2 Shares2 Comments
It’s been 5 years since Juan Carlos Fresnadillo’s “28 Weeks Later”, and 10 years since Danny Boyle’s original “28 Days Later”. So what’s become of “28 Months Later”, the proposed sequel to the movie about a UK ravaged by “infected” zombies? According to screenwriter/novelist Alex Garland, who wrote the first movie and stayed on as executive producer on the sequel, if you’re still waiting for another sequel, you should probably stop waiting now.
Talking to Dread Central while promoting his sci-fi movie “Dredd 3D” (yes, I have absolutely no idea why a horror site is covering a sci-fi action movie, either), Garland gave an update on “28 Months Later”, and from the sounds of it, it ain’t good:
But in regards to another movie, no- there are no plans for a 28 Months Later or whatever they were calling it. This is a series I’ve always been heavily involved with between the original and the sequel so if there were plans for another movie, I would absolutely know about it.
So there you have it. If there were plans for a third movie, Garland would “absolutely” know all about it, but since he knows nothing about it, there probably isn’t going to be a sequel. Or at least, no sequel as of 2012.
The first movie was a hit in the States, earning $45 million, while the sequel didn’t do quite as well, barely managing half of the original’s numbers with $28 million. Perhaps Fox realized the return on investment was not worth it, which would make sense. Of course, nothing says the franchise couldn’t continue, say, as a direct-to-DVD movie. This is one of those franchises that doesn’t really need a big budget. Hell, in the world of direct-to-DVD zombie movies, a budget around, say, $5-$10 million would be considered huge.