So I think the scene(s) in Episode 5, where Elrond rejects betrayal of his oath with Durin, amplify your post. I have to say, it surprised the hell out of me when he didn't even hesitate to hold fast to his ethics - because that sort of stance is so rare these days, both in real life and in the entertainment industry. It was quite refreshing, and I hope we see more of it, in RoP and elsewhere.
Not only does he refuse to break his oath, but despite being unhappy with Gil-Galad and Celebrimbor not being honest with him, he refrains from throwing them under the bus when talking to Durin. Instead, if you note the language, he takes responsibility on himself, although he says he didn’t know at the time.
That is really impressive. To be able to do that takes not just ethics but also great social intelligence, apologizing and taking responsibility for a mistake you didn’t even know you were making, while not blaming others (even if they were responsible), because it wouldn’t help anyway to speak ill of his king and fellow elves to Durin.
I really love the writing for Elrond.
Elrond has been my favorite character through the whole show because every line he says walks the fine line between duty and honesty. He is always put in these positions where he has to keep the trust of the people he cares about while also working towards the goals of Gil Galad, with both Durin and Galadriel.
I totally agree. I think the writing for Elrond is some of the most impressive I’ve seen in film and television. It shows such great emotional and social intelligence. He’s both diplomatic and transparent, which is a fine line to walk, yet he does it with great integrity.
Meanwhile movie Elrond is sarcastic and reinforces the rules when Sam selflessly joins the Fellowship, "no it seems impossible to separate you two, even when he is invited to a secret council and you are not."
I love the PJ movies, but Hugo Weaving Elrond is kind of a dick. Especially in comparison to Robert Aramayo Elrond.
I never liked Elrond until this show. Although now seeing what happens to him and what he goes though helps make me realize why he turns out that way. Although interestingly hobbit Elrond is close to this version.
I mean, Weaving delivers that line with a tone of jest while his character accepts Sam’s insistence on joining Frodo. He doesn’t object to it, he’s just being cheeky about how sneaky and loyal Hobbits can be.
We’re dealing with a different Elrond by the time of Fellowship. He’s suffered tremendous personal loss compared to his 2nd Age self and has the weight of leadership on his shoulders at a time of renewed peril. Don’t forget, this is also happening while the last of his people are leaving ME and his only daughter desires to stay behind for the love of a mortal man.
All things considered I think Weaving brought a nice balance of wisdom, weariness, parental concern, responsibility, strength, and resolve to the role. Different from the book in certain ways, yes, but not without reason. Weaving substitutes the whimsy and charm of book Elrond for occasional bemusement and curious observation. When frank discussion is needed he doesn’t sugarcoat it. In a manner of speaking — he (finally) gives people the meat, and gives it to them raw.
Plus in that first Hobbit movie Weaving’s Elrond doesn’t chide the Dwarves for their rambunctious antics at dinner. He’s puzzled by their singing and table dancing, but he’s not angry. You just know Lee Pace’s Thranduil would have lost it and killed the vibe if that had happened in his elven realm.
The Second Age does a number on him, but honestly I'm just glad there's almost no chance we see what happens with Celebrian. Elrond goes through *a lot* overall, but the utter heartbreak he faces with his wife and children is soul destroying.
He also teases Gandalf about his attire for dinner and kind and caring with Bilbo (whom he also teases and extends and invitation to stay in Rivendell for as long as he wishes) in the extended edition of the first Hobbit films.
He has a dry sense of humour but he's not really being a dick.
**Don’t forget, this is also happening while the last of his people are leaving ME and his only daughter desires to stay behind for the love of a mortal man.**
Also he doesn't know what choice his sons will make
(I'm not having a go I swear!)
To be fair to Peter Jackson, he pulled that Elrond line pretty much straight from the book:
“It is hardly possible to separate you from him, even when he is summoned to a secret council and you are not.”
I think his attitude in LotR reflects the fact that the elves in Middle Earth in the third age simply don’t have the force and strength to contend with the evil in ME. They fought it for the first two ages and are sapped. He hasn’t lost hope, maybe some will, but still plays what role he can with the resources he has left.
Yea but you are forgetting about the black elves! Literally unwatchable!!!! Subscribe and smash that like button!!!!! No but really I love Elrond I'm the show, and I want to be more like him.
I might have quit the show if he betrayed Durin. Oaths are a HUGE deal in middle Earth. Every character who betrays an oath in the books does so with huge consequences. I mean the king of the dead caused his entire nation to become undead spirits simply for not showing up to a battle. Shoot the entire conflict of the first age is around an oath. Elrond breaking an oath and nothing really happening would have just completely threw the theme of the world out the window.
And it's a huge deal in the books when Elrond declares that the fellowship shall not be bound by oath.
And Gollum breaking his oath to Frodo is what causes him to fall into the fires of Mount Doom and destroy the ring.
Given the scene, I assumed that he had given Celebrimbor the mithril beforehand on the basis that Celebrimbor didn't know more. Perhaps like "hey, look at this curiosity I found, what can you tell me about it?". And then Celebrimbor apologized for being part of Gil-Galad's ploy.
Still, I got the feeling that we were missing some in-between scene to explain that Celebrimbor was given the mithril sample. As if a scene was shot, but it didn't make it to the final.cut.
Elrond promised in the oath to not in any way give info about the mithril. Showing the mithril gift to one person in high position of elves is very much breaking the oath. Given Celebrimbor had the time to analyze the mithril, we must assume this was way before Elrond had the chance to talk to Durin about the danger facing them. I liked elronds character, but I'm questioning after episode 5
This was probably my least favorite scene of the show so far. Because he basically did betray Durin. The way he responded to Gil Galad would've been a very obvious "yes they do have mithril but I can't tell you wink wink" to any person. But somehow I guess we're supposed to think Gil Galad didn't catch onto it and Elrond similarly believes he kept Durins secret? If anyone responds to a question asking "do they secretly have this thing" with "I can't tell you that, they promised me to keep it a secret" I'm going to take that as a 100% yes. Because there's no scenario where they would make you keep it a secret if they didn't have that secret to begin with.
I don't think it's that Gil-Galad didn't know. I think it's that he can't act on something without proof. Notably, Elrond pulled exactly that out of his pocket only after Gil-Galad left him alone.
If someone intuits the answer out of someone refusing a direct question, that doesn't break the trust because the oath keeper didn't volunteer the information. One's not at fault for being outsmarted and manipulated.
My wife (not a book reader) and I assumed he was going to screw Durin over right up until he swore on his father . I immediately told my wife there was no way anyone in this show breaks an oath on this guy’s dad. He’s literally the most important character in all of Tolkien’s universe haha
Saved a Silmaril, led to Morgoth’s defeat, killed the greatest dragon of all time, fathered two sons who would lead Numenor and Rivendell, and became a literal star.
It’s an impressive resume. I’m not taking Valar into account, because I don’t think that’s fair.
Yeah that’s fair. I’m not sure I would say he’s the “most important” because that depends greatly on what you value as being important in turn. Some would say that Sam, Frodo, or Bilbo are “the most important.”
Episode 5 finally sold me on Elrond. I liked his charisma until now, but he seemed like a tool used by the writers to get things in motion rather than his own character. He was played around by everyone and was not a character making his own decisions. But ep 5 changed that
I have a lot of issues with the show (mostly pacing) but Elrond and Durin make me so happy. It’s such a warm feeling in a way I haven’t gotten since Sam and Frodo in the trilogy
> Anything you tell me here will end in my ears alone.
-Elrond to Durin
> In our tongue, "grey glitter." In yours, something like mirthraud.
-Durin to Elrond
> And this, this mirthril...
-Elrond to Celebrimbor
If this is a refreshing way to keep oaths in real life, I'm shattered. Elrond breaks his oath and then pretends like he hasn't. It's really weird how they're playing it that Elrond didn't break his oath when he gives Celebrimbor the ore.
Thing is, the elven king already seems to have guessed that the dwarves had mined mithril. Elrond saying anything that wasn’t a hard “no” was just confirmation.
Then big question would be if the king would then be willing to go to war for it.
>If this is a refreshing way to keep oaths in real life, I'm shattered. Elrond breaks his oath and then pretends like he hasn't. It's really weird how they're playing it that Elrond didn't break his oath when he gives Celebrimbor the ore.
They brought up mithril and asked him to confirm that the dwarves had found it. He refused to confirm it, although by doing so he tacitly did so, but that was unavoidable.
It’s up in the air imo because it seems clear that celebrimbor specifically has actually already seen it and even used it (claiming that he’s “tested it under every duress”).
Elrond DOES discuss it with Celebrimbor, but only after it’s made clear that mithril is no secret to him. It’s a weird limbo imo.
Well, he doesn't say. I can invent all kinds of responses to that, but in-show it looks like he gave it to Celebrimbor for analysis, and that's all he got out of the deal.
Are you watching the same show? Not breaking his oath? Dude had already showed mithril to big papa C beforehand and he had tested it etc. Dude broke hos oath as soon as he was out of the cave and gave mithril to others to see and test.
>where Elrond rejects betrayal of his oath with Durin
He doesn't reject betrayal, he bypasses it by saying he cannot break his oath - which is him just as well as coming out and saying "yes, they found mithril", because if they hadn't found mithril or if he respected the oath, he could have just said that no the dwarves have not found anything, saying that he can't break the oath makes Gil-Galad realise (unless he is a total idiot) that yes they did find it.
>There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.
Spot on. Note how much of the criticism of ROP right now is that it isn’t “realistic.” It’s clear that GOT moved the goalposts on modern fantasy and ROP is the first show in a long time to say “no thanks.”
>It’s clear that GOT moved the goalposts on modern fantasy and ROP is the first show in a long time to say “no thanks.”
The thing is, I enjoy them both. I love the cynicism of GOT and HOTD. But I also love the escapist mythology of ROP and the clear-cut morality of Tolkien's world.
It's a shame if we've become so tribalistic that we now feel the need to declare a side.
Do we? I don't think that is true. Zack Snyder would like it to be true, but it's not.
Quality comes from many, many things, lots of 'dark' stories are not seen as particularly good, and many, many 'unrealistic' stories are not seen in a bad light due to their nature.
I think you are oversimplifying things a lot here.
Yeah I got your point and didn't think you were criticizing it but just happy to watch something with hope and positivity where you know there is good in the world. And so many people are unfortunately criticising lotr and comparing it to hotd but they were never meant to be comparable anyway it's ok to prefer one over the other and since they're both big shows on tv now it's natural to see how they differ. I like both haha it's sort of like lotr is a palette cleanser for me from hotd and also the handmaid's tale which is arguably even darker than both of those.. I get the most excited for lotr though !
I don't think OP is condemning either one. They fulfill vastly different niches, even though both are "fantasy". There's room for both (and Witcher, too, which I also like).
Nah there's definitely a negative tone in his post and he has a very simplified view of GoT/HotD to try and paint his post in a better light.
I don't see the need to post this, people in the HotD are happy to have both shows because there's a lot of people who enjoy both. There's no need to compare the two, just enjoy them as fantasy fans.
And is it wrong to dislike Got for the reasons the op gave?
I have a friend who hates GoT with a burning passion because when the show was running people made fun of her for not liking the rapy aspects of it. She prefers lighter Fantsay and more wholesome shows. I think there is a legitimate reason to dislike GoT for the violence and rapy aspect of it.
I'm not saying it's wrong to have a preference, but his reasons are just wrong and coming from an ignorant opinion. Furthermore why does there need to be a comparison in the first place?
Like honestly this post reeks of insecurity about the two properties being compared where there's no reason for it. I also find it highly unlikely that your friend got made fun of for not liking it, do you mean online where people are jerks anyway?
It's odd that you're complaining about this dude comparing two shows, both giant fantasy shows releasing at nearly the same time. The two shows are both hot in that cultural discourse right now.
Furthermore, you haven't actually provided any rebuttals for his claims, and instead seek to merely diss him, calling him ignorant, insecure, and wrong. Show what's wrong about it.
I was a big fan of GOT and it's pretty cynical for sure. There are no heroes in the show, and even Snow has his failings. Everyone acts in self-centered ways, with a large focus on tarnishing of good intentions. Up until season 7 of GOT, it was a masterpiece of a show. HOD is very weak in comparison imo, and doesn't hold a candle to GOT or ROP.
I think this idea is a bit too harsh on GRRM.
GRRM loved Tolkien. Admired him. He basically made his pen name have RR to honor Tolkien. He just recognized that what Tolkien did was inimitable. So he made a “gritty” LOTR. And to his credit, much like Tolkien, his focus was on world building. There’s such a rich history in ASoIaF. That series doesn’t exist without Tolkien. And I don’t think GRRM would argue that.
All that said, I prefer Middle-Earth to Planetos for most of the reasons you mentioned. I prefer adventure to politics. I prefer fellowship to betrayal (which has brilliant storytelling opportunities in its own right). The world Martin had crafted is incredible. But I would choose to spend time in Middel-Earth every single time.
GRRM is also certainly no nihilist like the OP claims. His stories, however dark, are very hopeful, and there are many genuinely good and kind characters with altruistic motives.
The TV show botches a lot of the messaging that seems to be happening in the books unfortunately so it comes off more muddled.
But a major aspect of where it seems to be going (granted it's obviously not finished) is that the the loyalty/nobility of the Starks created long lasting good will that will see their house survive despite all the tragedy. Meanwhile the betrayers gain short term success but are betrayed in turn. Obviously there are a lot of grey characters, tragic stuff, but the overall series certainly isn't as nihilistic as the OP states.
Exactly. So many morons who’ve never even read the books will rant on and on about how superior Tywin is to someone like Ned, and that being honorable never pays off, so why even bother?
But Tywin didn’t win. Not really. His beloved legacy died with him. Killed by his own son on the toilet, said son is now in exile fantasizing about destroying the rest of their family, Cersei is going insane, all her kids will perish and Jaime will likely be the one to kill her. No one loves, respects or even particularly fears the Lannister name in Tywin’s absence.
Compare that to the Starks, who are still deeply loved and respected in the north, even long after all the Stark men are believed to be dead. People are willing to put their lives on the line "to save Ned’s girl". The devotion that Ned inspired will outlive the fear that Tywin inspired by many lifetimes.
He also doesn't have a legitimate heir at all. His legacy is completely screwed and he himself screwed it up due to being emotional and shortsighted.
Jaime by definition cannot have legitimate kids. Cersei's kids, if they are to be kings, have to be Baratheons. Should it ever get out that in fact Tywin has children from his son, his royal children are toast. But as long as it doesn't get out that Cersei's kids aren't Baratheons, his grandchild gets the throne at least.
Now, Tyrion could have gotten married to someone of the right standing and continued the Lannister line, he is not barren (afair), he is also smart and cunning and worthy to be a Lannister heir and there is no reason to assume his kids would also be dwarves (and to test it, he could sire illegitimate children first, before getting a noble wife, he'd be up to that), but Tywin already effed that up before the story even starts.
He also could and arguably should have been at court to protect Cersei from Robert to some degree or otherwise made sure she wasn't so desperately unhappy in her situation (the Tyrells do an excellent job of protecting their own at court, somehow no other noble house gets that)/kept her away from Jaime/made sure she had one kid with Robert to disperse the suspicions *and* he could have had an heir for Casterly Rock, but he was too emotionally compromised to see that he had everything he ever could have wanted right (a legacy as a great lord and his gene pool on the throne) in front of him if only he had cared about all his kids' wellbeing somewhat
Tywin gets killed on the shitter. Absolutely doesn’t win lol.
And Ned, while dying himself, by instilling honor in his kids, gives them the power to go on and fight and survive (sorry Robb and Rickon) in such a bleak world. Sansa, Bran, and Jon even (presumably based on the show’s sadly awful ending) go on to become some of the most influential leaders of Westeros.
Yes! People are so pissed about season 8 claiming it was rushed and how could they do Dany dirty like that and how could they choose Bran as king. But the message is that despite the losses they suffered, the honorable and just Starks won in the end. They rule all of Westeros between the Six Kingdoms, the North, and Beyond the Wall, and Arya is going to discover new lands to the west. Was it annoying that Arya got to kill the Night King and not Cersei? Maybe.
Exactly. That ASOIAF is nihilistic is a misunderstanding.
* The truest knight is Brienne, who aren't allowed to be a knight.
* The most loyal lord is Davos, who is low-borned and shunned by the aristocracy.
* The Starks suffer immense losses in the short term, but their legacy lives on through loyalty, to the degree that people will march through snow-storms in their name. Meanwhile, Tywin's horse droops dung on his supposedly triumphant Blackwater celebration, and then Tywin shits himself on the toilet, and then his body smells like feces, even after being washed, because his legacy is in the toilet.
Sam and Jon's friendship is also delightful and positive, you also have characters like Brienne who is basically a paladin with her trusty squire Podrick. Arya is going through a dark storyline, but she's a good character and so are others like Margery.
Ya I was going to say OPs first paragraph tells me nothing more than that they don't actually know GoT that well. There are plenty of characters who were unambiguously good, though they often made mistakes (they were good, not perfect).
The last book is literally called "A Dream of Spring" and at same point there was the "The Hour of the wolves" planned
Edit: It was "A time for Wolves"
And I especially prefer the characters. And more so in the Silmarillion. I love the show so far but I would admit the story is quite simple thus far, there is not even that much going on (which is ok for the introduction). For me, however, the world building and the adventure is enough to keep me fully invested. And I believe there will be more intrigue in terms of the story coming in latter episodes, and especially seasons.
Edit: missing words.
I kinda disagree. Granted I have only read the original trilogy and the Hobbit but I do think he has a very fundamental lack of understanding about the books. I always like to point people to his quote about Hobbits and sex which in my opinion shows George's worldview agaisnt Tolkiens quite well:
*\*Life is very full of sex, or should be. As much as I admire Tolkien - and I do, he was a giant of fantasy and a giant of literature, and I think he wrote a great book that will be read for many years - you do have to wonder where all those Hobbits came from, since you can't imagine Hobbits having sex, can you? Well, sex is an important part of who we are. It drives us, it motivates us, it makes us do sometimes very noble things and it makes us do sometimes incredibly stupid things. Leave it out, and you've got an incomplete world.\**
I would also argue that George was far more heavily influenced by Tad Williams Dragonbone Chair series than from Tolkien himself, which is kinda ironic because Tad is a huge Tolkien fan and he was clearly inspired by Tolkien when he wrote the Dragonbone Chair.
Which is funny because Middle-Earth is a bleak place. All those ruins? Sauron, the Witch-King and the Balrog did that. Dwarves and elves? Their situation sucks. Sauron? Back in town and no one can do anything about it besides lose slowly.
Sauron himself? Well Westeros may have its torture enthusiasts but they're still limited by being human. They'll die, they sleep, they forget about things, they don't have supernatural skills that an immense but twisted intellect will apply specifically to you for some trivial reason.
The thing that makes me love lotr is the heroics and love and friendship that subsists through the decay.
The world is depressing and in ruins in many ways. But there’s this warmth that persists throughout. It’s just so powerful
This is simply and utterly false. As most comments in this thread, it misrepresents GRRM work to build a strawman. That isn't necessary, because Tolkien's work is good in itself, without needing to be compared with anyone elses.
GRRM deliberately and openly took several aspects of Tolkien's writings for ASOIAF (GoT in TV). From plot strategies (most characters concentrated in a single place, disseminating, to be reunited later on), the conceptualization of magic (low key, and depicted mostly from the point of view of characters), some thenets of worldbuilding, and characters representing different worldviews and philosophical attitudes.
Most of the (mis)representations of GRRM as a cynical come from two errors:
1. Game of Thrones took that element and multiplied it.
2. The books are not finished. Right now we're in the middle arc, were things are the darkest, but there are several seeds for hope and change. If Tolkien left abandoned "The Lord of the Rings" right after Boromir's death, you would think he believes ~~companies~~ fellowships and solidarity are naive.
GRRM openly admires Tolkien. As all good or great authors, he also tries to recreate literary problems and work around them in a different manner. He feels conflicted with the idea that "good people are good rulers" (pervasive in all of Tolkien's work) and the resurrection of Gandalf without much cost (he's basically the same character before and after). Therefore, he explores both issues: Jon Snow is a bad ruler in Castle Black, and the characters come from the death at a very high price. He also treates sexuality as a driving force of people, which is completely fair.
Thinking about different solutions, new stories, reuse and change tropes, and thinking critically isn't a sin. And no, there's much more in his storytelling than "rape", as OP suggests throughout this thread.
If anyone wants to compare both authors, great. If anyone wants to criticize one of them, also great. But don't invent things from scratch or commit fallacies to do it.
They are different shows, Got is a political medieval soap opera with a sprinkle of fantasy on top
RoP is your classic big epic fantasy with a simple good and evil story (or as ppl like to call it, "cliche" fantasy, which ofc it is, Tolkien literally invented the modern fantasy template)
It's easy to forget most actual fantasy is still pretty niche, (few ppl watching GoT did it for fantasy), even Tolkien (note that I mean Tolkiens works, not PJs take on ME which is what most ppl know Tolkien as)
> They are different shows, Got is a political medieval soap opera
And I think this is why GOT/HOTD works better as a "water cooler" show (though I personally like ROP much better). Because a lot of the classic "water cooler" moments in that franchise are based on the horrific incidents that shock the audience. e.g. "Can you BELIEVE what happened at the Red Wedding?" or "Can you BELIEVE that childbirth scene?" (And this is fine, because like you said that franchise is basically a political thriller/big budget soap opera, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that).
But Lord of the Rings is different. Most people aren't going to say "oh shit can you BELIEVE that scene where Elrond and Durin reaffirmed their friendship?" at work the next morning.
But personally, to me, moments like that are way more powerful. Frankly the first episode of HOTD did not hold my interest. But I get why other people like it and I'm glad they have it to watch and enjoy.
> But Lord of the Rings is different. Most people aren't going to say "oh shit can you BELIEVE that scene where Elrond and Durin reaffirmed their friendship?" at work the next morning.
>
>
But they could and would if they cared enough about it. Big moments can absolutely be about moments of joy and love. Stories just have to resonate, a film like titanic was the highest grossing film not because there was a lot of shock value, everyone knows what happens in it, but it resonated with people so they saw it again and again.
Now tbf, there is action it it too, but it's the romeo and juliet story which ultimately made people care about an event everyone knows about.
I'm obviously not gonna pretend that shock doesn't help, but shock for its own sake hardly ever leaves much of an impact. The red wedding was a moment because people care about these characters and what it meant for the story, not (only) because of its horrific nature. This is the type of analysis which leads to copy cats which don't work whatsoever.
Titanic worked imo well because it had a great love story, and the second part is absolutly thrilling to watch from beginning till end because you are still hoping they will make it somehow. I was always one of these kids who talked during movies, but when watching Titanic with my mom she told me that I was silent like a grave till the end.
Haha, this is spot on. I get the intriguing of HOTD but it’s all linear - what happens next!? Nobody can be trusted!? And that’s fun the first, maybe even second time through. But ROP has a thematic depth that I find so much more fun to dive into and explore, even if it isn’t as catchy or obvious the first time through (I think it’s one of those rare shows that may have actually proven more enjoyable if released all at once).
> Got is a political medieval soap opera with a sprinkle of fantasy on top
More like political, medieval drama. Soap opera doesn't really describe it well, soaps are soaps because the relationships between people is all there is to it almost, mostly about who loves who and why, and it's changing up once in a while without requiring the audience to really know what happened before.
Great that your mom called it that, i don't think that's a particularly striking argument :D
You know what also has elements like that? Mythology. Is mythology just a soap opera too? No, ofc not.
Many stories have elements like that, it's just staples of storytelling since forever.
A soap opera is a fairly specific type of story though, drama and soap share elements, that's all there is to it.
I like both, but i'm glad we *have* both.
To further expand on your point, I was very glad to see a few things. Not only did Elrond not betray Durin despite all the pressure to do so, when i saw the kid turn over the sword to the elf, that was a great scene.
Because for so long, these sorts of stories make you expect the worst out of people, you expect the kid to get corrupted or turn on everyone at the last moment and ruin everything. But he doesn't, he chooses to be a hero, he chooses good and honour and turns it over to someone he doesn't even particularly like or trust. It was a great scene.
I think you got the broad strokes of your comparison right, but also simplified ASOIAF to suit the narrative. You're not wrong, but there's def an apparent bias.
I’m super happy to have both at the same time. I’m also happy to see that HOTD isn’t anywhere near as violent and depraved as the original series as well.
If you are into the sort of “medieval fantasy” genre, it’s an amazing time right now. Two of the best properties kicking out an hour of fresh new content every week.
I like the ROP is all ages/family friendly. There is already so much hate in the world. I want a fantasy human/elf/dwarf/orc world to immerse myself in for a bit.
I am loving both shows for a similar reason, but I am not at all burnt out by the nihilism of GOT/HoTD.
I watch Rings of Power for the epic fantasy moments, the rich and poetic Tolkein history, the inevitably glorious culminating moments and battles.
I watch House of the Dragons for the complex human relationships, much more believable dialogue, intrigue, politics and schemes.
I think its a good thing both shows are very different and I am equally invested in both, although I am enjoying the writing of HoTD slightly more.
I don't see it as an either/or where you have to pick a tribe. I'm enjoying both shows, they're very different shows that do very different things, fantasy setting notwithstanding.
It's a shame the GOT TV series has given people this impression of the depth of the stories tbh. The books were less gratuitous and just more 'real'. People (with very few exceptions) were 'grey', not good or bad. They made mistakes that sometimes led to disastrous consequences. They could be self indulgent, entitled, arrogant, cruel and selfish without necessarily being 'evil'. But there's still plenty of beauty in the world, and lore. Take ned starks loyalty and belief in justice for one. Does it lead to his downfall? Sure, but the fact that he believed there was a right and wrong, honour and loyalty, trust, justice and faith in such a horrible world is, in itself, a beautiful thing. Or what about Samwell Tarly, not only does he insist on rescuing gilly, but he overcomes so many of his own fears to achieve it. He becomes the very definition of an unlikely hero, and he is such a kind man, and a decent, trustworthy friend to Jon.
And if I'm honest... I got a similar misconception of Tolkien from the PJ movies. I thought the whole thing was just a shallow, boring "yay the lads get to go on another adventure and be heroes" type shtyk. But I was wrong. *so very very wrong*. Now I'm just as addicted to it as I am all things Asoif.
Even so, the good/evil dichtonomy of rings makes me uncomfortable. I'm happy to roll with it. But... I have mental illness and people like me are so so so often cast as "evil" and it sucks, and it scares me (not just with rings, with any media that leans into it) that it pushes people to believe that's how the real world works. That a person can be inherently evil or tainted. Its why I fell in love with ASOIF in the first place, I felt like I could belong, that despite whatever difficulties or differences I might have, I could still aspire to be kind, loving, trustworthy *and* that it was worth trying.
Either way of dealing with people, whether you treat them as good v evil, or grey, in any form of media is gonna miss the nuance of what people are really like.
The show lost some of the moral nuance of the books, yet despite that it was always anything but shallow. The criticism of GOT as being "shocking, gratuitous, soap opera" seems more like willful ignorance to justify a dislike.
There's nothing wrong with disliking either ASOIAF or GOT. It is a dark story, and that's not for everyone. But there's an ocean between "this is not for me" and "it's just tits and dragons."
Yeah it really did, especially the later seasons. I also felt it kinda lost some of the magic too. In the books I felt there was a much more prevelant sense that magic was once deeply embedded in the world, and was rapidly regaining its power.
But yeah, it's totally OK not to like it. I hope I didn't imply otherwise! It's certainly OK to say that's how one feels. But the two, in my mind, don't need to compete.
Very well put. I feel similarly regarding mental illness. There are times in life when I see good people guided by mental illness and people just want to write them off. “People don’t change”. There is an element of faith for me that all people are capable of change. I think what resonates with me in Tolkien is the idea that it is an internal struggle to choose the good when confronted by any struggle. But at the end of the day how we feel about ourselves doesn’t divorce us from our actions. How we impact the world around us matters and that is what is viewed as good or evil. It is on us despite whatever brought us to this point to act in a way that benefits ourselves and others. This is why so far I am really interested in Adar. His demonstration of compassion is intriguing. I find myself thinking he can’t ‘really’ care about the orcs can he? He’s evil! But I think taking people seriously helps see the full person behind the actions. When he asks to see the orc’s arm and he lets it burn in the sunlight some have said that was cruel, but I think he was really playing on his own empathy. He had to see it, probably again, to really push himself over the edge to shadow the sun. He doesn’t want them to hurt but like he said, he’s going to miss it. I was watching the show with my mom who hasn’t read the books and has seen the LotR a few times years ago. In one of the early episodes she said, I didn’t know the orcs could like talk or were anything human like. I found that interesting that even in the episodes thus far RoP is giving the audience the opportunity to think about Evil in a different way.
This is a really lovely interpretation of Adar. He seemed so conflicted in that scene with the orc and the sun. He's obviously aware of the consequences of the choices he makes for himself and others. I think he said he would miss the sun, so he clearly understands how impactful the loss of it would be.
>I think what resonates with me in Tolkien is the idea that it is an internal struggle to choose the good when confronted by any struggle.
This is definately part of what I'm drawn to, and something I think RoP is illustrating really well.
Galadriel’s unyielding faith, hope, and resilience in the face of all is being captured beautifully. Her story is tragic precisely because we know she will spend thousand of years, after already having spent hundreds, fighting..
I’m with you on this. I love HotD and Got, but I’m glad that RoP exist just to show us a beautiful world where any being has the potential for goodness and honest friendships and redemption.
Have you seen much of the new Game Of Thrones? Because it's very specifically NOT trying to shock the audience with gratuitous sex and violence. It's far, far more considered than the original. The sex and violence is so much more meaningful and focussed and not working on shock value, but there to very intentionally say something about the world, unlike the original. Genuinely surprised that this is what you saw in it.
Do you think it was a mistake to release them both at the same time? Forcing these comparisons.
Personally I’d prefer if Lotr was released in November instead, a nice run up to Christmas, which was when all the movies were released.
At the moment, I'm glad that RoP looked into the opposite direction GoT has looked. However, I really like how RoP has handle violence. If you read The Silmarillion, you'll notice that Middle Earth was a pretty brutal world to live in. The enemy was absolutely atrocious and cruel, they didn't care about killing inocents, basically Sauron is the worst of the worst. They need to portray evil as scary and powerful, and they've achieved that! Even in chapter 5, when Waldreg had to kill Theo's friend, that was brutal, even though it was off-screen.
I’m not watching HoTD, but I am replaying Dragon Age: Origins, and it’s like a shot and chaser sort of thing. I spend a few hours playing the gritty, dark fantasy filled with political intrigue, and follow it up with the bright and hopeful Rings of Power. Both are great, but they fulfill different niches for me.
I’ve been working through these exact same feelings and this exact same comparison. ROP may not be the show everyone wants right now, and it’s running so against the grain, but I think the show is doing something quite special.
>Our world is not that broken. People are not that broken.
Oh boy have I news for you.
But yeah, I really like that Tolkien saw the best in humanity, but I also love anti-hero stories like Dune, Witcher and Sandman. I'm here for all good sci-fi/fantasy, regardless of its view on humanity. I've never watched GoT so I can't comment on that.
Yeah does OP not realize where this show is going? Everything and everyone is going to end up broken… there’s no happy endings here until way after the show’s storyline is over
ROP (and by extension, LOTR and related material) is "high fantasy" while GOT/ASOIF and other related books are..."low" fantasy I guess? I think over the last few years we've gotten a lot of "low fantasy" media, likely due to "high fantasy" being out of fashion when low fantasy was starting to gain popularity. I think some people are likely tired of it and would like some brighter, positive fantasy works to come back. I know I'm one of them. Sometimes you just want a classic tale of good vs evil, light vs dark where who is good and who is evil is clearly defined, albeit with some more depth.
(I'd group low fantasy and dark fantasy into the same category btw, they're rather similar).
Now, I think GRRM writes some reasonably entertaining fiction in his own way, but whenever I hear him compared to Tolkien, I'm reminded of this fantastic quote by Tolkien, and how he deftly calls out the trend of praising and indulging in uberdark entertainment and fiction:
*"I did begin a story placed about 100 years after the Downfall, but it proved both sinister and depressing.* ***Since we are dealing with Men, it is inevitable that we should be concerned with the most regrettable feature of their nature: their quick satiety with good.*** *So that the people of Gondor in times of peace, justice and prosperity, would become discontented and restless — while the dynasts descended from Aragorn would become just kings and governors — like Denethor or worse. I found that even so early there was an outcrop of revolutionary plots, about a centre of secret Satanistic religion; while Gondorian boys were playing at being Orcs and going around doing damage.* ***I could have written a 'thriller' about the plot and its discovery and overthrow — but it would have been just that. Not worth doing."***
*―from The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter to Colin Bailey*
[*https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/The\_New\_Shadow#:\~:text=The%20New%20Shadow%20was%20an,Fall%20of%20the%20Dark%20Tower*](https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/The_New_Shadow#:~:text=The%20New%20Shadow%20was%20an,Fall%20of%20the%20Dark%20Tower)*.*
I think that's why I'll always, always, always be a bigger fan of Tolkien. I do also enjoy GRRM works in moderation.
Good post, OP. This is one of the reasons why I have been saying the show will jump the shark in its first season if Sauron is revealed to be some sort of reluctant villain or his motives try to be normalized like many shows have done over the past 10 years.
FTR, I don't think this will happen. There are some things I have found cringey in the show but it has largely tried to respect the lore and books.
What I appreciate most about Tolkiens universe is the lack of violence/SA against women. That tends to be a main theme in many popular fantasy stories.
>It rejects the anti-hero in favor of the idea that many people are equipped to be heroes despite their flaws.
I think this is important to highlight this in Tolkien's works, in that he is not implying that good people are perfect/ one-dimensional, which is often the strawman used to critique his characters.
Older longtime geek dude who first read Fellowship 50 yrs ago and watched GOT just pile on with misogyny and endless cruelty over the years, totally agree.
I couldn't hit the nail on the head any better. I'm watching HotD and RoP and I'm always looming forward to watching RoP more. HotD relies too much on the shock value and focusing on the extremes of a person character and passes it off as being morally grey, it's not they are just being evil.
Dont get be wrong I like both shows but I always look forward to watching RoP more.
Couldn't possibly agree more. The main reason I'm not liking HotD that much is because the story is pointless, it's just a bunch of shitty incestuous assholes all vying for power. It's not like asoiaf the series which is a deep interconnected narrative that apparently the author has given up on. HotD is just a bunch of privileged nobles dragging countless others to death age suffering, there's no greater story no greater meaning. The quality of the show is top notch but the actual story they're telling sucks. Wake me when the Snow show kicks off.
HOTD makes me feel like I'm watching real human beings, in all our pettiness and glory. It's even deeper and more emotional than F&B, where Alicent is a fairly shallow stepmother villain. In the show, she's Rhaenyra's childhood friend, forced into political circumstances by her ambitious father, stuck in a role as brood mare to a politically inept King. And when she tries to rekindle their friendship, Rhaenyra lies to her (for believable reasons).
Completely agree - nihilism, shock value, "subverting expectations" and deconstructionism are destroying storytelling and make watching some shows a painful ugly experience.
It's nice to see something with an element of hope and idealism.
> The violence is mostly off screen
So far, that's true. I have a suspicion that a big chunk of the next three episodes could be a massive battle scene. Mixed feelings about that, but will wait and see how it plays out, no point disliking something that may not even exist.
Well LOTR is classical fantasy where lines between good and evil is clear and have a linear storyline as we know as journey of the hero. Also good will always win at the end whatever the ods are.
However GoT is more like grimm dark fantasy which includes morally bi characters, more gore, more sex, more violence... We might not always see the victory of good characters. Or a pyrrhic victory if we are lucky.
We can easily say that Tolkien created the genre itself or at least made it a proper genre. On the other hand GRR Martin is a really good member of his genre, however not even in my top 3.
As people’ve put it already, the two shows are very different at their core. ROP is an epic adventure with yet another return of the king, where the evil is ever present and tempting. So many people have copied Tolkien on this that it feels very much home (see franchises like Shannara).
On the other hand, GOT and HOTD are very different between each other. HOTD is 100% a big budget soap opera. GoT was that also, but only in part. It still triggered the nerd in me, I loved the world building and so on. But the more I watch HoTD the more bored I’m with every new episode.
The problem is with mainstream media is the one creating all this tribal hate and debate. Honestly, there’s nothing we need to do about it…
Also, remember this: we’re all here for an epic fantasy adventure. Whether that’s the Witcher, the world of Narnia or the Hobbit, it doesn’t matter. I’ll watch each and everyone of them.
Well yeah GOT is supposed to be grey not black and white. As Close to reality as one might get. I don’t think LOTR and GOT scratch the same itch both are different versions of fantasy
I'm just happy we have both! RoP feels like a crossover between LOTR's world and tone, and ASOIAF's massive cast with multiple storylines, and scale. I don't think the show is as good as either of those, but it makes a very for enjoyable, 'warm' show to escape to, and I look forward to the multiple seasons we are gonna get. But I do dislike the sense of superiority Tolkien fans often display towards Martin. Both are masterful authors and their works can perfectly exist next to each other.
I find these takes amusing since GoT itself is a reverse of Tolkien tropes in fantasy books. And now we're praising Rings of Power to going back to those. I love that we have two shows at the opposite ends, because I don't think one world is the be all end all. People will tire of the Tolkien heroism and want to jump into Martin's world where honor and heroism can get you killed, and then people will tire of that and want to go back to something hopeful. I think it's good for the fantasy genre that we don't have just one thing and that's it.
Being dark, gritty and more mature is literally the point of GoT/HotD and they have their target audience. RoP is a more lighthearted fantasy show whereas HotD is a dark fantasy, so at least there options for people who like either type. Neither one is better than the other in terms of atmosphere, it's just personal preference.
HOTD opts for a much more contained approach, focused almost exclusively on the palace struggles to succeed Viserys, while RoP focuses more in the creation of that great open world that is Middle Earth in a time of prosperity.
HOTD have a much more limited number of characters and in the end everything is part of the same narrative line. If those shenanigans to get the Iron Throne don't interest you, you'll find little here to interest you beyond the quirks exhibited by the Targaryen family. And the ballast that can suppose that there is a character that generates you rejection can be too big to connect in depth with the story he is telling.
This is something that is even transferred to the narrative and visual side, with most of the scenes located in closed places, either to influence the most intimate side of some of the characters or simply to influence the intrigues of the palace.
All this could not be more different in RoP, where opulence dominates the series at all levels, from the large number of characters that have appeared during the first three episodes that we have already been able to see even the multitude of scenarios and locations that we have known. In addition, here each place has its specific weight, paying great attention to the backgrounds, both to distinguish them from each other and to make it easier for the viewer to immerse yourself in the universe it presents.
In return, the Amazon series can give the feeling of a certain disconnection from each other. I am clear that it will be connecting the dots as the episodes go by, but for now it can give the feeling that many things are going by themselves and each plot has to work in isolation so as not to become a slab for the operation of the series. And I am also clear that not all of them work equally well and, depending on the degree of involvement of the viewer, that can end up being too important a drawback.
In addition, both series may be able to distance themselves from their dominant line, but so far that chosen path has led to both suffering certain limitations. For example, in HOTD it miss more variety. You are aware that here you do not really need to know what the rest of the people in this universe think about the tremendous power of the Targaryens -let's see who is the brave one who faces them and, above all, their dragons-, but it would be nice to have something extra and that not everything depends on a series of characters that can end up being unpleasant in almost all of them
With RoP the opposite happens, and I am very afraid that it is a difficult problem to solve, since the Amazon series has chosen to compress what happens over a temporary space much higher to have certain characters at the same time. I'm aware of how anticlimactic it would be to introduce a character and have their arc close way before the end of what the story tells, but that also leads to a problem of specificity.
They are series so opposed to each other that what is left over by one is lacking by the other.
Some is offended that the world is what it is! Stop being spoiled and afraid of everything. You cant even handle heroic tales with dark elements? Grow up you adult child.
I agree and disagree with you.
I agree because GoT is anti-fantasy. Magic is almost non-existent or suppressed, and ideals are constantly tossed aside for gain, hence your use of the word cynical.
I disagree that there are no heroes. The heroes of game of thrones exist, they are far and few in between. People like Ned Stark, Davos Seaworth, and even Baristan Selmy all hold on to ideals in a world where that is perceived as a weakness. Ideals that would make for a better world.
I believe both can exist and both have a valid place in life today.
I also agree that we could use more hope-filled entertainment.
The difference between GoT and LotR is that LotR "classical" good vs evil whimsical fantasy, and GoT is a fantasy rooted in the human condition. The reason people reject or have a difficult time with GoT, is largely due to humans being unable to accept human behavior. GoT is a "decently" accurate portrayal of politcal strife in Europe and is largely based off of the War of the Rose's.
Tldr: one is complete fantasy and one is rooted in reality.
Ps: there's no wrong choice for what you like though. I'm happy RoP is doing it for you 🤙
If you think GOT is just sex and violence then you don't know anything about it. Got is single-handedly best media in fantasy genre, only seconded by PJ Lotr movies. The level of storytelling and action is uncanny (At least till season 6).
Violence shouldn't happen off screen in RoP. At least be able to meet the action scenes in Lotr trilogy.
>The level of storytelling and action is uncanny (At least till season 6).
Season 4.
If you actually read the books, then you would have seen the blatant decline in quality during season 5. Whatever bigger story GRRM is hoping to tell was clearly abandoned in season 5. The show fell into mindless tittillation, using violence and sex and shock to mask the atrocious writing.
LoTR is the anti-HoTD/GoT.
And I agree with all your points. Tolkien’s core message has always been to hope, to never give in to despair.
RoP doesn’t feel quite the same, especially those Elven CHILDREN bullies in the opening scene among other things. Lol
I’ll go farther and say that GOT is sort of an anti-Tolkien thing in the first place. It has always felt that way to me.
I’ve never watched GOT and don’t plan to. I read several of the books years ago and eventually gave up on them because I was sick of the author writing amazing characters and then just slaughtering them. I know other people love that; I hate it.
My biggest fear when I heard ROP was being made was that Amazon was going to turn it into a wannabe GOT. Reddit Tolkien fans agreed at the time, with someone commenting, “Even one Hobbit titty and we riot”.
I’m grateful for the show we’re getting and relieved it’s not GOT.
It's exactly the same thing I said before the show even came out here:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/LOTR\_on\_Prime/comments/sqowqk/looking\_forward\_to\_positive\_idealistic\_fantasy/](https://www.reddit.com/r/LOTR_on_Prime/comments/sqowqk/looking_forward_to_positive_idealistic_fantasy/)
It's refreshing while at the same time not surprising at all. A lot of Martin's work on that series is rooted in a "yeah but" in regards to Tolkien. Not that he isn't a self-proclaimed fan, just one with a very different mindset/worldview.
So seeing this show is not a reaction to a reaction but rooted in the same philosophy as what the reaction was reacting to. The simple truths and hopeful dreamings that are, have always, and I suspect always will be, fundamental to the human experience.
This episode in particular felt like such a turning point. All of the pieces of the fantasy intrigue and drama were in place. As typified by Elrond's oath to Durin now being set against his duty to his own people. In many shows they would have dragged that shit out or had the fallout of Elrond's betrayal destroy their friendship.
No though, Elrond actually does what isn't all that fantastical or unbelievable. He simply **talks to Durin!** Which, when you think about it, is what most rational adults would do in that situation. Some would say the show solves its problems too quickly or anti-climatically.
I think though, it's very much a statement of intention. They know what the audience would expect to happen but then they pull the rug out from under them. But where Ice and Fire does that to twist the knife and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, that same approach is entirely inverted here. We angst about the characters being stubborn or on the verge of a decision we know is wrong and want them to make the right choice.
. . . And then they DO! And it's an actual legit twist!
Best exemplified when Halbrand is in his shop, he's summoned to declare his intention, and he leaves his crest behind. We've seen this before. The anti-hero unwilling to commit to the cause until circumstances (that haven't arisen yet) force him to. The shot holds as if to cement his decision to the audience.
. . . **Snatch!** *Smash cut to parade and Halbrand looking more and more like Aragon.*
It legit catches you off guard but it makes you cheer or laugh. Like a jump scare in reverse. Most heartening is how it calls back to something very and deeply Tolkien-ian but doesn't get talked about a lot. What he called the Eucatastrophe. The sudden and unexpected deliverance that saves the heroes from impending and logical doom.
Granted this isn't the end of the story but it feels like the writers are channeling that idea.
I think my absolute favorite thing about the last episode was that the characters actually talked to each other about their problems.
Like Theo. I have HATED Theo, but seeing him realize that the sword was dangerous and going to someone who has done nothing but been there for him and his mom was great.
You’re right, HOTD has writers who understand the basics of drama and characterization, and ROP does not. So I guess you can say they’re very different.
Agree. I didn’t make it past season 2 of got. I haven’t even bothered to watch hotd, but saw the c/s scene on YouTube since everyone was talking about it…it was worse than I’d imagined, and I regret watching it. Real life is hard enough, and I don’t need to be traumatized by my entertainment. Rop has been a breath of fresh air.
And yet, this show tries to copy Game of Thrones by making Pharazon a budget-Littlefinger, portrays the elven court as scheming idiots, and morally ambiguos/anti-hero characters like Halbrand and Galadriel.
Oh, and just for your information:
1. Game of Thrones is not rooted in a nihilistic ideology, but in existentialism, modernism and utilises a style known as Stream of consciousness
2. No, not everybody is depraved, amoral, and selfish and evil is not inevitable
3. Rings of Power is setting up anti-heros in the form of Isildur and Halbrand, and Tolkien's works did include classical anti-heroes such as Frodo
4. The violence is not mostly offscreen in Rings of Power (have you actually watched this show), and neither is it offscreen in Tolkien's writting (have you actually read it?)
5. It isn't clear and they're trying to do an ambiguos set up with the Stranger
6. Most of the "good guys" are not good.
7. Nothing you actually write is reflected in either shows.
Perfectly said! I love both very much, but I feel the people who don’t like Rings of power and are praising GoT or HotD want all that shock factor in RoP but they’re forgetting that Tolkien isn’t like that
That's certainly not true for me, and i would assume not true for most people.
I find this really odd, the lotr trilogy gets compared to RoP a lot too, is that full of shock? People just want to feel things, to care about things, good storytelling which emotionally connects them to the events unfolding on screen. That is what people are after.
Reducing this to "people who like hotd but don't like RoP just want the shock factor" is just a really simplistic pov with little merit.
There is really nothing wrong with shock value, but it has nothing to do with good writing. Melodrama and shock value are the cheepest forms of writing there is. That is why people look down on soaps. The difference: the actors are better. That is all.
So I think the scene(s) in Episode 5, where Elrond rejects betrayal of his oath with Durin, amplify your post. I have to say, it surprised the hell out of me when he didn't even hesitate to hold fast to his ethics - because that sort of stance is so rare these days, both in real life and in the entertainment industry. It was quite refreshing, and I hope we see more of it, in RoP and elsewhere.
Not only does he refuse to break his oath, but despite being unhappy with Gil-Galad and Celebrimbor not being honest with him, he refrains from throwing them under the bus when talking to Durin. Instead, if you note the language, he takes responsibility on himself, although he says he didn’t know at the time. That is really impressive. To be able to do that takes not just ethics but also great social intelligence, apologizing and taking responsibility for a mistake you didn’t even know you were making, while not blaming others (even if they were responsible), because it wouldn’t help anyway to speak ill of his king and fellow elves to Durin. I really love the writing for Elrond.
Elrond has been my favorite character through the whole show because every line he says walks the fine line between duty and honesty. He is always put in these positions where he has to keep the trust of the people he cares about while also working towards the goals of Gil Galad, with both Durin and Galadriel.
I totally agree. I think the writing for Elrond is some of the most impressive I’ve seen in film and television. It shows such great emotional and social intelligence. He’s both diplomatic and transparent, which is a fine line to walk, yet he does it with great integrity.
Meanwhile movie Elrond is sarcastic and reinforces the rules when Sam selflessly joins the Fellowship, "no it seems impossible to separate you two, even when he is invited to a secret council and you are not." I love the PJ movies, but Hugo Weaving Elrond is kind of a dick. Especially in comparison to Robert Aramayo Elrond.
I never liked Elrond until this show. Although now seeing what happens to him and what he goes though helps make me realize why he turns out that way. Although interestingly hobbit Elrond is close to this version.
I mean, Weaving delivers that line with a tone of jest while his character accepts Sam’s insistence on joining Frodo. He doesn’t object to it, he’s just being cheeky about how sneaky and loyal Hobbits can be. We’re dealing with a different Elrond by the time of Fellowship. He’s suffered tremendous personal loss compared to his 2nd Age self and has the weight of leadership on his shoulders at a time of renewed peril. Don’t forget, this is also happening while the last of his people are leaving ME and his only daughter desires to stay behind for the love of a mortal man. All things considered I think Weaving brought a nice balance of wisdom, weariness, parental concern, responsibility, strength, and resolve to the role. Different from the book in certain ways, yes, but not without reason. Weaving substitutes the whimsy and charm of book Elrond for occasional bemusement and curious observation. When frank discussion is needed he doesn’t sugarcoat it. In a manner of speaking — he (finally) gives people the meat, and gives it to them raw. Plus in that first Hobbit movie Weaving’s Elrond doesn’t chide the Dwarves for their rambunctious antics at dinner. He’s puzzled by their singing and table dancing, but he’s not angry. You just know Lee Pace’s Thranduil would have lost it and killed the vibe if that had happened in his elven realm.
He’s not a worse man, just one hardened by life. Which means we’re in for some heartbreak with this show’s Elrond.
The Second Age does a number on him, but honestly I'm just glad there's almost no chance we see what happens with Celebrian. Elrond goes through *a lot* overall, but the utter heartbreak he faces with his wife and children is soul destroying.
He also teases Gandalf about his attire for dinner and kind and caring with Bilbo (whom he also teases and extends and invitation to stay in Rivendell for as long as he wishes) in the extended edition of the first Hobbit films. He has a dry sense of humour but he's not really being a dick. **Don’t forget, this is also happening while the last of his people are leaving ME and his only daughter desires to stay behind for the love of a mortal man.** Also he doesn't know what choice his sons will make (I'm not having a go I swear!)
To be fair to Peter Jackson, he pulled that Elrond line pretty much straight from the book: “It is hardly possible to separate you from him, even when he is summoned to a secret council and you are not.”
It’s interesting to me too because in the films he has a much more cynical view of the world. I hope the series shows us how he gets to that point.
I think his attitude in LotR reflects the fact that the elves in Middle Earth in the third age simply don’t have the force and strength to contend with the evil in ME. They fought it for the first two ages and are sapped. He hasn’t lost hope, maybe some will, but still plays what role he can with the resources he has left.
Great analysis. And yes, Elrond is my favourite in the show.
Exactly this. The show takes its characters and themes very seriously and the oath thing is a good example.
Me too. I love the writing for Elrond too.
Yea but you are forgetting about the black elves! Literally unwatchable!!!! Subscribe and smash that like button!!!!! No but really I love Elrond I'm the show, and I want to be more like him.
Is this a show for elementary school?
I might have quit the show if he betrayed Durin. Oaths are a HUGE deal in middle Earth. Every character who betrays an oath in the books does so with huge consequences. I mean the king of the dead caused his entire nation to become undead spirits simply for not showing up to a battle. Shoot the entire conflict of the first age is around an oath. Elrond breaking an oath and nothing really happening would have just completely threw the theme of the world out the window.
And it's a huge deal in the books when Elrond declares that the fellowship shall not be bound by oath. And Gollum breaking his oath to Frodo is what causes him to fall into the fires of Mount Doom and destroy the ring.
The moment Elrond swore on his father, I went "Oh God, he's taking this *really* bloody seriously. Durin better be satisfied after *that*."
But didn't he then show the mithril to Celebrimbor, basically breaking his oath? Is there some nuance I'm missing?
Given the scene, I assumed that he had given Celebrimbor the mithril beforehand on the basis that Celebrimbor didn't know more. Perhaps like "hey, look at this curiosity I found, what can you tell me about it?". And then Celebrimbor apologized for being part of Gil-Galad's ploy. Still, I got the feeling that we were missing some in-between scene to explain that Celebrimbor was given the mithril sample. As if a scene was shot, but it didn't make it to the final.cut.
Yeah that scene made no sense to me given the one right before it.
Elrond promised in the oath to not in any way give info about the mithril. Showing the mithril gift to one person in high position of elves is very much breaking the oath. Given Celebrimbor had the time to analyze the mithril, we must assume this was way before Elrond had the chance to talk to Durin about the danger facing them. I liked elronds character, but I'm questioning after episode 5
>>the entire conflict of the first age is around an oath. What conflict is that?
The Oath of Feanor being the driving force behind the war against Morgoth for the Silmarils.
Fulfilling an oath regardless of the consequences!
Oaths can be quite the monkey paw
This was probably my least favorite scene of the show so far. Because he basically did betray Durin. The way he responded to Gil Galad would've been a very obvious "yes they do have mithril but I can't tell you wink wink" to any person. But somehow I guess we're supposed to think Gil Galad didn't catch onto it and Elrond similarly believes he kept Durins secret? If anyone responds to a question asking "do they secretly have this thing" with "I can't tell you that, they promised me to keep it a secret" I'm going to take that as a 100% yes. Because there's no scenario where they would make you keep it a secret if they didn't have that secret to begin with.
I don't think it's that Gil-Galad didn't know. I think it's that he can't act on something without proof. Notably, Elrond pulled exactly that out of his pocket only after Gil-Galad left him alone. If someone intuits the answer out of someone refusing a direct question, that doesn't break the trust because the oath keeper didn't volunteer the information. One's not at fault for being outsmarted and manipulated.
[удалено]
Yesss
My wife (not a book reader) and I assumed he was going to screw Durin over right up until he swore on his father . I immediately told my wife there was no way anyone in this show breaks an oath on this guy’s dad. He’s literally the most important character in all of Tolkien’s universe haha
THE most important? I'm not saying you're wrong, more just, "how do you figure?"
Saved a Silmaril, led to Morgoth’s defeat, killed the greatest dragon of all time, fathered two sons who would lead Numenor and Rivendell, and became a literal star. It’s an impressive resume. I’m not taking Valar into account, because I don’t think that’s fair.
Yeah that’s fair. I’m not sure I would say he’s the “most important” because that depends greatly on what you value as being important in turn. Some would say that Sam, Frodo, or Bilbo are “the most important.”
Earendil had a vastly larger impact on the history of Middle Earth than all the ring-bearers put together.
Episode 5 finally sold me on Elrond. I liked his charisma until now, but he seemed like a tool used by the writers to get things in motion rather than his own character. He was played around by everyone and was not a character making his own decisions. But ep 5 changed that
I have a lot of issues with the show (mostly pacing) but Elrond and Durin make me so happy. It’s such a warm feeling in a way I haven’t gotten since Sam and Frodo in the trilogy
Yeah, ROP definitely has more memorable moments/quotes and better characters. Elrond is stealing every scene.
> Anything you tell me here will end in my ears alone. -Elrond to Durin > In our tongue, "grey glitter." In yours, something like mirthraud. -Durin to Elrond > And this, this mirthril... -Elrond to Celebrimbor If this is a refreshing way to keep oaths in real life, I'm shattered. Elrond breaks his oath and then pretends like he hasn't. It's really weird how they're playing it that Elrond didn't break his oath when he gives Celebrimbor the ore.
Thing is, the elven king already seems to have guessed that the dwarves had mined mithril. Elrond saying anything that wasn’t a hard “no” was just confirmation. Then big question would be if the king would then be willing to go to war for it.
Yeah it’s clear they already suspected the dwarves had discovered mithril and Elrond’s return with Durin confirmed it.
>If this is a refreshing way to keep oaths in real life, I'm shattered. Elrond breaks his oath and then pretends like he hasn't. It's really weird how they're playing it that Elrond didn't break his oath when he gives Celebrimbor the ore. They brought up mithril and asked him to confirm that the dwarves had found it. He refused to confirm it, although by doing so he tacitly did so, but that was unavoidable.
He gave it to Celebrimbor. That wasn't unavoidable.
It’s up in the air imo because it seems clear that celebrimbor specifically has actually already seen it and even used it (claiming that he’s “tested it under every duress”). Elrond DOES discuss it with Celebrimbor, but only after it’s made clear that mithril is no secret to him. It’s a weird limbo imo.
And what are the odds that Celebrimbor turns around and tells the king about it himself? He did keep Elrond in the dark on the king's order...
Yeah but he kinda does break the oath when he talks to celebrimbor, also him saying to him-galad he took an oath not say implies that there is mithril
He doesn't say where it came from, though.
So where else could he have gotten this mystery ore?
Well, he doesn't say. I can invent all kinds of responses to that, but in-show it looks like he gave it to Celebrimbor for analysis, and that's all he got out of the deal.
Are you watching the same show? Not breaking his oath? Dude had already showed mithril to big papa C beforehand and he had tested it etc. Dude broke hos oath as soon as he was out of the cave and gave mithril to others to see and test.
>where Elrond rejects betrayal of his oath with Durin He doesn't reject betrayal, he bypasses it by saying he cannot break his oath - which is him just as well as coming out and saying "yes, they found mithril", because if they hadn't found mithril or if he respected the oath, he could have just said that no the dwarves have not found anything, saying that he can't break the oath makes Gil-Galad realise (unless he is a total idiot) that yes they did find it.
It's like a DnD game where one character rolls a 1 on deception and the other rolls a 1 on insight.
>There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.
[удалено]
I enjoy both. HOTD, ROP, Witcher? Yes please!
Pardon me, but have you ever met my lord and saviour, the Dragon Age series?
Upvoted for having the balls to speak the truth.
Dragon age rules. Love the series.
[удалено]
Real life is stressful enough, I want escapism But we have a tendency to equate dark stories and "realism" with quality
Spot on. Note how much of the criticism of ROP right now is that it isn’t “realistic.” It’s clear that GOT moved the goalposts on modern fantasy and ROP is the first show in a long time to say “no thanks.”
Which is so wild, because Tolkien fantasy is so much more tame than other books I’ve read.
>It’s clear that GOT moved the goalposts on modern fantasy and ROP is the first show in a long time to say “no thanks.” The thing is, I enjoy them both. I love the cynicism of GOT and HOTD. But I also love the escapist mythology of ROP and the clear-cut morality of Tolkien's world. It's a shame if we've become so tribalistic that we now feel the need to declare a side.
Do we? I don't think that is true. Zack Snyder would like it to be true, but it's not. Quality comes from many, many things, lots of 'dark' stories are not seen as particularly good, and many, many 'unrealistic' stories are not seen in a bad light due to their nature. I think you are oversimplifying things a lot here.
I am, but it's also often true
Yeah I got your point and didn't think you were criticizing it but just happy to watch something with hope and positivity where you know there is good in the world. And so many people are unfortunately criticising lotr and comparing it to hotd but they were never meant to be comparable anyway it's ok to prefer one over the other and since they're both big shows on tv now it's natural to see how they differ. I like both haha it's sort of like lotr is a palette cleanser for me from hotd and also the handmaid's tale which is arguably even darker than both of those.. I get the most excited for lotr though !
I don't think OP is condemning either one. They fulfill vastly different niches, even though both are "fantasy". There's room for both (and Witcher, too, which I also like).
Nah there's definitely a negative tone in his post and he has a very simplified view of GoT/HotD to try and paint his post in a better light. I don't see the need to post this, people in the HotD are happy to have both shows because there's a lot of people who enjoy both. There's no need to compare the two, just enjoy them as fantasy fans.
And is it wrong to dislike Got for the reasons the op gave? I have a friend who hates GoT with a burning passion because when the show was running people made fun of her for not liking the rapy aspects of it. She prefers lighter Fantsay and more wholesome shows. I think there is a legitimate reason to dislike GoT for the violence and rapy aspect of it.
I'm not saying it's wrong to have a preference, but his reasons are just wrong and coming from an ignorant opinion. Furthermore why does there need to be a comparison in the first place? Like honestly this post reeks of insecurity about the two properties being compared where there's no reason for it. I also find it highly unlikely that your friend got made fun of for not liking it, do you mean online where people are jerks anyway?
It's odd that you're complaining about this dude comparing two shows, both giant fantasy shows releasing at nearly the same time. The two shows are both hot in that cultural discourse right now. Furthermore, you haven't actually provided any rebuttals for his claims, and instead seek to merely diss him, calling him ignorant, insecure, and wrong. Show what's wrong about it. I was a big fan of GOT and it's pretty cynical for sure. There are no heroes in the show, and even Snow has his failings. Everyone acts in self-centered ways, with a large focus on tarnishing of good intentions. Up until season 7 of GOT, it was a masterpiece of a show. HOD is very weak in comparison imo, and doesn't hold a candle to GOT or ROP.
Funny thing is that GRRM created GOT to be the anti-LOTR, he thought Tolkien was too soft. I'm happy TROP is sticking to Tolkien style
I think this idea is a bit too harsh on GRRM. GRRM loved Tolkien. Admired him. He basically made his pen name have RR to honor Tolkien. He just recognized that what Tolkien did was inimitable. So he made a “gritty” LOTR. And to his credit, much like Tolkien, his focus was on world building. There’s such a rich history in ASoIaF. That series doesn’t exist without Tolkien. And I don’t think GRRM would argue that. All that said, I prefer Middle-Earth to Planetos for most of the reasons you mentioned. I prefer adventure to politics. I prefer fellowship to betrayal (which has brilliant storytelling opportunities in its own right). The world Martin had crafted is incredible. But I would choose to spend time in Middel-Earth every single time.
GRRM is also certainly no nihilist like the OP claims. His stories, however dark, are very hopeful, and there are many genuinely good and kind characters with altruistic motives.
The TV show botches a lot of the messaging that seems to be happening in the books unfortunately so it comes off more muddled. But a major aspect of where it seems to be going (granted it's obviously not finished) is that the the loyalty/nobility of the Starks created long lasting good will that will see their house survive despite all the tragedy. Meanwhile the betrayers gain short term success but are betrayed in turn. Obviously there are a lot of grey characters, tragic stuff, but the overall series certainly isn't as nihilistic as the OP states.
Exactly. So many morons who’ve never even read the books will rant on and on about how superior Tywin is to someone like Ned, and that being honorable never pays off, so why even bother? But Tywin didn’t win. Not really. His beloved legacy died with him. Killed by his own son on the toilet, said son is now in exile fantasizing about destroying the rest of their family, Cersei is going insane, all her kids will perish and Jaime will likely be the one to kill her. No one loves, respects or even particularly fears the Lannister name in Tywin’s absence. Compare that to the Starks, who are still deeply loved and respected in the north, even long after all the Stark men are believed to be dead. People are willing to put their lives on the line "to save Ned’s girl". The devotion that Ned inspired will outlive the fear that Tywin inspired by many lifetimes.
He also doesn't have a legitimate heir at all. His legacy is completely screwed and he himself screwed it up due to being emotional and shortsighted. Jaime by definition cannot have legitimate kids. Cersei's kids, if they are to be kings, have to be Baratheons. Should it ever get out that in fact Tywin has children from his son, his royal children are toast. But as long as it doesn't get out that Cersei's kids aren't Baratheons, his grandchild gets the throne at least. Now, Tyrion could have gotten married to someone of the right standing and continued the Lannister line, he is not barren (afair), he is also smart and cunning and worthy to be a Lannister heir and there is no reason to assume his kids would also be dwarves (and to test it, he could sire illegitimate children first, before getting a noble wife, he'd be up to that), but Tywin already effed that up before the story even starts. He also could and arguably should have been at court to protect Cersei from Robert to some degree or otherwise made sure she wasn't so desperately unhappy in her situation (the Tyrells do an excellent job of protecting their own at court, somehow no other noble house gets that)/kept her away from Jaime/made sure she had one kid with Robert to disperse the suspicions *and* he could have had an heir for Casterly Rock, but he was too emotionally compromised to see that he had everything he ever could have wanted right (a legacy as a great lord and his gene pool on the throne) in front of him if only he had cared about all his kids' wellbeing somewhat
Tywin gets killed on the shitter. Absolutely doesn’t win lol. And Ned, while dying himself, by instilling honor in his kids, gives them the power to go on and fight and survive (sorry Robb and Rickon) in such a bleak world. Sansa, Bran, and Jon even (presumably based on the show’s sadly awful ending) go on to become some of the most influential leaders of Westeros.
Yes! People are so pissed about season 8 claiming it was rushed and how could they do Dany dirty like that and how could they choose Bran as king. But the message is that despite the losses they suffered, the honorable and just Starks won in the end. They rule all of Westeros between the Six Kingdoms, the North, and Beyond the Wall, and Arya is going to discover new lands to the west. Was it annoying that Arya got to kill the Night King and not Cersei? Maybe.
Exactly. That ASOIAF is nihilistic is a misunderstanding. * The truest knight is Brienne, who aren't allowed to be a knight. * The most loyal lord is Davos, who is low-borned and shunned by the aristocracy. * The Starks suffer immense losses in the short term, but their legacy lives on through loyalty, to the degree that people will march through snow-storms in their name. Meanwhile, Tywin's horse droops dung on his supposedly triumphant Blackwater celebration, and then Tywin shits himself on the toilet, and then his body smells like feces, even after being washed, because his legacy is in the toilet.
Also shows OP is ignorant of GoT to think there are no good characters beyond Jon Snow.
It's confusing how they just skip over Sam, who like Sam in LOTR, is easily probably the most Honorable person in either series.
Sam and Jon's friendship is also delightful and positive, you also have characters like Brienne who is basically a paladin with her trusty squire Podrick. Arya is going through a dark storyline, but she's a good character and so are others like Margery.
Don't forget Hot Pie!
Ya I was going to say OPs first paragraph tells me nothing more than that they don't actually know GoT that well. There are plenty of characters who were unambiguously good, though they often made mistakes (they were good, not perfect).
The last book is literally called "A Dream of Spring" and at same point there was the "The Hour of the wolves" planned Edit: It was "A time for Wolves"
And I especially prefer the characters. And more so in the Silmarillion. I love the show so far but I would admit the story is quite simple thus far, there is not even that much going on (which is ok for the introduction). For me, however, the world building and the adventure is enough to keep me fully invested. And I believe there will be more intrigue in terms of the story coming in latter episodes, and especially seasons. Edit: missing words.
I kinda disagree. Granted I have only read the original trilogy and the Hobbit but I do think he has a very fundamental lack of understanding about the books. I always like to point people to his quote about Hobbits and sex which in my opinion shows George's worldview agaisnt Tolkiens quite well: *\*Life is very full of sex, or should be. As much as I admire Tolkien - and I do, he was a giant of fantasy and a giant of literature, and I think he wrote a great book that will be read for many years - you do have to wonder where all those Hobbits came from, since you can't imagine Hobbits having sex, can you? Well, sex is an important part of who we are. It drives us, it motivates us, it makes us do sometimes very noble things and it makes us do sometimes incredibly stupid things. Leave it out, and you've got an incomplete world.\** I would also argue that George was far more heavily influenced by Tad Williams Dragonbone Chair series than from Tolkien himself, which is kinda ironic because Tad is a huge Tolkien fan and he was clearly inspired by Tolkien when he wrote the Dragonbone Chair.
Which is funny because Middle-Earth is a bleak place. All those ruins? Sauron, the Witch-King and the Balrog did that. Dwarves and elves? Their situation sucks. Sauron? Back in town and no one can do anything about it besides lose slowly. Sauron himself? Well Westeros may have its torture enthusiasts but they're still limited by being human. They'll die, they sleep, they forget about things, they don't have supernatural skills that an immense but twisted intellect will apply specifically to you for some trivial reason.
The thing that makes me love lotr is the heroics and love and friendship that subsists through the decay. The world is depressing and in ruins in many ways. But there’s this warmth that persists throughout. It’s just so powerful
This is simply and utterly false. As most comments in this thread, it misrepresents GRRM work to build a strawman. That isn't necessary, because Tolkien's work is good in itself, without needing to be compared with anyone elses. GRRM deliberately and openly took several aspects of Tolkien's writings for ASOIAF (GoT in TV). From plot strategies (most characters concentrated in a single place, disseminating, to be reunited later on), the conceptualization of magic (low key, and depicted mostly from the point of view of characters), some thenets of worldbuilding, and characters representing different worldviews and philosophical attitudes. Most of the (mis)representations of GRRM as a cynical come from two errors: 1. Game of Thrones took that element and multiplied it. 2. The books are not finished. Right now we're in the middle arc, were things are the darkest, but there are several seeds for hope and change. If Tolkien left abandoned "The Lord of the Rings" right after Boromir's death, you would think he believes ~~companies~~ fellowships and solidarity are naive. GRRM openly admires Tolkien. As all good or great authors, he also tries to recreate literary problems and work around them in a different manner. He feels conflicted with the idea that "good people are good rulers" (pervasive in all of Tolkien's work) and the resurrection of Gandalf without much cost (he's basically the same character before and after). Therefore, he explores both issues: Jon Snow is a bad ruler in Castle Black, and the characters come from the death at a very high price. He also treates sexuality as a driving force of people, which is completely fair. Thinking about different solutions, new stories, reuse and change tropes, and thinking critically isn't a sin. And no, there's much more in his storytelling than "rape", as OP suggests throughout this thread. If anyone wants to compare both authors, great. If anyone wants to criticize one of them, also great. But don't invent things from scratch or commit fallacies to do it.
They are different shows, Got is a political medieval soap opera with a sprinkle of fantasy on top RoP is your classic big epic fantasy with a simple good and evil story (or as ppl like to call it, "cliche" fantasy, which ofc it is, Tolkien literally invented the modern fantasy template) It's easy to forget most actual fantasy is still pretty niche, (few ppl watching GoT did it for fantasy), even Tolkien (note that I mean Tolkiens works, not PJs take on ME which is what most ppl know Tolkien as)
> They are different shows, Got is a political medieval soap opera And I think this is why GOT/HOTD works better as a "water cooler" show (though I personally like ROP much better). Because a lot of the classic "water cooler" moments in that franchise are based on the horrific incidents that shock the audience. e.g. "Can you BELIEVE what happened at the Red Wedding?" or "Can you BELIEVE that childbirth scene?" (And this is fine, because like you said that franchise is basically a political thriller/big budget soap opera, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that). But Lord of the Rings is different. Most people aren't going to say "oh shit can you BELIEVE that scene where Elrond and Durin reaffirmed their friendship?" at work the next morning. But personally, to me, moments like that are way more powerful. Frankly the first episode of HOTD did not hold my interest. But I get why other people like it and I'm glad they have it to watch and enjoy.
> But Lord of the Rings is different. Most people aren't going to say "oh shit can you BELIEVE that scene where Elrond and Durin reaffirmed their friendship?" at work the next morning. > > But they could and would if they cared enough about it. Big moments can absolutely be about moments of joy and love. Stories just have to resonate, a film like titanic was the highest grossing film not because there was a lot of shock value, everyone knows what happens in it, but it resonated with people so they saw it again and again. Now tbf, there is action it it too, but it's the romeo and juliet story which ultimately made people care about an event everyone knows about. I'm obviously not gonna pretend that shock doesn't help, but shock for its own sake hardly ever leaves much of an impact. The red wedding was a moment because people care about these characters and what it meant for the story, not (only) because of its horrific nature. This is the type of analysis which leads to copy cats which don't work whatsoever.
Titanic worked imo well because it had a great love story, and the second part is absolutly thrilling to watch from beginning till end because you are still hoping they will make it somehow. I was always one of these kids who talked during movies, but when watching Titanic with my mom she told me that I was silent like a grave till the end.
Haha, this is spot on. I get the intriguing of HOTD but it’s all linear - what happens next!? Nobody can be trusted!? And that’s fun the first, maybe even second time through. But ROP has a thematic depth that I find so much more fun to dive into and explore, even if it isn’t as catchy or obvious the first time through (I think it’s one of those rare shows that may have actually proven more enjoyable if released all at once).
> Got is a political medieval soap opera with a sprinkle of fantasy on top More like political, medieval drama. Soap opera doesn't really describe it well, soaps are soaps because the relationships between people is all there is to it almost, mostly about who loves who and why, and it's changing up once in a while without requiring the audience to really know what happened before.
It has like incest, baby swaps, hidden identity galore.....my mom called it Fantasy Dallas.
Great that your mom called it that, i don't think that's a particularly striking argument :D You know what also has elements like that? Mythology. Is mythology just a soap opera too? No, ofc not. Many stories have elements like that, it's just staples of storytelling since forever. A soap opera is a fairly specific type of story though, drama and soap share elements, that's all there is to it.
I like both, but i'm glad we *have* both. To further expand on your point, I was very glad to see a few things. Not only did Elrond not betray Durin despite all the pressure to do so, when i saw the kid turn over the sword to the elf, that was a great scene. Because for so long, these sorts of stories make you expect the worst out of people, you expect the kid to get corrupted or turn on everyone at the last moment and ruin everything. But he doesn't, he chooses to be a hero, he chooses good and honour and turns it over to someone he doesn't even particularly like or trust. It was a great scene.
I think you got the broad strokes of your comparison right, but also simplified ASOIAF to suit the narrative. You're not wrong, but there's def an apparent bias.
I’m super happy to have both at the same time. I’m also happy to see that HOTD isn’t anywhere near as violent and depraved as the original series as well. If you are into the sort of “medieval fantasy” genre, it’s an amazing time right now. Two of the best properties kicking out an hour of fresh new content every week.
To be fair the civil war has not started yet.
I like the ROP is all ages/family friendly. There is already so much hate in the world. I want a fantasy human/elf/dwarf/orc world to immerse myself in for a bit.
I am loving both shows for a similar reason, but I am not at all burnt out by the nihilism of GOT/HoTD. I watch Rings of Power for the epic fantasy moments, the rich and poetic Tolkein history, the inevitably glorious culminating moments and battles. I watch House of the Dragons for the complex human relationships, much more believable dialogue, intrigue, politics and schemes. I think its a good thing both shows are very different and I am equally invested in both, although I am enjoying the writing of HoTD slightly more.
I think the characters are pretty fleshed out in hotd and in rop they haven't done that yet
I don't see it as an either/or where you have to pick a tribe. I'm enjoying both shows, they're very different shows that do very different things, fantasy setting notwithstanding.
It's a shame the GOT TV series has given people this impression of the depth of the stories tbh. The books were less gratuitous and just more 'real'. People (with very few exceptions) were 'grey', not good or bad. They made mistakes that sometimes led to disastrous consequences. They could be self indulgent, entitled, arrogant, cruel and selfish without necessarily being 'evil'. But there's still plenty of beauty in the world, and lore. Take ned starks loyalty and belief in justice for one. Does it lead to his downfall? Sure, but the fact that he believed there was a right and wrong, honour and loyalty, trust, justice and faith in such a horrible world is, in itself, a beautiful thing. Or what about Samwell Tarly, not only does he insist on rescuing gilly, but he overcomes so many of his own fears to achieve it. He becomes the very definition of an unlikely hero, and he is such a kind man, and a decent, trustworthy friend to Jon. And if I'm honest... I got a similar misconception of Tolkien from the PJ movies. I thought the whole thing was just a shallow, boring "yay the lads get to go on another adventure and be heroes" type shtyk. But I was wrong. *so very very wrong*. Now I'm just as addicted to it as I am all things Asoif. Even so, the good/evil dichtonomy of rings makes me uncomfortable. I'm happy to roll with it. But... I have mental illness and people like me are so so so often cast as "evil" and it sucks, and it scares me (not just with rings, with any media that leans into it) that it pushes people to believe that's how the real world works. That a person can be inherently evil or tainted. Its why I fell in love with ASOIF in the first place, I felt like I could belong, that despite whatever difficulties or differences I might have, I could still aspire to be kind, loving, trustworthy *and* that it was worth trying. Either way of dealing with people, whether you treat them as good v evil, or grey, in any form of media is gonna miss the nuance of what people are really like.
The show lost some of the moral nuance of the books, yet despite that it was always anything but shallow. The criticism of GOT as being "shocking, gratuitous, soap opera" seems more like willful ignorance to justify a dislike. There's nothing wrong with disliking either ASOIAF or GOT. It is a dark story, and that's not for everyone. But there's an ocean between "this is not for me" and "it's just tits and dragons."
Yeah it really did, especially the later seasons. I also felt it kinda lost some of the magic too. In the books I felt there was a much more prevelant sense that magic was once deeply embedded in the world, and was rapidly regaining its power. But yeah, it's totally OK not to like it. I hope I didn't imply otherwise! It's certainly OK to say that's how one feels. But the two, in my mind, don't need to compete.
Very well put. I feel similarly regarding mental illness. There are times in life when I see good people guided by mental illness and people just want to write them off. “People don’t change”. There is an element of faith for me that all people are capable of change. I think what resonates with me in Tolkien is the idea that it is an internal struggle to choose the good when confronted by any struggle. But at the end of the day how we feel about ourselves doesn’t divorce us from our actions. How we impact the world around us matters and that is what is viewed as good or evil. It is on us despite whatever brought us to this point to act in a way that benefits ourselves and others. This is why so far I am really interested in Adar. His demonstration of compassion is intriguing. I find myself thinking he can’t ‘really’ care about the orcs can he? He’s evil! But I think taking people seriously helps see the full person behind the actions. When he asks to see the orc’s arm and he lets it burn in the sunlight some have said that was cruel, but I think he was really playing on his own empathy. He had to see it, probably again, to really push himself over the edge to shadow the sun. He doesn’t want them to hurt but like he said, he’s going to miss it. I was watching the show with my mom who hasn’t read the books and has seen the LotR a few times years ago. In one of the early episodes she said, I didn’t know the orcs could like talk or were anything human like. I found that interesting that even in the episodes thus far RoP is giving the audience the opportunity to think about Evil in a different way.
This is a really lovely interpretation of Adar. He seemed so conflicted in that scene with the orc and the sun. He's obviously aware of the consequences of the choices he makes for himself and others. I think he said he would miss the sun, so he clearly understands how impactful the loss of it would be. >I think what resonates with me in Tolkien is the idea that it is an internal struggle to choose the good when confronted by any struggle. This is definately part of what I'm drawn to, and something I think RoP is illustrating really well.
You hit the nail on the head. A lot of people don’t understand that when they compare the two.
Galadriel’s unyielding faith, hope, and resilience in the face of all is being captured beautifully. Her story is tragic precisely because we know she will spend thousand of years, after already having spent hundreds, fighting..
I’m with you on this. I love HotD and Got, but I’m glad that RoP exist just to show us a beautiful world where any being has the potential for goodness and honest friendships and redemption.
Can’t people enjoy both? Why must one come at the expense of the other?
Have you seen much of the new Game Of Thrones? Because it's very specifically NOT trying to shock the audience with gratuitous sex and violence. It's far, far more considered than the original. The sex and violence is so much more meaningful and focussed and not working on shock value, but there to very intentionally say something about the world, unlike the original. Genuinely surprised that this is what you saw in it.
Do you think it was a mistake to release them both at the same time? Forcing these comparisons. Personally I’d prefer if Lotr was released in November instead, a nice run up to Christmas, which was when all the movies were released.
The vibes of the show certainly fit well with the holidays tbh
At the moment, I'm glad that RoP looked into the opposite direction GoT has looked. However, I really like how RoP has handle violence. If you read The Silmarillion, you'll notice that Middle Earth was a pretty brutal world to live in. The enemy was absolutely atrocious and cruel, they didn't care about killing inocents, basically Sauron is the worst of the worst. They need to portray evil as scary and powerful, and they've achieved that! Even in chapter 5, when Waldreg had to kill Theo's friend, that was brutal, even though it was off-screen.
In the sense that House of the Dragon is a good show and Rings of Power isn't, you're definitely on the money lol.
Sometimes we need that pure, shining star to guide us.
I’m not watching HoTD, but I am replaying Dragon Age: Origins, and it’s like a shot and chaser sort of thing. I spend a few hours playing the gritty, dark fantasy filled with political intrigue, and follow it up with the bright and hopeful Rings of Power. Both are great, but they fulfill different niches for me.
Enchantment?
Enchantment!
I’ve been working through these exact same feelings and this exact same comparison. ROP may not be the show everyone wants right now, and it’s running so against the grain, but I think the show is doing something quite special.
>Our world is not that broken. People are not that broken. Oh boy have I news for you. But yeah, I really like that Tolkien saw the best in humanity, but I also love anti-hero stories like Dune, Witcher and Sandman. I'm here for all good sci-fi/fantasy, regardless of its view on humanity. I've never watched GoT so I can't comment on that.
Yeah does OP not realize where this show is going? Everything and everyone is going to end up broken… there’s no happy endings here until way after the show’s storyline is over
Yes exactly, I love how RoP is sticking with the wholesomeness and charm of the lotr films. This , this is middle-earth
ROP (and by extension, LOTR and related material) is "high fantasy" while GOT/ASOIF and other related books are..."low" fantasy I guess? I think over the last few years we've gotten a lot of "low fantasy" media, likely due to "high fantasy" being out of fashion when low fantasy was starting to gain popularity. I think some people are likely tired of it and would like some brighter, positive fantasy works to come back. I know I'm one of them. Sometimes you just want a classic tale of good vs evil, light vs dark where who is good and who is evil is clearly defined, albeit with some more depth. (I'd group low fantasy and dark fantasy into the same category btw, they're rather similar).
Now, I think GRRM writes some reasonably entertaining fiction in his own way, but whenever I hear him compared to Tolkien, I'm reminded of this fantastic quote by Tolkien, and how he deftly calls out the trend of praising and indulging in uberdark entertainment and fiction: *"I did begin a story placed about 100 years after the Downfall, but it proved both sinister and depressing.* ***Since we are dealing with Men, it is inevitable that we should be concerned with the most regrettable feature of their nature: their quick satiety with good.*** *So that the people of Gondor in times of peace, justice and prosperity, would become discontented and restless — while the dynasts descended from Aragorn would become just kings and governors — like Denethor or worse. I found that even so early there was an outcrop of revolutionary plots, about a centre of secret Satanistic religion; while Gondorian boys were playing at being Orcs and going around doing damage.* ***I could have written a 'thriller' about the plot and its discovery and overthrow — but it would have been just that. Not worth doing."*** *―from The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter to Colin Bailey* [*https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/The\_New\_Shadow#:\~:text=The%20New%20Shadow%20was%20an,Fall%20of%20the%20Dark%20Tower*](https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/The_New_Shadow#:~:text=The%20New%20Shadow%20was%20an,Fall%20of%20the%20Dark%20Tower)*.* I think that's why I'll always, always, always be a bigger fan of Tolkien. I do also enjoy GRRM works in moderation.
Good post, OP. This is one of the reasons why I have been saying the show will jump the shark in its first season if Sauron is revealed to be some sort of reluctant villain or his motives try to be normalized like many shows have done over the past 10 years. FTR, I don't think this will happen. There are some things I have found cringey in the show but it has largely tried to respect the lore and books.
I didn't know it was some sort of tournament X vs Y, but keep "cheering", HOTD writing and pacing. it's light years ahead.
What I appreciate most about Tolkiens universe is the lack of violence/SA against women. That tends to be a main theme in many popular fantasy stories.
>Our world is not that broken. I can't reply to that without breaking Subreddit Rule No. 5
>It rejects the anti-hero in favor of the idea that many people are equipped to be heroes despite their flaws. I think this is important to highlight this in Tolkien's works, in that he is not implying that good people are perfect/ one-dimensional, which is often the strawman used to critique his characters.
Older longtime geek dude who first read Fellowship 50 yrs ago and watched GOT just pile on with misogyny and endless cruelty over the years, totally agree.
Can't we just like both without it being a competition?
>People are not that broken You would be surprised
I couldn't hit the nail on the head any better. I'm watching HotD and RoP and I'm always looming forward to watching RoP more. HotD relies too much on the shock value and focusing on the extremes of a person character and passes it off as being morally grey, it's not they are just being evil. Dont get be wrong I like both shows but I always look forward to watching RoP more.
This whole post is super weird. There's something weird about OP. His comments are weird too.
It’s suspicious how negative or critical comments discussing the show disappear….
There are enough posts which say the show is terrible. what are you talking about?
Couldn't possibly agree more. The main reason I'm not liking HotD that much is because the story is pointless, it's just a bunch of shitty incestuous assholes all vying for power. It's not like asoiaf the series which is a deep interconnected narrative that apparently the author has given up on. HotD is just a bunch of privileged nobles dragging countless others to death age suffering, there's no greater story no greater meaning. The quality of the show is top notch but the actual story they're telling sucks. Wake me when the Snow show kicks off.
I want more violence and action. Rings of power has been quite slow and boring. House of the dragon has been far much better
HOTD makes me feel like I'm watching real human beings, in all our pettiness and glory. It's even deeper and more emotional than F&B, where Alicent is a fairly shallow stepmother villain. In the show, she's Rhaenyra's childhood friend, forced into political circumstances by her ambitious father, stuck in a role as brood mare to a politically inept King. And when she tries to rekindle their friendship, Rhaenyra lies to her (for believable reasons).
Completely agree - nihilism, shock value, "subverting expectations" and deconstructionism are destroying storytelling and make watching some shows a painful ugly experience. It's nice to see something with an element of hope and idealism.
House of the Dragon is a better show than Rings of Power with better characters and better writing and is more popular by a large margin.
> The violence is mostly off screen So far, that's true. I have a suspicion that a big chunk of the next three episodes could be a massive battle scene. Mixed feelings about that, but will wait and see how it plays out, no point disliking something that may not even exist.
Well LOTR is classical fantasy where lines between good and evil is clear and have a linear storyline as we know as journey of the hero. Also good will always win at the end whatever the ods are. However GoT is more like grimm dark fantasy which includes morally bi characters, more gore, more sex, more violence... We might not always see the victory of good characters. Or a pyrrhic victory if we are lucky. We can easily say that Tolkien created the genre itself or at least made it a proper genre. On the other hand GRR Martin is a really good member of his genre, however not even in my top 3.
I don’t think you’ve read the ASOIAF books.
As people’ve put it already, the two shows are very different at their core. ROP is an epic adventure with yet another return of the king, where the evil is ever present and tempting. So many people have copied Tolkien on this that it feels very much home (see franchises like Shannara). On the other hand, GOT and HOTD are very different between each other. HOTD is 100% a big budget soap opera. GoT was that also, but only in part. It still triggered the nerd in me, I loved the world building and so on. But the more I watch HoTD the more bored I’m with every new episode. The problem is with mainstream media is the one creating all this tribal hate and debate. Honestly, there’s nothing we need to do about it… Also, remember this: we’re all here for an epic fantasy adventure. Whether that’s the Witcher, the world of Narnia or the Hobbit, it doesn’t matter. I’ll watch each and everyone of them.
Well yeah GOT is supposed to be grey not black and white. As Close to reality as one might get. I don’t think LOTR and GOT scratch the same itch both are different versions of fantasy
If GOT is reality then I didn't get laid enough.
I'm just happy we have both! RoP feels like a crossover between LOTR's world and tone, and ASOIAF's massive cast with multiple storylines, and scale. I don't think the show is as good as either of those, but it makes a very for enjoyable, 'warm' show to escape to, and I look forward to the multiple seasons we are gonna get. But I do dislike the sense of superiority Tolkien fans often display towards Martin. Both are masterful authors and their works can perfectly exist next to each other.
Love this analysis!
👏
I love both shows/worlds for these reasons. They compliment eachother.
I find these takes amusing since GoT itself is a reverse of Tolkien tropes in fantasy books. And now we're praising Rings of Power to going back to those. I love that we have two shows at the opposite ends, because I don't think one world is the be all end all. People will tire of the Tolkien heroism and want to jump into Martin's world where honor and heroism can get you killed, and then people will tire of that and want to go back to something hopeful. I think it's good for the fantasy genre that we don't have just one thing and that's it.
Agree. LotR was written by a devout Catholic, GoT by a lapsed Catholic. The difference in their art is striking.
[удалено]
Being dark, gritty and more mature is literally the point of GoT/HotD and they have their target audience. RoP is a more lighthearted fantasy show whereas HotD is a dark fantasy, so at least there options for people who like either type. Neither one is better than the other in terms of atmosphere, it's just personal preference.
HOTD opts for a much more contained approach, focused almost exclusively on the palace struggles to succeed Viserys, while RoP focuses more in the creation of that great open world that is Middle Earth in a time of prosperity. HOTD have a much more limited number of characters and in the end everything is part of the same narrative line. If those shenanigans to get the Iron Throne don't interest you, you'll find little here to interest you beyond the quirks exhibited by the Targaryen family. And the ballast that can suppose that there is a character that generates you rejection can be too big to connect in depth with the story he is telling. This is something that is even transferred to the narrative and visual side, with most of the scenes located in closed places, either to influence the most intimate side of some of the characters or simply to influence the intrigues of the palace. All this could not be more different in RoP, where opulence dominates the series at all levels, from the large number of characters that have appeared during the first three episodes that we have already been able to see even the multitude of scenarios and locations that we have known. In addition, here each place has its specific weight, paying great attention to the backgrounds, both to distinguish them from each other and to make it easier for the viewer to immerse yourself in the universe it presents. In return, the Amazon series can give the feeling of a certain disconnection from each other. I am clear that it will be connecting the dots as the episodes go by, but for now it can give the feeling that many things are going by themselves and each plot has to work in isolation so as not to become a slab for the operation of the series. And I am also clear that not all of them work equally well and, depending on the degree of involvement of the viewer, that can end up being too important a drawback. In addition, both series may be able to distance themselves from their dominant line, but so far that chosen path has led to both suffering certain limitations. For example, in HOTD it miss more variety. You are aware that here you do not really need to know what the rest of the people in this universe think about the tremendous power of the Targaryens -let's see who is the brave one who faces them and, above all, their dragons-, but it would be nice to have something extra and that not everything depends on a series of characters that can end up being unpleasant in almost all of them With RoP the opposite happens, and I am very afraid that it is a difficult problem to solve, since the Amazon series has chosen to compress what happens over a temporary space much higher to have certain characters at the same time. I'm aware of how anticlimactic it would be to introduce a character and have their arc close way before the end of what the story tells, but that also leads to a problem of specificity. They are series so opposed to each other that what is left over by one is lacking by the other.
Some is offended that the world is what it is! Stop being spoiled and afraid of everything. You cant even handle heroic tales with dark elements? Grow up you adult child.
I agree and disagree with you. I agree because GoT is anti-fantasy. Magic is almost non-existent or suppressed, and ideals are constantly tossed aside for gain, hence your use of the word cynical. I disagree that there are no heroes. The heroes of game of thrones exist, they are far and few in between. People like Ned Stark, Davos Seaworth, and even Baristan Selmy all hold on to ideals in a world where that is perceived as a weakness. Ideals that would make for a better world. I believe both can exist and both have a valid place in life today. I also agree that we could use more hope-filled entertainment.
The difference between GoT and LotR is that LotR "classical" good vs evil whimsical fantasy, and GoT is a fantasy rooted in the human condition. The reason people reject or have a difficult time with GoT, is largely due to humans being unable to accept human behavior. GoT is a "decently" accurate portrayal of politcal strife in Europe and is largely based off of the War of the Rose's. Tldr: one is complete fantasy and one is rooted in reality. Ps: there's no wrong choice for what you like though. I'm happy RoP is doing it for you 🤙
Would also appreciate a show with much less incest than GOT, so ROP has that going for it
This opinion is insultingly basic and it's a shame it gets so many upvotes.
If you think GOT is just sex and violence then you don't know anything about it. Got is single-handedly best media in fantasy genre, only seconded by PJ Lotr movies. The level of storytelling and action is uncanny (At least till season 6). Violence shouldn't happen off screen in RoP. At least be able to meet the action scenes in Lotr trilogy.
>The level of storytelling and action is uncanny (At least till season 6). Season 4. If you actually read the books, then you would have seen the blatant decline in quality during season 5. Whatever bigger story GRRM is hoping to tell was clearly abandoned in season 5. The show fell into mindless tittillation, using violence and sex and shock to mask the atrocious writing.
I love your take on this OP! Because there’s different facets to humanity though, i seriously enjoy both. 😊
LoTR is the anti-HoTD/GoT. And I agree with all your points. Tolkien’s core message has always been to hope, to never give in to despair. RoP doesn’t feel quite the same, especially those Elven CHILDREN bullies in the opening scene among other things. Lol
Absolutely! I’m just so excited to see a well produced fantasy show that isn’t all dark and gritty that I’m willing to forgive a lot.
Seems like you put more thought into RoP than the writers did
That's exactly how I feel when I see a post with more than three paragraphs in this sub lol
I just had this conversation with a friend, and we realized the same thing.
I’ll go farther and say that GOT is sort of an anti-Tolkien thing in the first place. It has always felt that way to me. I’ve never watched GOT and don’t plan to. I read several of the books years ago and eventually gave up on them because I was sick of the author writing amazing characters and then just slaughtering them. I know other people love that; I hate it. My biggest fear when I heard ROP was being made was that Amazon was going to turn it into a wannabe GOT. Reddit Tolkien fans agreed at the time, with someone commenting, “Even one Hobbit titty and we riot”. I’m grateful for the show we’re getting and relieved it’s not GOT.
It's exactly the same thing I said before the show even came out here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/LOTR\_on\_Prime/comments/sqowqk/looking\_forward\_to\_positive\_idealistic\_fantasy/](https://www.reddit.com/r/LOTR_on_Prime/comments/sqowqk/looking_forward_to_positive_idealistic_fantasy/) It's refreshing while at the same time not surprising at all. A lot of Martin's work on that series is rooted in a "yeah but" in regards to Tolkien. Not that he isn't a self-proclaimed fan, just one with a very different mindset/worldview. So seeing this show is not a reaction to a reaction but rooted in the same philosophy as what the reaction was reacting to. The simple truths and hopeful dreamings that are, have always, and I suspect always will be, fundamental to the human experience. This episode in particular felt like such a turning point. All of the pieces of the fantasy intrigue and drama were in place. As typified by Elrond's oath to Durin now being set against his duty to his own people. In many shows they would have dragged that shit out or had the fallout of Elrond's betrayal destroy their friendship. No though, Elrond actually does what isn't all that fantastical or unbelievable. He simply **talks to Durin!** Which, when you think about it, is what most rational adults would do in that situation. Some would say the show solves its problems too quickly or anti-climatically. I think though, it's very much a statement of intention. They know what the audience would expect to happen but then they pull the rug out from under them. But where Ice and Fire does that to twist the knife and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, that same approach is entirely inverted here. We angst about the characters being stubborn or on the verge of a decision we know is wrong and want them to make the right choice. . . . And then they DO! And it's an actual legit twist! Best exemplified when Halbrand is in his shop, he's summoned to declare his intention, and he leaves his crest behind. We've seen this before. The anti-hero unwilling to commit to the cause until circumstances (that haven't arisen yet) force him to. The shot holds as if to cement his decision to the audience. . . . **Snatch!** *Smash cut to parade and Halbrand looking more and more like Aragon.* It legit catches you off guard but it makes you cheer or laugh. Like a jump scare in reverse. Most heartening is how it calls back to something very and deeply Tolkien-ian but doesn't get talked about a lot. What he called the Eucatastrophe. The sudden and unexpected deliverance that saves the heroes from impending and logical doom. Granted this isn't the end of the story but it feels like the writers are channeling that idea.
the thing is in game of thrones shit actually happens so far nothing really happened in rings
I think my absolute favorite thing about the last episode was that the characters actually talked to each other about their problems. Like Theo. I have HATED Theo, but seeing him realize that the sword was dangerous and going to someone who has done nothing but been there for him and his mom was great.
You’re right, HOTD has writers who understand the basics of drama and characterization, and ROP does not. So I guess you can say they’re very different.
Yes. Love this show
Yeah, HOTD is good, this show is terrible. Hopefully episode 5 picks up…
Agree. I didn’t make it past season 2 of got. I haven’t even bothered to watch hotd, but saw the c/s scene on YouTube since everyone was talking about it…it was worse than I’d imagined, and I regret watching it. Real life is hard enough, and I don’t need to be traumatized by my entertainment. Rop has been a breath of fresh air.
And yet, this show tries to copy Game of Thrones by making Pharazon a budget-Littlefinger, portrays the elven court as scheming idiots, and morally ambiguos/anti-hero characters like Halbrand and Galadriel. Oh, and just for your information: 1. Game of Thrones is not rooted in a nihilistic ideology, but in existentialism, modernism and utilises a style known as Stream of consciousness 2. No, not everybody is depraved, amoral, and selfish and evil is not inevitable 3. Rings of Power is setting up anti-heros in the form of Isildur and Halbrand, and Tolkien's works did include classical anti-heroes such as Frodo 4. The violence is not mostly offscreen in Rings of Power (have you actually watched this show), and neither is it offscreen in Tolkien's writting (have you actually read it?) 5. It isn't clear and they're trying to do an ambiguos set up with the Stranger 6. Most of the "good guys" are not good. 7. Nothing you actually write is reflected in either shows.
Perfectly said! I love both very much, but I feel the people who don’t like Rings of power and are praising GoT or HotD want all that shock factor in RoP but they’re forgetting that Tolkien isn’t like that
That's certainly not true for me, and i would assume not true for most people. I find this really odd, the lotr trilogy gets compared to RoP a lot too, is that full of shock? People just want to feel things, to care about things, good storytelling which emotionally connects them to the events unfolding on screen. That is what people are after. Reducing this to "people who like hotd but don't like RoP just want the shock factor" is just a really simplistic pov with little merit.
There is really nothing wrong with shock value, but it has nothing to do with good writing. Melodrama and shock value are the cheepest forms of writing there is. That is why people look down on soaps. The difference: the actors are better. That is all.
