Everyone knew The Lord of the Rings even before the movies came out, but I don't think anyone talked about
A Song of Ice and Fire before the TV series. For me, The Lord of the Rings is better.
Turkish Dude - 7 years ago
GoT beter than Lotr. Because GoT, more realistic and for adults. Lotr for kids :)
jake - 10 years ago
Of course it's better, the world of game of thrones is more interesting and the character's are better, but Lord of the Rings is still awesome
justin - 10 years ago
The story of Game of Thrones isn't even over yet. And at the direction it's going (or hinting to go), it seems that it's going to be another good vs evil sort of thing. But if truth be told, as a fan of both the book series, I think Game of Thrones is better and has more depth as well. And I don't think half of the voters are completely familiar with both of these book series so they just picked the ones that they know and liked.
Kate - 10 years ago
Game of thrones is amazig, but part of it's inspiraion was from Tolkiens books. I love them both, but lotr will always be my favourite.
wholandsfirst! - 10 years ago
*about a hero battling the forces of evil with a wise mentor, rogue alpha male and a princess in tow?*
Sorry, no edit feature :O
:d
apriestalawyerandabankerjumpfromaskyscraper - 10 years ago
The qualifier people consistently forget to add when asking comparative questions of this kind is: better... at what? It's quite easy for work A to be better than work B at doing thing X... however, deciding whether A is better at Y than B at Z is that much trickier, if it makes sense at all - and the obvious question comes up why the two are even being compared.
The Star Trek vs. Star Wars debate, for instance, has obviously been going on for decades. And while they've become more similar to each other with Trek's movie series on the one hand, and SW's expanded universe on TV serials on the other, in their original forms it's quite clear that they were doing entirely different things.
So... let's say, was Trek better at using its three main characters to represent the id, ego, super ego while solving various problems than Wars was at presenting a classic story about a hero surrounded by a wise mentor, rogue alpha male and a princess? Or is it the other way around? An interesting discussion to be had for sure, but we both know the real reason people compare them is because both are successful SF franchises with the word "Star" in them.
It's the same thing here, really - people compare GoT to LotR because both are prolific high-budget fantasy works that "emancipate the genre in the public's eyes" due to grounding it in a certain degree of realism, and both have Sean Bean in them sporting suspiciously similar facial hair. That's it.
Other than that, they're remarkably different works that don't share the same goals, appeals or premises and hence exceedingly nonsensical to compare to each other - and to the extent that they might be (i.e. how much better one is at the cello than the other at drums, and what it is that the two instruments share that could be pitched against each other), I don't really see people doing that.
So the way it's being conducted, I find it to be a really boring topic :)
Louis Davis - 10 years ago
To the writer above that suggest that Frodo could have just ridden the eagles to mount doom, must have clearly not read the book and subsequently cannot be familiar with the text that displays an eagle stating that he will not fly over the lands of men on account of the threat of being shot down by arrows. Also the Evil Lord's Nazgul were also on wings, if any of these eagles would have been seen drawing towards Mount Doom the secrecy of the quest would have been compromised and victory nearly impossible. There are many subplots and complex characters battling with inner demons in LOTR, almost everyone is tempted at times, even beings superior to men. The mix of Light, hope, darkness and despair in LOTR clearly pushes it;s self above Game of Thrones. Game of thrones is entirely too dark with zero light. That does not relate well to the real world, which good fantasy should. The real world has light and dark, not everyone is a perverted, drunk who looks out for themselves even at the cost of family members. When is joy ever experience in the GOT. Thats not a good fantasy to me. The balance of Joy and Despair is essential.
Callum - 10 years ago
LOTR films synced with the books. More consistent. Game of Thrones characters may intend to be complex, but I personally think they're inconsistent and people try to justify this as complex when it's actually poor character development. On the book side, language used for the period is just weirdly mixed with modern terms then attempted Shakespearean or tolkienesque, makes me think it was written lazily at times. Then the tv series varies with the book in an unnecessary way, especially the characters. The way the fable is being told can be done better and to more integrity I think. Maybe it's done this because it wants that kinda popular soap opera with some porn in.. That probably is the fantasy bit!
Jess - 10 years ago
No contest LOTR wins... Plus the films were far more true to the books. Given GOT is fantasy-based, it therefore defeats the purpose of entertaining someone like me, I don't want to see grimness misogyny and sexual violence (come on - it has been ridiculously sexualised and it's so not necessary to that extent for dark tales) as entertainment. If I want to be depressed, I'll watch a documentary at least that has meaning, I don't expect it within the context of a fantasy series. If you really wanted to show the true dark story, show the female characters as they really were in the book... Pre-pubescent children... Oh but if guess paedophaelia would be taking it too far. Ironic if you truly want to show the darkness of these stories.
Me - 10 years ago
Also, it's not really fair that this is filed under Game of Thrones and not Lord of the Rings, so fans of Lord of the Rings won't be searching for it, but Game of Thrones fans will find it easily. Therefore, this is no argument. Cheers for Tolkien and Jackson!
Eva - 10 years ago
what the hell, what a comparisons you do?
Adam - 10 years ago
Absolutely love GOT but come on guys, this will never be a contest. What Tolkien has created and Jackson has envisioned will live on forever. LOTR has changed my life and will always have a place in my heart.
Telcontar - 10 years ago
In reply to Adam:
I think LotR is a far more superior film/book/story. To call the characters 2 dimensional is far off the mark. (You must remember that George Martin took many more books to write out his tale than Tolkien (yet it feels so incomplete) so there will obviously be more room for exploration into characters. Likewise, Peter Jackson had 12 hours in the Extended Editions compared to the seasons of GoT.) I will agree with you though in that Gollum's character is probably the most explored.
As to the eagles, this has been addressed many times before by Tolkien in his stories and by Tolkien fans. The Eagles were under the direct authority of the Valar (gods if you will) and were only allowed to be involved when the Valar permitted them to be. The Valar themselves were wary of becoming too involved with activities in the Third Age after what unfolded in and before the First so their direct help was limited. Furthermore, the Eagles appear twice in the LotR films and once so far in the Hobbit films. If Tolkien was lazy and wanted an "easy out" he would have used them far more often! Also, there's the issue of the flying Nazgul and the Eye. Mordor was not without air support so to speak. The Nazgul on fell beasts coupled with Sauron's penetrating gaze could have easily stopped the eagles and Ringbearer. Secrecy and stealth was the only way to go (since they did not have forces strong enough to siege Mordor like in the Second Age). I find the constant dying of key characters in Martin's story far more redundant.
Martin's book is much more gritty, but does that make it a better story? I think not. It's a subjective question and if you simply like thrillers and pornographic sex scenes then of course you're much more likely to favor GoT. Tolkien's epic is a much better masterpiece that balances an amazing sense of realism in the world (Middle-earth), deep characters, tragedy (many deaths), heroism, evil, good, themes of mortality and power, etc. and wraps it up with a satisfying but bittersweet ending (unlike Martin's story). I can't predict the future, but I think Tolkien's mythology will far outlast Martin's (which seems more similar to a temporary fad).
Ulumuri - 10 years ago
Er, he will have *been* forgotten. :D
Ulumuri - 10 years ago
All the cool kids think Martin is better for the moment because his stuff is all "gritty" and "adult", but mark my words, in 50 years he will have forgotten and Tolkien will still be remembered, because Tolkien's books are art.
Evie - 10 years ago
Better than the books? Hell no. Better than the movies? Yes, definitely.
richard - 10 years ago
Comparing a multi-season series with a trilogy is not really fair. GOT has had much more time to develop characters, etc. For anyone who's actually read the books, it's no contest. LOR is a complete and well written story. GRR Martin never finishes his story. He advertises a five part book, but seemed to grow tired of writing the last one (or ran out of ideas or simply realized that he had made his tail far too big and cumbersome to wrap up properly), so he just ended the book--no real conclusion or statement. He just ended it, leaving this reader feeling cheated and having wasted my time reading all those pages just to be left with no closure to the story.
richard - 10 years ago
Comparing a muti-season series with a trilogy is not really fair. GOT has had much more time to develop characters, etc. For anyone who's actually read the books, it's no contest. LOR is a complete and well written story. GRR Martin never finishes his story. He advertises a five part book, but seemed to grow tired of writing the last one (or ran out of ideas or simply realized that he had made his tail far too big and cumbersome to wrap up properly), so he just ended the book--no real conclusion or statement. He just ended it, leaving this reader feeling cheated and having wasted my time reading all those pages just to be left with no closure to the story.
Bernie - 10 years ago
I voted yes, but only because Game of Thrones has a much longer interval in which to lay out the story. Peter Jackson had about 6 hours (or so) to tell a tremendous story. Game has more time.
nick - 10 years ago
Can't compare. Both are very different. GOT is more about characters and how complex each one is. All the characters have so much going on within and around them. LOTR is good vs. bad. They are both good in there own ways. If I had to pick, not that I'm an adult it would be GOT, as a child it would have been LOTR.
McKexxan - 10 years ago
No. LOTR has a happy ending. I'm pretty sure GOT will not. Everytime you start cheering for a character, they die.
Jason - 10 years ago
GOT is so graphic and the sexual content is embarrassing. I have loved LOTR because of the spiritual aspects and because the characters are noble and good. GOT seems to thrive on the darkest part of humanity and saying that "okay, still mess up, still be awful," there is little redemption except vengeance for being harmed. What I am watching GOT for is hope that perhaps good wills out and because there is something sweeping and telling about a world that still exists in terrorist countries and how we can never fall prey to that kind of evil.
Nymeria - 10 years ago
In the simplest of terms, LOTR is a feel good story of triumph over evil.. much less complicated than in storyline and characters. GOT is the deeper, bloodier story.. more plotting, scheming, killing and intertwining of the characters. and no Eagles to help Ned Stark keep his head..
Anon - 10 years ago
One is not better than the other is the reason i voted No not saying LOTR is better than GOT i enjoy them both alot.
Sorgoth - 10 years ago
Lord of the Rings along with its parent "The Silmarillion" are unquestionably the superior literature. However, as a story, I would argue that Game of Thrones is more 'entertaining,' especially for the masses.
LOTR and Silmarillion are true high forms of literature. A beautiful composition of words, ideas, grandeur and sweep. Game of Thrones (books and TV) is more like entertaining, crowd pleasing, addictive soap opera. Game of Thrones is not meant to be something like lyrical literature, but more like a gritty, brutal, fantastical send off to the middle ages. As literature, it is unquestionably inferior to both Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion, but it does make for better melodrama.
And to those people complaining about the eagles in LOTR -- read: Silmarillion. It is very dark, tragic and full of despair. There are no eagles flying down to save the day. But it is the true definition, the epitome even, of Epic.
Nothing in GRR Martin's works comes even close to The Silmarillion. As for LOTR, I would live comfortably if Game of Thrones were never written, but the world will be the poorer if LOTR were never written.
Adam - 10 years ago
I meant "fairly simple" not "fairly simply". I probably made other editing mistakes but there doesn't seem to be the option to edit my post.
Adam - 10 years ago
I would say Game of Thrones is better although it would never never been written had Lord of the Rings never came out. Its more than a superior realism that makes A Song of Fire and Ice the better books. Its plotlines are much more complicated and its characters are 3 dimensional. Comparatively speaking, the plot in Lord of the Rings is fairly simply and its characters 2 dimensional. I think Gollum is probably the character with the most depth in the entire series. Plus I hate how J.R.R Tolkien employed the giant eagles. Everytime he wrote his heros into a corner they couldn't get out of these giant eagles would appear out of no where and save the day. Its lazy deux ex machina and leads to the unanswerable question....If the eagles were so useful and so willing to put their lives on the line for the good guys why couldn't Frodo just hop on their back and get flown to Mount Doom? Problem solved. The Lord of the Rings trilogy shrinks down to half a book, most of which is devoted to exposition on the history of Frodo and the One Ring.
Andrew - 10 years ago
Apples and Oranges. GOT is more like how the real earth was for a long time in terms of the intrigue and war. LOR is fantasy and is way better written. So LOR because its fantasy and most all of fantasy epics are based on its ideas.
LOOK AT THE VOTES
LOTR WINS
Everyone knew The Lord of the Rings even before the movies came out, but I don't think anyone talked about
A Song of Ice and Fire before the TV series. For me, The Lord of the Rings is better.
GoT beter than Lotr. Because GoT, more realistic and for adults. Lotr for kids :)
Of course it's better, the world of game of thrones is more interesting and the character's are better, but Lord of the Rings is still awesome
The story of Game of Thrones isn't even over yet. And at the direction it's going (or hinting to go), it seems that it's going to be another good vs evil sort of thing. But if truth be told, as a fan of both the book series, I think Game of Thrones is better and has more depth as well. And I don't think half of the voters are completely familiar with both of these book series so they just picked the ones that they know and liked.
Game of thrones is amazig, but part of it's inspiraion was from Tolkiens books. I love them both, but lotr will always be my favourite.
*about a hero battling the forces of evil with a wise mentor, rogue alpha male and a princess in tow?*
Sorry, no edit feature :O
:d
The qualifier people consistently forget to add when asking comparative questions of this kind is: better... at what? It's quite easy for work A to be better than work B at doing thing X... however, deciding whether A is better at Y than B at Z is that much trickier, if it makes sense at all - and the obvious question comes up why the two are even being compared.
The Star Trek vs. Star Wars debate, for instance, has obviously been going on for decades. And while they've become more similar to each other with Trek's movie series on the one hand, and SW's expanded universe on TV serials on the other, in their original forms it's quite clear that they were doing entirely different things.
So... let's say, was Trek better at using its three main characters to represent the id, ego, super ego while solving various problems than Wars was at presenting a classic story about a hero surrounded by a wise mentor, rogue alpha male and a princess? Or is it the other way around? An interesting discussion to be had for sure, but we both know the real reason people compare them is because both are successful SF franchises with the word "Star" in them.
It's the same thing here, really - people compare GoT to LotR because both are prolific high-budget fantasy works that "emancipate the genre in the public's eyes" due to grounding it in a certain degree of realism, and both have Sean Bean in them sporting suspiciously similar facial hair. That's it.
Other than that, they're remarkably different works that don't share the same goals, appeals or premises and hence exceedingly nonsensical to compare to each other - and to the extent that they might be (i.e. how much better one is at the cello than the other at drums, and what it is that the two instruments share that could be pitched against each other), I don't really see people doing that.
So the way it's being conducted, I find it to be a really boring topic :)
To the writer above that suggest that Frodo could have just ridden the eagles to mount doom, must have clearly not read the book and subsequently cannot be familiar with the text that displays an eagle stating that he will not fly over the lands of men on account of the threat of being shot down by arrows. Also the Evil Lord's Nazgul were also on wings, if any of these eagles would have been seen drawing towards Mount Doom the secrecy of the quest would have been compromised and victory nearly impossible. There are many subplots and complex characters battling with inner demons in LOTR, almost everyone is tempted at times, even beings superior to men. The mix of Light, hope, darkness and despair in LOTR clearly pushes it;s self above Game of Thrones. Game of thrones is entirely too dark with zero light. That does not relate well to the real world, which good fantasy should. The real world has light and dark, not everyone is a perverted, drunk who looks out for themselves even at the cost of family members. When is joy ever experience in the GOT. Thats not a good fantasy to me. The balance of Joy and Despair is essential.
LOTR films synced with the books. More consistent. Game of Thrones characters may intend to be complex, but I personally think they're inconsistent and people try to justify this as complex when it's actually poor character development. On the book side, language used for the period is just weirdly mixed with modern terms then attempted Shakespearean or tolkienesque, makes me think it was written lazily at times. Then the tv series varies with the book in an unnecessary way, especially the characters. The way the fable is being told can be done better and to more integrity I think. Maybe it's done this because it wants that kinda popular soap opera with some porn in.. That probably is the fantasy bit!
No contest LOTR wins... Plus the films were far more true to the books. Given GOT is fantasy-based, it therefore defeats the purpose of entertaining someone like me, I don't want to see grimness misogyny and sexual violence (come on - it has been ridiculously sexualised and it's so not necessary to that extent for dark tales) as entertainment. If I want to be depressed, I'll watch a documentary at least that has meaning, I don't expect it within the context of a fantasy series. If you really wanted to show the true dark story, show the female characters as they really were in the book... Pre-pubescent children... Oh but if guess paedophaelia would be taking it too far. Ironic if you truly want to show the darkness of these stories.
Also, it's not really fair that this is filed under Game of Thrones and not Lord of the Rings, so fans of Lord of the Rings won't be searching for it, but Game of Thrones fans will find it easily. Therefore, this is no argument. Cheers for Tolkien and Jackson!
what the hell, what a comparisons you do?
Absolutely love GOT but come on guys, this will never be a contest. What Tolkien has created and Jackson has envisioned will live on forever. LOTR has changed my life and will always have a place in my heart.
In reply to Adam:
I think LotR is a far more superior film/book/story. To call the characters 2 dimensional is far off the mark. (You must remember that George Martin took many more books to write out his tale than Tolkien (yet it feels so incomplete) so there will obviously be more room for exploration into characters. Likewise, Peter Jackson had 12 hours in the Extended Editions compared to the seasons of GoT.) I will agree with you though in that Gollum's character is probably the most explored.
As to the eagles, this has been addressed many times before by Tolkien in his stories and by Tolkien fans. The Eagles were under the direct authority of the Valar (gods if you will) and were only allowed to be involved when the Valar permitted them to be. The Valar themselves were wary of becoming too involved with activities in the Third Age after what unfolded in and before the First so their direct help was limited. Furthermore, the Eagles appear twice in the LotR films and once so far in the Hobbit films. If Tolkien was lazy and wanted an "easy out" he would have used them far more often! Also, there's the issue of the flying Nazgul and the Eye. Mordor was not without air support so to speak. The Nazgul on fell beasts coupled with Sauron's penetrating gaze could have easily stopped the eagles and Ringbearer. Secrecy and stealth was the only way to go (since they did not have forces strong enough to siege Mordor like in the Second Age). I find the constant dying of key characters in Martin's story far more redundant.
Martin's book is much more gritty, but does that make it a better story? I think not. It's a subjective question and if you simply like thrillers and pornographic sex scenes then of course you're much more likely to favor GoT. Tolkien's epic is a much better masterpiece that balances an amazing sense of realism in the world (Middle-earth), deep characters, tragedy (many deaths), heroism, evil, good, themes of mortality and power, etc. and wraps it up with a satisfying but bittersweet ending (unlike Martin's story). I can't predict the future, but I think Tolkien's mythology will far outlast Martin's (which seems more similar to a temporary fad).
Er, he will have *been* forgotten. :D
All the cool kids think Martin is better for the moment because his stuff is all "gritty" and "adult", but mark my words, in 50 years he will have forgotten and Tolkien will still be remembered, because Tolkien's books are art.
Better than the books? Hell no. Better than the movies? Yes, definitely.
Comparing a multi-season series with a trilogy is not really fair. GOT has had much more time to develop characters, etc. For anyone who's actually read the books, it's no contest. LOR is a complete and well written story. GRR Martin never finishes his story. He advertises a five part book, but seemed to grow tired of writing the last one (or ran out of ideas or simply realized that he had made his tail far too big and cumbersome to wrap up properly), so he just ended the book--no real conclusion or statement. He just ended it, leaving this reader feeling cheated and having wasted my time reading all those pages just to be left with no closure to the story.
Comparing a muti-season series with a trilogy is not really fair. GOT has had much more time to develop characters, etc. For anyone who's actually read the books, it's no contest. LOR is a complete and well written story. GRR Martin never finishes his story. He advertises a five part book, but seemed to grow tired of writing the last one (or ran out of ideas or simply realized that he had made his tail far too big and cumbersome to wrap up properly), so he just ended the book--no real conclusion or statement. He just ended it, leaving this reader feeling cheated and having wasted my time reading all those pages just to be left with no closure to the story.
I voted yes, but only because Game of Thrones has a much longer interval in which to lay out the story. Peter Jackson had about 6 hours (or so) to tell a tremendous story. Game has more time.
Can't compare. Both are very different. GOT is more about characters and how complex each one is. All the characters have so much going on within and around them. LOTR is good vs. bad. They are both good in there own ways. If I had to pick, not that I'm an adult it would be GOT, as a child it would have been LOTR.
No. LOTR has a happy ending. I'm pretty sure GOT will not. Everytime you start cheering for a character, they die.
GOT is so graphic and the sexual content is embarrassing. I have loved LOTR because of the spiritual aspects and because the characters are noble and good. GOT seems to thrive on the darkest part of humanity and saying that "okay, still mess up, still be awful," there is little redemption except vengeance for being harmed. What I am watching GOT for is hope that perhaps good wills out and because there is something sweeping and telling about a world that still exists in terrorist countries and how we can never fall prey to that kind of evil.
In the simplest of terms, LOTR is a feel good story of triumph over evil.. much less complicated than in storyline and characters. GOT is the deeper, bloodier story.. more plotting, scheming, killing and intertwining of the characters. and no Eagles to help Ned Stark keep his head..
One is not better than the other is the reason i voted No not saying LOTR is better than GOT i enjoy them both alot.
Lord of the Rings along with its parent "The Silmarillion" are unquestionably the superior literature. However, as a story, I would argue that Game of Thrones is more 'entertaining,' especially for the masses.
LOTR and Silmarillion are true high forms of literature. A beautiful composition of words, ideas, grandeur and sweep. Game of Thrones (books and TV) is more like entertaining, crowd pleasing, addictive soap opera. Game of Thrones is not meant to be something like lyrical literature, but more like a gritty, brutal, fantastical send off to the middle ages. As literature, it is unquestionably inferior to both Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion, but it does make for better melodrama.
And to those people complaining about the eagles in LOTR -- read: Silmarillion. It is very dark, tragic and full of despair. There are no eagles flying down to save the day. But it is the true definition, the epitome even, of Epic.
Nothing in GRR Martin's works comes even close to The Silmarillion. As for LOTR, I would live comfortably if Game of Thrones were never written, but the world will be the poorer if LOTR were never written.
I meant "fairly simple" not "fairly simply". I probably made other editing mistakes but there doesn't seem to be the option to edit my post.
I would say Game of Thrones is better although it would never never been written had Lord of the Rings never came out. Its more than a superior realism that makes A Song of Fire and Ice the better books. Its plotlines are much more complicated and its characters are 3 dimensional. Comparatively speaking, the plot in Lord of the Rings is fairly simply and its characters 2 dimensional. I think Gollum is probably the character with the most depth in the entire series. Plus I hate how J.R.R Tolkien employed the giant eagles. Everytime he wrote his heros into a corner they couldn't get out of these giant eagles would appear out of no where and save the day. Its lazy deux ex machina and leads to the unanswerable question....If the eagles were so useful and so willing to put their lives on the line for the good guys why couldn't Frodo just hop on their back and get flown to Mount Doom? Problem solved. The Lord of the Rings trilogy shrinks down to half a book, most of which is devoted to exposition on the history of Frodo and the One Ring.
Apples and Oranges. GOT is more like how the real earth was for a long time in terms of the intrigue and war. LOR is fantasy and is way better written. So LOR because its fantasy and most all of fantasy epics are based on its ideas.