ByAlisha Grauso, writer at
Editor-at-large here at Movie Pilot. Nerd out with me on Twitter, comrades: @alishagrauso
Alisha Grauso

Say what you will about the zombie genre potentially being overdone by now, you really can't argue with the fact that it was Danny Boyle's brilliant 28 Days Later that kickstarted the modern-day zombie craze, introducing an entirely new brand of fast-moving zombies into our worldview.

Man, did that mess us up for a while.

(And I'm not talking about the mind-numbing "they're not REALLY zombies" people. You know who I'm talking about.)

I remember seeing it in theaters with my best friend at the time, and her turning to me and very seriously saying, "We're going to have to rethink our Zombie Apocalypse strategy."

When 28 Weeks Later came out five years later, it wasn't quite as well-received, thanks in large part to that five year gap. By the time the sequel was released, the world was already immersed in zombie pop culture and the concept had perhaps worn thin for many. (Though it did really put Jeremy Renner and Rose Byrne on the map, so there was that.)

Still, it did well enough that talk automatically turned to whether or not there would be a third movie in the franchise. But director Danny Boyle expressly said he'd only do a third zombie movie if he felt the genre hadn't yet been sucked dry, and they could write a screenplay that was of the same high quality as the first two films.

As it turns out, we might be getting a trilogy after all.

Speaking with IGN, Days screenwriter and Weeks producer Alex Garland confirmed that [28 Months Later](movie:924599) might very well happen, and "serious" talks are underway.

We’ve just started talking about it seriously. We’ve got an idea. Danny [Boyle] and [producer] Andrew [Macdonald] and I have been having quite serious conversations about it so it is a possibility. It’s complicated. There’s a whole bunch of reasons why it’s complicated, which are boring so I won’t go into, but there’s a possibility.

And if there is a screenplay that gets greenlit, don't expect that big a jump into the future - months, not years:

It’s more likely to be 28 Months than 28 Years. 28 Years gives you one more place to go. 28 Decades is probably taking the piss.

Don't get too excited, though - this just means they are in the very early stages of even talking about whether or not there's a story there that's viable and if the timing would work. Still, with filmmakers as dedicated as this trio, if there's a great story to be told, they'll make it work.

Will we be burned out on zombies by then? Let me know what you think in the comments.


Latest from our Creators