When Universal first announced that acclaimed Pirates of the Caribbean
director Gore Verbinksi was going to be at the helm of the film based on 2K's successful BioShock videogame, it was like a shining light of hope on the blackened turd that is game to movie conversions.
Unfortunately, that light has dimmed a little today, with Variety reporting
that Verbinski has stepped aside into Producers shoes while 28 Weeks Later
director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo
is now pegged to call the shots.
The change comes as a result of budget issues, with Universal not wanting this to go the way of the shelved Halo movie.
Verbinski opted out of directing because the studio's budget plan for the film has been revamped to lense abroad in order to take advantage of tax credits and favorable exchange rates. Verbinski couldn't commit to an overseas shoot because he is locked into directing the Paramount animated film "Rango," with the title character voiced by his "Pirates of the Caribbean" cohort Johnny Depp.
Fresnadillo may not be terrible by any means, but with only the lacklustre 28 Weeks Later under his Hollywood belt, remains largely unproven.
Variety reports that the change of director is still subject to rights-holder Take 2 Interactive's approval, but if Fresnadillo does get the thumbs up, let's hope he has the vision to get this one right.
Posted 03:19pm 24/8/09
Posted 03:21pm 24/8/09
And besides, 28 Weeks > Pirates of the Caribbean *.
Posted 03:27pm 24/8/09
then like they bring in civilian... then fkn kids !@?#! then they let them roam around freely... then one of the zombies is still kickin n just happens to be the kids mum?!@?!! what a load of horses***. it couldn't have been more stupid imo.
not that pirates of the caribbean was all that either... first one was a bit of a laugh... the rest were typical hollywood cash grabs.
Posted 03:28pm 24/8/09
renders any further comments of yours null and void in this thread.
Posted 03:28pm 24/8/09
Posted 03:43pm 24/8/09
Although it's quite clear you didn't see 28 Days Later, I can't figure out if you even saw 28 Weeks Later.
Posted 03:49pm 24/8/09
Posted 04:07pm 24/8/09
One of the things I loved about the original was the dirty, cheap looking filming that made it feel so much more real (and extremely original). The sequel somehow managed to preserve the gritty look of the first one, but did it as though it was all high-qual, post-event doco.
Although there was some corniness with the kids/dad subplot (and the dad somehow managed to survive firebombings and gassings lol), I thought the overall plot was sound, albeit a little predictable with the breakout. But then again, it wouldn't have been a very interesting sequel if something didn't go wrong, right? Also, the writer/directors weren't afraid to kill off the new characters, usually completely unexpectedly, which is very Hitchc***-esque. This is something that a lot of movies should do more... and some try to, but then bring back the beloved characters with some random excuse like, "He was just hiding all this time..."
That's my opinion. If you want me to rebut the specific inaccurate comments you made about the film, I'm happy to do that too:p
All in all, as a fan of the 28* series, I thought it was tops. Out of curiosity, did you enjoy the original?
Posted 04:22pm 24/8/09
of course it wouldn't have been a movie unless there was another outbreak... but still... why did anyone go back? what was there to gain? why was no one concerned that every attempt to stop the initial spread failed? the yanks just seemed to walk straight back in... seemingly thinking a few gunmen on rooftops would sort A DISEASE THAT KILLED 61 MILLION PPL! #@!#!@
as i was watching it everyone in the room was like 'of course it's gonna outbreak again... they just let 2 kids ride a fkn moped into restricted zones n no one tried to stop them!@#!' totally unbelievable imo.
how come the kid's mum survived anyway? what made her different from the other rag0rz? :P
Posted 04:31pm 24/8/09
A mysterious virus just wiped out a whole f*****g country, leaving infrastructure largely intact. As quickly as it appeared, it seemingly burned itself out. The entire U.K. is effectively empty of people.
If you can't see any reason to go back and work out what happened (and determine ownership of the U.K. if its now safe) then your brain is even more f***ed up than mine! There are plot holes no doubt, but "why go back there" is not even close to one.
Posted 04:40pm 24/8/09
Posted 04:43pm 24/8/09
It was the UNs decision, and the forces were led by the US. The "zombie" activity didn't "die down". The people who were infected with the disease died of starvation. They waited long enough for everyone who was infected to starve to death.
They knew what the disease was, "rage", they knew EXACTLY how it was transmitted, blood or saliva, and the cure was death.
This was the point of the start of the movie... the doctor soldier also couldn't understand why they would bring in kids, and it created more drama for the film.
The mother actually had some sort of tolerance to the disease so she showed no/few symptoms of it. You really missed the whole point of the movie if you didn't get this. What this means is that the mother, or one of the kids could potentially hold the cure or the vaccine to the disease in their blood. That's why there was such a big fuss made about rescuing the kids, and basically all the main characters gave their lives to protect them.
We reach some common ground there :p
Posted 04:46pm 24/8/09
Why do people bother seeing a sequel to a film that they didn't enjoy?
They weren't zombies because they were living humans... as opposed to the walking dead. Also, zombies crave human brains and or flesh, whereas the infected in 28* were just after violence.
And I'd say 28 Days was one of the films that started the zombie movie overkill - there was only a couple of other decent zombie movies in the cinemas around that time. Now every second movie seems to be cashing in on how awesome zombies are...
Posted 05:31pm 24/8/09
yeh that worked well.. they went back n all died just like everyone before them died. what good is infrastructure if it's infected with an unstoppable disease? also why didn't all the nuclear reactors blow up? ;)
what caused the disease in the first place then? if the disease 'dies' with the last surviving host then where did it spring from & why couldn't it spring up from there again!?
no they didn't. that's the evidence they had... but they'd be fkn retards to assume that that's the only way a disease like that could spread. or that the cure was death... how did they know that?! everyone fkn died? there was no way of knowing that the corpses weren't still infectious.. unless you sent soemone back in to see. if they knew, 100% certain, that it could only be transferred via blood... then why didn't they go in wearing suits that couldn't be peirced by human teeth or nails? why not use tanks? the last thing ya'd do is send in a few soldiers with sniper rifles n flak jackets. dumb.
oh that was the point of the movie! :P to create some drama! novel!
well i missed the whole point then... coz how & why did the mother have a magical tolerance? she got brought down by the ragers like everyone else. doesn't make any sense.
yeh awesome. they could make a vaccine that turned you into a half-rager that only carried the disease with only a bit of rage. what's the point of that?
wasn't my pick on movie night i assure you ;p
Posted 05:32pm 24/8/09
Posted 05:33pm 24/8/09
it came from chimps that had been experimented on
Posted 05:34pm 24/8/09
Posted 05:46pm 24/8/09
Posted 06:03pm 24/8/09
hahah. i admit that when i watched the original i was drunk n in the mood to put s*** on some stupid zombie movie. i may have missed some key information while listening to other people's complaints about the s***** movie... but i don't think so... it was just a s***** movie. :D
Posted 02:13am 25/8/09
Posted 05:00am 25/8/09
Posted 08:49am 25/8/09
Posted 08:50am 25/8/09
Posted 08:56am 25/8/09
Posted 09:04am 25/8/09
And besides, there's a huge difference between plot holes and (questionable) plot decisions.
Posted 09:11am 25/8/09
The outcome doesn't affect the validity of the motive for going in. Obviously they were all going to die, or it would have been a boring movie. The infrastructure isn't infected ... are you thinking of the same movie? Do you understand the premise of the rage virus at all?
Nuclear reactors don't just "blow up" all by themselves if left alone. This is why we can't have nuclear power, because people are stupid.
last edited by Hogfather at 09:11:18 25/Aug/09
Posted 10:08am 25/8/09
and i feel sorry for people who think using their imagination to fill in dumb plot holes/s*** writing is acceptable
Posted 10:21am 25/8/09