Talk:28 Weeks Later

Andy actually infected

Showing the bloody helicopter in Paris kind of points out that Andy really was infected and he killed Flynn and his Sister. The scene before even focuses on him clenching his fists. Should we even assume that these "immunes" like Andy and his mother are actually nothing more than intelligent infected? They turn evil but they still maintain their intelligence.--86.121.71.224 (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

NO! Andy was a carrier and covered in infected blood. There is never any indication that his sister is immune, especially since her eyes are the same color. Clearly, that goes with immunity. We see her hug him through blood on the glass. She hugs him, becomes "raged", and kills the pilot, thus the crashed copter. People pulling bloody bodies out would become infected too, and so goes Europe. Personally, I would have preferred that the crashed copter scene not be there, and it is just implied that once the virus crosses the channel, that somehow, it spreads. But I think the film clearly shows that the chopper crashed, implying the pilot was attacked, and since the kid was asymptomatic, that means the girl caught it from the blood-soaked kid.

One more thing: kudos to whoever pointed out that the wife deliberately infected the husband since he left her to die. I hadn't noticed that, but have the DVD and will look for that now. TechnoFaye Kane 07:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

So... I know that Andy was infected but did he get taken over by the virus? 70.90.174.173 (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that considering the chopper was soaked in blood when Flynn used the the chopper's blades to slice and dice the infected in the field and i dont know about you but when your dealing with a full-fledged epidemic, washing your chopper is just not a priority plus when the sister hugs him she would feel it in seconds--Rashkae (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Deserted production

28 Days Later#Production covers how they made scenes look deserted and desolate. I think this article needs the same but I don't know any details, especially since the scenes are more grand.  :) Cburnett (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

How they did it this time needs sources, but I don't think it needs to be posted here IMO. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is that? This is an encyclopedia and such productions details of making the 16th world's largest city appear deserted is nothing trivial. Cburnett (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Where do i put this new image?

File:Kill'em.jpgSo where do i put this new image? cause i made this image for the 28 Day Later wikia. Demon Hunter Rules(—) 01:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)recycle bin

Inconsistencies with 28 Days Later

Does anyone know the explanation as to why the 'infected' in 28 Weeks Later suddenly have no aversion to light? In 28 Days Later the infected would not chase anyone into the daylight nor come out of hiding from darkness. For example, in 28 Days Later the infected would not chase the car outside the tunnel. Likewise the infected would not come out until after darkness thus allowing for the bizarre post apocalyptic empty streets part of the first film to work plot-wise. A huge part of the reason the characters were able to travel around in 28 Days Later was due to the aversion of light by the infected. The only cases where the infected were in daylight was because they got infected while still in daylight or they were chained up outside in broad daylight or during the end of the movie flight overhead with an infected unable to walk, stuck in the middle of a road somewhere.

Suddenly is 28 Weeks Later the boy arriving at the cottage is being chased in full daylight at the start of the film and no further mention or respect of the daylight aversion is ever mentioned or respected anywhere in the sequel.

What explanation is given for this sudden important shift from 28 Days Later to 28 Weeks Later? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.45.233 (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that since this movie is geared by the producers toward an audience that expects thrills to generate revenue, the producers do not care about any of this attention to detail. if you asked them, they would probably respond with "is it that important to you?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.122.45.208 (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the two films take place at different points in time, and that the infection has had time to change, and that the infected deen in the street was starving. Also, that the infected don't show any adversion to the well-lit army base, or in the beginning of the first film where they are set on fire, which obviously gives off light. The infected in the car scene probably just gave up trying to chase the car since it is too fast, and not because of some kind of photophobia, or heliophobia. Further, the new outbreak was caused my someone who was immune, meaning that since she reacted differently, she could also pass along the infection differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.140.62 (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That's plausible-that the virus mutated- but they were very explicit in the first film about only traveling during the day and the dangers the infected pose at night. It is true in the first film the infected had no aversion to light but they definitely had an aversion to the sun itself. So I will accept your mutation theory... Interesting that the film Legend also had a sun aversion for their infected but not to regular light either. I believe this is the same aversion shown in vampire movies where sunlight kills the vamps but regular light does nothing. UV seems to kill the undead!

We were warned in the first film that you shouldn't go out at night unless you had to, but it was never mentioned that it was because you'd be safer from the photophobic infected during the day, it was just implied that you'd be safer, which I assumed was because during the night you'd either have to have a torch, which would attract their atention in a city where there's no electricity, or walk around blind, less able to see any infected person you're walking towards/towards you. Simmilarly you'd be more vunerable if you went out by yourself. As for the cases you mentioned above, they stopped because of the greater speed of the taxi, and the streets were empty because there were fewer uninfected people left to find so the infected begun to slowly die, like inside the church, disregarding their hunger and just collapsing. The streets would've been just as empty at night, but it wouldn't have looked as impressive, simmilarly it makes it jusst that bit scarier being chased by an infected zombie like person at night then on a sunny afternoon. As said above I think you're just reading too deep into it 78.148.72.33 (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Inheritable heterochromia?

Uh can you actually inherit heterochromia, as shown in this movie or is that something that they didn't bother researching?144.135.180.109 (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes you can inherit it, or it can be acquired through disease or injury. I don't know what the chances of inheriting it are though. My mum has one eye blue and one brown, but no one else in the family has it. 79.69.52.184 (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Movie Names

I assume any sequels/prequels will follow the same pattern:

28 Seconds Later 28 Minutes Later 28 Hours Later 28 Years Later 28 Decades Later 28 Centuries Later 28 Millenia Later —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.207.73.15 (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Reboot?

I've removed the word 'reboot' from the opening sentence: "28 Weeks Later is a 2007 British post-apocalyptic horror film, and reboot sequel to the 2002 film 28 Days Later."

I don't know why this would be considered a reboot; it is set at a different time and features entirely different characters, but it doesn't redefine or retcon any aspect of the basic premise from the previous film, nor does it retell any of the events of that film, since it (obviously) takes place several months later.

Here's the definition from the page Reboot (fiction):

Reboot, in serial fiction, means a discarding of much or even all previous continuity in the series, to start anew.

Certainly not the case here. Rodeosmurf (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

28 months later

Why is 28 Months Later redirecting to 28 Weeks Later? By that logic, 28 Weeks Later should be edited to redirect to 28 Days Later.