Game of Thrones vs. The Lord of the Rings

[ExMem-LarjaThwei]

I'm only through season 1 of GOT and its OK but nothing super special. Take out the blood and the t & a and its an average ABC miniseries.

.......wut

 

[jonny88]

LOTR is more Fantasy and straight forward story (movie wise). GOT is More Realistic and political. Like others said, it's different to see the bad guys win, which maks for good story telling.

I love both worlds, but LOTR is way more interesting. The LOTR would of made a great HBO show as well i think, who knows.

 

[Niltusk]

Man, tough poll here.

I really need to read the GoT books to make it a more even match, but just comparing onscreen stuff its a hard matchup. I enjoy both for far different reasons.

I love the scope and fantasy flair of LotR/Hobbit so much, the Wizards, Elves, Hobbits, Goblins, etc.. but GoT has the drama, its almost like a horror show meets fantasy. At this point I don't set through any scene thinking, "Oh yeah, hes going to charge into battle and be fine", GoT is masterful at making you feel palpable on screen danger like every star is a Star Trek red shirt on an away team.

Arrrghhhh.... can't make up...mind....

 

[karamazov80]

Close poll! I've only seen seasons 1 and 2 of GOT. Never read the books for any of this stuff. Based on that, I'll go with LOTR though. There is better political intrigue/war stuff out there than GOT. But I'm not sure I've seen better stories of trolls and wizards and **** than LOTR.

Pretty apples and oranges comparison though. Like asking if you like Star Trek or Alien franchise more, since they both take place in space.

 

[Niltusk]

I went GoT cause I wanted to view results, redo the poll when DoS comes out and I reserve the right to vote differently.

 

[RIDDICK]

redo the poll when DoS comes out

"Teh Hobbit" isn't LotR.

 

[The Ween]

They made a LotR series? How did I miss that?

 

[crows]

LotR fo' me .

 

[devilof76]

I haven't been into a fantasy story as I am with Game of Thrones since I was a kid watching the Bakshi Lord of the Rings. Jackson's movies were a great experience, but they lack the artistic quality of HBO's series. If TTT and ROTK had been as well done as FOTR, I might have a different opinion, but that trilogy was not nearly as tight as it could have been.

I can't compare books because I haven't read Martin, and I won't until the show is done. Good tv is too hard to come by.

 

[tomandshell]

The Lord of the Rings is nice for a fairy tale of absolute good (Frodo and the Fellowship) vs. absolute evil (Sauron and the forces of Mordor). But, personally, I do admire the mature storytelling of Game of Thrones a lot more.

Interesting. I wouldn't argue that Frodo and the Fellowship are examples of absolute good. Boromir was corrupted by the ring and tried to forcibly take it from Frodo. Frodo ultimately gave in to the temptation of the ring and refused to destroy it, claiming for himself. It was only destroyed by accident when two characters who had been corrupted by it were trying to kill each other over it.

LOTR is not about pure good triumphing over pure evil (Frodo failed to withstand the temptation of the ring), it's about evil destroying itself. The forces of good were not going to prevail at the Black Gate--they were going to be slaughtered. Gandalf and Aragorn didn't triumph over evil in the climax of ROTK. They got lucky. Frodo didn't triumph over evil, he was corrupted by it. We only got a happy ending because the evil of the ring accidentally caused its own destruction.

LOTR is not the simple good vs. evil story some seem to think it is. Other characters like Saruman, Wormtongue and Denethor are not pure evil, they are good people led astray because of their faults and flaws and temptations. LOTR shows that absolute power corrupts absolutely, a theme that it probably has in common with GoT. Characters in both series exhibit a mix of good and bad--it's not all strictly black and white. GoT certainly has even more shades of grey in its large cast of characters, but LOTR is not as simplistic as some are painting it to be.

At any rate, I certainly can't call GoT better when it isn't finished yet. I'm not going to vote when one of the two choices is a work in progress.

Once all the petty political bickering and selfishness and betrayal has played out, we will still be left with a major conflict with the White Walkers. I think they are going to be pretty purely villainous and evil. No shades of grey or sympathy. Just like LOTR, GoT has some pure evil to contend with, we're just getting distracted by the other stuff first. Just like we saw happening in Rohan and Gondor, there are very human issues distracting the kings and rulers from the larger threat looming in the background. Both series ultimately have a supernatural pure evil that is going to need to be vanquished by flawed characters. In LOTR, the heroes ultimately fall short. We'll have to see what happens with GoT.

 

[The Josh]

Interesting. I wouldn't argue that Frodo and the Fellowship are examples of absolute good. Boromir was corrupted by the ring and tried to forcibly take it from Frodo. Frodo ultimately gave in to the temptation of the ring and refused to destroy it, claiming for himself. It was only destroyed by accident when two characters who had been corrupted by it were trying to kill each other over it.

LOTR is not about pure good triumphing over pure evil (Frodo failed to withstand the temptation of the ring), it's about evil destroying itself. The forces of good were not going to prevail at the Black Gate--they were going to be slaughtered. Gandalf and Aragorn didn't triumph over evil in the climax of ROTK. They got lucky. Frodo didn't triumph over evil, he was corrupted by it. We only got a happy ending because the evil of the ring accidentally caused its own destruction.

LOTR is not the simple good vs. evil story some seem to think it is. Other characters like Saruman, Wormtongue and Denethor are not pure evil, they are good people led astray because of their faults and flaws and temptations. LOTR shows that absolute power corrupts absolutely, a theme that it probably has in common with GoT. Characters in both series exhibit a mix of good and bad--it's not all strictly black and white. GoT certainly has even more shades of grey in its large cast of characters, but LOTR is not as simplistic as some are painting it to be.

At any rate, I certainly can't call GoT better when it isn't finished yet. I'm not going to vote when one of the two choices is a work in progress.

Once all the petty political bickering and selfishness and betrayal has played out, we will still be left with a major conflict with the White Walkers. I think they are going to be pretty purely villainous and evil. No shades of grey or sympathy. Just like LOTR, GoT has some pure evil to contend with, we're just getting distracted by the other stuff first. Just like we saw happening in Rohan and Gondor, there are very human issues distracting the kings and rulers from the larger threat looming in the background. Both series ultimately have a supernatural pure evil that is going to need to be vanquished by flawed characters. In LOTR, the heroes ultimately fall short. We'll have to see what happens with GoT.

Very well said Tom.

 

[tomandshell]

It's interesting to me that nine out of ten people will probably tell you that LOTR is about good conquering evil. But that's not what happens. Evil corrupts good and destroys itself in the process. The heroes are along for the ride but are powerless to stop it. Frodo foolishly/naively believes that Gollum can be redeemed, so he spares his life. But he was wrong--Gollum ultimately betrays Frodo and is beyond redemption. Frodo proves to be corruptible, as well. Sam's virtue and friendship were not enough in the end--it took the corruption and lust and greed of Gollum to match and confront those qualities in Frodo. The ring was accidentally destroyed by those who were trying to selfishly and violently claim it.

This is not the timeless story of a pure-hearted hero vanquishing evil. Tolkien saw what war did to men, and he wasn't naive enough to tell a story where the characters fully retain their humanity and aren't scarred by the experience. War shatters us beyond repair, and there is no return to normal life afterwards. That's what Frodo's story teaches us, and it's a heavier moral than your average simplistic bedtime story. Whether it's the burning of Winterfell or the Scouring of the Shire, there are no happy endings, just bittersweet ones at best.

 

[The Josh]

I agree and thats one of the reasons I've said before that the depth is really there in Middle-earth. Its I guess just how much you want to really look into things. Some choose to take it all and and some don't which is totally fine. Everything you've mentioned are why I love Middle-earth. One thing that you get from the book is its only through luck in the end that the Ring is destroyed.

 

[crows]

It's interesting to me that nine out of ten people will probably tell you that LOTR is about good conquering evil. But that's not what happens. Evil corrupts good and destroys itself in the process. The heroes are along for the ride but are powerless to stop it. Frodo foolishly/naively believes that Gollum can be redeemed, so he spares his life. But he was wrong--Gollum ultimately betrays Frodo and is beyond redemption. Frodo proves to be corruptible, as well. Sam's virtue and friendship were not enough in the end--it took the corruption and lust and greed of Gollum to match and confront those qualities in Frodo. The ring was accidentally destroyed by those who were trying to selfishly and violently claim it.

This is not the timeless story of a pure-hearted hero vanquishing evil. Tolkien saw what war did to men, and he wasn't naive enough to tell a story where the characters fully retain their humanity and aren't scarred by the experience. War shatters us beyond repair, and there is no return to normal life afterwards. That's what Frodo's story teaches us, and it's a heavier moral than your average simplistic bedtime story. Whether it's the burning of Winterfell or the Scouring of the Shire, there are no happy endings, just bittersweet ones at best.

excellent post sir

 

[devilof76]

One thing that you get from the book is its only through luck in the end that the Ring is destroyed.

But it wasn't really luck (or an accident). If Frodo hadn't refused to kill Gollum, he wouldn't have been there to bite off his finger.

 

[crows]

was that luck as well? or Destiny?

 

[devilof76]

I doubt that Frodo was the person he was by luck.

 

[FrodoEyes]

Fantastic posts, TomandShell! All very good points. Thank you

 

[Frank Jaeger]

GOT. Just because i like the show better and the characters. Story wise they are both good

 

[Snake.Eyes]

not even a comparison... lotr rulzzz