"Spending $100 million on production costs and another $100 million on prints and advertising makes no sense," he said. "For that same $200 million, I can make 50-60 two-hour movies. That's 120 hours as opposed to two hours."
At least he's good at math. I had to read that quote more than once to make sure it was Lucas that was saying it. This is a guy whose entire fortune and popularity can be attributed to tentpole films and blockbusters, most with enormous budgets. The original three Star Wars films, the Indiana Jones films, the three Star Wars prequels, Howard the Duck ... all of which cost a heck of a lot of money to make, and which made oodles of money in return. With the glaring exception of Howard the Duck. Okay, in all fairness he didn't direct that last movie, but he did executive produce it, and boy was it bad. I still remember seeing that in the theaters as a kid and wondering what the heck had happened to George.
I just don't think it is even remotely possible for Lucas to make 50-60 two hour movies for $200 million. This is a guy who spends fortunes on all of his movies. I'm sure the catering bill for two days of shooting on Revenge of the Sith was more money than I made last year. Its easy to claim you can do this when you're sitting on the golden throne of the Lucas empire, but let's be a little realistic.
He might be able to make those 50-60 movies, but would anyone want to watch them?