To the extent we can make comparisons across media, I think the Dune books are much better science fiction than The Matrix, but I don't think the movies are better sci-fi.
I think trying to compare across media is impossible. Films cover different aspects of a story than books do. Then, books can go into much more detail and have much more complicated and complex story lines. Films can only show what actions are readily available to the viewer. I have never been satisfied by a film from a book that I had read before seeing the film. I have been satisfied by films that I have seen first and afterward read the book. For instance, I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey before reading Clarke’s book. Had I read the book first, the movie wouldn’t have been so mind blowing.
reply
28 sats \ 1 reply \ @BlokchainB 7h
The visuals of the Dune movies are fantastic!! The matrix has better action scenes and the plot and writing are very philosophical but I just think the matrix universe is very limited. But focusing on just the movie The Matrix was really wild in 1999
reply
I think that the Matrix was made as a one-off movie, originally. I don’t think they knew how it would be received! Reeves even took just a cut of the action, thinking the film would not really be a big hit. Therefore, the universe is much more underdeveloped than that of Dune. There is one more that people probably do not see: The Animatrix. It is about ten shorts of the Matrix universe that fill in the story line; like how the kid originally shows up, what happened to the sky, and why there was the war between humans and machines.
reply