After helping launch the franchise, Alex Garland explains why he’s back for 28 Years Later after being absent from the prior movie. The new film serves as the third installment in the zombie horror series, being set 28 years after the Rage virus first released and brought down the United Kingdom, focusing on a father and son living in a small island community who have to venture out into the world and see the horrors that have persisted. Led by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Jodie Comer, Ralph Fiennes and Jack O’Connell, 28 Years Later is set to launch a new trilogy of movies.

During a recent interview with The Playlist for the newly released Warfare, Alex Garland opened up about returning to the horror franchise with 28 Years Later. The franchise creator/writer explained that the biggest reason he decided to return for the new trilogy was “enough time had pᴀssed” for him and director Danny Boyle to develop “a key idea that felt tonally correct” to the “punk sensibility” of the original film, a change from how he felt about the first sequel. See what Garland explained below:

It was this. 28 Days Later was a very uncynical film. It had a punk sensibility. And in order to make a follow-up to it, you couldn’t be in a cynical mindset. There’s various reasons why that wouldn’t have worked. And enough time had pᴀssed [with us]. There was a key idea that felt tonally correct to what we did 20-something years ago.

What Garland’s Comments Mean For 28 Years Later

The Movie Aims To Be A Return To Form For The Series

Garland’s desire to return 28 Years Later to a more “uncynical” sensibility after the previous sequel does make sense when comparing the first two films. The original 28 Days Later, which served as Garland’s feature screenwriting debut, undeniably featured a very dark tone and tense approach to its Rage zombies, though was equally praised for its political and social commentary about how the UK would fall into chaos in the real world. Its sequel, 28 Weeks Later, instead went for a more direct approach to the genre, focusing on delivering larger stakes and new zombified threats.

Though not panned, 28 Weeks Later saw a much more broadly positive response compared to the acclaim of its predecessor, currently holding 72% and 66% approval ratings from critics and audiences on Rotten Tomatoes, whereas the original holds 87% and 85% ratings. One of the general complaints directed towards the sequel was that it lacked the same character-driven approach of Garland’s original, understandable when considering the follow-up went through a year of rewrites from director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, Enrique López Lavigne and Jesus Olmo on Rowan Joffé’s original draft, while Garland provided uncredited additional material.

One of the main ways 28 Years Later already looks to be a return to form for the franchise with Garland back is its smaller-scale story compared to that of its predecessor, particularly with how it’s handling 28 Weeks Later‘s ending. The writer did confirm the threequel isn’t necessarily working “in conflict” with the 2007 sequel, but seemingly indicated that its spread of the Rage virus to Paris won’t necessarily carry over into the new film. This, in turn, would allow for the introduction of a range of new characters with connections to the previous movies without feeling overstuffed.

Our Take On Garfield’s 28 Years Later Return Reasons

Timing Is Always Key For A Sequel

While I have always remained a defender of 28 Weeks Later, I do recognize it’s not nearly as good as the original, which gives me a lot of hope for 28 Years Later based on how Garland views his and Boyle’s return to the fold. Timing is always key for when to do a sequel, not just for retaining popularity, but also for maintaining the creative heights of previous movies. Given the original felt far more like an indie film than its sequel, Garland’s “punk sensibility” comment hopefully means the next film will have the ground-level documentary feel of 28 Days Later.

Source: The Playlist