Printable View
http://entertainment.msn.com/celebs/...px?news=161960
"Turns out those zombies really were contagious. Variety reports a sequel to the hit horror virus flick "28 Days Later" is currently in development, tentatively titled "28 Weeks Later." Neither director Danny Boyle nor screenwriter Alex Garland is expected to assume their original duties, though they will probably sign on as producers. No word on whether Cillian Murphy or Naomie Harris will return to kick post-plague zombie butt."
Oh, oh how I'd love the promo poster for this to be a 8-month-pregnant zombie woman with '28 weeks later' scrawled atop a positive home pregnancy test.
They are NOT friggin ZOMBIES. I am tired hearing of people calling INFECTED in 28 Days Later zombies, which they are not. They are NOT reanimated walking (or running) dead. You dont have to shoot them in the head (or decapitate) to kill them. They DONT consume flesh of the living, only attack and bite and move on.
Yes, First film used conventions of "zombie" genre, but again didnt have any walking dead.
Original was decent flick (it could have used a bit more budget for the scope of the destruction they wanted to show, but did decent job with what they had to work with), but people overpraising it a bit.
28 Days Later would have sucked w/ a big budget, which is what I fear will happen to this movie.
I do not like this news.
Without the original writer or director, the sequel will suck... guaranteed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mman
I REALLY liked the first movie so it will be interesting to see what happens with this. Kind of catches me off guard..
Not excited. I'll probably check it out, but without Danny Boyle and co. directly behind it, I'm skeptical.
This sounds like a straight to DVD title to me.
So whats part 3 gonna be called? 28 Years: Now it's personal?
how fucking stupid.
28 Months Later: The Revenge of the InfectedQuote:
Originally Posted by Error
Zombies don't have to be reanimated dead. It's just a former person who has lost his soul/humanity. Not everyone has to follow George Romero rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Despair
The first was great until they threw in the shit in the last half of the movie. Zombie movies need to focus on the zombies, and that's it.
There are "zombie rules"?
One who looks or behaves like an automaton.
Right from dictionary.com.
Eat it.
There are always been 2 kinds of "zombie" horror films:Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
1. Dealing with original "zombie" concepts and voodoo.
2. Dealing with reanimated dead
Sticking people infected with rage virus into this doesnt make them zombies.
28 Days Later is a zombie movie--one that I enjoy--and fitting with Kano's definition the infected lose their free will/thought and act on some instinctual or even mechanical (programmed) level. If you started a poll I would say teh vast majority would deem this a zombie movie even if the director never explicitly said zombie.
Now there's a third kind. Don't be such a puritan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Despair
Hmmm.... I'm a bit worried. Things always get ruined when they go from obscure low-budget to big production with high expectations. Money gets in the way and waters down/ruins any creativity.
The writer and director stepping down aren't good signs either.
Wow.
I didn't like the second half of the first film. It started out great. It really conveyed a sense of despair and destruction, but then turned into the quest for p00n.
Must reserve opinion until I see it. Sunshine falls on everyone, right?
My girlfriend got her period once, then 28 days later, she got it again
So that's the secret.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok