Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Why Licence to Kill was filmed in Mexico...


25 replies to this topic

#1 iBond

iBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Location:Santa Monica, Ca

Posted 07 May 2011 - 04:33 PM

I just bought the ultimate edition of Licence to Kill on DVD and according to the booklet, the reason why it was filmed in Mexico was because the British tax subsidy was abolished in 1985 thus making it expensive to film in the UK. Now, if that was the case, why was The Living Daylights filmed in the UK in 1987? And heck, you would think that after making so many pictures Albert would be able to afford filming in the UK. Hmm...makes you wonder. But, I'm sure it's all up to speculation. Who knows the real reason as to why it was filmed in Mexico. Obviously to save production costs, but in the long run, do you think they could still have afforded to film it in the UK? Who knows for certain.

*Hahaha, for the longest time I thought the short scene with M was actually filmed in England. Hahah! I know the stock fotage was of Westminster, but I was also fooled that the interior scenes were filmed in England haha! Then I realized, why would they shoot a scene less than a minute in England and then continue onto Mexico. Hahaha, funny.

#2 doublenoughtspy

doublenoughtspy

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4122 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 07 May 2011 - 05:22 PM

Broccoli's wealth is immaterial - it is ALWAYS the studio money that has funded Bond films.

Certain payment clauses are triggered when the director is chosen and script work begins. I don't have an exact date for Glen getting the greenlight for TLD, but I do know that TLD scriptwriting began in late 1985. So my guess if the studio was paying for things in 85 - it qualified for the subsidy.

Michael Wilson has always been on record as saying the Mexico move was to save money. I have no reason to doubt it.

#3 sthgilyadgnivileht

sthgilyadgnivileht

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1854 posts

Posted 07 May 2011 - 05:35 PM

Michael Wilson has always been on record as saying the Mexico move was to save money. I have no reason to doubt it.

Agreed.

However, iBond if you can track down John Cork's "The Road to Goldeneye" In GOLDENEYE MAGAZINE (issue four number one, from Spring 96) it is well woth a read and touches very briefly on the budgets of the films at the end of the eighties.

#4 iBond

iBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Location:Santa Monica, Ca

Posted 07 May 2011 - 05:49 PM

Broccoli's wealth is immaterial - it is ALWAYS the studio money that has funded Bond films.

Certain payment clauses are triggered when the director is chosen and script work begins. I don't have an exact date for Glen getting the greenlight for TLD, but I do know that TLD scriptwriting began in late 1985. So my guess if the studio was paying for things in 85 - it qualified for the subsidy.

Michael Wilson has always been on record as saying the Mexico move was to save money. I have no reason to doubt it.


I wonder how it would have been had they ended up filming in China where they originally planned to shoot the film.

#5 byline

byline

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1218 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 07 May 2011 - 05:52 PM

I wonder how it would have been had they ended up filming in China where they originally planned to shoot the film.

Many of us do. It is, of course, an unanswerable question.

#6 Donovan Mayne-Nicholls

Donovan Mayne-Nicholls

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 381 posts
  • Location:Santiago, Chile

Posted 07 May 2011 - 05:58 PM

I just bought the ultimate edition of Licence to Kill on DVD and according to the booklet, the reason why it was filmed in Mexico was because the British tax subsidy was abolished in 1985 thus making it expensive to film in the UK. Now, if that was the case, why was The Living Daylights filmed in the UK in 1987? And heck, you would think that after making so many pictures Albert would be able to afford filming in the UK. Hmm...makes you wonder. But, I'm sure it's all up to speculation. Who knows the real reason as to why it was filmed in Mexico. Obviously to save production costs, but in the long run, do you think they could still have afforded to film it in the UK? Who knows for certain.

*Hahaha, for the longest time I thought the short scene with M was actually filmed in England. Hahah! I know the stock fotage was of Westminster, but I was also fooled that the interior scenes were filmed in England haha! Then I realized, why would they shoot a scene less than a minute in England and then continue onto Mexico. Hahaha, funny.


In the end, because of the difficulties of working with a Mexican crew, the film ended up not saving many in relation to previous efforts. I have an interview somewhere among my press cuttings where either Glen or Wilson regrets about having made the move.

*I'd similar doubts about the office scenes in Moonraker. They are, after all, exactly the same sets. I later found out that for that film the sets were flown over to France. In LTK, they wrote the scene so as only to show Moneypenny's office, saving money on taking all M's office's props to Mexico. Also, in DAF which was originally set to shoot at Universal Studios in Hollywood, they wrote M and Moneypenny out of their respective offices.

#7 iBond

iBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Location:Santa Monica, Ca

Posted 07 May 2011 - 06:03 PM

...In LTK, they wrote the scene so as only to show Moneypenny's office, saving money on taking all M's office's props to Mexico....


Ah! Makes sense!

#8 Royal Dalton

Royal Dalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4542 posts

Posted 07 May 2011 - 09:47 PM

I just bought the ultimate edition of Licence to Kill on DVD and according to the booklet, the reason why it was filmed in Mexico was because the British tax subsidy was abolished in 1985 thus making it expensive to film in the UK.

Sounds like they're talking about the Eady Levy, which was officially abolished in 1985. Although it was actually frozen five years earlier. The last film made under it being An American Werewolf in London.

#9 Donovan Mayne-Nicholls

Donovan Mayne-Nicholls

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 381 posts
  • Location:Santiago, Chile

Posted 08 May 2011 - 04:29 AM



I just bought the ultimate edition of Licence to Kill on DVD and according to the booklet, the reason why it was filmed in Mexico was because the British tax subsidy was abolished in 1985 thus making it expensive to film in the UK. Now, if that was the case, why was The Living Daylights filmed in the UK in 1987? And heck, you would think that after making so many pictures Albert would be able to afford filming in the UK. Hmm...makes you wonder. But, I'm sure it's all up to speculation. Who knows the real reason as to why it was filmed in Mexico. Obviously to save production costs, but in the long run, do you think they could still have afforded to film it in the UK? Who knows for certain.

*Hahaha, for the longest time I thought the short scene with M was actually filmed in England. Hahah! I know the stock fotage was of Westminster, but I was also fooled that the interior scenes were filmed in England haha! Then I realized, why would they shoot a scene less than a minute in England and then continue onto Mexico. Hahaha, funny.


In the end, because of the difficulties of working with a Mexican crew, the film ended up not saving many in relation to previous efforts. I have an interview somewhere among my press cuttings where either Glen or Wilson regrets about having made the move.

*I'd similar doubts about the office scenes in Moonraker. They are, after all, exactly the same sets. I later found out that for that film the sets were flown over to France. In LTK, they wrote the scene so as only to show Moneypenny's office, saving money on taking all M's office's props to Mexico. Also, in DAF which was originally set to shoot at Universal Studios in Hollywood, they wrote M and Moneypenny out of their respective offices.



All interesting and good points. I know a lot of criticism has been leveled at the film for looking cheap, but I can't put it all on the crew at Cherebusco. After all, TOTAL RECALL filmed not only at the studio, but also in and around Mexico City in 1989, and that film looks fantastic.

LICENSE REVOKED is an odd film. The Key West scenes, including the interiors of the Barrelhead Bar, perfectly capture the sort of grit and grime of that city. It's only when the movie moves to "Isthmus" that the film, to me, starts to fall apart. Everything from the set designs, the photography, the lighting, the music....something about it just doesn't click. Maybe it was because instead of using the real life beauty and glamour of parts of Mexico, the script tried to hide Mexico behind the fictional Isthmus, and maybe the crew just wasn't up to the task. I don't get it. And the turquoise blue waters off the Isla Mujeres (slightly north of Cancun) doubled for the drug-running waters of Key West, so go figure).


Completly agree. I was scared when QoS was in preproduction because reports kept referring to Bond travelling to an unnamed South American country (probably to delay controversy). I feared they'd again go for a fictional country. There's this unwritten rule in US-financed films that you can't piss Latin Americans off unless it's a serious film so they keep coming with this ridiculous-sounding phony countries (With Goldfinger they were very careful never to mention the name Mexico during the prologue).
I like to think of Bond films as above those b-movie clichés and that's why it's always been hard for me to truly accept a Bond film set in a fictional country (same with LALD). Here in Chile, when LTK was originally released they made quite a fuzz on the reviews about the fact that Sánchez mentioned Chile in his speech (as if we hadn't been living under a dictatorship for two decades!) and the subtitles for TND omitted mention of the "Chilean mines" at the terrorist bazaar. When it came to QoS, Bolivians felt insulted that the film wasn't actually shot in their territory (as if they would have let the film shoot there after reading the script) and Chileans offended at the fact that our desert was depicting Bolivian desert (I'm from the north of Chile and have travelled to Peru several times and believe me, it's the same bloody deser all over so they couldn't have chosen a better matching, geographically accurate location short of going to the actual country).

#10 Syndicate

Syndicate

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 639 posts
  • Location:San Francisco, California

Posted 08 May 2011 - 08:51 AM

Isn't the reason they filmed in Mexico, was that it was safer then filming in Columbia or the streets of Bogota. Clear And Present Danger was filmed in Mexico at some location for the streets of Bogota. Isn't that the reason beside the cost of filming somewhere else to substitue for Columbia.

#11 iBond

iBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Location:Santa Monica, Ca

Posted 08 May 2011 - 04:42 PM

I think that they didn't want to film there mainly due to the drug situation going on and they didn't want to name names. I mean, Korea really boycotted 007 after they were depicted that way in Die Another Day. Yes, they didn't film in Korea, but at the same time, Korea was depicted as being an evil and corrupt country and people really protested 007 after the film came out. It's interesting how they didn't just come up with a fictional country or something of the sort like they did in Licence to Kill to avoid criticism.

Posted Image

#12 Binyamin

Binyamin

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1075 posts
  • Location:On Assignment in the Caribbean

Posted 09 May 2011 - 03:06 AM

Colonel Moon was actually a sympathetic character. We're worried about making North Korea look bad now? You've got to be kidding me. I'm sure the North Korea boycott had a deep, deep impact in ticket sales.

#13 00 Brosnan

00 Brosnan

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 506 posts
  • Location:East Coast, U.S

Posted 09 May 2011 - 05:34 AM

I think that they didn't want to film there mainly due to the drug situation going on and they didn't want to name names. I mean, Korea really boycotted 007 after they were depicted that way in Die Another Day. Yes, they didn't film in Korea, but at the same time, Korea was depicted as being an evil and corrupt country and people really protested 007 after the film came out. It's interesting how they didn't just come up with a fictional country or something of the sort like they did in Licence to Kill to avoid criticism.

Posted Image


Was it all Koreans that were protesting.....or just the North? 'Cause it was only North Korea that was depticted in that way, and let's face it..it's not like it was an exaggeration.

#14 iBond

iBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Location:Santa Monica, Ca

Posted 09 May 2011 - 08:00 AM

...We're worried about making North Korea look bad now? You've got to be kidding me...


I'm just making a point. I didn't say that I agree with it. It's just a fact in this case.

#15 Binyamin

Binyamin

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1075 posts
  • Location:On Assignment in the Caribbean

Posted 10 May 2011 - 05:56 AM

The South Koreans and the Japanese may hate having to have American troops on their lands, but it also may be/have been the only thing holding North Korea from invading either country.


Precisely. It might not be perfect, but leaving South Korea unprotected would last about, maybe, ten minutes before it got ugly.

If "having an outsider save you in the movie" is cause for protest, then pretty much EVERY country should be protesting. The U.S., Russia, South America, etc etc have all been saved by a Brit. They're movies.*


*Off topic... I was recently in a serious museum wing in central Mexico dedicated to .... American political cartoons about Mexico. I felt like putting up a giant sign that said "They're CARTOONS! Stop taking this so seriously."

#16 00 Brosnan

00 Brosnan

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 506 posts
  • Location:East Coast, U.S

Posted 10 May 2011 - 08:10 AM



Was it all Koreans that were protesting.....or just the North? 'Cause it was only North Korea that was depticted in that way, and let's face it..it's not like it was an exaggeration.


I never "got" the protests in South Korea, but as I understood it at the time, the South Koreans were upset that the film ran the risk of exacerbating tensions between the north and the south. Also, not explicitly stated at the time, South Koreans have wanted American troops off their peninsula for years (and the Japanese have protested American bases on Japan for years also), so it might have been somewhat of an "embarrassment" to them for a movie to show South Korea being saved by outsiders (which has basically been the case since the 1950's, when the two countries were formed).

I guess that makes sense in an odd kind of way.

The South Koreans and the Japanese may hate having to have American troops on their lands, but it also may be/have been the only thing holding North Korea from invading either country.

Very true. A little more respect is deserved.

#17 iBond

iBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Location:Santa Monica, Ca

Posted 12 May 2011 - 04:48 AM

Speaking of it seeming to look cheaply made, I just saw a review of Siskel & Ebert on LICENCE TO KILL and the look and feel of the film is mentioned; especially at 1:47. Siskel brings it down while Ebert has his own defense for the film and holds it pretty well.

#18 Rufus Ffolkes

Rufus Ffolkes

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 297 posts

Posted 12 May 2011 - 03:18 PM

All of the Bonds from Moonraker to Licence to Kill cost about $30 million to produce. But if you take inflation into account, it would have cost $52 million to make Moonraker in 1989, so the budgets of the films were actually significantly reduced in real dollars throughout the 1980s. It's no surprise that they were looking to cut costs.

#19 Miles Miservy

Miles Miservy

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Location:CT

Posted 16 May 2011 - 01:00 PM

That scene w/Robert Brown was actually in Key West. I've stood on that balcony at Hemingway's house; hence Bond's reference to "A Fairwell to Arms". What's interesting is the way it was shot. The sentries in the lighthouse appear to be on the property when actually, they are more than a block away. There were both high and low ponits of this film. I thought this scene with M & Bond was one of the better ones.

Edited by Miles Miservy, 16 May 2011 - 01:38 PM.


#20 iBond

iBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Location:Santa Monica, Ca

Posted 28 May 2011 - 07:50 AM

That scene w/Robert Brown was actually in Key West. I've stood on that balcony at Hemingway's house; hence Bond's reference to "A Fairwell to Arms". What's interesting is the way it was shot. The sentries in the lighthouse appear to be on the property when actually, they are more than a block away. There were both high and low ponits of this film. I thought this scene with M & Bond was one of the better ones.


Honestly, somehow I knew the lighthouse wasn't on the same property. And not all of the film was shot in Mexico.

Edited by iBond, 28 May 2011 - 07:51 AM.


#21 Mr_Wint

Mr_Wint

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2406 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 28 May 2011 - 11:13 AM

Colonel Moon was actually a sympathetic character.

You mean General Moon, his father.

(...) Korea was depicted as being an evil and corrupt country and people really protested 007 after the film came out.

Col. Moon was evil and corrupt because they gave him a western education!

#22 Dekard77

Dekard77

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 653 posts
  • Location:Sri Lanka

Posted 28 May 2011 - 07:55 PM

I also feel it had more to do with the way the film was photographed and production design. It really hasn't aged well. I am sure of Tony Scott made the movie he'd give it a much better look and feel. David Fincher and Michael Bay both made movies in '95 for $20 million budget which looked quite stylish and expensive.The grand finale of LTK still looks very good but overall the film lacks Bond touch.

The question asked in this thread makes a lot of sense, what made MGM cut back on Bond? Was their limited finances (troubled studio) or confidence in Bond to make money, regardless of location.
Either way the hype that surrounded the summer movie line up was not advantageous to Bond. :dizzy:

#23 iBond

iBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Location:Santa Monica, Ca

Posted 02 June 2011 - 02:09 AM

I also feel it had more to do with the way the film was photographed and production design. It really hasn't aged well. I am sure of Tony Scott made the movie he'd give it a much better look and feel. David Fincher and Michael Bay both made movies in '95 for $20 million budget which looked quite stylish and expensive.The grand finale of LTK still looks very good but overall the film lacks Bond touch.

The question asked in this thread makes a lot of sense, what made MGM cut back on Bond? Was their limited finances (troubled studio) or confidence in Bond to make money, regardless of location.
Either way the hype that surrounded the summer movie line up was not advantageous to Bond. :dizzy:


Nope, not at all. But at least it did better than Star Trek V...Anyway, I would have to agree with you that something about the film just seemed too...grainy or just not Bond enough. But I still consider it to be a worthy Bond film. Maybe it was also the intention of Glen to make it look grainy due to the dirtiness of the film's content and Dalton's style.

Edited by iBond, 02 June 2011 - 02:10 AM.


#24 iBond

iBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Location:Santa Monica, Ca

Posted 02 June 2011 - 04:18 AM

In the end, because of the difficulties of working with a Mexican crew, the film ended up not saving many in relation to previous efforts. I have an interview somewhere among my press cuttings where either Glen or Wilson regrets about having made the move.


I'd love to see it. From what I recall, this was Glen's favorite Bond out of all the ones he directed. I'm not sure where this evidence is, but he does mention it somewhere after production of the film. Ah, I remember now, if you have the book, The Art of Bond by you will find quotes from Glen talking about how the tanker chase was his favorite action sequence out of all of his films. So, I'm sure he doesn't regret that, even though it's at the end of the film. However, if the film were very successful, I doubt he would have regretted making it, if at all.

But yeah, when you have a chance, please share with us the press cutting where either him or Wilson regret making the film.

#25 Dekard77

Dekard77

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 653 posts
  • Location:Sri Lanka

Posted 02 June 2011 - 05:49 AM

For some reason the production values of this movie doesn't hold up well compared to other Bond movies. It's easy to see the film has no visual construct rather big action set ups.

#26 iBond

iBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Location:Santa Monica, Ca

Posted 02 June 2011 - 05:54 PM

Maybe they were trying to compare it to more of the American films that were out at the time.