You might think this is a sensible comparison, but it isn't. Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones are two very different entities and the fact that you're so shallowly place them alongside one another shows you don't truly understand either of them.
For starters LOTR is a movie trilogy, not a TV series and if you think that doesn't make much difference, well it very well does.
Secondly there is far more to it than LOTR merely being 'first'. Your reasoning here is severely distorted as LOTR was written in the '50 and Tolkien already started working on his universe while he was fighting in the trenches of World War I. The first book of ASOIAF was released in the late '90. These are two completely different eras and different authors. The only reason why you could even have the notion of 'this is too predictable' is because LOTR was so influential it practically created the genre. Without LOTR there might not even have been ASOIAF or it would have looked vastly different. That's something of a completely different scale than just being first. It's kinda laughable to say that just because something was first, it doesn't necessarily mean it's better than what came after it when what came after was the result of the former.
Thirdly even now Martin receives criticism about his work being too graphical, so what do you think would have happened in the '50? That was not a world where nudity, vulgarity and violence to such a degree was commonly accepted. So you are pretty much blaming Tolkien for not being born into a world that idolizes nudity? It's not because our current society is more open-minded (and I'm using that term in a very relative perspective), that therefore ASOIAF is better than LOTR.
The two series also have a completely different connotation. LOTR can be described the best as a mythology and inherently mythologies have a transcendent nature, they go beyond the level of mere humans. They are supposed to explain the grand scheme of the world and show humanity the universal truth in regards to things like morals and ethics. This was also Tolkien's aim, he didn't want to just write a story to entertain people. ASOIAF on the other hand is an alternative history and talks about things that could have happened, and in many cases did happen in our real history.
ASOIAF has a higher entertainment value, but from a literary and meaningful point of view it's almost flaccid compared to LOTR. You are talking about complex characters and what not, but the truth is you can just find those by reading the newspaper or picking up a history book as often it's extremely obvious where Martin got his mustard from. If you want some real historical GoT, read about the War of the Roses or the Merovingian/Carolingian periods in European history as there events transpired not much different from ASOIAF and I'm not overreacting here. In the case of Tolkien however it becomes much more difficult as he was known to be altering and rewriting things continuously. He also had a club of friends with whom he regularly changed thoughts and those friends were not some regular people. Amongst them was C.S. Lewis, the guy who wrote the Chronicles of Narnia.
You also seem to be completely oblivious to the reality that there is far more to Middle Earth than just LOTR. Essentially you have no real idea about what you are saying. What you did would be the same as comparing Bram Stoker's Dracula with the Twilight Saga. They might have a superficial connection, but truthfully they can't be compared, but then you make claims like "Twilight has stronger female characters, which is what today's world loves and Dracula lacks". That's not how this works. If you would flip over your own argumentation you could say that LOTR is far more sophisticated than GoT could ever be.
