Is Game of Thrones (season 1 and 2) better than Lord of The Rings films?
Excluding "The Hobbit" is it better in terms of being engrossed in the time period, fantasy elements and action?
Game of Thrones is less boring.
I mean it's still medieval fantasy, but the nudity makes it bearable.
I probably wouldn't have fallen asleep during Lord of the Rings if they had stopped at a few brothels on the way to Mordor.
''Malice'' is a registered trademark of Smackdowner Inc.
All Rights Reserved 2002 - 2013
GoT is ultimately a character-based political drama with medieval and fantasy elements.
ASoIaF is more of an adventure tale, about these fantastical locations, creatures and people.
This is kinda like trying to compare Daggerfell to Baldur's Gate, or Star Wars and Star Trek.
Overall I'd say it's better than Two Towers, not as good as Fellowship or RotK.
But honestly other than the obvious superficial similarities, they're very different pieces of media.
skullmagic2 has spoken. Please try to contain your excitement.
Yes. Definitely Yes.
It's the same genre, kind of, but they're very different. I prefer GoT, but Lord of the Rings isn't bad.
The official Agrias Oaks of the FFXV board.
FOTR > GOT S1 > ROTK > TTT > GOT S2
LOTR books are better than ASOIAF books, except maybe A Storm of Swords.
I like GoT, but LotR is better in all ways. Books, movies, Hobbit included all beat GoT.
Love both series in both formats, but I'd say that Game of Thrones is better than The Lord of the Rings film trilogy simply by virtue of having more time to spend on the characters and the story. I'd also say that the book series for LotR is "better", but that's probably due to the fact that I'm not a huge fan of the P.O.V. structure Martin uses. I've liked it in other novels, and I enjoy the reasoning behind why he did it, but I think it short-changes a lot of the more interested characters and elements of both the world and the story. Tolkien's writing may be "too descriptive" for some people, but I share his love of languages, and thus very much enjoy his prose.
Also, although I do feel that Jackson respects and loves the source material, I don't think that always comes through on-screen. The films have a lot of terrible humor, which is something I've always disliked about them, but that feeling was exacerbated by my latest re-watch of the trilogy. I'd almost forgotten how little Gimli and Legolas do besides banter with one another. A lot of that can be explained by the fact that Jackson was working with a much more limited amount of screen time, but that doesn't make it any less cringe-worthy. I also find Jackson to be a somewhat inconsistent director. Part of the reason for that may simply be due to how many different people actually directed sequences of the film, but even the material that is strictly his - such as the Paths of the Dead. It highlights his roots as an independent horror-comedy director, sure, but that doesn't mean it fits in tonally with the atmosphere he establishes so well in other scenes (such as Faramir charging towards Osgiliath, and the march through the city preceding that). Same can be said for his sequence in the Dead Marshes from the second film.
So yeah; I'd say Game of Thrones is a better visual adaptation than the LotR trilogy, but that I prefer Tolkien's original work to A Song of Ice & Fire (speaking as a whole; I'd also have to say that A Storm of Swords is the best book out of the entire lot, but I find A Clash of Kings, A Feast for Crows, and A Dance with Dragons to be very enjoyable, but simultaneously problematic). Both are among the best fantasy works ever created, however, and it's not like anyone has to choose one over the other.