Don't You Dare Compare Man!
Something that seems to fly over the head of many a peep is the fun of it all. Debating if this series fantasizes better than that series is ultimately an innocent experiment whose main goal isn't to find a definitive solution or a eureka moment wherein 1+1 = Lord Of The Rings Wins. We're not Frankensteins here; both George RR Martin and JRR Tolkien's fantasies are very much alive in their respective adaptations. Many fans rightly point to the major differences between the two series which render the subject moot. But no fan can really say that we're comparing apples to oranges. There is something to this even if the conclusion isn't as cathartic as a black-and-white magical answer. It's only natural to compare the two because both are deeply rooted in the fantasy genre, and Game of Thrones is usually introduced to beginners as "did you like Lord of the Rings? Well, this is kind of like that but way darker". Perhaps the major difference between the two is that even though both series are clearly high fantasy, set in imaginary lala lands, the position of the humans are at the polar opposites of the spectrum. In Rings, the time of men is talked about as part of some kind of ugly past and the central story pivots around hobbits. We have to wait for the Return of the King to feel the redemption and new leaf turning for humans. On the other hand, Game of Thrones deals mostly with men, women and human sins: greed, lust, revenge and power hunger. Does more human make it less fantasy? Does it make it 'better'?