“A few years ago an idea materialized in my head for what would be really 28 Years Later,” Garland says, suggesting the next movie will skip the obvious “28 Months Later” naming convention and jump into the future. “Danny always liked the idea.”
In the two decades since 28 Days Later, Garland has also become a respected director in his own right. So who will direct this sequel? Danny Boyle has some ideas.
“So we’re talking about it quite seriously, quite diligently,” Boyle says. “If he doesn’t want to direct it himself I’ll be well up for it if we can execute a similarly good idea.”
…
“I resisted [making a sequel] for a long time because there were things about 28 Weeks that bugged me,” Garland says. “I just thought, ‘F*ck that. I’d rather try to write a different story in a different world.’”
But clearly, something changed. Maybe enough time has passed. Or maybe the decision to skip “28 Months Later” and jump straight to “28 Years” offers the opportunity to ignore the bad parts of 28 Weeks. Either way, we’re definitely not complaining — assuming all this talk actually leads to something, of course.
All sounds promising, although I hope they don’t plan on releasing it in 2030, which would be 28 years after the first film.
I am a huge fan of anything post-apocalytic (I mean, my handle of lypticdna is based on the love of apocalyptic things). 28 Days Later was such an underrated film I think, or at least I appreciated it way more than most people I knew. 28 Weeks Later was OK and a good continuation but hard to beat the original imo.
The thought of 28 Years Later is interesting. You do not find many post-post-apocalyptic movies (if any… thinks… hmm, not sute) but this would be a great opportunity to do one. I would definately want to see it but agree with other comments… would it be a ‘rebuilding after the apocalyse style’ and would that work but also is Boyle the right person for this?