I guess the question is with regard to the video versions.
A very different question from which book is better.
To address that, should be noted that Martin is merely building in a genre Tolkien created, which I’m sure Martin would be the first to admit.
Have been a huge Tolkien fan for 50 years. Have probably read LOTR an average of once/year since the age of 7. The themes and ideas in it have influenced me greatly.
Tried reading GoT when it first came out. Got maybe three books in and gave up.
GoT is inarguably more “realistic” in its portrayal of human character than LOTR, but I got tired of the unrelieved anti-heroism. Honor and duty were the basis of society in medieval times, and those who violated them too egregiously paid a steep price. Dishonorable nobles found it difficult to get their vassals to follow them with any enthusiasm.
Did not get any of this from GoT. There was exactly one truly honorable character, and Martin bumped him off quickly. Nobody every paid a price for dishonorable behavior.
In medieval times, many men, not all and not necessarily most, but many men fought and died for what they saw as their honor. Projecting modern attitudes towards honor into a medieval society turned me off of GoT.
Possibly it got better after I gave up. :)
I’m just about done with the fifth and most current book in GoT. All I can say is that reading the fourth and fifth books might change your mind about honorable characters. I’ve also read Tolkien’s trilogy as well as The Hobbit and The Silmarillion.
Both Martin and Tolkien are masters of character development but it’s important to note that, in the main, Martin does not use racial classifications in the same way as Tolkien did, at least not in the Seven Kingdoms. If you think of Westeros as a large “kingdom of men”, as Tolkien might put it, that might make the analogy better.
For me, Martin gets bogged down in food. I really don’t know why he spends so much time telling us what characters had for dinner, because only rarely does it mean anything.
Tolkien uses allegory in a brilliant way. Martin describes human nature and the potential for treachery in a way few others do. I find both to be excellent reading.
I always thought that R.R. in his name had to be a direct homage to Tolkien.
GoT is inarguably more “realistic” in its portrayal of human character than LOTR, but I got tired of the unrelieved anti-heroism.
LOTR is epic or as a poster said, biblical. Somehow, though, that heroic saga quality doesn't convey a more rounded view of life, which GOT in a way does. LOTR seems a bit more one-note. I got a bit tired of the epic-heroic quality, while the hobbit world that might have added variety really didn't work for me -- a little too much English sentimentalism.
Arguably, though that very concentrated or unified Wagnerian character of the stories may mean that LOTR will last longer than GOT, in the same way that generations did feel the need to pass down and record their epics and sagas while they let stories and anecdotes that conveyed other sides of life pass away into oblivion.
I only know the video, though, not the actual books.