logo Sign In

A New Hope as a Stand-alone Movie

Author
Time
 (Edited)

It’s often said that A New Hope (originally just “Star Wars”) was written as a stand-alone movie, because the good guys win at the end and the main conflict is resolved. George Lucas didn’t really know at the time if he’d ever get to make any sequels, so he wrote A New Hope to stand on its own, with all plot threads resolved by the end. The earliest known drafts of Star Wars, which are significantly different from the 1977 film, still follow the same basic story structure and end with all major plot threads resolved.

Of course, the fact that Lucas commissioned Splinter of the Mind’s Eye as a template for a low-budget sequel, just in case the 1977 Star Wars film failed, indicates he was at least thinking about a sequel even before 1977. Regardless, it’s pretty obvious that A New Hope is structured as a stand-alone film. The film’s major conflict is overcome by the protagonists (the Death Star plans are secured and used to destroy the Death Star), and the protagonist learns to use the Force (a metaphor for believing in yourself) and saves the day with help from his friend.

Of course, there’s a brief shot at the end that shows us that Vader survives. But this just comes off like Lucas hedging his bets about the possibility of a sequel. It doesn’t detract from the film’s ability to stand on its own.

However, it always struck me that if A New Hope actually WAS a stand-alone film (i.e. if no other Star Wars movies existed), there would be at least one issue that would stand out as a significant writing flaw:

The issue is that Luke’s lightsaber would become a major violation of the “Chekhov’s gun” principle. Luke is given this incredible weapon: his father’s lightsaber. Ben Kenobi even explains the significance of the lightsaber, what it meant in past times, and how Luke’s father wanted Luke to have it one day. Luke is mesmerized by it (who wouldn’t be?) Later on, Ben trains Luke a bit on how to use it. But after that… Luke never uses it again. Throughout the entire film, he never once uses it to overcome any obstacles. Sure, we see Ben Kenobi use a different lightsaber to fight Vader. But Luke’s lightsaber is setup as this really important thing - and then pretty much completely forgotten about. Luke never uses it even once to advance the plot in any way. As a standalone movie, it would seem like a good idea to simply delete all references to Luke’s lightsaber, because there is never any pay-off.

Now obviously, the pay-off eventually came around in The Empire Strikes Back. But that sort of just proves the point that A New Hope doesn’t quite work 100% as a stand-alone movie. Even if Lucas had no concrete plans for any sequels, he seemed to at least have some notion that there was more to this story.

Author
Time

I agree that this keeps the film from being a perfect stand-alone, but there is a mitigating factor in that we do see a lightsaber fight so the lightsaber as an object is paid-off. The fact that it belongs to Obi-wan isn’t to troubling to me. Star Wars is a universe of unbounded promise, so giving Luke a weapon that he doesn’t use in a fight only fires the mind to imagine him using it in a future battle against Vader.

You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)

Author
Time

Guns have been known to jam. From time-to-time.

“The Anarchists are right in everything; in the negation of the existing order and in the assertion that, without Authority there could not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions. They are mistaken only in thinking that anarchy can be instituted by a violent revolution… There can be only one permanent revolution — a moral one: the regeneration of the inner man. How is this revolution to take place? Nobody knows how it will take place in humanity, but every man feels it clearly in himself. And yet in our world everybody thinks of changing humanity, and nobody thinks of changing himself.”

― Leo Tolstoy

Author
Time

For me, the issue is less the lightsaber and more the fact that Luke expressed his wish to become a Jedi like his father, and the only mentor (supposedly) who could make that happen is dead by the end of the movie. That, along with the survival of Vader and the Emperor, are the two biggest reasons why the movie needed a sequel, in my opinion.

But we can’t turn back. Fear is their greatest defense. I doubt if the actual security there is any greater than it was on Aquilae or Sullust. And what there is is most likely directed towards a large-scale assault.

Author
Time

Servii said:

For me, the issue is less the lightsaber and more the fact that Luke expressed his wish to become a Jedi like his father, and the only mentor (supposedly) who could make that happen is dead by the end of the movie. That, along with the survival of Vader and the Emperor, are the two biggest reasons why the movie needed a sequel, in my opinion.

The emperor is inconsequential in the original movie. And with the novelization taken into account, he’s only the latest in a line of impotent figureheads, anyway.

“The Anarchists are right in everything; in the negation of the existing order and in the assertion that, without Authority there could not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions. They are mistaken only in thinking that anarchy can be instituted by a violent revolution… There can be only one permanent revolution — a moral one: the regeneration of the inner man. How is this revolution to take place? Nobody knows how it will take place in humanity, but every man feels it clearly in himself. And yet in our world everybody thinks of changing humanity, and nobody thinks of changing himself.”

― Leo Tolstoy

Author
Time
 (Edited)

NeverarGreat said:

I agree that this keeps the film from being a perfect stand-alone, but there is a mitigating factor in that we do see a lightsaber fight so the lightsaber as an object is paid-off. The fact that it belongs to Obi-wan isn’t to troubling to me. Star Wars is a universe of unbounded promise, so giving Luke a weapon that he doesn’t use in a fight only fires the mind to imagine him using it in a future battle against Vader.

I would argue that the setup for Kenobi’s lightsaber happens in the Mos Eisley cantina, when Kenobi slices off that guy’s arm. This sets up that Kenobi is some kind of skilled warrior with an exotic weapon from a romantic age in the past. The payoff happens when Kenobi takes out his lightsaber again to fight Vader.

But Luke’s lightsaber is setup separately, and the setup connects the lightsaber to the idea that Luke’s father was a Jedi Knight who specifically wanted Luke to inherit it. (Thus, the lightsaber serves as a physical manifestation of the “hero’s call” - calling Luke away from his mundane life to adventure.) But there’s never any pay off for this setup in A New Hope. It’s kind of like setting up Excalibur in the King Arthur legends, but then just forgetting about it.

Author
Time

When I was a dumb(er) kid, I thought that Obi-Wan was just using Luke’s lightsaber, i.e. holding for him except for the training on the Falcon, until Luke knew how to use it. Then of course I wondered how Luke got it back in Empire Strikes Back. Why would a retired Jedi have his own lightsaber? 🤔😉 I forgive myself now as there are only four lightsabers in the OT and the two that are blue are never used simultaneously.

JFS

Author
Time

NeverarGreat said:

I agree that this keeps the film from being a perfect stand-alone, but there is a mitigating factor in that we do see a lightsaber fight so the lightsaber as an object is paid-off. The fact that it belongs to Obi-wan isn’t to troubling to me. Star Wars is a universe of unbounded promise, so giving Luke a weapon that he doesn’t use in a fight only fires the mind to imagine him using it in a future battle against Vader.

I like this take.

A you can be a hero like your father, or be similar to your father, but without the need to actually fight in the same way. Or using methods and weapons that his father did.

That Vader lives, the Emperor is still around, and the Empire not yet wholly defeated, just fires the imagination of those that watched it at that time.

Maybe more so for kids and young adults who didn’t yet know there would be a sequel 3 years in the future. 3 years can seem like a lifetime when you are young.
 

But do I like and enjoy thinking about the “what ifs?” and possible “alternative timelines” for Star Wars. All good fun. 😃

The Imperial need for control is so desperate because it is so unnatural. Tyranny requires constant effort. It breaks, it leaks. Authority is brittle. Oppression is the mask of fear.

Author
Time

Emre1601 said:

NeverarGreat said:

I agree that this keeps the film from being a perfect stand-alone, but there is a mitigating factor in that we do see a lightsaber fight so the lightsaber as an object is paid-off. The fact that it belongs to Obi-wan isn’t to troubling to me. Star Wars is a universe of unbounded promise, so giving Luke a weapon that he doesn’t use in a fight only fires the mind to imagine him using it in a future battle against Vader.

I like this take.

A you can be a hero like your father, or be similar to your father, but without the need to actually fight in the same way. Or using methods and weapons that his father did.

I like that interpretation as well.

That Vader lives, the Emperor is still around, and the Empire not yet wholly defeated, just fires the imagination of those that watched it at that time.

Very much in keeping with the Flash Gordon serial vibes of the bad guys being around for the next installment. Or having kids make their own stories up as you said, but also talking about it with their friends, and then playing out situations with them. With lots of arguments over who gets to be the hero and who has the “bad guy”!

Author
Time

Channel72 said:

NeverarGreat said:

I agree that this keeps the film from being a perfect stand-alone, but there is a mitigating factor in that we do see a lightsaber fight so the lightsaber as an object is paid-off. The fact that it belongs to Obi-wan isn’t to troubling to me. Star Wars is a universe of unbounded promise, so giving Luke a weapon that he doesn’t use in a fight only fires the mind to imagine him using it in a future battle against Vader.

I would argue that the setup for Kenobi’s lightsaber happens in the Mos Eisley cantina, when Kenobi slices off that guy’s arm. This sets up that Kenobi is some kind of skilled warrior with an exotic weapon from a romantic age in the past. The payoff happens when Kenobi takes out his lightsaber again to fight Vader.

But Luke’s lightsaber is setup separately, and the setup connects the lightsaber to the idea that Luke’s father was a Jedi Knight who specifically wanted Luke to inherit it. (Thus, the lightsaber serves as a physical manifestation of the “hero’s call” - calling Luke away from his mundane life to adventure.) But there’s never any pay off for this setup in A New Hope. It’s kind of like setting up Excalibur in the King Arthur legends, but then just forgetting about it.

A case could also be made the Kenobi himself is the physical manifestation of the “Heroes’ call”? Which would relegate the lightsaber to being a tool of that?

That is me just me thinking out aloud, rather than any claim with much thought to it, or substance.
 

Payoffs and attitudes in Star Wars with lightsabers can be a strange thing; Kenobi in the Prequels’ (“This weapon is your life” WTF?!), Rey’s vibes and the YounglingSlayer 3000 (in comparison to the Sith dagger that “horrible things have happened with this”!), and the underwhelming fete of the Darksaber in Mandalorian season 3 (after years of establishing and building up a significance and importance out of it).

Author
Time

Luke is a proxy for the audience, he doesn’t seem to know a lot about the galaxy, even about Tatooine except for his Uncle’s farm, and Tosche Station (where you can pick up some power converters), so presenting a strange weapon to him (and to the audience in the theater) and explaining where it come from, what it does, is an organic way of exposition, without it feeling like exposition to the audience. (It’s way better than say Luke noticing the lightsaber dangling from Ben’s belt and obnoxiously asking him about it)

It’s the magic of Star Wars, the 1977 movie, the necessary exposition to present this completely new universe to the audience is very natural, never feeling forced and dragging on. This is a feat that not a lot of fantasy movies are able to achieve with as near perfection as Star Wars (looking at you MCU).

Han: Hey Lando! You kept your promise, right? Not a scratch?
Lando: Well, what’s left of her isn’t scratched. All the scratched parts got knocked off along the way.
Han (exasperated): Knocked off?!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

In 1977 what did people think about a sequel? They probably expected one, even if they hadn’t been officially set in stone until later that year.

Reading R + L ≠ J theories

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Marooned Biker Scout said:

Channel72 said:

NeverarGreat said:

I agree that this keeps the film from being a perfect stand-alone, but there is a mitigating factor in that we do see a lightsaber fight so the lightsaber as an object is paid-off. The fact that it belongs to Obi-wan isn’t to troubling to me. Star Wars is a universe of unbounded promise, so giving Luke a weapon that he doesn’t use in a fight only fires the mind to imagine him using it in a future battle against Vader.

I would argue that the setup for Kenobi’s lightsaber happens in the Mos Eisley cantina, when Kenobi slices off that guy’s arm. This sets up that Kenobi is some kind of skilled warrior with an exotic weapon from a romantic age in the past. The payoff happens when Kenobi takes out his lightsaber again to fight Vader.

But Luke’s lightsaber is setup separately, and the setup connects the lightsaber to the idea that Luke’s father was a Jedi Knight who specifically wanted Luke to inherit it. (Thus, the lightsaber serves as a physical manifestation of the “hero’s call” - calling Luke away from his mundane life to adventure.) But there’s never any pay off for this setup in A New Hope. It’s kind of like setting up Excalibur in the King Arthur legends, but then just forgetting about it.

A case could also be made the Kenobi himself is the physical manifestation of the “Heroes’ call”? Which would relegate the lightsaber to being a tool of that?

I remember reading somewhere (I forgot where I read this - could be in Rinzler or could be Secret History of Star Wars) that the scene where Ben gives Luke the lightsaber was included mostly as setup for later when Ben uses his own lightsaber in the Mos Eisley Cantina. The Cantina scene where Ben dismembers someone goes back to one of the earliest drafts of Star Wars. However, Lucas realized that if the Cantina scene was the first time the audience saw a lightsaber, nobody would understand what even happened. So the scene with Luke playing around with his father’s lightsaber was added to introduce the audience to the concept of lightsabers.

So you’re probably correct. But I can just imagine an alternate reality where Star Wars 1977 is the only Star Wars movie to exist, where an audience member might easily think (especially upon rewatching it) “Hey… wait, what’s the point of Luke getting a lightsaber? He never uses it.” Usually in most of these fantasy movies, if the hero is given a magical weapon, the hero will use that weapon at some point (usually in the film’s climax) to overcome some obstacle or defeat the bad guy. (The weird 80s fantasy movie Krull comes to mind as a typical example of this happening, and of course in Tolkien there are multiple occasions where some magical object/weapon is setup for a later payoff.)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Lately I’ve come to somewhat like this idea of Star Wars '77 being a standalone film. I feel like it is a perfect short and sweet adventure, however I’m not completely sold on the idea. It seems most of the topics have already been covered here, so I’ll just get my thoughts about them out here.

I don’t think the Emperor, Vader, and the Empire still being around at the end of the film is too big of an issue to prevent this from being a standalone. Perhaps this is a poor example to compare it to, and if so I do want to know, but take a movie like Saving Private Ryan. At the end of the film, the characters have finished their arcs and succeeded in their mission. Its a happy (bittersweet) ending, yet we know that Hitler and the Nazis have not been fully stopped. In this case, we have the historical context to know what happens, but the point is that the actual story of the film is wrapped up. In Star Wars, the plot revolves around stopping the Death Star while Luke has his little hero’s journey arc. However, because it is a fictional world and we don’t actually know the end result of the war, we are naturally left wanting more resolution.

What I’m getting at with this line of reasoning is essentially this: the final defeat of Vader, the Emperor, and even the Empire itself aren’t too important to the story of Star Wars '77. Of course the movie certainly does leave the door open for sequels, which is clearly the intent given the 12-film saga idea and Splinter of the Mind’s Eye, but the original film itself does not necessitate a follow up. Luke has saved the day, has learned to let go and trust the Force (his natural instinct), and will presumably keep flying with the Rebellion and helping them. So, would it have been nice to have a follow up? Yeah, of course. But is it necessary? Perhaps not based on this argument.

I also wanted to mention the lightsaber issue, and I think this is quite interesting.

Channel72 said:

I remember reading somewhere (I forgot where I read this - could be in Rinzler or could be Secret History of Star Wars) that the scene where Ben gives Luke the lightsaber was included mostly as setup for later when Ben uses his own lightsaber in the Mos Eisley Cantina.

If this is the case then the original intent was always, and as is portrayed in the final film, to show Luke coming to the Force and fulfilling his spiritual arc by destroying the Death Star. As mentioned before, he does this by letting go and trusting the Force, not via lightsaber training or mastery of levitation. No lightsaber needed! (note, I have not read the final draft of the script so if I’m wrong on any of this, I will stand corrected.)

Now, this is all only speaking about intent, because in reality that doesn’t apply for the final product. In the film, Luke does receive a Lightsaber he barely uses which does leave us wanting more, but like the Emperor and Vader, does this factor necessitate a sequel? Maybe, but to what degree so? Because I do think if Star Wars did remain a standalone then it would be disappointing not to see Luke use the saber and it could certainly be a misstep to emphasize it so much. But luckily, Lucas was determined to make a follow-up one way or another, so this plot element worked out at the end of the day. It makes sense and has more fulfilment in a larger saga as opposed to a standalone.

Again, not completely sold, but I do lean a bit favorably towards the idea.

Move along, move along.

Author
Time

of_Kaiburr_and_Whills said:
Of course the movie certainly does leave the door open for sequels, which is clearly the intent given the 12-film saga idea and Splinter of the Mind’s Eye, but the original film itself does not necessitate a follow up.

What we’re all intuiting is that Star Wars is a tribute to sci-fi adventure serials (among other things), so even as a standalone movie it’s still trying to feel like it’s setting up the status quo for a series of episodic tales starring this ensemble of characters (that we will more than likely never see). The downfall of the Empire and Luke’s rise as a Jedi knight are inevitable, but it still implies that until then these folks are gonna go on a series of fabulous adventures. It’s built into the “happily ever after.”

It’s important to remember the first Star Wars was a postmodern film, the central gag being “we don’t make movies like this anymore, but LOL what if we did?!” All these somewhat dangly threads are all part of the joke. Darth Vader riding off in his TIE fighter is like Dr. Claw shaking his fist proclaiming “I’ll get you next time, Gadget! Next time!” We don’t actually need to see any more because we already have seen it pretty much: even if they continue from each other, we know they’re all going to follow this same formula just like the serials of old. (It’s actually quite a bit like how Spaceballs tells us about its non-existant sequel “Spaceballs II: The Search For More Money”).

It’s not until Empire that the series becomes earnest (that it fully reconstructs the space opera rather than simply celebrate it is Empire’s great triumph, though I’ll wager it’s exactly what Lucas doesn’t like about it going by his “they made it too good” remark).

Channel72 said:
The earliest known drafts of Star Wars, which are significantly different from the 1977 film, still follow the same basic story structure and end with all major plot threads resolved.

I’m sure you already know this, but I thought I’d just clarify a bit for posterity’s sake (like I did in the “Random Musings about the Empire Draft” thread), a couple drafts in Lucas took the story and “broke it in half” and the next few drafts were pretty obviously two-parters (I think it’s often assumed it eventually became thirds, hence the trilogy, but I’m not actually sure if that’s so during the scripting phase). Finally Lucas decided to “steal” the ending of the second part and used it for the first part (the battle with the Death Star), essentially reverting it to standalone status but leaving at least a whole extra movie’s worth of material floating out there.

Author
Time

Z6PO said:

Luke is a proxy for the audience, he doesn’t seem to know a lot about the galaxy, even about Tatooine except for his Uncle’s farm, and Tosche Station (where you can pick up some power converters), so presenting a strange weapon to him (and to the audience in the theater) and explaining where it come from, what it does, is an organic way of exposition, without it feeling like exposition to the audience. (It’s way better than say Luke noticing the lightsaber dangling from Ben’s belt and obnoxiously asking him about it)

It’s the magic of Star Wars, the 1977 movie, the necessary exposition to present this completely new universe to the audience is very natural, never feeling forced and dragging on. This is a feat that not a lot of fantasy movies are able to achieve with as near perfection as Star Wars (looking at you MCU).

I love this view on the film, and completely agree with it as well. So few other fantasy films do manage to achieve, or even approach, that near perfection.

Personally I love watching Star Wars occasionally as a standalone movie.
 

Has anyone on here done an edit where this is a standalone film, where Han & Chewie simply blows up Vader’s ship, instead of it spinning out into space?

“Don’t tell anyone… but when ‘Star Wars’ first came out, I didn’t know where it was going either. The trick is to pretend you’ve planned the whole thing out in advance. Throw in some father issues and references to other stories - let’s call them homages - and you’ve got a series.” - George Lucas