books and movies

as most of us sadly know, when a beloved book becomes made into a movie, it usually ends up being absolutely terrible(example: eragon) and it makes you feel depressed that such a great(or not so great in the case of the alex ryder books) book was totally ruined by the movie making industry. not all books are ruined, of course. personally, i think the movie versions of lord of the rings by peter jackson are better than the books b/c he cut out all the parts that didn't really fit with the rest of the story(the twenty page poems) and still had the movies be great. and the harry potter movies aren't too bad...i mean they could be worse.
but there are certain books that can never become movies. never ever.
1. catcher in the rye. if it was made into a movie, it would ruin everything the book is about(holden hates the movies). and also, it'd be impossible to find a person who could really be holden. i once read somewhere that only jd salinger could really play holden, but he's in his 80s and is a hermit in new jersey, so there goes that idea...honestly, the only movies that even come close is igby goes down(which i've never seen, but heard is really good) and dead poet's society(which i have seen and isn't really the same plot as catcher, but has a lot of the same themes). so, it'd be pretty much impossible for catcher to ever be a movie. and i hope it doesn't.
2. anno dracula. it's such a great book series and i'd hate to see it become another vampire chick-lit like van helsing(which is a great movie, even if it ruins dracula)
3. a tree grows in brooklyn. it might work as a mini-series on tv(bbc this is a hint) but i would never work as a movie. the story itself has too many characters and complex twists and cutting any of them out would be a crime. so a miniseries would be good. but not a movie.
um...that's all i can think of for now...my next post might be talking about what books would make good movies...
extra51