Why did ‘28 Months Later’ never get made?

When it comes to modern horror masterpieces, 28 Days Later is up there with the very best.

Danny Boyle’s London-based undead apocalypse horror also introduced the wonderful Cillian Murphy to the wider world, which is a gift that we are forever thankful for (except in India, apparently). The plot of the movie — which is often seen as reviving the zombie genre despite Boyle not calling it a zombie film — follows a bike courier who wakes up after a four-week long coma, only to find that a highly contagious and dangerous virus was released while he was under. This has caused the breakdown of society in the U.K, and led to a race of deadly creatures roaming the streets. He finds fellow survivors, and they all attempt to stay alive while avoiding the zombie hordes.

It also spawned a sequel (which Boyle and his co-creator Alex Garland were only executive producers on), 28 Weeks Later. And, now, after years of teasing, director Danny Boyle has confirmed we’re set to get a new installment: 28 Years Later.

But, wait. Aren’t we missing a measurement of time? Why was there no 28 Months Later ever released? In interviews Boyle and Garland have explained their reasoning — and to be fair to them, it makes a lot of sense. Read on to find out why 28 Months Later never got made.

Why did 28 Months Later never get made?

There’s a few reasons we were denied a 28 Months Later. Garland confirmed that the people who owned the rights to the franchise weren’t that interested in a new film, something that must have changed given the recent announcement. Given the massive cultural impact of the first, it must have also been a bit daunting to try and follow up.

Last year Garland also confirmed that for a long time he was done with the franchise and wanted to work on fresh stories, telling Inverse:

“I resisted it for a long time because there were things about 28 Weeks that bugged me. I just thought, ‘F*** that. I’d rather try to write a different story in a different world.'”

He then foreshadowed the recent announcement by adding:

“But a few years ago an idea materialized in my head for what would be really 28 Years Later. Danny always liked the idea.”

It appears the reason that Years is being used instead of Months is simply because it’s been far too long to use the latter. Over two decades have ed since the original was released, and if Murphy is once again in the cast (he said he’d “be there in a flash”), then the ing of time would need to be ed for.

Fans will be aware that there were three alternate endings that all saw Murphy’s character die, so perhaps if they had been in the final cut, we’d be getting a Months film. Either way, we’re just happy the team are back together and on the verge of making another movie.

What do we know about 28 Years Later so far?

We don’t know much about 28 Years Later at this moment in time. We are aware that Boyle is likely to direct it, and that he and Garland are hoping to turn it into a trilogy. It’s still in very early development stages, though, and funding hasn’t been secured either.

However, with their names attached, we doubt they will be searching for money for long. Both Boyle and Garland have incredible CVs. The former has won an Oscar, and is responsible for some truly memorable flicks like Trainspotting and 127 Hours. Garland has been no slouch either, directing Ex Machina, and is about to see his A24 production Civil War released.

Early rumors say the pair are looking for around $75 million in funding, which is nearly 10 times the cost of the iconic original.

We also know that it will once again be set in England, thanks to a Boyle quote from an NME interview he did in 2022: “It feels like a very good time actually. It’s funny, I hadn’t thought about it until you just said it, and I ed ‘Bang, this script!’ which is again set in England, very much about England.’”