4 ms·
> George Lucas definitely didn't have the name or history necessary when Alan Ladd gave the go ahead to make Star Wars that you would need these days for a comp
by objclxt 5y ago
> George Lucas definitely didn't have the name or history necessary when Alan Ladd gave the go ahead to make Star Wars that you would need these days for a comparably ambitious film.
I don't know if that's entirely true. George Lucas had come off the back of American Graffiti, which was an incredible commercial success. It had made 50x its budget, and in 1977 was the 13th highest grossing film of all time.
The question was really whether Lucas could turn his hand to a completely different genre. It's down to American Graffiti's success that Lucas was able to re-negotiate a deal for Star Wars that gave him merchandising rights.
- jpgvm 5y agoTrue, American Graffiti was pivotal in him getting the shot he did. What I am saying is I don't think that plays out the same way today given movie budgets, you can't just have one person like one film you made and force through the production budget of a AAA film anymore.
- JKCalhoun 5y agoWas "Star Wars" a AAA film though? I don't know what typical budgets were for films from that studio at that time were but in so many other regards it feels like it was a B-movie that over-achieved. I mean just one aging star (sorry, Alec) in the film's credits.... That doesn't sound like a AAA studio effort.
- whycome 5y agoWait, what does AAA mean here? For beef, AAA is top of the line. For baseball, its the 'not quite good enough' level.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- JKCalhoun 5y agoMy recollection of the history of The Star Wars though was that Lucas had begun to shop it around before Graffiti's success. Also "American Graffiti" was not an instant success but had more of a slow-burn upon its release. Of course then "American Graffiti" caught fire and I suspect that (and the urgings of Francis Ford Coppola) is when Ladd gave the green light.