Summary

• The long-awaited sequel 28 Years Later is in the works, bringing back the original director and writer, which is exciting for fans of the franchise.
• However, the announcement of a planned trilogy raises concerns about overextending the story and diluting its impact.
• If the first movie underperforms, the entire trilogy could be cut short, leaving plot threads unresolved and disappointing fans of the franchise.

28 Years Later is the sequel zombie fans have been clamoring for since 2007, but the long-awaited announcement contained one key detail that dampened all excitement. For both the zombie subgenre and horror movies as a whole, 2002's 28 Days Later was a revelation, putting director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland on Hollywood's radar. Lead actors Cillian Murphy and Naomie Harris also haven't fared too badly since escaping post-apocalyptic London. While not a disaster by any means, the absence of any recognizable names from the original movie, both onscreen and off, meant 2007's 28 Weeks Later failed to live up to its predecessor.

Since then, 28 Months Later - and eventually 28 Years Later after enough time ed - was one of the most demanded sequels in modern horror. For a long time, the hypothetical threequel was nothing more than a fantasy. Still regarded among 28 Years Later is reportedly in the works, and while that should bring excitement, it doesn't.

Why 28 Years Later Should Be Exciting

Horror franchises are infamous for outstaying their welcome. Even by Hollywood's sequel-hungry standards, horror IPs regularly release one or ten movies too many, attempting to spin out a simple initial concept into something it was never suited to be. The zombie subgenre is especially guilty of this, as evidenced by both George A. Romero's latter Living Dead movies, and The Walking Dead. Oddly, 28 Days Later was the exact opposite. Both the 2002 original and its 2007 follow-up told relatively isolated stories against the backdrop of a world-ending viral outbreak. The implications of Alex Garland's core idea, however, went far beyond what either movie showed onscreen.

Unlike most successful horror franchises, 28 Days Later actually had the scope and potential to justify a third movie. Alas, that would mean nothing unless the dynamic duo of Boyle and Garland returned. Juan Carlos Fresnadillo did an irable job with 28 Weeks Later, but the sequel notably lacked Garland's knack for grim storytelling and Boyle's aptitude for blending subtle character nuances with urban grit. Happily, the 28 Years Later confirmation reveals Boyle and Garland are back. Cillian Murphy and Naomie Harris reprising their roles would be the cherry on top, but the prospect of 28 Years Later with the original writer and director should be hugely exciting by itself.

28 Years Later Has Been Hurt By The Announcement Of An Entire Trilogy

A single 28 Years Later movie is exciting. An entire trilogy is concerning. One major detail from the original report claims that Danny Boyle and Alex Garland's 28 Years Later will be the first entry in a planned trilogy of movies. What should have been an exciting moment in horror history, therefore, becomes the latest example of the industry's efforts to wring any and all viable franchises - and some non-viable ones too - for all they are worth.

Continuing the original story after a massive time jump, 28 Years Later could have provided the perfect opportunity to wrap up the existing narrative and address lingering questions from the previous two movies, while also poking into previously unseen areas of Garland's mythology. Instead, it appears that 28 Years Later will be the launching-off point for future projects. That blueprint completely ignores the reason 28 Years Later seemed so exciting in the first place - it was supposed to be an ending, not a beginning.

While the infected in 28 Days Later are not dead - and, therefore, are not technically zombies - they fulfill the same role and purpose in the story.

Whether the 28 Days Later concept can even sustain a total of five movies is another contentious matter of debate. One more offering was certainly feasible, but the Rage virus is, ultimately, a zombie apocalypse in every way that matters. As numerous other franchises have discovered, there are only so many ways to spin that premise before it wears thin. Rather than ending on a high, 28 Years Later - to be followed by 28 Decades Later and 28 Centuries Later, maybe - now risks overextending its reach and running itself into the ground.

28 Years Later's Trilogy Plan Could Backfire If The First Movie Fails

Not only are movie studios overly reliant on sequels, the gargantuan success of the MCU has sparked numerous ill-advised attempts to turn IPs into "shared universes." At the same time, the onslaught of in-house streaming platforms has created a demand for more content - preferably with a nostalgic element. The big problem with this strategy is that trilogies and franchises can end prematurely if their first or second entries underperform, and that presents a very real risk for 28 Years Later. If the commercial and/or critical response is underwhelming, the new 28 Years Later trilogy could be cut short, leaving plot threads and character arcs painfully unresolved.

Once again, that defeats the point of making 28 Years Later in the first place. By committing to multiple movies, Boyle and Garland would be taking a massive gamble in trusting that all three movies actually get made. 28 Years Later is only exciting if it enhances the previous movies, but should the full plan not come to fruition, the franchise would be left in a worse position than it currently is. The mythology may have untapped potential, but at least 28 Days and 28 Weeks Later currently work as a two-part story. An unfinished continuation trilogy would represent a sorry end for such a genre-defining chapter in horror.