[QUOTE="skivit"][QUOTE="Aquat1cF1sh"][QUOTE="skivit"][QUOTE="Aquat1cF1sh"]I think it seems pretty logical... After months though, I dunno where they're gonna head, because that starts to head off into "Rawr our movie series are starting to suck now" territory.Aquat1cF1sh
2 reasons why it isnt logical:
First: In the first film, it stated that the infected die out withint 2 months due to starvation (although they neglect that theyd actually die of dehydration first after a week, but lets ignore that for the sake of the films)
Second: For 28 months to work, they had to have it rebreak out due to somone being a carrier. Memory serves me well that thats the exact same sotryline 28 weeks had.But in 28 Weeks Later, the infected were all stuck in Britain, and they died out because they couldn't eat anyone else. :? But they made it to mainland Europe, which stretches to Africa and Asia, and that's an endless buffet of flesh right there.
In 28 weeks, all the original infected had died out. They new ones were from a new outbreak from the bloke kissing his wife who was a carrier.
The infected dont eat anyone they just kill.
We will find out how the infection got into mainland europe in the sequel, but we can specualte that it was somehow because of the boy who was a carrier like his mother. Probably bodily fluid exchange from sharing a drink or something along those lines.Ahh okay, that's my misunderstanding of the movies then. Maybe they'll just keep infecting everyone, and then the "two month" old zombies die while the new ones continue to spread the disease, and then the news ones die, etc.
I'm agreeing with the boy theory. Especially since there's no other explanation available at the time.
That was the only other explantion i could think of. But the fact that the virus managed to eradicate the entire population of the uk (60 million) in under a month just made me doubtful. The entire of Europe, Asia and Africa could easily fall way before 28 months is up. 
Log in to comment