Game of Thrones vs. The Lord of the Rings

[Beat LA]

The Hobbit was written for children.   LOTR not so much, try The Silmarillion on for size if you think you can read the big boy stuff.

Dear lord (no pun intended, lol), it was?  I read that book when the movies were coming out (I was in 6th grade), just to, you know, get some background info and to see if I would like it, as I've observed that books are almost always better than their film adaptations, but that wasn't the case with the Hobbit, or any of the other books by Tolkien.  Their respective premises sounded awesome, but, to me, anyway, the delivery was sh1t, lol.  Two thirds of those books are seemingly devoted to stupid elvish or whoever else's songs, and Tolkien takes far too long to get to the point that is supposed to be interesting.  For example, after seeing the two towers, I rushed home to read the book, and it was crap.  Much like frodo's journey, I found myself slogging through the mud, uphill, and there was absolutely no payoff.  For about 200 pages, I read of nothing more than a multitude of dumb songs from different tribes and communities or whatever, waiting for the battle scene, and after all of that, Tolkien described the battle in a paragraph.  At that point, I said no more, and never finished it.  I guess it's not my genre, but talk about a waste of time, lol. 

As for Game of Thrones, I've just started watching it, and it's pretty interesting, but I feel like Martin's books would be of the same format, so no, lol.  Has anyone read them?  Are they similar?  Sometimes, I find it hard to keep track of all the characters, but it's interesting.  If someone were to put 'the tudors' and 'lord of the rings' in a blender, Game of Thrones would likely be the result, imo.  I used to love to read, but I haven't read a book since high school, although I do read stuff everyday.  I tend to prefer history textbooks to fiction, quite honestly, and I've never found any kind of fiction to be that interesting, Harry Potter aside.  So, yeah. 

Kit Harington, tho (sarcasm).





Ahaha.

[mmmmm]

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.

I guess the simple answer is yes

And I guess at the end of the day that was my point:  GOT has tons of events/situations that result from natural human conflict, and then it has other events/situations that result from invented fantasy elements like dragons.  LOTR on the other hand is just one big invented fantasy and almost all the problems/struggles that the characters face are a result of it.  Hell, even the love story had the whole, "Arwen is immortal and Aragon isn't" thing.  Whereas you take love elements from season 1 of GOT that are full of unknown paternity, incest, and multiple important ****s, you've got tons of seriousness and a season-long plot-line (probably the biggest one) that completely could have happened in real life.

I think you are missing much of the symbolism of The Lord of the Rings. Did you know that some of Tolkien's biggest critics when the book came out gave him crap because they saw it as a fantasy reproduction of World War II with comparisons of Mordor to Germany and Sauron to Hitler. Many fell it too racy and real for the market it was being sold to. Tales of kidnap, storming and raiding homes, spies amongst friends, the subjectation of entire countries to the will of another, genocide, etc. They are all there in The. Lord of the Rings. In the 1950s, that was some touchy subject to broach in a supposed children's fairy tale.

I think the point is there is a fine line between the proper amounts of symbolism and realism/literalism. I don't think anyone denies that TLOTR has political and serious cultural undertones to it, but there's a point that something becomes too symbolic and needs to be more literal and to the point. For example, you could make a narrative about fairies, witches, and unicorns that has serious political, philosophical, and cultural symbolism and undertones, but it won't really be taken as seriously due to the "medium" used, if you will. For me, that is why I find GOT better, because the whole concept of hobbits, elves, and trolls just does not appeal as much to me.

Granted, that could by my own fault, because it is a work of fantasy. Furthermore, it is a bit arbirtrary for me to be okay with dragons, religious dark magic, and white walkers but not those other things, even if they are a bit less childish.

Yeah, that last sentence hits on why I don't really understand your argument; why are elves and orcs childish, while dragons, reanimated corpses, witches, animal spirit possession and wight walkers aren't?

I'm not sure. I've always associated that type of stuff with fairy tales and childhood stories, fair or not.

I mean don't get me wrong, I still am a big fan of the Lord of the Rings, but I've just never bought the whole elf, troll, hobbit, wizard, or orc type of narrative. And it just seems the way the two adaptations utilize these fantasy elements is different, too.

I know your proposed comparative discourse is about the HBO series and the Jackson films, but if you read the complete Tolkien works, in particular the Silmarillion, I would think your understanding of what the 'elves' are would be anything but 'childish' fantasy.   

[Celtics4ever]

But the Children were in the past, and most of the magic or fantasy elements that are involved are either in the past, on the margins, or used sparingly

Dragons, Lady Stoneheart raised from the dead, Walkers not as sparing as one would think.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

I'm a huge fan of LOTR (books and movies, though I have a few quibbles with Jackson's interpretation), but I haven't read or viewed a single scene of GOT, so I'm afraid I can't add to the OP's request for comments on a comparison of the adaptations.

I will say that I was interested in GOT until I learned that it features so many, umm, "adult" situations—I'm not a prude, but from what I'd heard, it was gratuitous. Not my thing. Also, I came across a quote I found very off-putting, not sure but I think it was from Martin, saying something to the effect of, "LOTR is great, but there's no sex in it." To which I thought, "Well, LOTR is about a global conflict that threatens to destroy the whole world—not really any time for sex in there." And with Tolkien being a devout Christian, he would never have had any gratuitous sex anyway.

Just my two cents.

[D.o.s.]

The Hobbit was written for children.   LOTR not so much, try The Silmarillion on for size if you think you can read the big boy stuff.

Dear lord (no pun intended, lol), it was?  I read that book when the movies were coming out (I was in 6th grade), just to, you know, get some background info and to see if I would like it, as I've observed that books are almost always better than their film adaptations, but that wasn't the case with the Hobbit, or any of the other books by Tolkien.  Their respective premises sounded awesome, but, to me, anyway, the delivery was sh1t, lol.  Two thirds of those books are seemingly devoted to stupid elvish or whoever else's songs, and Tolkien takes far too long to get to the point that is supposed to be interesting.  For example, after seeing the two towers, I rushed home to read the book, and it was crap.  Much like frodo's journey, I found myself slogging through the mud, uphill, and there was absolutely no payoff.  For about 200 pages, I read of nothing more than a multitude of dumb songs from different tribes and communities or whatever, waiting for the battle scene, and after all of that, Tolkien described the battle in a paragraph.  At that point, I said no more, and never finished it.  I guess it's not my genre, but talk about a waste of time, lol. 

As for Game of Thrones, I've just started watching it, and it's pretty interesting, but I feel like Martin's books would be of the same format, so no, lol.  Has anyone read them?  Are they similar?  Sometimes, I find it hard to keep track of all the characters, but it's interesting.  If someone were to put 'the tudors' and 'lord of the rings' in a blender, Game of Thrones would likely be the result, imo.  I used to love to read, but I haven't read a book since high school, although I do read stuff everyday.  I tend to prefer history textbooks to fiction, quite honestly, and I've never found any kind of fiction to be that interesting, Harry Potter aside.  So, yeah. 

Have read all of them. GoT the show is ASOIAF but trimmed down considerably. The Hobbit is most certainly for children -- and in fact, since the age of about 6 or so, it's been my favorite fantasy book, and, actually, was the first book I can remember reading on my own.

The point is the journey, not the battles. That's what Peter Jackson screwed up.

[Beat LA]

The Hobbit was written for children.   LOTR not so much, try The Silmarillion on for size if you think you can read the big boy stuff.

Dear lord (no pun intended, lol), it was?  I read that book when the movies were coming out (I was in 6th grade), just to, you know, get some background info and to see if I would like it, as I've observed that books are almost always better than their film adaptations, but that wasn't the case with the Hobbit, or any of the other books by Tolkien.  Their respective premises sounded awesome, but, to me, anyway, the delivery was sh1t, lol.  Two thirds of those books are seemingly devoted to stupid elvish or whoever else's songs, and Tolkien takes far too long to get to the point that is supposed to be interesting.  For example, after seeing the two towers, I rushed home to read the book, and it was crap.  Much like frodo's journey, I found myself slogging through the mud, uphill, and there was absolutely no payoff.  For about 200 pages, I read of nothing more than a multitude of dumb songs from different tribes and communities or whatever, waiting for the battle scene, and after all of that, Tolkien described the battle in a paragraph.  At that point, I said no more, and never finished it.  I guess it's not my genre, but talk about a waste of time, lol. 

As for Game of Thrones, I've just started watching it, and it's pretty interesting, but I feel like Martin's books would be of the same format, so no, lol.  Has anyone read them?  Are they similar?  Sometimes, I find it hard to keep track of all the characters, but it's interesting.  If someone were to put 'the tudors' and 'lord of the rings' in a blender, Game of Thrones would likely be the result, imo.  I used to love to read, but I haven't read a book since high school, although I do read stuff everyday.  I tend to prefer history textbooks to fiction, quite honestly, and I've never found any kind of fiction to be that interesting, Harry Potter aside.  So, yeah. 

Have read all of them. GoT the show is ASOIAF but trimmed down considerably. The Hobbit is most certainly for children -- and in fact, since the age of about 6 or so, it's been my favorite fantasy book, and, actually, was the first book I can remember reading on my own.

The point is the journey, not the battles. That's what Peter Jackson screwed up.

Wow, that makes them even more dull, lol.  Well, to me, anyway, but to each his own.  No big deal.  I'm not sure that the lotr films would have done as well as they did if they had focused more on 'the journey' as opposed to the battle scenes, which is probably why Jackson went in that direction, but I get your point.

[D.o.s.]

Dull is in the eye of the beholder. Different strokes for different folks, though. I very much enjoy the GoT show and the ASOIAF books. The best LOTR movies, IMO, are the animated ones -- although those are also arguably more for children.

As to the adult content in the GoT show, I think that's also a different strokes thing. I don't find it 'gratuitous,' but it's certainly 'graphic.' there are real human boobs. And butts.

[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.

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.

I'm not sure pushing kids out of towers elevates the writing into a more serious place. I get annoyed when people suggest that writing which is relatable, enjoyable, and accessible to everyone like Harry Potter or Huck Finn is somehow a lower form of literature. By the same token I get annoyed when someone thinks just because a novel is complicated and features a tortured soul like Madame Bovary (big huge spoiled Edited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline.....can I say that here?) is better.

[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.

I guess the simple answer is yes, a war based on a magic ring and a mythical bad guy who was killed but is suddenly now coming back to power even though he doesn't have a body, is sillier than a duke who was assassinated due to the result of natural human conflict.

And I guess at the end of the day that was my point:  GOT has tons of events/situations that result from natural human conflict, and then it has other events/situations that result from invented fantasy elements like dragons.  LOTR on the other hand is just one big invented fantasy and almost all the problems/struggles that the characters face are a result of it.  Hell, even the love story had the whole, "Arwen is immortal and Aragon isn't" thing.  Whereas you take love elements from season 1 of GOT that are full of unknown paternity, incest, and multiple important bastrds, you've got tons of seriousness and a season-long plot-line (probably the biggest one) that completely could have happened in real life.

Woah woah woah. Don't get mad at Tolkein just because he invented the horcrux a hundred years before JK Rowling, which is metaphorical for the difficulty in killing evil and the need to be ever vigilant.

[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.

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.

I'm not sure pushing kids out of towers elevates the writing into a more serious place. I get annoyed when people suggest that writing which is relatable, enjoyable, and accessible to everyone like Harry Potter or Huck Finn is somehow a lower form of literature. By the same token I get annoyed when someone thinks just because a novel is complicated and features a tortured soul like Madame Bovary (big huge spoiled ****....can I say that here?) is better.

Yeah, "adult" or "dark" doesn't necessarily mean "better".  I enjoy adult themes, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with something that is just a good story.

[nickagneta]

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.

I guess the simple answer is yes

And I guess at the end of the day that was my point:  GOT has tons of events/situations that result from natural human conflict, and then it has other events/situations that result from invented fantasy elements like dragons.  LOTR on the other hand is just one big invented fantasy and almost all the problems/struggles that the characters face are a result of it.  Hell, even the love story had the whole, "Arwen is immortal and Aragon isn't" thing.  Whereas you take love elements from season 1 of GOT that are full of unknown paternity, incest, and multiple important ****s, you've got tons of seriousness and a season-long plot-line (probably the biggest one) that completely could have happened in real life.

I think you are missing much of the symbolism of The Lord of the Rings. Did you know that some of Tolkien's biggest critics when the book came out gave him crap because they saw it as a fantasy reproduction of World War II with comparisons of Mordor to Germany and Sauron to Hitler. Many fell it too racy and real for the market it was being sold to. Tales of kidnap, storming and raiding homes, spies amongst friends, the subjectation of entire countries to the will of another, genocide, etc. They are all there in The. Lord of the Rings. In the 1950s, that was some touchy subject to broach in a supposed children's fairy tale.

I think the point is there is a fine line between the proper amounts of symbolism and realism/literalism. I don't think anyone denies that TLOTR has political and serious cultural undertones to it, but there's a point that something becomes too symbolic and needs to be more literal and to the point. For example, you could make a narrative about fairies, witches, and unicorns that has serious political, philosophical, and cultural symbolism and undertones, but it won't really be taken as seriously due to the "medium" used, if you will. For me, that is why I find GOT better, because the whole concept of hobbits, elves, and trolls just does not appeal as much to me.

Granted, that could by my own fault, because it is a work of fantasy. Furthermore, it is a bit arbirtrary for me to be okay with dragons, religious dark magic, and white walkers but not those other things, even if they are a bit less childish.

So if I wrote a book filled with characters that were talking roosters, cows and pigs, set it on a farm and put in symbolic undertones, then it couldn't be taken seriously because of the medium? Because it sure worked in a little book called Animal Farm.

[D.o.s.]

Hey now, allegory is a complicated thing.

[Celtics4ever]

The point is the journey, not the battles. That's what Peter Jackson screwed up.

I think the box office slips show otherwise.   People like action, while I love the books, the movies spiced up the action and made them interesting to guys who would like a Rambo movie.

There is more allegory in LOTR than GOT.   GOT is very gritty but neither is very realistic.   Martin wrote in a time where writing graphical stuff was and is accepted.   That cannot be said of Tolkien, who wrote in the shadow of the World Wars.  Unlike Martin he fought in a war and probably could have wrote much more detailed accounts of a battle if he wanted too.   But all too often those who have partook of the horrors of war do not want to go back there.    You could not write gritty stuff in the 40-50s it would have been crucified by the critics, who hated LOTR initially anyways.   Tolkien was also a strict Catholic and would not have wrote such stuff anyways.   

Saruman is the Istari would chose science and technology and turned to the dark side.   Very deep references to total war and modern war with his stuff.  Stuff that Tolkien lived through and  survived.  Martin grew up in NJ so he has seen some horrors too.  LOL

[D.o.s.]

The point is the journey, not the battles. That's what Peter Jackson screwed up.

I think the box office slips show otherwise.

And I think one of the surest signs of uninteresting, playing-it-safe mediocrity is massive mainstream success. So where are we now?

Anyway, the point is that the battles, in the books, occupy maybe 1/10th of the word count. The films aren't true to the spirit of the novels.

[mmmmm]

The point is the journey, not the battles. That's what Peter Jackson screwed up.

I think the box office slips show otherwise.

And I think one of the surest signs of uninteresting, playing-it-safe mediocrity is massive mainstream success. So where are we now?

Anyway, the point is that the battles, in the books, occupy maybe 1/10th of the word count. The films aren't true to the spirit of the novels.

LOL - yeah, the Batte of Five Armies in the book gets what?  A page or two?

The battles are by no means the most obvious deviations - and plot-wise are hardly the most egregious.  The battles at least _happened_ in the books, even if their coverage may not have been as extensive.   Things like Arwen rescuing Frodo and summoning the flood at the fords on the race to Rivendell - major deviation.

But I don't really mind that.   Film is a different medium and most translations between book and film are doomed to fail as entertainment and as artistic creations if they chain themselves to literal purity.

The films, imho, are entertaining and well crafted for what they are and I try to judge them for themselves as films rather than hold them up to comparison to the books.

For the most part, I think they were well done (with the exception I mentioned earlier with the long droning and maudlin soliloquies by Frodo and Sam.  'Coulda done without those.).