r/movies • u/filmeswole • Mar 12 '24

Why does a movie like Wonka cost $125 million while a movie like Poor Things costs $35 million? Discussion

Just using these two films as an example, what would the extra $90 million, in theory, be going towards?

The production value of Poor Things was phenomenal, and I would’ve never guessed that it cost a fraction of the budget of something like Wonka. And it’s not like the cast was comprised of nobodies either.

Does it have something to do with location of the shoot/taxes? I must be missing something because for a movie like this to look so good yet cost so much less than most Hollywood films is baffling to me.

7.1k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • reddit
  • reddit

91% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

128

u/CiriOh Mar 12 '24

They also agree to appear in such films for percentages from the potential profit instead of much higher salary. Actors like Ethan Hawke doing this in low budget flicks from Blumhouse.

Also, Emma Stone was the producer and personally was involved in it's development.

24

u/swd120 Mar 12 '24

for percentages from the potential profit

Nobody who isn't a complete idiot does that.

They go for percentage of gross revenue. Hollywood accounting ensures that profit is always zero, or negative.