Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Some of us, including me, had our dobts when Ushgarak said that Alan Dean Foster Ghost wrote the novel for the Ogiginal Star Wars movie, now known universally as A New Hope.

Anyway, this interview by T'Bone gives us the truth in Alan Dean Fosters own words.

The full URL is http://www.cinescape.com/24/editorial.asp?aff_id=24&this_cat=Interviews&action=page&type_id=&cat_id=227762&obj_id=27504

Great, I see this topic only AFTER I complained about disbelief in the II+III forum... silly old impatient me.

Well, thanks ever so much, RC, though I should point out that I DID post a URL proving this in the very thread in which I first mentioned it...

Just re-enforcing old bean, just re-enforcing...

Oh no, not complaining, just unsure why some still doubted me...

They will suffer for their foolishness...

Bwahahahahahahaha...

ive also heard that joseph campbell helped GL
come up with the basis on lukes charecter. MYTH OF THE HERO or something like that in the POWER OF MYTH series. should be the first book in a 6 part series if i remember correclty.

I'm sure that Lucas recieved a lot of input in the early days.

I hate to be a naysayer again, BUT...

I've read ANH and ADF's Crystal of the Minds Eye and I dont think they are the same.

I agree that GL had alot of advice about myth and storys, but I dont think he farmed out his baby.

Then again, after seing GL's latest writing...

hmmmmph.

Joseph Campbell just has a certain theory about how stories work that GL stuck to. And of course the ANH novel and Splinter of the Mind's Eye aren't the same; one is an adaption (despite being released before the film) and the other an original story, but it's still the same author!

Prove it outside of an interneet web site.

What, you still don't believe it? That's just odd.

For anyone who is still left in the SLIGHTEST doubt, how does this page from the OFFICIAL website get you?
http://www.starwars.com/eu/news/2001/02/news20010201b.html

Which, incidently, proves that it is NOT cannon as it was written from the screenplay...

Ok, fine.

I was saying he didnt write it. As in concieve, and create every word. That's what I meant by the two books werre by two authors. That is still the case. ADF just copied the script, added some visual drama into words and puncuated it.

Its the same as the TPM book. but that author got credit on the book. (but it didnt mean he 'wrote' it)

So, I was wrong... from a certian point of view.

I have the same point of view.

Well, if you care to see it that way. But books are a different medium from film; GL has said that books aren't his thing, he does not enjoy writing them nor does he think he is any good at writing them, and so fair play to him if he wants to stick to film.

A book, even an adaptation, is very much a personal statement from the writer, so certainly from where I look at it that is NOT GLs work; it has none of his feel, it has ADFs instead.

This is not a phenonenon unique to a change in medium. Compare the two film version of 'The Thin Red Line' to each other; same story but clearly very different, and all down to the different writers (and to take us back to square one, compare BOTH versions to the book...)

RC- yeah, you are right. Of course, it was difficult for the book to be based on the film as the book came out first. If any of the novels are going to be rejected from the canon it is that one, and this can be seen in all sorts of little differences in it. Still, the basic rule still applies; it is right unless the film contradicts it.

Are there two versions of the thin red line?

Yeah, one old B&W one and the more recent one.

Hmmmmmm

Hmmmmm?