This is one of those questions that’s basically unanswerable because “best” means different things to different people, but it’s also impossible to avoid asking. The Game of Thrones universe—spanning the original show, House of the Dragon, and eventually A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms—has fundamentally changed what television fantasy looks like. It proved that you could make a fantasy show that appeals to people who don’t normally watch fantasy. It proved that you could have huge budgets, high production values, and serious actors in a fantasy setting. But it also proved that fantasy television could be absolutely brutal and controversial. So how does it stack up against the other major fantasy franchises on television, and is it actually the best, or has it been surpassed?
The Contenders
First, let’s establish who’s competing here. We’re talking about the major fantasy franchises that have had significant television presence: Game of Thrones and House of the Dragon obviously, but also The Lord of the Rings, The Witcher, The Wheel of Time, and maybe some newer entries depending on what you count. We’re comparing massive world-building, high budgets, significant fan bases, and shows that are trying to do serious dramatic work within a fantasy setting. We’re not comparing Game of Thrones to random fantasy shows on streaming services—we’re comparing it to other major franchises that are in the same category of ambition and budget.
What Game of Thrones Got Right
Let’s start by acknowledging what Game of Thrones did that nobody had really done before on television. It took a fantasy world and treated it like serious drama, with political complexity, moral ambiguity, and consequences that actually matter. It didn’t have a clear hero and villain—it had multiple factions, all of them flawed, all of them fighting for power. It showed that fantasy television didn’t have to be escapist. It could be dark, brutal, and realistic while still existing in a world with dragons and magic.
The early seasons of Game of Thrones were genuinely brilliant at balancing multiple storylines, complex politics, and character development. Watching Tyrion navigate the challenges at King’s Landing, watching Jon Snow learn leadership beyond the Wall, watching the Starks slowly get destroyed by playing by the old rules of honor—this was compulsively watchable television. The show proved that a fantasy world could be just as dramatically compelling as any contemporary drama.
Game of Thrones also expanded the scope of what fantasy television could do in terms of budget and production. The battle sequences, the dragon effects, the costume design, the production design—all of it was on a scale that made fantasy television look cinematic. You could show a fantasy world that looked real, felt lived-in, and had the production values of a major drama. This was revolutionary for the genre.
House of the Dragon took that foundation and added something different—it proved that you could tell a fantasy story focused on female power and female conflict. The Dance of the Dragons is basically a civil war fought over a woman’s claim to the throne, and House of the Dragon makes that central rather than secondary. It’s a different tone than Game of Thrones (more political, less gritty), but it’s compelling in its own way. It suggests that the Game of Thrones universe has room for different stories with different approaches.
What Game of Thrones Got Catastrophically Wrong
And then there’s the ending. The final season of Game of Thrones is widely regarded as a disaster. Not just a disappointing ending, but a fundamental betrayal of the story and the characters that the show had spent eight seasons building. The problem wasn’t that things ended badly—the problem was that they ended illogically, rushed, and without adequate setup.
Daenerys’s transformation from liberator to mass murderer happens so fast that it feels unearned. Jon Snow’s entire character arc seems to resolve in ways that feel arbitrary. Bran Stark becomes king for reasons that aren’t adequately explained. The ending feels like the writers wanted to get to a specific destination but didn’t care enough about the journey to get there coherently. It’s not that audiences didn’t like the ending—it’s that the ending didn’t follow logically from what came before.
This is particularly important when evaluating Game of Thrones against other fantasy franchises because the ending is what you remember. You can have seven brilliant seasons, but if the eighth season destroys the trust and coherence you’ve built, that has lasting consequences. Game of Thrones’s cultural reputation never recovered from the final season. People who were obsessed with the show became, at best, ambivalent about recommending it. At worst, they actively discourage people from watching it.
How The Witcher Compares
The Witcher has had a messier journey than Game of Thrones but in different ways. The show started with significant production issues, wildly inconsistent tone, and a storyline structure that confused a lot of viewers. But Netflix gave the show space to figure itself out, and seasons two and three show real improvement. The Witcher benefits from the popularity of the video game series and the books, but it’s also struggling with how to adapt material that’s beloved by fans into a television format that works for a broader audience.
What The Witcher does well is character work. Henry Cavill’s portrayal of Geralt, for example, was excellent. The monster-of-the-week structure gives the show more flexibility than Game of Thrones has—you can have a solid episode without everything needing to serve the larger plot. But The Witcher also lacks the political complexity that made Game of Thrones compelling, and it doesn’t have the budgetary commitment to consistent visual spectacle that Game of Thrones demonstrated.
In terms of raw world-building and storytelling depth, Game of Thrones is probably ahead of The Witcher. But The Witcher might ultimately be more watchable because it doesn’t make you feel invested in a complex political narrative that’s going to disappoint you in the final season.
How The Lord of the Rings Adapts Compare
The Lord of the Rings television adaptations—both Peter Jackson’s films and the newer Amazon series—operate in a different space than Game of Thrones. The LOTR films are essentially perfect adaptations of a beloved source material. They’re epic, they’re beautifully shot, and they understand that the source material is mythological rather than political. The films work because they respect the source material and they have a clear narrative arc that’s known in advance.
The Amazon LOTR series is new and still finding its footing, but it’s dealing with the challenge of creating new stories set in Middle-earth without having clear source material to work from. It’s a different problem than Game of Thrones faced—LOTR has to create original narratives rather than adapt existing ones, which is actually harder in some ways.
The core difference is that LOTR (both films and series) is fundamentally about good versus evil, about heroism and destiny, about a clear moral framework. Game of Thrones is about power, morality, and the messy complexity of human ambition. They’re doing different things. LOTR is escapist and mythic. Game of Thrones (at least in its early seasons) was grounded and political. Both approaches have merit, but they’re not competing in the same space.
How Wheel of Time Compares
The Wheel of Time is actually a really good comparison to Game of Thrones because both are fantasy series trying to adapt massive, complex source material for television. Wheel of Time has had rocky first couple seasons as the showrunners tried to figure out how to condense and adapt the massive book series. The show has some really strong elements—the world-building is intricate, the magic system is complex, and the cast is solid. But it’s also struggled with pacing and with figuring out how to make the story coherent for people who haven’t read the books.
In terms of pure world-building complexity, Wheel of Time might be ahead of Game of Thrones. The magic system is more sophisticated, the world is more detailed, and the scope is even larger. But Game of Thrones had something that Wheel of Time is still trying to achieve: a consistent tone and a clear sense of direction. Game of Thrones, for its first five seasons, felt like it knew exactly where it was going and what story it was telling.
What Game of Thrones Did Better Than Everyone Else
Despite the terrible ending, Game of Thrones did several things better than any of its competitors. First, it proved that fantasy television could attract mainstream audiences. Game of Thrones was appointment television for people who didn’t normally watch fantasy. Second, it showed that you could have genuine consequences. Characters died unexpectedly. Beloved characters were betrayed. Plans fell apart. This made the show feel less like a traditional fantasy narrative and more like actual history where outcomes weren’t guaranteed.
Third, Game of Thrones had better casting and performances than most fantasy television. The actors were serious drama actors, the direction was strong, and the whole thing felt cinematic. When you compare it to some of the wooden performances in other fantasy shows, Game of Thrones looks like a masterclass in casting and direction. Fourth, the show’s willingness to be dark and brutal and morally complex was appealing to adults who would normally dismiss fantasy as being for kids. It showed that fantasy could be serious drama.
What Game of Thrones Did Worse Than Everyone Else
Game of Thrones’s ending is probably the worst ending of any major fantasy franchise in television. The decision to rush the final season, the lack of adequate source material, and the writers’ apparent loss of interest in the source material all combined to create a catastrophe. House of the Dragon has a chance to prove that the universe can work without relying on Game of Thrones’ complete failure, but it’s working from a disadvantage because viewers are wary.
The show also became increasingly focused on shocking moments and spectacle at the expense of coherent storytelling. The Red Wedding is brilliant because it follows logically from previous decisions. Later seasons have shocking moments that feel arbitrary. This suggests that the writers either didn’t understand what made the early seasons work, or they didn’t care anymore.
Is Game of Thrones the Best?
Here’s the thing: Game of Thrones is probably the most important fantasy franchise in television. It proved that fantasy television could be serious, could attract adults, could have massive budgets, and could be genuinely great. But is it the best? That’s harder to say when the most recent entry in the franchise is an unmitigated disaster.
If you judge purely on the source material and the structural coherence, The Lord of the Rings films are probably better. They’re more consistent, they have a clearer artistic vision, and they’re closer to perfect adaptation. But they’re films, not television series, so they’re not quite the same category.
If you judge on world-building depth and complexity, Wheel of Time or maybe even The Witcher could argue they’re better, depending on what you’re looking for. They’re both working from source material that’s richer in some ways than the early Game of Thrones seasons.
But if you judge on pure impact, on how much a franchise changed television fantasy, on how much it influenced what came after, Game of Thrones is probably the winner. For better or worse, every fantasy show on television now is operating in the post-Game of Thrones landscape. Everyone’s trying to do political complexity. Everyone’s trying to have moral ambiguity. Everyone’s trying to have serious actors doing serious work. Game of Thrones established that template.
The problem is that Game of Thrones also established a template for how to ruin a beloved franchise by rushing the ending and prioritizing spectacle over story. House of the Dragon has a chance to prove that was just a mistake rather than a fundamental flaw, but viewers are understandably skeptical.
The Verdict
Is Game of Thrones the best fantasy franchise on television? Probably not, when you consider the entire franchise including the ending. But the first five seasons of Game of Thrones are probably the best sustained stretch of fantasy television ever made. They’re better than anything The Witcher has produced, probably better than what Wheel of Time has managed so far, and arguably on par with the best fantasy that’s ever been adapted for television in any format.
The tragedy is that Game of Thrones proved something important and then immediately proved that it could all be wasted by bad decisions and rushing toward the finish line. House of the Dragon is the chance to redeem the universe by showing that it has more stories to tell, told well, with the care and attention that made the early seasons of Game of Thrones so compelling. If House of the Dragon can maintain quality, then maybe the franchise can reclaim some of the glory that Game of Thrones squandered.
But right now, based on the totality of what’s been produced, Game of Thrones is the most important fantasy franchise in television, but not necessarily the best. The Witcher has potential. Wheel of Time is working toward something great. The LOTR films remain genuinely perfect. And Game of Thrones? Game of Thrones is a cautionary tale wrapped inside a masterpiece wrapped inside a disaster. It’s the franchise that proved fantasy television could be brilliant and then proved just as thoroughly that it could be terrible. That’s not the best outcome, but it’s historically significant either way.
Discover more from Anglotees
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.