How come so many movies are never as good as the book?
How would you re-read a book to write an adaption for the screen?
Is it the casting of character, would you use a different setting, or change character differences to suit a particular angle?
How would you change the dialog? If at all?
How about the Narrator? Is he important?
All the above and more...
First, more questions:
Can a film get inside a persons head like a book can?
Which parts of a book make the best candidates to transfer onto film?
What about the dialog?
How about the Plot
Are the events portrayed in the same order?
Do the characters meet up to your preconceived image?
What scenes are more important than others?
What should be revised, distorted, or when should liberties be taken?
Are narration voice overs a good device for a movie to use?
Does this downgrade a movie into an un-adulterated novel?
Film relies on lighting, sound, camera placement, movement from characters and lots of visual action. Literature is a completely verbal medium. It relies on language alone.
The invention of the movies changed how literary styles were presented to the new 'modern' public. Movies got all the spectacle: explosions, car chases, and lots of visual excitement. No dialog was needed. Not in the beginning. This is important to consider. Whereas books got the psychology, consciousness, and the inner life reflections a complete story can give. Sometimes, an adaption from a book can be more effective than a faithful rendition.
Lastly, I'll close this post with a few more questions to ask yourself:
What are some of your favorite book to movie adaptations?
How often are you disappointed by those movies?
Do you read the book first then see the movie?
Do your own depictions of character, story, and plot change when you see the movie version?
The prefix "meta" means something about something. In this case 'about' fiction. It does more though: it goes beyond the realm of fancies and fiction. In the classic days of Aristotle it was thought that meta should come after or later. I.E. First teaching physics and then moving on to metaphysics. Now that seems logical to me...
Metafiction is fiction about fiction. It calls attention to its own devices and makes no attempt to be realistic. It is a writing style used to reflect the self conscious use of language. It's storytelling that talks about itself in strange ways.
If an author or narrator of the work decides to jump around and dance in the story, that would be metafiction.
If a book acknowledges itself as a book, that too, is metafiction.
It reflects on the psychology of reading and talks about us and about self reflexivity.
Metafiction helps people to look at fiction and ask questions about our own interpretations of how we feel about an it.
Metafiction uses surreal and unrealistic devices to question the reader.
Metafiction 'talk's to the 'you' in all of us. Possibly even questioning things that we don't even know exist.
Do you think there are terms such as metamusic or metapainting? Or is this only a concept possible in writing only?