- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
GOT vs LOTR
Posted on 5/5/13 at 10:06 pm
Posted on 5/5/13 at 10:06 pm
As books.
As a story.
As movies.
As a story.
As movies.
15
Posted on 5/5/13 at 10:08 pm to udtiger
Haven't read the books but I like GoT more. Really like LOTR though
Posted on 5/5/13 at 10:09 pm to udtiger
GOT...time is all it will take. Tolkien had a much larger literary audience before the movies, the opposite wil hold true for GRRM. He will exceed the commercial viability of Tolkien.
Posted on 5/5/13 at 10:10 pm to Preys on Gumps
quote:
GOT...time is all it will take. Tolkien had a much larger literary audience before the movies, the opposite wil hold true for GRRM. He will exceed the commercial viability of Tolkien.
That's if the fat bastard actually finishes the series before he dies.
Posted on 5/5/13 at 10:12 pm to udtiger
The only thing similar they in common is they are considered fantasy. Other than that they are vastly different and makes it very hard to compare the two against each other.
Posted on 5/5/13 at 10:18 pm to udtiger
I know this thread is for fun, but there really is no comparison. both very different stories
Posted on 5/5/13 at 10:22 pm to udtiger
Both are very different.
Personally, I enjoy GoT way more than I ever did LotR. I went and all saw 3 LotR movies back when they first came out, but have I ever rewatched all of them/wanted to sit through each one again? Nope. I haven't seen Return of the King since 2004
. I just feel like with LotR you have to sit there and invest yourself in it, and it kind of gets boring.
GoT, on the other hand, I watched all of Season 1 in 2 days back in early 2012, 3 months before Season 2 premiered. And I've rewatched it since then and still love it and notice things that I didn't notice upon first watch/understand things better. The characters are so complex and a lot of gray areas are involved with them.
Personally, I enjoy GoT way more than I ever did LotR. I went and all saw 3 LotR movies back when they first came out, but have I ever rewatched all of them/wanted to sit through each one again? Nope. I haven't seen Return of the King since 2004
. I just feel like with LotR you have to sit there and invest yourself in it, and it kind of gets boring. GoT, on the other hand, I watched all of Season 1 in 2 days back in early 2012, 3 months before Season 2 premiered. And I've rewatched it since then and still love it and notice things that I didn't notice upon first watch/understand things better. The characters are so complex and a lot of gray areas are involved with them.
Posted on 5/5/13 at 10:23 pm to udtiger
Well seeing as how LOTR is actually completed its better but if ASOIAF stays as good as it has been then it will be far better IMO
However they are drastically different stories with virtually no comparible characteristics.
However they are drastically different stories with virtually no comparible characteristics.
Posted on 5/5/13 at 10:28 pm to CottonWasKing
My main problem is he seemed to take a big step back in delivery style in the last book.
If he maintained the quality of the first three throughout, it would have kicked LOTR's arse IMO
If he maintained the quality of the first three throughout, it would have kicked LOTR's arse IMO
Posted on 5/5/13 at 10:31 pm to udtiger
LOTR made it possible for GOT. For his time- Tolkien pushed the boundaries for Fiction / Fantasy. His creation of a language was an astounding pursuit and accomplishment. The monetary gains were not the same in Tolkien's era either, and I believe that should be taken into account.
Tolkien inspired a generation to pursue the Genre.
If Martin is to be considered a greater writer...it is because he had the opportunity to stand on the shoulders of giants.
Tolkien inspired a generation to pursue the Genre.
If Martin is to be considered a greater writer...it is because he had the opportunity to stand on the shoulders of giants.
Posted on 5/5/13 at 10:33 pm to Siderophore
quote:
If he maintained the quality of the first three throughout, it would have kicked LOTR's arse IMO
If you look at feast and dance as two halves of the same book (as its meant to be) then the quality really didn't fall off at all. They're great books. They're slower because they're set up books in the middle of a series.
Posted on 5/5/13 at 10:37 pm to NimbleCat
quote:
LOTR made it possible for GOT. For his time- Tolkien pushed the boundaries for Fiction / Fantasy. His creation of a language was an astounding pursuit and accomplishment. The monetary gains were not the same in Tolkien's era either, and I believe that should be taken into account. Tolkien inspired a generation to pursue the Genre. If Martin is to be considered a greater writer...it is because he had the opportunity to stand on the shoulders of giants.
No ones doubting that. But just because Tolkien created the genre doesn't mean that GRRM hasn't created a better story.
Posted on 5/7/13 at 12:52 pm to CottonWasKing
quote:
If you look at feast and dance as two halves of the same book (as its meant to be) then the quality really didn't fall off at all. They're great books. They're slower because they're set up books in the middle of a series.
Um, no.
Why are you assuming my complaint is over pacing? Especially when I flat out cited "delivery style."
Sorry but the writing style and pose is distinct in AFFC and DWD. Especially the latter. Some of the characterizations have stalled and others have regressed inexplicably. And I feel the flow that results is to the detriment of story telling. Hell, some aspects of DWD are so different I wouldn't scoff at the idea if they were ghostwritten by a different author.
Which in a way, they were. GRRM is a different person with new perspectives than he was 10 years ago
I realize that's only my opinion, but don't go all close-minded eliteist fanboy on me kneejerk assuming that the only reason why I think ill of it is because I didn't "get it" or look at it the "right way."
This post was edited on 5/7/13 at 12:57 pm
Posted on 5/7/13 at 12:53 pm to udtiger
Haven't read/seen any of GOT, but I can't imagine it's near as boring as LOTR. 
Posted on 5/7/13 at 12:57 pm to udtiger
The longer the series goes, the worse it will become. I fear it may jump the shark and become WoT.
Posted on 5/7/13 at 12:58 pm to NimbleCat
quote:
LOTR made it possible for GOT. For his time- Tolkien pushed the boundaries for Fiction / Fantasy. His creation of a language was an astounding pursuit and accomplishment. The monetary gains were not the same in Tolkien's era either, and I believe that should be taken into account.
Tolkien inspired a generation to pursue the Genre.
If Martin is to be considered a greater writer...it is because he had the opportunity to stand on the shoulders of giants.
this
Tolkien also created a richer world.
the main difference for me is that Tolkien was high-minded and stuck with good and evil as opposing forces. GRRM likes to have almost every character planted firmly in the gray. it allows his political intrigues to function
Posted on 5/7/13 at 12:59 pm to manwich
quote:
GRRM likes to have almost every character planted firmly in the gray.
yup. nothing better than a gray character
Posted on 5/7/13 at 1:21 pm to udtiger
quote:
As books.
GOT is much easier to read and flows much better. I think the poetry and use of language in LOTR is superior.
quote:
As a story.
Both provide a rich world and backstory. I will say that LOTR is superior in this respect.
The overall theme of GOT is much more complex and colored with shades of grey rather than the black and white of LOTR. In some ways this gives the characters in GOT more depth. LOTR has a classically great story though and once examined you can't really say that they are inferior at all to GOT.
quote:
As movies.
I don't really know how to compare this. It's too different of a format, and GOT is too incomplete.
I'm not willing to say that one is better at all than the other. Although they are both epic fantasy, they are completely different kinds of stories. I think they are both great. LOTR does have a lot more prestige because of its age.
Posted on 5/7/13 at 1:26 pm to udtiger
as books? GOT easily. Lord of the Rings is written in a style that is incredibly frustrating.
as a story? GOT wins again due to the fact that the story seems much more believable. Westeros feels more like a real place. The characters' actions and motivations are all very relateable.
as movies? This is the only edge I can grant to Lord of the Rings. The last two movies were breathtaking in their scope and their scale. The massive battle sequences were simply astounding.
as a story? GOT wins again due to the fact that the story seems much more believable. Westeros feels more like a real place. The characters' actions and motivations are all very relateable.
as movies? This is the only edge I can grant to Lord of the Rings. The last two movies were breathtaking in their scope and their scale. The massive battle sequences were simply astounding.
Posted on 5/7/13 at 1:28 pm to kingbob
quote:is this the criteria for a better fantasy story?
seems much more believable. Westeros feels more like a real place
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News