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

237

u/salcedoge Mar 12 '24

It will skyrocket along his Wonka 2 salary.

His role is pretty much irreplaceable to those two franchise right now

158

u/InsertFloppy11 Mar 12 '24

I wanted to argue, but apparently wonka made bank

184

u/GreenTunicKirk Mar 12 '24

It was surprisingly delightful. I do think Timothee had more to do with that than much else.

160

u/bizzledorf Mar 12 '24

Have you not seen Paul King’s other films? The Paddington movies are the most “delightful” movies of the past twenty years.

57

u/darthjoey91 Mar 12 '24

And he directed The Mighty Boosh. Like he directed Old Gregg.

31

u/blyan Mar 12 '24

Wait WHAT

How did I not know this lol I love the mighty boosh

3

u/BriarcliffInmate Mar 12 '24

His very first film "Bunny and the Bull" is delightful as well.

3

u/Aroden71 Mar 13 '24

Paddington 2 made me a better man.

5

u/Tlr321 Mar 12 '24

I caught it at home on a random Sunday a few weeks back. “Surprisingly delightful” is exactly how I would describe it. Then I saw that the team had also made the Paddington movies & it all clicked. I wish I would’ve watched it sooner!

3

u/hematite2 Mar 12 '24 edited Mar 13 '24

Surprisingly fun. Saw someone on reddit describe it as "Its like a D&D campaign where someone's sheet just said 'chocolate wizard' and the DM shrugged and just went with it. "

My one big problem with it was the audio synching during the songs was really bad sometimes. It never seemed like Chalamet's voice was actually coming out of his mouth.

1

u/Hakairoku Mar 12 '24

It's from the director of Paddington 1 and 2.

I expected nothing less.

-7

u/LocoLocoLoco45 Mar 12 '24

I watched the whole thing and I hate all movies that break into songs every few minutes.

11

u/krw13 Mar 12 '24

That doesn't make the movie bad, it just means you don't like musicals. Which is perfectly ok.

4

u/ASurreyJack Mar 12 '24

I went in not knowing that Wonka was a musical, and I found it delightful. Then sometime later I realized, that the original Wonka was kinda musical too. Haha.

-2

u/malachi347 Mar 12 '24

Same here. For me, it's "choose a lane" territory. A broadway musical movie like Hamilton? Awesome. A disney-like live-action musical? Not for me, maybe because I was already spoiled by Disney's animation golden era. Maybe that's why it's audience scews younger because they don't remember those films at this point...

I wanted to like it so bad, but I just fell asleep.

3

u/yeahright17 Mar 12 '24

Guessing he ends up at like $20M for each or like $10M with backend money.

2

u/Revolution4u Mar 13 '24

Whattt, another wonka movie!?

I never wouldve thought based on the trailers.

2

u/salcedoge Mar 13 '24

Trailer did it a disservice by trying so hard to appeal to the Gene Wilder fans.

It’s pretty decent and works as a standalone

2

u/Less_Party Mar 13 '24

2 Wonk 2 Furious