28 Weeks Later

Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
655
Reaction score
0
Sorry if this has been posted before but I couldn't find it in search.

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=3&id=37187

28 Weeks Later, due May 11, 2007, comes from the creative team of Danny Boyle, Alex Garland and Andrew Macdonald, the minds behind the original zombie movie 28 Days Later. The sequel is directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo and picks up six months after the rage virus has decimated the city of London. The U.S. Army has restored order and is repopulating the quarantined city when a carrier of the rage virus enters London and unknowingly re-ignites the deadly infection.
 

knut

Party Escort Bot
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
7,436
Reaction score
20
The U.S army? :\ Sounds good though. I loved 28 Days Later. Need to watch it again soon actually...
 

Dog--

The Freeman
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
9,743
Reaction score
25
28 Days later was good, but I don't know about this, it's not one of those movies where a sequel will be good, I'll have to see, though..
 

joule

Tank
Joined
May 21, 2004
Messages
6,801
Reaction score
0
Yes! Can't wait! Completely loved 28 Days Later.
 

Absinthe

The Freeman
Joined
Jun 21, 2004
Messages
14,040
Reaction score
26
The thing about 28 Days Later was that it wasn't so much a zombie movie as much as it was about the darkness that people can sink to. The main antagonists were the soldiers.

Hopefully they can keep that sort of commentary instead of resorting to a zombie bash.
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Messages
6,938
Reaction score
2
Without Boyle's direction, I just don't know. I don't even think Garland wrote the script.
 

xcellerate

Tank
Joined
Dec 7, 2004
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
1
yea it really pissed me off when the soldiers tried to rape them :(
 

gick

Newbie
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
2,104
Reaction score
0
This is going to be ****ing awful. US Army? WTF? Part of the reason I liked the original was that it wasnt about Americans saving the world - now I can see this as turning out to be a pretty generic zombie action movie.

If Boyle and the original cast return, and it has a decent script, it could turn out OK, but im still very pessimistic.
 

Asknoone

Newbie
Joined
May 15, 2004
Messages
0
Reaction score
50
I thought 28 days later was great, despite some crappy dialogue here and there. I'm not too convinced about this sequel. We'll see..
 

mortiz

Newbie
Joined
Sep 3, 2003
Messages
4,074
Reaction score
0
So what? It's going to be exactly like 28 days later except you say the infection spreading? I don't know about this one, surely in the second one they'd have counter-measures in place incase there was another out-break? The whole point in the first one was that it caught them completely un-awares.
 

Link

Tank
Joined
Apr 28, 2004
Messages
2,446
Reaction score
1
Yeah. ****ing students...

The fact remains that in reality, the 1 surviving element would be the british forces, so this Us army craps somewhat far fetched. But at least we know the outcome. If the british forces couldn't cope, theres **** all chance the americans are going to last 5 minutes. If they do, then its unrealistic and crap.

I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit...
 

Axyon

Newbie
Joined
May 29, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
0
Yeah. ****ing students...

The fact remains that in reality, the 1 surviving element would be the british forces, so this Us army craps somewhat far fetched. But at least we know the outcome. If the british forces couldn't cope, theres **** all chance the americans are going to last 5 minutes. If they do, then its unrealistic and crap.

I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit...
You think the entire world's just going to let Britain get on with it, even though their military has been struggling to survive for the past 6 months? - low on morale, low on ammo. Of course the U.S would intervene. That said, I'm still not sure it'll make a good film... they should have left it as a singular film.
 

Stigmata

The Freeman
Joined
Jun 2, 2003
Messages
15,911
Reaction score
371
Or maybe it was a misquote, and it's still the British Army that's trying to rebuild the country. They did allude that other countries were having the same problems in the original...
 

f0rked

Newbie
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
326
Reaction score
0
It makes sense to me. All British infrastructure, from public services to the military were severely crippled if not outright destroyed in the original film. They'd need help with rebuilding. Considering the US seems to be our strongest political ally at the moment, its only logical that they'd help with the reconstruction efforts.
Another point which I think could make this film really cool is that we'll actually see the outbreak as it happens, from the start, I assume. Unless the main character somehow ends up in a coma/hospital again and misses it all kicking off. :rolleyes:
 

Ennui

The Freeman
Joined
Dec 31, 2003
Messages
22,704
Reaction score
112
I'd like this to be as good as the original but frankly I'm terrified and somewhat expectant that it'll be about as good as Dawn of the Dead's '04 remake... no cinematic quality or luster, just a lot of gorey zombie heads exploding. Which isn't bad, but I don't think it will compare with 28 Days Later.
 

Link

Tank
Joined
Apr 28, 2004
Messages
2,446
Reaction score
1
You think the entire world's just going to let Britain get on with it, even though their military has been struggling to survive for the past 6 months? - low on morale, low on ammo. Of course the U.S would intervene. That said, I'm still not sure it'll make a good film... they should have left it as a singular film.
Why have our military been struggling to survive? The end of the last film, barley a month after the start, the zombies were dying out, so redevelopment would have begun at that point. Plus, there would be very little required in the way of supplies, if 99.9% of the population has been wiped out. Not to mention the nation wide supply of supermarkets that are stuffed with non-perishble foods and bottled water...

It does raise an interesting question though. Say 50,000 people survived, which is massivly over optomistic. Our nation curently has some 60 million inhabitants. On the global scale, it would be considered "uninhabitied". What would happen? Self-regrowth? Invasion?

And yes, I know the french would breath a sigh of relife...
 

f0rked

Newbie
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
326
Reaction score
0
Why have our military been struggling to survive? The end of the last film, barley a month after the start, the zombies were dying out, so redevelopment would have begun at that point. Plus, there would be very little required in the way of supplies, if 99.9% of the population has been wiped out. Not to mention the nation wide supply of supermarkets that are stuffed with non-perishble foods and bottled water...

It does raise an interesting question though. Say 50,000 people survived, which is massivly over optomistic. Our nation curently has some 60 million inhabitants. On the global scale, it would be considered "uninhabitied". What would happen? Self-regrowth? Invasion?

And yes, I know the french would breath a sigh of relife...
Well, there's nothing to say that zombies weren't still alive in the wild, living off of animals. The army (US or UK) would have to systematically ensure that they'd exterminated ~100% before any serious repopulation could begin. Also, the fact that 99.9% of people were killed, they'd need more manpower to rebuild the country. Hence the need to bring in people from the US or other countries.

Plus, a lot of supermarkets ect would be stripped bare by survivors/in the looting that occured pre-mass-infection.
 

Sulkdodds

Companion Cube
Joined
Jul 3, 2003
Messages
18,851
Reaction score
25
Hang on, haven't all the infected starved to death by now?
 

Link

Tank
Joined
Apr 28, 2004
Messages
2,446
Reaction score
1
2 things.
The end of the first film shows the zombies dieing...
The film shows a supermarket completely stocked...
 

f0rked

Newbie
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
326
Reaction score
0
Yeah but that's because they're starving. I still think some may be left living in the wild, living off deer/foxes/whatever. And they show one supermarket that's fully stocked, but in an apocalyptic situation like that I think mass looting would have emptied (almost) all of them.
However, this is just my opinion. And I could be totally wrong.
 

gick

Newbie
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
2,104
Reaction score
0
Yeah but that's because they're starving. I still think some may be left living in the wild, living off deer/foxes/whatever. And they show one supermarket that's fully stocked, but in an apocalyptic situation like that I think mass looting would have emptied (almost) all of them.
However, this is just my opinion. And I could be totally wrong.
Aaaaah, but how would a slobbering, rage filled beastie catch a deer or a fox? Ever tried catching wildlife with your bare hands?

The way I see it is everybody is dead - the Americans are moving in to repopulate. I think it alludes to that in the IMDB entry.
 

destrukt

Newbie
Joined
Sep 18, 2003
Messages
4,128
Reaction score
0
28 days later is bascially my favourite 'zombie' movie, it's just so awesome, but i'm worried about the whole us army thing. :(

/chants "please don't suck, please don't suck."
 

Ren.182

Companion Cube
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
6,009
Reaction score
29
Maybe some random guy got some of a dead zombies blood into his system somehow when cleaning up the bodies? Or maybe a random zombie did feed on animals?

I hope this doesn't suck. I have faith though.
 

Link

Tank
Joined
Apr 28, 2004
Messages
2,446
Reaction score
1
Yeah but that's because they're starving. I still think some may be left living in the wild, living off deer/foxes/whatever. And they show one supermarket that's fully stocked, but in an apocalyptic situation like that I think mass looting would have emptied (almost) all of them.
However, this is just my opinion. And I could be totally wrong.
So they to wander in the only supermarket in the UK to be fully stocked, whilst all others had been looted? Uh huh...
 

Ren.182

Companion Cube
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
6,009
Reaction score
29
So they to wander in the only supermarket in the UK to be fully stocked, whilst all others had been looted? Uh huh...
Hehe yeah, the rest of the supermarkets would be in a similar condition no doubt. You can tell the virus spread at a phenominal rate, there wasn't even any "zombie patients" in the hospital. Besides, people were told to evacuate the cities... and with the virus about i bet it spead even quicker with everyone fleeing the cities.
 

Ennui

The Freeman
Joined
Dec 31, 2003
Messages
22,704
Reaction score
112
I don't think they will tell us how the lone person gets infected - that's probably the whole point. Maybe one of the Rage monkeys came out of the wild and bit his face off.
 

63

Newbie
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
8,959
Reaction score
0
Has anyone figured out why it's the US army?
 

gick

Newbie
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
2,104
Reaction score
0
Has anyone figured out why it's the US army?
Well, the planes that you see flying about in the film imply that the virus was contained inside the UK (the reports of it spreading to New York etc that the characters mention could be incorrect, or maybe the virus was contained there, etc etc). And seeing as though the US is the world's pre-eminent military power it would make sense for them to be the ones going in.

Or:

It could be that this film is intended to be put on a wide US cinema release (not sure if 28 Days was), and to appeal to a US audience the US army was put into the plot - I cant imagine your average American would be too keen on seeing the French army battling hordes of Zombies. Also, the way the plot looks so far, it could be understood without any knowledge of the previous film - something that would need to be done if it goes on a wide release.
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Messages
6,938
Reaction score
2
It had wide release here and did fairly well without any American prescence in the movie.
 

ríomhaire

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
20,874
Reaction score
414
"when a carrier of the rage virus enters London and unknowingly re-ignites the deadly infection."
That defenatly means it's a normal person who is carrying it with no symtoms (ie, he can infect others but isn't a raving madman). The infected probably wouldn't attack him either aswell.
 

ríomhaire

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
20,874
Reaction score
414
How could anyone type something so wrong if the story is an infected runs in and bites everyone in London?
 

Direwolf

Newbie
Joined
Jul 1, 2003
Messages
6,190
Reaction score
0
Yeah, but its just a PR blurb thats one of several in a press release. Its not exactly a first hand source.
 
Top