Game of Thrones vs. The Lord of the Rings

[Celtics4ever]

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.

[jpotter33]

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.

I've specifically been talking about the film/tc adaptations rather than the movies, but to mention the number of copies sold without giving any context is misleading. TLOTR came out in the 50's; Martin's first book of the series came out in 96. So Tolkien has 40+ years advantage, which definitely matters. Furthermore, societal and cultural changes also contribute to this, because the inventions of other types of media have made casual reading virtually obsolete for a vast majority of people, which also distorts the numbers. Finally, you only quoted one book in the series, but there have been over 24 million copies sold in North America alone when counting the whole series, in addition to the number of sales outside of North America.

When you consider the age difference and the cultural and societal changes, I bet the difference isn't that great.

[nickagneta]

Given Tolkien has been translated into just about every language on the planet and is widely considered in literary circles as a masterpiece and that the films are some of the highest grossing films of all time as well as Academy Award winning films at that, I tend to think there is a world of difference between the two in overall popularity.

The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are classics. A Song of Ice and Fire is still at this point an unfinished pop-culture phenomenon. We will see how history ultimately receives it, if Martin ever finishes it. Remember, Robert. Jordan's Wheel of Time was widely regarded as one of the best prolonged stories for many years. But he got too verbose and lost the story a bit and then he died and didn't finish it.

Time will tell where ASOIAF ultimately lands as a piece of film and literature. Tolkien's and Peter Jackson's works are already ground breaking all time classics

[Redz]

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.

Lord of the Rings had plenty of political statement to it, it just made them with conspicuously paralleled symbolism and metaphors etc.. instead of spelling it out for you like G.O.T..

[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.

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.

[Redz]

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, 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.

true enough

[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 subjugation 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.

[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.

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.

So ... gratuitous violence and sex means it is more 'serious'?

I'm sorry, but I think that just makes them more emotionally manipulative.  Those are simply plot devices used to get visceral reactions out of viewers/readers.  They don't make a story any more 'serious' than a story that has no violence, no gore and no sex.   There are plenty of crappy books and movies that aren't 'serious' at all that are filled with blood, gore and sex.

Note that just because I'm accusing GOT of being filled with gratuitous plot devices doesn't mean I think it's bad stuff.   Those elements are part of Martin's toolkit and he at least is using those devices to carry his plots forward ... hopefully somewhere!   For a hack writer, there would be no real plot behind such devices.  Martin, at least has real plots going on.  Of course, until he wraps everything up, the whole thing in the mean time is just soap-opera.  Like a Marvel Comic series.   One shocking scene or surprise twist or cliffhanger leads to another.  That's not a bad thing.  But it's not necessarily great, master storytelling.

As literature and great storytelling, the fact that Tolkien relied so little on such tools is testament to the greatness of his literary skill, his craftsmanship and the power of his story.  And Jackson's films, I believe, do a great job of carrying that forward.   My only complaint about the films is that they tend to get maudlin and more than a little campy at times.  I could have done without Sam and Frodo staring wist-fully at each other and droning on and on (something I didn't really get from the books).

I like them both.  I've read both (still waiting on Martin for those final books....).   I've seen all of both HBO's GOT and all the Jackson films. I admit I've only read through Martin's books once, whereas I've read through the LOTR books multiple times over the years.

Imho, GOT is a fun romp.  As a TV series, it is definitely ambitious and in some ways ground-breaking (but as a drama series, imho it pales behind some of HBO's other efforts like the Sopranos, Deadwood and Six Feet Under).

(Aside:  GOT fans might also enjoy Michael Hirst's Vikings series, which gets shown on the History channel.  Same sort of complex plot lines, complex blending of good-and-bad in characters and always the sense that an axe or sword will fall across any character's neck at any time...)

But LOTR is imho epic, both grand and subtle and above-all, thought-provoking.  The books are a literary classic of the most deserving kind and the films, though not perfect, are standard-setters for bringing such a giant literary work of fantasy to the big screen.

[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.

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.

[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.

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?

[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.

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 subjugation 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.

Actually, I think that was largely my point, LOTR has tons of symbolism and fantasy replacing reality.  If he wrote a story about Hitler/nazis sending people into ovens and good people trying to stop him, that would have been an infinitely less light-hearted story (regardless of how much it matched the story/message/themes of LOTR).

You see what I'm getting at?  Even if he wrote about some different guy who went around killing jews, it would be a serious issue that causes people in the theatre to think "oh, that reminds me of Hitler/Germany."  On the other hand I don't think anyone was sitting in the theatre thinking "Mordor reminds me Hitler/Germany."

Oh, and your point is kind of weird to me based on the fact that if critics/sensors from the 50's were given the chance to decide whether or not GOT would have gotten on air, it would have been met with a BILLION times more resistance than LOTR.

[Celtics4ever]

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?

Not to mention Children of the Forest too.

[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.

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.

[jpotter33]

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?

Not to mention Children of the Forest too.

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. Hell, quite a bit of GOT's storyline does not involve these elements at all, so for me it draws me in closer since it's closer to reality. Perhaps my issue is that the fantasy elements comprise a much larger part of Tolkien's work. For me, it's harder to insert myself in the narrative when it's much farther from reality.

[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.

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?

It doesn't have to do with the characters, it's how they're portrayed in the tale.  Stories about elves and fairies are usually more "light-hearted" with the intention of making the listener happy (and I admit LOTR isn't a 10 on that scale).  Stories about black magic and reanimated corpses are normally intended to scare the audience.

Both are completely valid forms of entertainment, but that doesn't mean they're not distinct or that one can't be more entertaining to certain people.  And typically, you don't want to try and scare children, especially if you want them to get to sleep.