Skip to main content

Episode IV Shouldn't Have Blown Up The Death Star

Well that is the most inflammatory title I've ever written. I can just imagine the responses:
"You don't know Star Wars better than George Lucas!"
"How many movies have you made?!"
"Star Wars is my childhood! It's perfect! Don't insult it!"

Calm down.
It's OK.
You really like Star Wars. And I will not tell you to stop liking Star Wars.
But people keep complaining that modern blockbusters just aren't as good as they used to be. Besides, every movie could be improved. So let's learn from Star Wars about how to make blockbusters even better by learning from the good and learning from the bad.

"But you can't make a better movie than Star Wars!"
We're just talking about Episode IV here, and we can all agree that Episode V is better than Episode IV. And the guy who made Episode V didn't make Episode IV, so I'm sure after 40 years of learning how to make a good film, someone else could make another movie that's better than Episode IV.

So why do I think they shouldn't have blown up the Death Star in Episode IV?

Because it doesn't quite fit in the plot.

I like to strip a plot down to a "log line" - a description of the plot in 25 words or less.
I like to imagine that plot in 2 elements:
1) At least one character who sells someone on watching the movie.
2) What the character's goal is and what's keeping him or her from that goal. (Hopefully, those intentions and obstacles are interesting)
Once I see that, I get to see what's really necessary to the plot and what really doesn't help the plot. It shows me that entire sequences, concepts, or even characters really have nothing to do with the movie, because it doesn't help any character change or get closer or farther from their goals.
Here's the best log line I can come up with for Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope:

"A farmboy with great dreams leaves his home planet with a monk and a smuggler to rescue a princess and destroy the nearly planet-sized battle station where she's being kept captive."

(I wish I could call Obi-wan a "wizard" and Han a "space pirate", but my friend Zac Green pointed out that "monk" and "smuggler" are more accurate.)

It's a beautiful classical tale that you might find anywhere from a book of fairy tales to a book of great literature.

Here's the problem: The idea of destroying the Death Star doesn't come up until Act 3.
Until then, Luke has 2 desires: Rescue the princess and become a pilot.
Han has 3 desires: Rescue the princess, get his money, and get out of here.
Obi-wan has one desire: Rescue the princess.
Yes, there are Death Star plans, but none of the main characters thinks of destroying the Death Star until the debriefing in Act 3.
I feel like if they took out Act 3 entirely and left in just The Throne Room, people would have liked the movie just as much.
So a much more accurate description of the characters' goals would have been:

"A farmboy with great dreams leaves his home planet with a monk and a smuggler to rescue a princess from a nearly planet-sized battle station."

If destroying the Death Star were really part of the plot, they would have set up in Act 1 that the Death Star needs destroyed and the characters would have done stuff throughout Act 2 to lay the groundwork for destroying the Death Star.
Just like in most movies, the entire plot is laid out for us in Act 1: "Help me, Obi-wan Kenobi. You're my only hope." But once Obi-wan Kenobi helps her, an entirely new plot is introduced in Act 3.

"But the Death Star needed to be blown up!"
"But Leia had seen how much destruction it can cause!"
"How could Luke be a war hero if there were still a Death Star out there?!"
I absolutely agree. The Death Star does need to be blown up. Just not in this movie.
Blowing up the Death Star would have been a natural sequel. It would have taken the same concept and characters and created a new plot. It would have increased the stakes. And it would have filled a plot hole by giving Luke time to learn to fly in between movies. It even would have been a slightly different genre - the sequel would have been a war story, while the original would have been a slightly subverted medieval fairy tale.
And I don't know about you, but I believe in celebrating little victories while working towards the biggest victory. Rescuing the princess seems like a pretty good victory to celebrate, so the Throne Room scene would have made just as much sense and felt just as celebratory whether they'd blown up the Death Star yet or not.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Are There Any Cheat Codes For Mutual?

My friend Nate Tucker recently asked "How do you improve your Mutual game?" Other friends asked "Are there any cheat codes?" and "How do you lower the difficulty level?" The Konami code only gives your character +5 Charisma, & it only works once. But there are some more organic ways to improve your characters' stats: With enough XP, you can tweak your profile in a way that will generate better scenarios and allow you to play with better players, but those sometimes cause harder boss-battles (If you thought the DTR at Level 11 was difficult, look at what happens at the Water Temple on Level 32). The most effective way to increase XP (along with developing skill trees and increasing travel distances) is unlocking new dialogue trees for your character and the other characters around you. A lot of players treat the other characters as NPCs, which leaves them with a very limited dialogue tree, usually set to either Small Talk or Jerk. You can unlock s...

How to Make a Good Mormon Movie

Have you ever seen a movie made by a Mormon and thought "I'm glad that movie was so clean and inspirational. It's a refreshing change of pace from Hollywood". Have you ever got home from that movie and realized "Wait a minute. The only thing that movie had going for it was that it was clean and inspirational. I guess that's all I was looking for, but if it were a normal Hollywood movie I forked out $10 to see, I would have thought it was awful." That's the case with basically every Mormon movie I watch. It's clean and inspirational, but it's really missing the quality I expect out of a normal movie. In my experience, Mormon movies are generally worse movies than movies made by someone who isn't Mormon. Now,  I'm not talking about a clean movie, or an entertaining movie, or an uplifting movie. I'm talking about a movie that uses the tools of storytelling and the tools of filmmaking to present a good story, well told. I'm talk...

Of Course They're Similar Plots - You Were Too Vague!

When you're describing the similarity between two plots, the more general you are, the less credible you are. Here's a general sketch of the worst versions of "every story is the same" or "these two stories are remarkably similar": "A character who is uncomfortable with his/her life is has a situation that forces him/her to reluctantly go on an adventure (possibly involving 1-2 companions who are total opposites of him/her) in order to get something (s)he really wants. Along  the way, (s)he encounters a lot of obstacles, has conflict with other characters, gets taken to his/her lowest point, and changes as a person. He/She finally gets the opportunity to return to his/her old life and either chooses to refuse it and continue in his/her new life or go back to his old life as a changed character." It technically describe virtually every plotline, but it's so vague that it shouldn't make anyone surprised about how similar the plotlines are. No...