Money isn't an issue with Lucas. He's a billionaire. Can mere mortals like us even grasp what that means, how much money that is? But besides that, lets say he was just a regular producer. This is Star Wars. Its going to make its weight in gold. As for the technology--I know Lucas wants to make very high quality shows, technically speaking, so that its basically like an hourly feature film. Which would mean a lot of special effects. But look at the last two seasons of Battlestar Galactica. It's been done. Probably Star Wars would require more than that even, maybe, but the Star Wars audience is about five times the size of the Battlestar audience. Again: it's not about "can we do it". It can be done, and they can make a lot of money off of it. Its more about "can we do it for this amount of profit percentage".
See, if he really cared, it wouldn't matter if they only get $120 million in returns for every $100 million spent. But he wants to get $200 million returns for every $100 million spent. Why? There's no practical purpose since he's a freaking mulit-billionaire. It just becomes its own game. "How cheap can we make it? How much profit can we make?"
So yes, Lucas has more money than he could ever spend. You claim he has no 'practical purpose' for money.
Let's think about that.
Since he doesn't NEED to make any projects, whether for a 10% net profit of a 3,000% net profit, and since you insist that "Star Wars" will cut a profi, what is the exact cut off that shows Lucas "cares"? Is it a 5% profit? A one dollar profit? What is the fair profit for focusing his energy, time, talent, resources, and wealth on?
Its not about assigning it a fixed number. You seem to be missing the point that a billionaire is complaining he doesn't have enough money to make a show profitable when it is guaranteed to at leas be somewhat profitable. It just speaks of such a greed-oriented outlook, and that rubs me the wrong way.
(And to be fair, the production values on "Battlestar" aren't even near CLOSE to what "Star Wars" would be. Remember they did whole episodes where you didn't have to see spaceships in order to save cash. Not just avoiding space combat, but avoiding showing space at all. Not to mention the same sets, costumes, and every outdoor scene was miraculously in the same copse of trees.
That's true, but I doubt every single SWLA episode will feature ten different brand-new environs each episode. The way it was described about following side-characters, if for instance it followed a band of smugglers we could see their ship being a common set, like on Firefly. It's hard to know exactly how elaborate or intimate it will be, but TV shows have common characters and therefore common environs and sets.
More importantly, if we would peg the Star Wars audience as being 2-3 times larger than the Battlestar Galactica audience (this is a conservative figure, IMO) it would translate to about 2-3 times the budget, which would be quite formidable. And BG was hugely profitable at that ratio, one of the biggest hits the SF network ever had. So, at 2-3 times the scope of the latter BG episodes, Lucas would be making a killing. And here he is complaining he doesn't want to go ahead until he can make it more profitable? What's the point? Its just pointless greed.
I don't actually care very much about the show. If it happens, fine, I hope it turns out well. If it doesn't, oh well, who cares. But I just cannot fathom that Lucas could say he's put it on hold because he doesn't have the money for it. Does he really care that little, with all his billions of dollars? It's a very disheartening mindset to see displayed.
Lucas saying in 1998 or so that you can tell a director's talent by if he can make a $50 million movie look like a $200 million dollar movie. Not whether he can actually make a good movie
Lucas has ALWAYS been about the technical side of film making. Always. This is nothing new. Watch THX 1138:Digital Labrynth. Watch the OT. Watch Radioland Murders or Young Indy. Listen to him talk. Aside from his wierd Joseph Cambell obsession 90% of what Lucas has to say has been about the visual and technical side of film. The technical aspects have always been what really got him going. Always. This is not some new idea he has now that he's rich and evil.
Given that the modern filmmaking world would in large part not exist without Lucas's efforts, even though I wish the PT was a better group of films, I can't act like Lucas's viewpoint is wholly without merit.
I never said anything about technicality. I know Lucas is a technical director, always was and always will be. My point was to highlight his financial-oriented point of view. Instead of valuing good filmmaking, he values high profit. It seems to be the opposite of what the film industry should be, but highlights the very worst aspect of what the film industry often is.