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.
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.