“Star Wars” had become a more tangible thing by 1980 than it was in 1976, so the “Empire” novelization is cleaner than “A New Hope.” That works against it when re-reading it today Foster’s pulpy sci-fi style makes for a fun almost-alternate take on the material, whereas Glut’s adaptation is straightforward.

The prose is Glut’s, but he was working from the most up-to-date script of the movie, and scripts of course include dialog, character behavior and location descriptions.

Glut, whose only other “Star Wars” credit is Marvel Issue 10 - and partly the work of the screenwriter, in this case primarily George Lucas (even though he officially gave credit to Lawrence Kasdan, plus an honorary credit to the late Leigh Brackett). “The Empire Strikes Back” novelization (1980), on the other hand, came out just six weeks before the movie, so there aren’t as many differences here.Īgain, I contend that a novelization is partly the work of the author - in this case, Donald F. Alan Dean Foster’s “A New Hope” novel came out six months before the film, so it serves up a treasure trove of differences from the celluloid version. Urn:oclc:481915102 Republisher_date 20120825133244 Republisher_operator Scandate 20120824213823 Scanner I noted in my review of the “Star Wars” novelization, adaptations of movies give insight not only into the authors’ interpretation of the material, but also into the filmmakers’ vision months before the movie hits screens. Access-restricted-item true Addeddate 20:56:20 Bookplateleaf 0004 Boxid IA153801 Camera Canon EOS 5D Mark II City New York DonorĪlibris Edition 1st Ballantine Books hardcover ed.

The empire strikes back donald f glut