOT blows it out of the water in terms of action and drama.    I think for those reasons, GOT simply speaks to a larger audience.

You are aware that LOTR movies were some of the best grossing movies ever.  LOTR also got book of the century the first time that the Bible has never got it, folks.   I don't see GOT doing that next century.

HBO has 114 million subscribers.  The three LOTR movies made 3 billion. 

I would imagine LOTR booksales top GOT as well as it is older and sometimes taught on college campuses.

I agree GOT is much closer to historical fiction.

  They are both fantasy, neither is based in history but borrowed heavily from history and language and mythology.   Tolkien borrowed heavily from Norse Mythology.   Martin from the War of Roses, Lannister and Stark sound like Lancaster and York, no?  Historical fiction is still fiction folks, those written words are the true words of the historical characters.

GOT is R rated.   LOTR is PG 13 or PG.  If you want ultra detail go with GOT if you want poetry read LOTR.

[jpotter33]

I think one can like the both of them.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts.  LOTR is better fantasy, but GOT blows it out of the water in terms of action and drama.    I think for those reasons, GOT simply speaks to a larger audience.

You are aware that LOTR movies were some of the best grossing movies ever.  LOTR also got book of the century the first time that the Bible has never got it, folks.   I don't see GOT doing that next century.

HBO has 114 million subscribers.  The three LOTR movies made 3 billion. 

I would imagine LOTR booksales top GOT as well as it is older and sometimes taught on college campuses.

I agree GOT is much closer to historical fiction.

  They are both fantasy, neither is based in history but borrowed heavily from history and language and mythology.   Tolkien borrowed heavily from Norse Mythology.   Martin from the War of Roses, Lannister and Stark sound like Lancaster and York, no?  Historical fiction is still fiction folks, those written words are the true words of the historical characters.

GOT is R rated.   LOTR is PG 13 or PG.  If you want ultra detail go with GOT if you want poetry read LOTR.

That's sort of a false analogy, because I think films draw a much larger drawing than series, especially series that are featured on channels that most people don't get.

And GOT is now the most pirated/downloaded show out there I believe, so the subscription numbers aren't necessarily truly representative or reality.

[mgent]

This pretty much sums up my thoughts.  LOTR is better fantasy, but GOT blows it out of the water in terms of action and drama.    I think for those reasons, GOT simply speaks to a larger audience.

You are aware that LOTR movies were some of the best grossing movies ever.  LOTR also got book of the century the first time that the Bible has never got it, folks.   I don't see GOT doing that next century.

HBO has 114 million subscribers.  The three LOTR movies made 3 billion. 

I would imagine LOTR booksales top GOT as well as it is older and sometimes taught on college campuses.

Sorry, thought the OP mentioned he was comparing the adaptations, not the books.

But I hope you know there's a substantial difference between a movie and an HBO series.

I think the biggest allure of GOT is the balance it has from putting heavy/serious topics like politics right beside light-hearted topics like dragons.  LOTR on the other hand is almost purely light-hearted stuff.  You don't even get a hint of seriousness or real-life relate-ability when all events/motives/decisions are based on destroying a magic ring that turns people invisible because a floating eye is looking for it.

[Roy H.]

LOTR on the other hand is almost purely light-hearted stuff.

Huh.  I wouldn't describe it that way, even if you're going only by the movies.

[jpotter33]

This pretty much sums up my thoughts.  LOTR is better fantasy, but GOT blows it out of the water in terms of action and drama.    I think for those reasons, GOT simply speaks to a larger audience.

You are aware that LOTR movies were some of the best grossing movies ever.  LOTR also got book of the century the first time that the Bible has never got it, folks.   I don't see GOT doing that next century.

HBO has 114 million subscribers.  The three LOTR movies made 3 billion. 

I would imagine LOTR booksales top GOT as well as it is older and sometimes taught on college campuses.

Sorry, thought the OP mentioned he was comparing the adaptations, not the books.

But I hope you know there's a substantial difference between a movie and an HBO series.

I think the biggest allure of GOT is the balance it has from putting heavy/serious topics like politics right beside light-hearted topics like dragons.  LOTR on the other hand is almost purely light-hearted stuff.  You don't even get a hint of seriousness or real-life relate-ability when all events/motives/decisions are based on destroying a magic ring that turns people invisible because a floating eye is looking for it.

I'm not sure if I'd go that far, but I definitely share a similar sentiment. I do think there is a much higher relatability factor with GOT than LOTR.

[Eja117]

LOTR on the other hand is almost purely light-hearted stuff.

Huh.  I wouldn't describe it that way, even if you're going only by the movies.

I wouldn't either. The work describes a world war. Yes the war is based on a ring and a mythical bad guy, but is that any sillier than a war that started because a duke was shot? The book dealt with multi culturalism when multi culturalism was just starting to get off the ground.

It's the first book that comes to mind when you think of the fantasy genre.

[mgent]

LOTR on the other hand is almost purely light-hearted stuff.

Huh.  I wouldn't describe it that way, even if you're going only by the movies.

Oh, it totally acts like everything is really serious, but that's about it.  It's almost all goblin/elf/hobbit/magic stuff, there's no be-headings or kids getting pushed out of towers or anything even close to that.

[Celtics4ever]

That's sort of a false analogy, because I think films draw a much larger drawing than series, especially series that are featured on channels that most people don't get.

I waiting to pounce on someone who claimed this, thanks.  The books sales are heavily in favor of Tolkien as well.  I used the movies and HBO show to set you up.

150 Millions copies LOTR.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books

298,000 copies  Dance with Dragons.

http://books.usatoday.com/bookbuzz/post/2011/07/record-sales-for-george-rr-martins-a-dance-with-dragons/176909/1

I love them both.    LOTR is still clearly king of the fantasy genre,  even Harry Potter books did better than GOT and I hate those.   

[jpotter33]

LOTR on the other hand is almost purely light-hearted stuff.

Huh.  I wouldn't describe it that way, even if you're going only by the movies.

Oh, it totally acts like everything is really serious, but that's about it.  It's almost all goblin/elf/hobbit/magic stuff, there's no be-headings or kids getting pushed out of towers or anything even close to that.

Yep. To me, I definitely associate elves, hobbits, trolls and things of that nature more towards fairy tales or stories for children.