>>25587347
THAT IS BECAUSE YOU ACT LIKE A COLORBLIND CANINE WHO CUMTRIBUTES TO THE FICTIONAL DAENAERYS TARGARYEN

HAVE YOU NOT SEEN THE 'THE LORD OF THE RINGS FILMS'? THEY ARE VERY AESTHETICALLY PLEASING

I SUGGEST YOU DEVELOP AN EYE FOR BEAUTY

>>25587347
I like the jackson lotr movies and the hobbit cartoon a lot.

>>25587347
Both are shit for zoomer nerds desu

>TV
Grrm mogs, but only the first 4 seasons of Game of Thrones were good, and even then there's a noticeable drop in quality after the first season. Haven't watched any of the other shit but I heard Twilight Zone is good.
The only competition is amazonslop for Tolkien.
>Films
Obviously Tolkien mogs. The Jackson films are great, even if the Hobbit films have some issues due to studio bs they're still a good time. Like does anyone seriously give a shit about In The Lost Lands?
>Games
Elden Ring is a great game, but there are so many good LOTR games. War in the North, Battle for Middle Earth, Shadow of Mordor/War, Lord of the Rings Online, even the movie tie-in games are good. Tolkien wins, but they really fucked up not making Game of Thrones: Total War.
>books
Both great, but Grrm is better no matter what tradlarping faggots say. He has actual characterisation and arcs, whereas Tolkien feels like he doesn't understand the character aspect and only wants to write about themes and worldbuilding.

>>25587347
It's comfy stuff but I wouldn't call any of these "good"

GRRM's books are narratively conventional, Tolkien's structures and prose are heavily influenced by folklore, linguistics, history, poetry, etc, so his "essence" is much harder to capture in visual mediums as he was a famous sperg for written mediums.

>>25587558
>there's a noticeable drop in quality after the first season
there is? the first season had shit camera work in most episodes