28 Days Later director Danny Boyle, writer Alex Garland, and star Cillian Murphy provide very promidates on the status of the long-awaited third film, which would be called 28 Years Later. Released in 2002, 28 Days Later is an apocalyptic horror film that takes place four weeks after a mysterious virus spreads through the U.K. and turns citizens into zombie-like monsters. The film earned mostly positive reviews and did well enough at the box office to lead to a sequel, 28 Weeks Later, for which Boyle, Garland, and Murphy did not return.
After years of false starts and uncertainty, it now finally sounds like a sequel called 28 Years Later (not 28 Months Later, as had long been assumed) could be close to actually happening. In a recent interview with Inverse, Boyle and Garland reveal that work is actually moving along nicely behind the scenes. Check out their comments below:
Alex Garland: "I resisted it for a long time because there were things about 28 Weeks that bugged me. I just thought, 'F--k that.' I’d rather try to write a different story in a different world. But a few years ago an idea materialized in my head for what would be really 28 Years Later. Danny always liked the idea."
Danny Boyle: "So we’re talking about it quite seriously, quite diligently. If he doesn’t want to direct it himself I’ll be well up for it, if we can execute a similarly good idea."
Murphy, too, expressed his eagerness to return to the franchise in an interview with Collider, citing the significant milestone that is approaching. Read Murphy's comment below:
"I was talking to Danny Boyle recently, and I said, 'Danny, we shot the movie at the end of 2000.' So I think we’re definitely approaching the 28 Years Later. But like I’ve always said, I’m up for it. I’d love to do it. If Alex [Garland] thinks there’s a script in it and Danny wants to do it, I’d love to do it."
What 28 Years Could Look Like
28 Weeks Later, although certainly not without its champions, is generally regarded as being weaker than Boyle's original movie. The film feels like a more traditional Hollywood zombie thriller than the grungy, scrappy, and more nuanced 28 Days Later. Despite its shortcomings, however, it does feature an ending that could define what comes next. Notably, it's assumed that all the main characters die and that the Rage Virus is transported from the U.K. to mainland Europe where the infection cycle starts all over again.
Garland could choose to continue the general idea of this ending where things have gotten considerably worse. While both 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later present increasingly more dire versions of the outbreak, a third film could take this to an extreme and show just how far society has fallen. Considering how much time has ed, 28 Years Later could lean hard into what has essentially become a fully post-apocalyptic world.
Of course, to maintain the general feel of the original, Garland and Boyle could choose to go smaller with 28 Years Later, following Murphy's Jim in a more character-driven story limited to a strictly U.K. perspective. It's also possible that, in the near-three decades since the previous film, society has actually rebounded and gotten the outbreak under control. The new 28 Days Later sequel, then, could feature things falling apart once more, with Jim having to revert to his more violent instincts to survive.
