Why The Catcher In The Rye will never be made into a movie - Comments

[I]towers:[/I]

Rebel Without a Cause is nothing like Catcher. Rebel Without a Cause is a masterpiece and Catcher is a rambling drabble with a whiny "protagonist". Don't ever compare them again.

It's a fact. JD Salinger, who is ninety now, will not sell the rights to make Catcher into a movie.

I thought I read somewhere that J.D. would only allow 'Cather' to be made into a movie if he could play Holden.

Personally, I believe that any adaptation made would ruin the poing of the story. There are so many tiny, miniscule details that are vitally important; directors would cut out far too many, defeating the purpose.

In Catcher, Holden's older brother's book is being made into a movie, something that Holden calls "phony".

Not only is it pretty obvious that Salinger thinks that books-turned-movies are "phony", but it'd be really hypocritical of him to sell the rights of Catcher, because of what Holden says about movies.
Of course, when Salinger dies, his kids could sell the rights, so who knows.

But Rebel Without A Cause is basically the movie form of Catcher. And it has James Dean in it, who I personally always thought of as Holden.

Yeah.
It's not so much that people don't want to make a movie, but that Salinger won't sell the rights.
So they [i]can't[/i].

Didn't Salinger actually say that he doesn't want his book to be made into a movie?
I think I've read about it somewhere.