Which adaptation is better?

In that case LOTR. It works way better 3 books, 3 films. Beginning middle and end. It's simple but it works they still cut out stuff and merged some other stuff but overall it better story/character wise let alone the god tier production/music.

GoT cuts out so many characters and streamlines so many storylines. That the outcome is only the same Jon, Dany and Tyrion make it to end, no matter what the ending will be.

LotR is a fantastic story of good and evil, it's an epic saga showcasing and perfecting thousands of years of fantasy storytelling and worldbuilding which were put to screen by an amazing team of dedicated actors and producers who all loved the tale, putting their full heart into every aspect of it.

GoT is...? I mean, GRRM doesn't even have an ending to his own story. It's basically just like The Elder Scrolls or something, a huge amount of poorly constructed stories which turns into a incomprehensibly large mess. Some people confuse complexity and oversaturation of details for depth, it's not, it's inability to know what actually matters to the story. Tolkien did. Tolkiens story has a beginning, struggle and an end, with incredible worldbuilding on the way.

And this is me comparing the best parts of GoT with LotR, not including the capeshit tumble GoT has taken the later seasons which completely throws everything which made GoT great to begin with.

LotR is kind of special. You had to be there it was the alternative to Harry Potter.
Producing it any later and it would have been ruined. We really lucked out.

>Producing it any later and it would have been ruined. We really lucked out.
This they started prepping in the fucking 90s and production was years underway before even a camera was rolling. That could NEVER ever happen again. It was so special and unique nothing will ever come even close to it.

Go Dilate.

The spirit of LoTR is largely unchanged with the adaptions. It's why it's so superior to The Hobbit.
GoT was hamstrung by the fat man refusing to work, then killed by the shameless pandering in later seasons.

have sex

>GoT

Attached: nameit.jpg (960x960, 42K)

Lotr, no question.

Hey remember how GRRM literally copied Aragorn for this fantasy story? Epic stuff fatman

If I want lurid, derivative fantasy fiction I just read pulpy stuff from 30s and some later. No need for GoT.

If Game of Thrones had 9 or 10 seasons, it would be as good as Lord of the rings - in terms of book to movie/series adaptation. But the way it is, I'd have to say that, purely in termins of adaptation, The lord of the rings is better.

Well said my friend

Attached: 1477182157023.gif (700x488, 3.83M)

>If Game of Thrones had 9 or 10 seasons, it would be as good as Lord of the rings

Attached: 1526514301219.png (178x178, 5K)

LoTR, GoT has fucking butchered the source material far beyond LoTR ever did

>Shae

Seeing as I lost interest in GoT partway through s5 I'd say LotR. Which I still watch every time I'm at my lake cabin. As well as Super Mario Bros.

GoT went to shit as an adaptation after season 1

>If Game of Thrones had 9 or 10 seasons, it would be as good as Lord of the rings
GoT ceased to be a good adaptation by season 3.

kek

very accurate

0 sex scenes in lotr
Just gay elves n shit

good but season 5 was the worst

I swear to you, after the hype has died over the last season, many people will look back at GOT with great disdain, whereas LOTR will still be cherished far into the future.

Season 2 was still a fine adaptation. Emphasis on "adaptation". Even season 1 had to cut material, in season 2 they started to synthesize original scenes more and make up stuff, but overall it was still mostly faithful to the books. Season 3 is where it really ceased to be a faithful adaptation. I'd argue it wasn't bad storytelling yet, but fans of the books were probably uncomfortable with the direction it was taking.

After season 3 that just got worse, and I think season 5 is indisputably the turning point when it becomes full on dogshit.

I dunno man, i think it went to shit after s1ep3 tbhtq

they butchered the Jon Snow/Half-hand stuff and gave fucking Roz more screentime in the finale

For now

>HBO tries to postpone the GoT finale to stay relevant
>can't manage to create one single good show in the meantime
>will have to milk prequels and sequels for the years to come until the franchise name is in the dirt

>t. zoomer

This. GRRM is so far ahead of Tolkien its not even funny. His characters are so much more iconic and memorable than the bland ones in lord of the rings. Think of Jon Snow, Daenerys, Jaime Lannister - household names, they all have real in depth character development and the audience feels attached to them. This is no contest against fucking Aragorn and Frodo, and the entire plot of Lord of the Rings is so convoluted and confused that it's not even worth talking about. Whereas GRRM's plot, full of twists and turns, is compelling and engaging. He portrays war so much more realistically, and his story is gritty, human, real, and authentic. He actually draws from real history, and unlike Tolkien doesn't rely on meme languages and """lore""" to make his work great. His work is already great because it stands on its own merits, and his is the story of our generation. It is for this reason that Game of Thrones is the current pinnacle of television, and why ASOIAF is so iconic and beloved, and why its legacy will far outlast Tolkien's.
He isn't the American Tolkien because he is far beyond that level.

Tolkien is to creative literary genius what Martin is to hack pulp idiocy. They both so far surpass anyone else in their field that they will be remembered 1,000 years from now as a kind of yin and yang of fantasy, a Manichaean duality of speculative letters. For every sublime, luminous beauty that Tolkien has gifted the world, Martin has cursed us with a tedious, banal ugliness. It is unfair to compare the two directly on any one point, because Martin is in every way the anti-Tolkien, patently sterile, parasitical, and inferior, but so much so that he becomes a monument in his own right, and counterbalances Tolkien. Could one exist without the other? Tolkien obviously could. But it is only by the contrast that Martin offers that we can truly appreciate the full depths and heights of Tolkien. Our understanding of Tolkien would be incomplete if Martin had never set pen to page. It is through only the abject failure and futility of Martin that we can approach an apprehension of the true scope and scale of Tolkien's hitherto inconceivable greatness. Perhaps this is what Tolkien had in mind when he wrote about the Music of the Ainur. If Tolkien is a subcreator in the image of Eru, truly Martin is like unto Melkor. It is only reflected in the awfulness of the one that we can fully see the goodness of the other.

Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it’s not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren’t gone – they’re in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?

...

>Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?

Let's be real here; genocide is really the only option for orcs considering they were spawned by literal Satan, and they're favorite food seems to be "man-flesh."

both are shit, congratulations on your shit taste

amusing bait but someone probably wrote this unironically