The news that Amazon is adapting The Lord of the Rings to television came as a surprise. After two lengthy film trilogies, the franchise already feels rather stretched – like butter, spread over too much bread.  

But the fact that Amazon is throwing $1 billion into at least 5 seasons, making it the most expensive series to date, and potentially hiringPeter Jackson to produce, makes it clear that Jeff Bezos isn’t messing around. This is an ambitious attempt to create the next Game of Thrones, and is surely destined to be a smash hit, hampered only by the fact that Thrones isn’t ending anytime soon.
The Rings adaption is going to be directly competing against at least one of the five Thrones spin-offs currently being considered for development over at HBO, and the winner of that elimination process is surely going to be a heavy-hitter.

Faced with a deluge of high-budget high fantasy, audiences will be spoilt for choice. But most are only willing to pay for one streaming service, and the choice between HBO Now and Amazon is that of the bleak nihilism of Thrones, and the wistful nostalgia of Rings. One franchise will rule them all, but who has the advantage?
Funnily enough, the original Rings film trilogy seemed to prepare us all for the arrival of Thrones, especially if you loved the films as a child and were craving something similar, but more … cynical.

The HBO hit was reportedly pitched as “The Sopranos meets Middle-Earth,” and that’s exactly what the show delivered. But instead of just lazily rehashing Tolkien’s epic, Skyrim style, Game of Thrones challenged our expectations of what the fantasy genre was capable of.
While Thrones and Rings share a similar theme – power corrupts – they make their point in very different ways. Thrones introduced moral ambiguity to the familiar fantasy landscape, one traditionally dominated by kindly wizards and irredeemably wicked orcs.
A ring of power forged by a dark lord might be a frightening concept, but it’s not nearly as frightening as a disturbed individual born into a position of unquestionable authority. Institutional corruption and hereditary monarchy are the true “bad guys” of Thrones, and the theme resonates heavily in today’s politically divided world.
In such a crowded, competitive landscape, the next major fantasy franchise is going to have to refresh and reinvigorate the genre the way Thrones did. HBO might have the advantage here, as the writers have a fully fleshed-out world at their disposal, without being bound by the source material.

That being said, the moment Thrones ran out of books, the show quickly fell back on the old fantasy tropes that Tolkien popularized, and few do it better than him. There’s also the fact that Middle-Earth has been beloved for decades, and boasts a deep familiarity, a mass appeal that Westeros can only dream of.
And if Amazon dips into the surreal stories of The Silmarillion, Tolkien’s insane creation myth, they might find a way to tell a unique, albeit familiar, story. There is a lot of context missing from Lord of the Rings, and exploring the backstory of that epic conflict might be the key to success.
But the world of Thrones boasts another advantage – it’s extremely diverse. Essos, Braavos, and the harsh landscape of the Dothraki offered a refreshing change to the traditional fantasy landscape of rolling green hills and crumbling castles.
If the Thrones spin-offs choose to further explore these locations, then there’s an opportunity to hire a more diverse cast. And these days, diversity matters. Boasting a representative cast is sure to result in free marketing on Twitter, and positive press coverage.

Rings, on the other hand, is whiter than the icy world beyond the wall. Other races do inhabit Middle-Earth – the people of Haleth, and the Easterlings, but Tolkien’s narratives are very much rooted in European folklore, and don’t offer as much opportunity for diverse casting.
George R.R. Martin’s world is far more open – there’s a huge range of different cultures, societies, and belief systems, and what we saw of them during Thrones was intriguing. The slave economy and sorcery of Egyptian-esque Essos was delightfully sinister, and I’d love to see a series revolving around it.
But Rings also has the benefit of being a family-friendly affair. The Hobbit trilogy may have been hot garbage, but those films grossed almost 3$ billion at the box office. That’s an obscene amount of money, and proves the power of brand recognition, and wide audience appeal.
Regardless, my money is still on Thrones to win the streaming war. Amazon may be throwing money into a ridiculously popular franchise, but HBO simply has too much experience to mess this up (I hope).

But whichever side triumphs, Middle-Earth or Westeros, it’s the audience who are the true winners here; it’s never been a better time to be a fantasy fan.