The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Science Fiction & Fantasy (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   28 Months Later? (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=163543)

Mr. Laser Beam February 27 2012 04:50 PM

28 Months Later?
 
Alex Garland has this to say about the possibility, or lack thereof, of 28 Months Later (the sequel to 28 Days and Weeks Later) ever happening:

Quote:

I'll answer that completely honestly. When we made '28 Days Later,' the rights were frozen between a group of people who are no longer talking to each other. And so, the film is never going to happen unless those people start talking to each other again. There is no script as far as I'm aware.
Which 'group of people' is he talking about, exactly? And what is the problem that is making them not talk to each other?

Starkers February 27 2012 05:34 PM

Re: 28 Months Later?
 
Probably the usual sort of thing, creative differences or financial differences. Happens a lot but can stymie films for years before someone gives up or is bought out.

Shame. I’ll be honest, I’m not a huge fan of the first one but I actually really like 28 Weeks later, be interesting to see how 28 Months Later panned out. Obviously the virus should have burned out again as it did in England because everyone infected died of hunger/thirst, but obviously if the virus was mutated by being carried by the mother it might work very differently. Certainly some of the “zombies” in the second one seemed somewhat more aware of the world around them.

Tom February 27 2012 07:00 PM

Re: 28 Months Later?
 
..but the virus did get to the main land (France) so thats a massive area (europe and asia) that it would spread, and that would take more time than it did in just England.

Starkers February 27 2012 11:10 PM

Re: 28 Months Later?
 
Oh true, and I guess it miht circle the globe and come back again just when you think you've escaped it, but the one positive of the Rage virus is that it isn't like the walking dead who'll keep coming relentlessly, those infected will die relatively quickly

Immolatus February 28 2012 07:12 AM

Re: 28 Months Later?
 
I guess N. and S. America might be safe if they do a tight blockade. but it only takes one

davejames February 28 2012 05:11 PM

Re: 28 Months Later?
 
I love both movies, but don't really see a need for a third. The original felt like a fresh take on the zombie movie, and the second was a logical followup. But all that's really left to do now is watch another country get overrun, or follow another family on the run-- and at that point, it could be pretty much ANY zombie movie.

I just don't see what else they could do that wouldn't feel like a complete rehash of the first two movies.

Starkers February 29 2012 06:08 PM

Re: 28 Months Later?
 
Actually in many respects 28 Years later might be more interesting.

Mr. Laser Beam February 29 2012 07:58 PM

Re: 28 Months Later?
 
^ By that time everyone on Earth would probably be dead. Those who weren't killed by the infected would *be* infected, and they all die out fairly quickly.

Unless a cure was found, and I'm not aware of one in either film.

MacLeod February 29 2012 08:34 PM

Re: 28 Months Later?
 
There is always the chance of a small number of people being naturally immune.

Ethros February 29 2012 08:44 PM

Re: 28 Months Later?
 
Given the ending of Weeks, it would seem all of Europe would be infected, and by that perhaps most of Asia and Africa too.

With it being a global thing, I wonder if it would be too similar to World War Z, coming to a movie screen near you soon


Quote:

Starkers wrote: (Post 5913307)
Actually in many respects 28 Years later might be more interesting.

I'll look forward to it in 2030 ;)


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.