In a post on the Lord of the Rings subreddit, u/km1181 argued that House of the Dragon is the series they trust more because, in their words, “the author of the original books is actively involved.”
That’s true – Martin revealed this in his Not a Blog – and a contrast to The Rings of Power. Tolkien died in 1973 (per The New York Times). So if he was “actively involved in the prequel,” his resurrection would likely overshadow the series anyway. In fact, many fans are encouraged by Martin’s involvement, especially since his absence from the second half of “Game of Thrones” (via Insider) remains a sore point for many (via Reddit). For example, as Reddit fan u/FerBaide wrote in a separate thread, David Benioff and DB Weiss, “‘House of The Dragon’ involved George RR Martin himself and not one of GOT’s showrunners who sent the show downhill.”
The problem with this theory is that it relies on the misconception that the more direct and true to the original a book adaptation is, the better it is. There have been many films and television shows in the past that have improved upon their source material or given it an equally compelling twist by shaking off the shackles of fidelity. Stanley Kubrick’s drastic changes to Stephen King’s story in The Shining may have displeased the horror writer himself quite a bit, but it doesn’t take away from the fact that Kubrick’s version is a phenomenal film in its own right – better and more compelling than King’s at just about every level ordered (aka faithful) TV miniseries from 1997, topping a depressing 36% on Rotten Tomatoes.