Format
Here's also something that needs mention, even though Captain Obvious would be shouting it at any party. Lord of the Rings was written as three parts of one big book and then adapted to the big screen by Peter Jackson and three very, very long movies. 13 hours total running time if you include the extended editions. Game of Thrones is a TV show on HBO, each book of A Song of Ice and Fire effectively standing in for one season. But Martin's books (whose count is at 5 right now, with at least two more on the way) are so dense and rich with information that the third book, A Storm of Swords, is being spread out over two seasons, with the current third season ending this Sunday. That's at least 10 hours for each book compared to the 13 for the whole of Lord of the Rings. If information was wealth, it's pretty clear who'd be the king and who'd be the pauper here. Lord of the Rings used the "Bigger is Better" argument in its favor because of the massive budget it had at its disposal to employ the best of business when it comes to visuals and casting. As such, it certainly looks better than Game of Thrones. While Martin says their budget isn't unlimited and lots of characters were found on the chopping block, how much does that matter compared to what would've been lost had Thrones found its way to the bigger screen?