But the novel is based on a screenplay so…
The title is very specific, and doesn’t claim the movie is based on the novel despite that clearly being what they’re trying to really claim.
The order was screenplay > book > movie, but the writing was screenplay > book and screenplay > movie. The book and movie aren’t actually related, other than the underlying screenplay they both use. The Fandom wiki page linked literally says:
It adapts the film of the same name, and it was based on the screenplay by Lucas.
“which means Star Wars hype is technically literary-based in nature”
With this logic, all movies are literary-based since all movies are created from screenplays.
I wasn’t trying to claim the movie was based on a book (not sure where that’s coming from), just that the book’s status as coming before the movie in terms of release has the weird effect of implying the hype train could’ve begun with a book and that one could argue Star Wars is technically a book series first, even if it’s a movie tradition first.
Like imagine back then any Lord-of-the-Rings-type discussions that could’ve played out, a la “did you see this movie, it’s awesome” followed by “yeah, but did you read the book?”
“implying the hype train could’ve begun with a book”
But it didn’t. Yet your title wasn’t posed as a hypothetical but as a fact.
You say that like the title ever claimed the movie was actually based on the book.
True, I just find it fascinating the movies have this large orbit of devotion, and then you have this book that could’ve put everyone on the hype train a few months early.
I’m sure there are some people that saw the book first. The back cover literally said it was being made into a motion picture, so clearly the publication was meant to at least partially hype the movie.
George Lucas had a true stroke of brilliance to embrace the merchandise aspects of what Star Wars could make. The thought of merchandising movies wasn’t really a thing at the time, and it’s one of the main reasons he made so much money from Star Wars, he wanted the “worthless” merchandising rights that the studios were willing to give up easily. A ghostwritten novel listing him as the writer based on his screenplay releasing a year ahead of the movie could have been the very first thing he did with that merchandising right.
The book actually features a backstory pretty close to the Prequels with Senator Palpatine using the “massive organs of commerce” to gain power and become president of the Republic.
The biggest difference is that by the time of the book, he’s pretty much a puppet to people like Tarkin.
All I wanna know is, was he Sheev back then?
That name came after the Disney takeover and the continuity reboot.
I thought Sheev was named for the prequels. I could’ve sworn they even made light of his name in the Robot Chicken specials.
The name was created for a book that came out in late 2014 after the reset. In the original EU no one knew his first name.
I could be mistaken because I haven’t read the book in a couple years now, but I believe the Darth Plagueis novel from 2012 gave us Palpatine’s first name.
It first appeared in Tarkin by the same author. The Darth Plague is novel just mentions why he doesn’t use his first name but but what it is.
Tarkin was 2014, Plagueis was 2012 according to Wookiepedia
What?
George Lucas wrote the screenplay. He shared the screenplay with a ghost writer, Alan Dean Foster, who wrote a novelization of the screenplay. In parallel to the book being written, Lucas made the film. The book was published before the movie was released.
It’s really an interesting part of the Star Wars history, because Lucas made changes and rewrites during the filmmaking process, and Foster took some minor liberties while adapting the original screenplay. Foster also published his own sequel to A New Hope which had nothing to do with The Empire Strikes Back.
I don’t know what this title is supposed to be about, but it seems like they are trying to say that the movies are all based on a book, which isn’t true. Lucas did not consult with Foster about changes to the movie, and filming was mostly complete by the time the book was published.
That used to be really common. Movie novelizations would come out before the movie, along with soundtracks, etc. It was part of the promotional campaign.
Once again here to say I’m not saying the movie is based on the book. I, like you, just thought it was fascinating it turned out this way, and that we could wonder if the book is technically considered the beginning of Star Wars mania.
It is a fascinating story, but no, the book was not the beginning of the mania because the book did not sell well at all in advance of the movie. Movies always boost book sales, but the novelization of A New Hope had almost no sales until two months after the movie came out.
As for me personally, The book absolutely caused me and the wife to be there in line that Friday night when the movie finally came out Summer of '77. I don’t think it opened in May at my local theater. Did I mention there was a line? Did I mention there was a table full of merchandise? I should have got the t-shirt!
Edit, Luke had an older brother in the book. Must have been cut out of the movie.No, it isn’t, since the screenplay the book was based on existed before, and that’s what George used for the movie; his own screenplay, not a book written based on his screenplay.
I brought this up the other day and was schooled by the fact George Lucas only started making this claim after the second movie came out, and that this is actually BS. Like the same way Louis CK says that Dennis Leary stole his idea for the song “I’m an Asshole.”
The claim about the book’s pre-existence or about it having a bigger role in the conceptualization of the Star Wars tradition than it had?
