28 months later

[cardew1975]

[*SPOILERS* to 28 Weeks and Days possible.]
In March 2007, Danny Boyle announced plans to create a third chapter of the film franchise, which will be given the title 28 Months Later with a 2009 release date, thus creating a trilogy. Boyle has stated that his thoughts are to set the movie in Russia.

In June 2007, it was announced that if DVD sales of the film did well Fox Atomic would consider producing the third film.

In July 2007, while promoting the film Sunshine, Boyle revealed that he has a story formulating for the next film "There is an idea for the next one, something which would move [the story] on. I've got to think about it, whether it's right or not." Boyle also revealed that he would return as the director. Alex Garland might be considered in writing the story with Boyle, but no announcements have been made.
-Wikipedia

Theres the description. There are alot of questions being asked with very little known answers.


How did the infected make their way to Paris?

If the second movie was named 28 Weeks Later because there was another outbreak 28 weeks after it ended, then how is this movie called 28 Months Later if the outbreak is still happening?

I believe the movie will defiantly still follow the immune Andy and his journey for safety.

Thoughts?

just noticed i posted this on the wrong section .

[FranklinTard]

be awesome if boyle comes back, weeks was incredibly disappointing.

[Justin]

I still need to see Weeks....

[Tzarinna]

Well, I'm intriguied.

[DAN!]

be awesome if boyle comes back, weeks was incredibly disappointing.

yup

[rosncranz]

Yeah, another zombie film, that's what we need...well after Slumdog I will give Boyle the benefit of the doubt.

[DAN!]

i like zombie movies. but lately there have been quite a few bad ones. the last good one was land of the dead, which i liked a lot.

[Justin]

Zombie movies are always fun...

[DAN!]

diary of the dead was pretty average to me. just a few scenes i liked

[MasterChief117]

I still think some director should get off their rears and do World War Z, now thats a Zombie movie I'd see any day.

[Daniel]

Hey man, I know you don't post a lot so I was trying to be helpful and let you know this is probably the wrong forum to post this thread in.

We have a forum called "Movies Coming Soon" or something along those lines, this forum is really intended for movies that are currently out in theaters as well as reviews for movies that have been seen although not out yet for the entire public to view.

Just thought I would let you know, not getting on your case or anything.

[Daniel]

玻璃钢箱有高质

wtf

[DAN!]

it is just spam ads

and i didn't even realize this was in the reviews section haha. should be moved to the other forum

[DragnFire22]

Did you guy's read the whole first post?

The very last line is an edit that acknowledges the misplacement...

[DAN!]

didn't read the whole thing. i skim through these posts pretty fast

[Tolkien]

I really enjoyed Days very much and thought that Weeks did a rather fair job with what it was given.

If he does go ahead with Months, I'll see it for sure. And for the record, they're infected, not zombies.

[rosncranz]

And for the record, they're infected, not zombies.

No, they are zombies. I recently saw an interview with Boyle and he himself referred to them as zombies. I always thought the argument about what they are exactly was pretty ridiculous.

[cardew1975]

yeah i know , i didn't realize till it was 2late , it should be moved to coming soon .

[DAN!]

yeah, they are def zombie movies. anything with the walking dead is a zombie. either way, they are exactly the same thing.

[Daniel]

Did you guy's read the whole first post?


no.

[FranklinTard]

yeah, they are def zombie movies. anything with the walking dead is a zombie. either way, they are exactly the same thing.

but if they never die, until killed, they are infected, not zombies (i.e. walking dead).

[Tolkien]

No, they are zombies. I recently saw an interview with Boyle and he himself referred to them as zombies. I always thought the argument about what they are exactly was pretty ridiculous.
See, that's what I don't get. They weren't dead, they were still alive. You didn't need to shoot them in the head to kill them because they could be killed just like anyone else. They were normal people infected with rage, thus making them seem like zombies. But they weren't. They didn't eat anyone, they just wanted to kill. And they starved to death too, because they weren't eatting anymore. So yeah, it's NOT ridiculous to argue about what they were because zombies are dead. But if Boyle says they're zombies, then I guess they're zombies.

But I will tell you this; They're the most flawed zombies in the history of zombies.

[Justin]

I'd actually like to see that interview myself. I recall the opposite, actually -- Boyle stated they weren't zombies at all...

[KUsubaruchick]

See, that's what I don't get. They weren't dead, they were still alive. You didn't need to shoot them in the head to kill them because they could be killed just like anyone else. They were normal people infected with rage, thus making them seem like zombies. But they weren't. They didn't eat anyone, they just wanted to kill. And they starved to death too, because they weren't eatting anymore. So yeah, it's NOT ridiculous to argue about what they were because zombies are dead. But if Boyle says they're zombies, then I guess they're zombies.

But I will tell you this; They're the most flawed zombies in the history of zombies.

You described it perfectly. I've always taken the "non-zombie" stance in this arguement.

I'd be interested to see what would happen with 28 months later, but going with the notion that they don't eat people and would starve to death I don't really see it being plausable. I guess we'll see what happens.

[Tolkien]

That's what I've been saying. I mean, in either films I have yet to see one of them bite someone or try to eat them. It's all been rage induced attacks.

[DragnFire22]

I've seen bites. The mom bit the dad to infect him in Weeks ;)

[DAN!]

Yeah, there were bites in weeks. i havent seen days in awhile to put my word on it.

yeah. it doesn't matter what you call them. either way, they all are basically the same in every movie. just some minor changes here and there. but the fundimentals are the same.

[sshuttari]

I'll see this film only if Boyle returns to direct it.

[Tolkien]

Yeah, there were bites in weeks. i havent seen days in awhile to put my word on it.

yeah. it doesn't matter what you call them. either way, they all are basically the same in every movie. just some minor changes here and there. but the fundimentals are the same.

The fundimentals may be close, but they're not the same.

Zombies are dead beings who reverted back to their natural instincts to feed and survive.

The infected are living beings who are filled with a rage virus, giving them the desire to kill.

[rosncranz]

Hmmm I don't think this is the interview I read, but it says some of the same things i.e. Alex Garland is a huge zombie fan, and Boyle isn't. They wanted to turn the zombie film on it's head etc.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39124

[DAN!]

The fundimentals may be close, but they're not the same.

Zombies are dead beings who reverted back to their natural instincts to feed and survive.

The infected are living beings who are filled with a rage virus, giving them the desire to kill.


You see, that makes absolutly no sense to me. If they are infected "living beings" that have a desire to "kill" then why don't they kill eachother? They are alive and they have a rage to kill, but they don't kill eachother?

they are just too close imo.

In a way you could argue that they are both zombies, one kind is an undead zombie and the other is an infected zombie. it keeps the fundimentals the same with the few minor differences.

they both