I didn't recognize it as Star Wars until I saw it mentioned, and I don't see why you are all calling the poster a troll.
Wikipedia defines a troll thusly:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
Let's see now. Inflammatory? No. Extraneous? It seems the poster did know the answer, but knowing the answer is, on SE, not in itself reason enough to not post. Off-topic? Story ID questions are clearly established as on-topic here, and it's a valid story-ID question, even if he did know the answer. Does the primary intent seem to be to evoke an emotional response? I don't see any evidence of that. It's phrased as just another question. Is it trying to disrupt normal, on-topic conversation? I don't see how that would apply to a new question, especially a valid one.
Now, more to the point. Closing this as "Not a Real Question" is just plain wrong. It clearly is a valid question (and more detailed than many of our story ID questions). The only potential close reason I see for this is "Not Constructive." Asking for identification of a popular story when the asker already knows the answer doesn't help anyone now and isn't likely to help anyone in the future. Also note that we have had a question like this (and accompanying discussion) once before, when DVK asked What fantasy story elicited this quote?. I don't see a difference between the two; both clearly on-topic questions, but about well-known works and the askers both knew the answer before posting, so we should treat them the same - they should both be left open, or they should both be closed as not constructive.
So, our first course of action should be to re-open this question. Then, if the community decides we want to reject story identification questions where the asker knows the answer, they should both be closed as not constructive.