In what ways is Game of Thrones better than Lord of the rings?

In what ways is Game of Thrones better than Lord of the rings?

squatting

Well the inclusion of a dedicated tax system really makes GRRM's realm stand above Tolkiens, at least for me. I like the realism it adds.

Incest.

>Túrin Turambar

well, more incest.

in one way only, and that depends on when i had my last fap

>Game of Thrones
>Better than anything
Maybe if we were talking about the books.

Its Lovecraftier imo

More in depth detail of women having diarrhea

GoT has more developed characters but that's it

MUH TAX

Tolkien didn't include enough backstory about property rights in Middle-Earth.

We know everyone's tax policy that is dealt by a bank that magically will never ever be in debt.

Checkmate, GoT.

Wrong.

>We fought far under living earth, where time is not counted. Ever he clutched me, and ever I hewed him, till at last he fled into dark tunnels. They were not made by Durin's folk, Gimli son of Gloin. Far, far below the deepest delvings of the Dwarves, the world is gnawed by nameless things. Even Sauron knows them not. They are older than he. Now I have walked there, but I will bring to report to darken the light of day...

George Martin should shut his fat fucking mouth and finish his books before he goes around shit talking Tolkien

They're both shit

Martin is more handsome than Tolkien

Tolkien was at a healthy weight though

is this for real?
also:
>only one type of person
well i believe lord of the rings has humans, elves, hobbits, wizards, orcs, trolls and whatever else. nigger IQ at work

LotR is just a children/adult neckeard fairytale with simplistic plot centered around the struggle between good and evil, with two dimensional characters and no moral ambiguity. GRRMs characters are far more fleshed out, with multiple shades of grey rather than black and white morality, unpredicatable turns of events, and dark, mock-medieval setting. JRRT wrote a banal fantasy about heroes and villains just so he could jerk off to his elven poems and autistic lore.

>healthy
guess who of the two is dead now

you can make your (kinda valid) point without sounding like a tryhard faggot, you tryhard faggot

What was Tolkien's tax plan?

It wasn't 3 books of walking.

T A X
A
X

fuckin' A

Instead it's 5 books and counting of walking, descriptions of food and shitting.

Tax jokes aside, both series are bad.

The early GRRM books were good before he wrote himself into a corner by introducing way too many characters/plotlines. I am 100% certain he intends to die before finishing the series. Either that or just wait long enough to be able to copy from the writers of the TV show.

LotR is impressive in terms of Tolkien's lore/autism, but the books themselves are an absolute chore to read. He had zero sense of pacing.

It is unfinished and still has a chance to be great. C'mon George, write it well.

>a bloo bloo bloo Tolkien got it wrong because he wrote a legend instead of a history book and there's only one way to write fantasy

George PLEASE

>Not enough diversity of PoC and LGBTQ actors
>No strong female leads
>No shoehorned Trump references

Lord of the Rings=Marvel
Song of Ice and Fire=DC
both are shit

Realistic characters and motivations.

No ultimate evil Sauron or ultimate good Gandalf

>Brainlet detected
I think a fantasy book like "What Happened" by Killary is more your speed

Zero sense of pacing AND couldn't write dialogue to save his life.

The dude was just too in love with his world, which fortunately stills works in his favor. You truly can feel and touch the world he built.

thankfully, the LOTR films fixes the dialogue problem.

Gondor has no farmlands

This.

I can't believe Tolkien elitists have the nerve to argue with such a simplistic point.

>an absolute chore to read.

LOTR is very readable if you didnt hit your head when you were young

I kinda skip the singing parts but the rest is very dense with lore and things happening

>DUDE TAX LMAO
Well GRRM kinda had a very solid point there. Tolkien prefered to write around sharp angles. And that's where he leaves the reader unsatisfied.

Like get this: What do you do with remaining orcs? Brutally hunt them down and murder them while they're weak? Even little baby orcs in their cradles? Or do you leave the danger to brew and deal with consequences later?
That's one of many ambiguous questions with no apparent right answer Tolkien leaves unanswered.
Why?
I guess he had better things to write, like thousands of pages of lore exposition.
But don't you dare to claim that this shit is any more adult than Cat in the Hat you mouthbreathers.

>unpredicatable turns of events,

it's not really meant to be this way. all the characters get killed/punished for mistakes they have made.

it should be obvious

>book is very readable
>I skip parts of it

t. moron

yes, but much like in life, the past mistakes catch up with them at often unexpected times and character arcs sometimes take shoking but justifiable turns whereas you can tell aragorn will end up as the king with arwen by his side and frito will come out alive because otherwise it wouldn't have been a happy fairytale ending

>Jonah Hill
>Tyler Lautner
>Ellen Page
Even the white people in this are complete niggers

agree but yeah you don't have to be a prick about it. Neither is classic literature but both are like star wars vs star trek, good but in different ways.

There is nothing about grey characters that makes your story inherently better

Finding out the intent behind LOTR cleared a lot of those things up for me. It's a legend like Beowulf, the world is mysterious and magical and there's a natural order to how everything plays out.

What happened to the orcs? They were driven off to remote lands, when they made trouble they were fought off; that's what honorable men do. If they found a place in the world they survived, if not they went extinct, that's the natural order of things.

Not inherently, no. However in the case of LotR the characters are so obviously divided into good guy/bad guy that there is little doubt as to how the story will play out.

I mean it's fine for what it is if you're into the lore, but for me 1000 pages and a fuckload of Tom Bombadil was not worthwhile.

dave patel as saruman would work

virgin tolkien vs chad martin when?

Lord of the rings is pretty shitty once you've grown up. No, you're not grown up when you've hit your 20s.

Recency bias

>Star Wars
>good
Kys manchild

>GoT has more developed characters but that's it
hahahahahahahahahaha

a few pages of singing doesnt make the whole thing unreadable, stupid

its like skipping the prologue or whatever in other books

It has a lot more pedo rape.

>GoT has more developed characters but that's it

I don't think predictability is necessarily the mark of a bad book either. If you compare the two authors as people working on their separate crafts, Tolkien was simply more dedicated, thorough, and talented within his specific focus than Martin is in his own. Now granted you can still extract that GoT is "better" than LotR even if you agree with that premise, but if we're trying to measure it in a way that comes at all close to objective, I think LotR is simply the more competent work.

One book is aimed at children. The other is aimed at adult normies and fat neckbeards.

Tolkien had a very specific goal with LOTR: re-create the ancient Northern European legends that he was fascinated by in his own image; basically translating them into a form that modern readers could connect to. The original stuff is full of cultural meaning and context that modern people have no frame of reference for, you practically need an anthropology degree just to get the full effect of it. Tolkien had that knowledge and used it to create his own version of the material that would clear away those barriers. In a way they ignore modern advances in literature specifically to allow people to connect to the primal, human core that Tolkien saw in the old stories. LOTR is not unsophisticated but it is not cutting edge literature either; it is a masterfully executed effort to go back to basics with storytelling, no more and no less.

>Game Of Thrones isn't black and white

>The evil ice demons are going to be defeated by Jon Snow, the hero that was ressurected from the dead by the Lord Of Light

not in the books sweetie

The books will never be finished.

checkmate tolkien cucks

I can only speak of the movies/show. But Game of Thrones made me care about the characters. I never gave a single shit about the characters in LotR.

It's not.

He just doesn't like what D&D has done.

>Like get this: What do you do with remaining orcs? Brutally hunt them down and murder them while they're weak? Even little baby orcs in their cradles? Or do you leave the danger to brew and deal with consequences later?

The ending of The Hobbit suggested that the Orcs were hunted out of the Misty Mountains by the descendants of Beorn, which implies genocide.

>That's one of many ambiguous questions with no apparent right answer Tolkien leaves unanswered.
>Why?
>I guess he had better things to write, like thousands of pages of lore exposition.

Tolkien did spend a lot of time on the origin of Orcs and the problem of a wholly evil, unredeemable race. It bothered him and he never properly solved the issue. The Trolls are written off as counterfeits, animated stone with no true life, but he failed to come up with a satisfying (to himself) origin for the Orcs. Were they corrupted Elves? Then why aren't they immortal, and why does Eru still keep providing them with souls? Or are they corrupted Men? This is the final idea that he settled on, despite it not fitting the established timeline with Orcs appearing before the awakening of Men.

>got
>lovecraftier
nah, the extended lotr universe has a shitton of cosmic horror/fantasy elements.

I love LoTR, but it is really black and white compared to GoT.

>evil guy literally has a giant wart on his pale and sickly face
>his name is fucking Wormtongue

>implying that the Night King isn't the good guy

Heck, Bombadil is like a more benign Lovecraftian entity.

>his name is fucking Wormtongue

That was his nickname.

Jesus when is that from? He looks like he's only got three months left to live

squatting
tax policy

yeah, lotr itself has a bunch, from the guardian to the depths of moria to gandalf's death to bombadil, as well as mentions to the larger stuff, but the bulk of it is in silmarillion.

I think it's wrong to count that as an automatic knock against it. Character morality is just another tool.

What was Aragorn's tax policy?

I see your point, and am impressed by how thoroughly wrong it is.

This. Tolkien knew exactly what he was doing - and it wasn't what we know today as 'fantasy'.

Maybe, but reading thousands of pages of something where the protagonists motivations never changes if pretty fucking boring.

Page 1: I fight the good fight since I'm a good guy, yay
Page 4999: I won the good fight since I'm a good guy, yay
THE END

the only thing GoT makes it "grey" and "complicates" is traditional fantasy tropes when represented through males and makes it even more black & white towards the females

>unironicallly making that point
>never flashing out the fiscal structure and policy of Westeros and its lordships

BRAVO

his motivation was love though. or rather desire. It was not like he was some typical power hungry prick. He was just some ugly fella who couldnt get laid and in his solitude turned to extreme measures. It was stated that he once served loyal

Also boromir is pretty greyish. He was just raised by a shithead, and yet had the best intentions

I disagree. The cast has the same motivation but that's just the framework to build the rest of the character's interactions and conflict around. I think you'd have a point if the team never was affected at all physically or mentally over the course of their journey, but that's clearly not the case in LotR. And really, you could boil down anything like that.

Page1: I fight the good fight since I'm a good guy, yay
Page 4999: I'm bad now, boo
THE END

George really likes to toot his own horn, yet his works offer no insight whatsoever into a medieval economy, or governmental policy.

Oversimplification like that isn't constructive. The Odyssey begins with Odysseus wanting to go home. It ends with him finally at home. Still one of the best books in history.
Frodo's motivations change from the beginning of the book to when he decides to take the ring to Mordor. They're all still fighting on the same side at the end, but the characters grow and develop. The whole Scourging of the Shire segment is the proof of that.

It better evokes the strong primitive human emotions and drives.

>extended lotr universe

I can quote it off by heart. Chills every time.

>imagine the gallant knight
>he's actually a incestual kid-killer dirtbag
>it's a grim gritty world
>the women are good and the best fighters tho

Why did we never learn about Robert Baratheo's tax policy?

Why cant this fat piece of shit just die, so that his editors release his last two books simultaneously and the whole world can laugh at this fat fucking fraud.

>hurr durr i have the audacity to criticize Tolkien

Only an American would have the gall to utter such cretinous nonsense.

Everything.

Why does the slightest questioning to Tolkein's worldbuilding create such an autistic backlash?

Probably because ASOIAF is trash compared to LOTR?

but bombadil doesn't sound or look anything like a lovecraftian entity though...

Im okay with Morgan Freeman tbqhwy

>This amount of delusion...

>raised by a shithead
>not knowing anything about denethor
absolute pleb

And yet not unsurprisingly not a single counter-argument to be found.