2. Investment In People, Not Hobbits
A vital difference between the two is that Game Of Thrones chooses to tell its stories with people front and center. Not little creatures with hairy legs and fast metabolisms. Passersby who scoff at Lord Of The Rings are quick to ridicule hobbits, the main characters (read: creatures) of Tolkien's world, but when Game Of Thrones started airing, and the buzz started to spread, dollars to doughnuts those same people most likely stayed tuned specifically for the characters in the story. Makes sense. When you're made of flesh and blood, and happen to have very obvious human flaws and virtues, you're going to be more empathetic to a regular Joe, who may or may not particularly like the fantasy genre. Someone like Ned Stark, loved by all, was obviously flawed at being so stubborn when it came to doing the honorable thing. He paid for it with his head and our tears. Even Daenerys, the most fantastical of all of the major characters, is every bit the vulnerable and proud teenager who's slowly developing into a fierce warrior woman with a soft spot for slaves. In other words, people who don't dig fantasy usually think that Lord of the Rings is for pimpled-faced 30 year old virgins whose bodies are in some basement and spirits are in Middle Earth. When asked for evidence, they immediately respond with "what's a hobbit? You tell me." On the flip side, Game of Thrones caters to a much wider audience and even, quite possibly, turns those same people onto the fantasy genre, expanding their mind and imaginations in the process.