It is truly ironic that director , whose 28 Days Later resurrected the still yet-to-die-out zombie craze, is neither a fan of zombies nor their followers.
I don't like zombie movies. I never did. We took a genre and fucked with it. Zombie aficionados, they're quite precious with all their rules. Like with running: 'They don't do that!' Of course there are so many manifestations of zombies now, the rule book has gone out the window. I saw one episode of 'The Walking Dead,' and it was very gripping. But the zombies were stumbling around again, which I hate.
Regarding a long-rumored 28 Months Later project, the general feeling seems to be: "Will it happen? Won't it happen? Who cares! We have a billion other zombie movies and television shows to tide us over!" And that, Boyle explains, is exactly the problem. Oversaturation:
Given what we’ve just been talking about, it's very difficult to know whether zombies are overexposed now as a concept. So it's 40/60 whether it happens or not. But we did have an idea of where to set it and what it might be about.
So don't count on a 28 Months Later getting greenlit any time soon, because it seems that Boyle is sick of the undead fad and feels like it's already been covered from every possible angle. Since Boyle is nothing if not a dynamic storyteller, he wouldn't want to rehash something that's already been done.
Here's the thing, and I say this knowing full well that if this were a medieval stage, I'd be pelted with rotten fruit: All of the above? I agree with him. I grew up on zombie movies, but two zombie fans arguing over the technicalities of what makes a "real" zombie is maybe one of the most socially awkward and sad conversations you'll ever hear. That and there are way, way too many zombie-based projects out there. As a genre, I am calling it now: It jumps the shark when WWZ hits theaters this summer.
Do you agree? Let me know in the comments. Or metaphorically pelt me with tomatoes. Either/or.