Specifically, I'm comparing the movies that are considered to be what these men are best known for. For Wood, it's Plan 9 From Outer Space, and for Lucas, obviously, it's Star Wars. Both are low-budget sci-fi films that nobody originally wanted anything to do with. Both are the authorial and directorial brainchildren of the men who made them. And later on, for Lucas, he started funding his own projects like Wood did his entire career. Admittedly by this point Lucas had much more clout and money than Wood ever did.
So Plan 9 is, um, well, something of a disaster. Star Wars becomes one of the greatest and most beloved films of all time. But I think that it would have been very easy for Star Wars to have become another Plan 9, but it seems that all the stars were in alignment for George Lucas. Lucas managed to get backing from a major motion picture studio. Most of that support came from one man, Alan Ladd, Jr. Had he not been there, well, maybe George could have gotten backing based on the success of American Graffiti, but, after all the complications during shooting, it most likely would have been pulled entirely if not for Ladd. Lucas managed to find all the right people who managed to make the special effects extremely believable. Maybe with a different effects crew, the effects would have turned out little better than the stuff from Plan 9. I could go on, but I think (and hope) that you get the point.
Obviously, I didn't mention Wood's lacking skills in the directorial department, like continuity, lack of reshoots, equipment in frame, and lack of believability in sets. But while George hasn't had problems as bad as those, I'm sure most people here would question, to a degree, the man's competence in directing.
So, please, feel free to drop your opinions or simply tell me how crazy I am for suggesting such hideous comparisons.