PDA

View Full Version : 28 Months Later



seun
11-24-2010, 03:03 PM
I just found this on wiki:


In October 2010, when Alex Garland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Garland) was asked what was happening with 28 Months Later, he declared: "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."

Although there is an imdb entry for a third film with a planned release of 2013. So what would you like to see for 28 Months Later? The infection spreading through Europe? Reaching the States? Or the global aftermath? Judging by the title, we're probably looking at the aftermath.

Bmwhtly
11-24-2010, 03:10 PM
So what would you like to see for 28 Months Later?Nothing, thankyou.

I'd also like them to travel back in time and unmake 28 weeks later.

seun
11-24-2010, 03:12 PM
Nothing, thankyou.

I'd also like them to travel back in time and unmake 28 weeks later.

:ROFL:

I thought 28WL was entertaining enough even if it didn't do anything the first film didn't.

And I knew you'd be the first to reply. :D

Diana Hignutt
11-24-2010, 03:25 PM
Yeah, they kind of blew the wad with the first movie. I liked the second one simply for the American military taken over the UK, and Rose Burn.

Calla Lily
11-24-2010, 04:27 PM
Nothing, thankyou.

I'd also like them to travel back in time and unmake 28 weeks later.

This.

seun
11-24-2010, 06:40 PM
Not feeling the love for the idea of this film. Don't you want to see the infected running riot throughout all of Europe? Infected French people? Think of all the overturned bicycles down country lanes.

Bmwhtly
11-24-2010, 06:53 PM
Infected French people?I was going to make a joke about that not being scary because they'd surrender and switch sides.

But I think that'd be in rather poor taste.

seun
11-24-2010, 06:55 PM
I was going to make a joke about that not being scary because they'd surrender and switch sides.

But I think that'd be in rather poor taste.

Well, it made me laugh.

defcon6000
11-24-2010, 10:47 PM
Nothing, thankyou.

I'd also like them to travel back in time and unmake 28 weeks later.
Third this.

28WL got incredibly stupid towards the end. And why does it have to be infected Europe or America? How about Asia or Africa? A little change in scenery ya know.

Eudoxia
11-25-2010, 04:22 AM
How about Asia or Africa? A little change in scenery ya know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRN1Z75hXwA&feature=related

There's your infected African film!


The infection spreading through Europe? Reaching the States? Or the global aftermath?There's already enough zombie films that all take place in the States. George Romero made sure of that.

28 Weeks Later shouldn't even have been made. That was a disappointment and I am still trying to erase its existence from my mind. 28 Months Later is probably going to be the same.

seun
11-25-2010, 02:05 PM
Third this.

28WL got incredibly stupid towards the end. And why does it have to be infected Europe or America? How about Asia or Africa? A little change in scenery ya know.

No problem with Asia or Africa from me. I don't think it's too likely they'll set the third film in either place, though.

Enzo
11-26-2010, 08:23 AM
A reboot: 28 Weeks Earlier.

seun
11-26-2010, 03:33 PM
A reboot: 28 Weeks Earlier.

Since the logical next step after 28 Months would have to be 28 Years, I can see them doing a prequel to the first film.

Bmwhtly
11-26-2010, 05:19 PM
I can see them doing a prequel to the first film.So, while the sequel merely went through the first films pockets to see if there was anything useful, your suggesting a film that'll actually go the whole hog and have it's way with the corpse of the first film?

You absolute monster!

seun
11-26-2010, 05:20 PM
:D

I didn't say I want to see it, but I can picture it being made.

brainstorm77
11-27-2010, 03:43 AM
28 years later...

Uncarved
11-27-2010, 03:57 AM
Since the logical next step after 28 Months would have to be 28 Years, I can see them doing a prequel to the first film.

Prequels:
28 Hours
28 Minutes
28 Seconds


No problem with Asia or Africa from me. I don't think it's too likely they'll set the third film in either place, though.

They should do Greenland. O O O, They should just isolate it to Alaska, preferable near the Palins. Tonight on Dancing with the Zombies, Bristol Pain-len.

brainstorm77
11-27-2010, 04:06 AM
That last one ran for 28 years or it felt like it when I watched it.

RayC
07-21-2011, 06:00 PM
I dont even want to see a 28 months later.
The first two were good enough, so a third is not necessary. Dont ruin a good thing!

Darkshore
07-21-2011, 08:10 PM
First one was amazing. They should have stopped while they were ahead, the second one just didn't do it for me.

AmsterdamAssassin
07-22-2011, 01:39 AM
I thought 28 Weeks Later was a fine movie. The first scene, with Robert Carlyle running for his life to the river was excellent. Imogen Poots gave me a woody and Robert Carlyle was great as always. I liked the idea of people being immune, but still able to infect others. Blowing the fuck out of the Isle of Dogs made for some nice visuals. Mowing down the infected with the blades of a helicopter was a nice touch.

It wasn't as innovative or haunting as 28 Days Later, but it wasn't a bad 'sequel'.

nighttimer
07-22-2011, 12:53 PM
I didn't hate 28 Weeks Later, but really Robert Carlyle's hunting down his two brats got more than a bit ridiculous.

I would rather see 28 Months Later than a eighth Saw or a third Paranormal Activity, but let's face it; you make the first one because you have a story to tell, the second one because you have a story to finish and a third one because the first two made money.

The Dark Knight Rises excepted...

seun
07-22-2011, 01:16 PM
Run! It's a zombie thread for a zombie film! Too many zombies!

I recently rewatched the first two films. The first is still a classic, the second has its problems but is still entertaining enough. I wouldn't expect great things from a third, but at least the chances are very high it'd be the last.

Unless you're talking 28 Years Later. Which is just stupid.

nighttimer
07-22-2011, 01:22 PM
Run! It's a zombie thread for a zombie film! Too many zombies!

I recently rewatched the first two films. The first is still a classic, the second has its problems but is still entertaining enough. I wouldn't expect great things from a third, but at least the chances are very high it'd be the last.

Unless you're talking 28 Years Later. Which is just stupid.

When has "stupid" ever been a reason not to make a movie?

Adam Sandler wouldn't have two nickles to rub together if stupid was a disqualifying factor to being a star in Hollywood.

They'd do 28 Seconds Later if they thought someone would buy a ticket. And somebody would.