Diego said:

It's not new, Lucas has always been concerned about cost, this is from 78-79:

GL: ... In movies give somebody $150 million and fifty years to make a film, and the odds are good that they'll make a professional movie. The real challenge is to do it for a minimum amount of money in a reasonable amount of time. When I look at films I can tell one that cost $30 million, but if you can make a film that looks as good but only cost $15 million, then you've accomplished something.

Well, I still think that's a bit of an unfair criticism (assuming it is a criticism). Moviemaking is and always has been a business, and the financial bottom line is often the final word. This isn't just Lucas's point of view. The fact of the matter is that he's right, and for good reason: people who finance movies for a living are indeed going to find a director who can make gold for $15 million much more valuable than one who can do the same thing with $30 million. And to be honest, that's also a clear mark of a good filmmaker. I mean, we often criticize the PT for its effects-laden extravagance while comparing it to the original Star Wars, which was made on a shoestring budget yet managed to overcome those limitations and, some might argue, prospered because of those limitations.