whats up with the ending of 28 weeks later?

They flew the helicopter to france where the virus somehow infected other people. That is what i thought happened anyways.hoola

I don't know if they went to France since the pilot was American, they probably went to an aircraft carrier off the cost. I think it was just showing the the rage virus was spreading outside of the UK.

The virus is still there and has spread to France. It's simply showing that the bombing and all the other efforts by the military failed.

I'm guessing the 3 who survived at the end are still alive since the chopper seemed to be intact. It landed just fine. Maybe the boy will help someone find a cure to the virus in the future. :P

Whats with the ending of There will be Blood, it was just like Gangs of New York, so sudden.albi321

The ending of There Will Be Blood was perfect...

the kid with the eye conditon was a carrier of the virus correct?

Im guessing due to the plane crashing, somehow the pilot got infected so the helicopter fell down while over paris, which then caused the virus to get out of the UK.

[QUOTE="hoola"]They flew the helicopter to france where the virus somehow infected other people. That is what i thought happened anyways.-Sluggo-

I don't know if they went to France since the pilot was American, they probably went to an aircraft carrier off the cost. I think it was just showing the the rage virus was spreading outside of the UK.

but it showed the helicopter on land and i think you could see the sea over the cliffs if i remember correctly

the kid with the eye conditon was a carrier of the virus correct?

Im guessing due to the plane crashing, somehow the pilot got infected so the helicopter fell down while over paris, which then caused the virus to get out of the UK.

-Phaz-

I don't think the pilot got infected, or the girl, either. Because the boy had a special case of the virus, and he could control himself and all. Unless he kissed one of them on the lips and spread it that way, like the mother spread it to the father in the beginning. >o>

whats with the ending of No Country For Old Men. :[windsofwang

That's one of the best movies ever made and Javier pulled of such a great job as Anton, he will be remebered as one of the most sinister villains in all cinema (for me at least). I'm sorry you didn't get the ending, but the ending was only about what the whole movie was. Things happen and you can't stop what is coming, summed up.

Back on topic, to my understanding they just crashed in paris... right? I havnt seen it in a long time.

The virus is still there and has spread to France. It's simply showing that the bombing and all the other efforts by the military failed.

I'm guessing the 3 who survived at the end are still alive since the chopper seemed to be intact. It landed just fine. Maybe the boy will help someone find a cure to the virus in the future. :P

sinistergoggles

No, the kid started another outbreak. Just like his mom, the virus doesn't affect him. And his dad infected him with the virus. He then became a walking reservoir for the virus.

[QUOTE="-Phaz-"]

the kid with the eye conditon was a carrier of the virus correct?

Im guessing due to the plane crashing, somehow the pilot got infected so the helicopter fell down while over paris, which then caused the virus to get out of the UK.

Aquat1cF1sh

I don't think the pilot got infected, or the girl, either. Because the boy had a special case of the virus, and he could control himself and all. Unless he kissed one of them on the lips and spread it that way, like the mother spread it to the father in the beginning. >o>

remember in 28 days when the dude got infected through blood falling on his eye from the crow?

Same thing could've happened, not that i can remember but wasnt the kid bleeding, lol maybe his blood squirted in the pilots mouth, or his sisters eye or something :S.

i thought the plane had crashed too. bottomline, theyre in paris and the virus is still there. basically, we'll see the movie 28 months later....

there will be blood's ending was awesome. his last line wsa "i'm finished", which i interpretted as he would not be getting away with the murder

no country for old men's ending basically summed up the theme of the movie- that is, no matter what good you do, you can't escape the evil of the world

gangs of new york's ending didnt seem abrupt or confusing to me. it just displayed new york's ability to overcome the problems of the late 1800's.

anybody have any awesome movies with confusing endings they want to recommend?

I thought they went away from Europe and into Scotland :?

but they did crash land and survive. From there on, we dont know what happened to them. The zombies that came out in the end were the same ones from an earlier shot. I still cant remember exactly where they headed though.

The boy was a carrier of the virus. The sister and pilot wouldnt of fully understood that, so a simple sharing of a water container could easily lead to either of them becoming infected. Helicopter crashes, infection satrts in france, easy pesy. Not too sure what there wasnt to understand about that really...

To the guy who said wed see 28 months later. Erm you what? you did what 28 days later didnt you? The infected die out within 2 months.

I thought they went away from Europe and into Scotland :?

but they did crash land and survive. From there on, we dont know what happened to them. The zombies that came out in the end were the same ones from an earlier shot. I still cant remember exactly where they headed though.

Premier1101

Okayyyyy....

Scotland is in europe...

The films take place in UK. Its an island, consisting of England, Wales and Scotland.

The boy was a carrier of the virus. The sister and pilot wouldnt of fully understood that, so a simple sharing of a water container could easily lead to either of them becoming infected. Helicopter crashes, infection satrts in france, easy pesy. Not too sure what there wasnt to understand about that really...

To the guy who said wed see 28 months later. Erm you what? you did what 28 days later didnt you? The infected die out within 2 months.

skivit

the director says they survived the crash, but then starts talking about the France shot. 28 months later is being thought up, but they arent sure if it will work out due to weeks failing.

[QUOTE="Premier1101"]

I thought they went away from Europe and into Scotland :?

but they did crash land and survive. From there on, we dont know what happened to them. The zombies that came out in the end were the same ones from an earlier shot. I still cant remember exactly where they headed though.

skivit

Okayyyyy....

Scotland is in europe...

The films take place in UK. Its an island, consisting of England, Wales and Scotland.

my bad, I meant Ireland... I thought that is where they headed, bu tI forgot... I listened to the directors commentary months ago late at night, so I remember fragments

[QUOTE="skivit"]

The boy was a carrier of the virus. The sister and pilot wouldnt of fully understood that, so a simple sharing of a water container could easily lead to either of them becoming infected. Helicopter crashes, infection satrts in france, easy pesy. Not too sure what there wasnt to understand about that really...

To the guy who said wed see 28 months later. Erm you what? you did what 28 days later didnt you? The infected die out within 2 months.

Premier1101

the director says they survived the crash, but then starts talking about the France shot. 28 months later is being thought up, but they arent sure if it will work out due to weeks failing.

I know their thinking of making a third, possibly set in russia, but it wouldnt be called 28 months later.

[QUOTE="skivit"][QUOTE="Premier1101"]

I thought they went away from Europe and into Scotland :?

but they did crash land and survive. From there on, we dont know what happened to them. The zombies that came out in the end were the same ones from an earlier shot. I still cant remember exactly where they headed though.

Premier1101

Okayyyyy....

Scotland is in europe...

The films take place in UK. Its an island, consisting of England, Wales and Scotland.

my bad, I meant Ireland... I thought that is where they headed, bu tI forgot... I listened to the directors commentary months ago late at night, so I remember fragments

Lol fair enough. When i read the words out of europe into scotland, my face just went into utter confusion :P

[QUOTE="Premier1101"][QUOTE="skivit"]

The boy was a carrier of the virus. The sister and pilot wouldnt of fully understood that, so a simple sharing of a water container could easily lead to either of them becoming infected. Helicopter crashes, infection satrts in france, easy pesy. Not too sure what there wasnt to understand about that really...

To the guy who said wed see 28 months later. Erm you what? you did what 28 days later didnt you? The infected die out within 2 months.

skivit

the director says they survived the crash, but then starts talking about the France shot. 28 months later is being thought up, but they arent sure if it will work out due to weeks failing.

I know their thinking of making a third, possibly set in russia, but it wouldnt be called 28 months later.

yeah.. but I wonder what they would call it. The director said he's all for 28 months later, but that was a WHILE ago

[QUOTE="Premier1101"][QUOTE="skivit"][QUOTE="Premier1101"]

I thought they went away from Europe and into Scotland :?

but they did crash land and survive. From there on, we dont know what happened to them. The zombies that came out in the end were the same ones from an earlier shot. I still cant remember exactly where they headed though.

skivit

Okayyyyy....

Scotland is in europe...

The films take place in UK. Its an island, consisting of England, Wales and Scotland.

my bad, I meant Ireland... I thought that is where they headed, bu tI forgot... I listened to the directors commentary months ago late at night, so I remember fragments

Lol fair enough. When i read the words out of europe into scotland, my face just went into utter confusion :P

im actually in england now. Goes to show how much I care about the other countries this one is attached to...

[QUOTE="skivit"][QUOTE="Premier1101"][QUOTE="skivit"]

The boy was a carrier of the virus. The sister and pilot wouldnt of fully understood that, so a simple sharing of a water container could easily lead to either of them becoming infected. Helicopter crashes, infection satrts in france, easy pesy. Not too sure what there wasnt to understand about that really...

To the guy who said wed see 28 months later. Erm you what? you did what 28 days later didnt you? The infected die out within 2 months.

Premier1101

the director says they survived the crash, but then starts talking about the France shot. 28 months later is being thought up, but they arent sure if it will work out due to weeks failing.

I know their thinking of making a third, possibly set in russia, but it wouldnt be called 28 months later.

yeah.. but I wonder what they would call it. The director said he's all for 28 months later, but that was a WHILE ago

[QUOTE="Premier1101"][QUOTE="skivit"][QUOTE="Premier1101"][QUOTE="skivit"]

The boy was a carrier of the virus. The sister and pilot wouldnt of fully understood that, so a simple sharing of a water container could easily lead to either of them becoming infected. Helicopter crashes, infection satrts in france, easy pesy. Not too sure what there wasnt to understand about that really...

To the guy who said wed see 28 months later. Erm you what? you did what 28 days later didnt you? The infected die out within 2 months.

skivit

the director says they survived the crash, but then starts talking about the France shot. 28 months later is being thought up, but they arent sure if it will work out due to weeks failing.

I know their thinking of making a third, possibly set in russia, but it wouldnt be called 28 months later.

yeah.. but I wonder what they would call it. The director said he's all for 28 months later, but that was a WHILE ago

I was hoping for 28 hours later than 28 weeks later...

or 28 minutes past the fall of the world to teh zombies :lol:

The boy was a carrier of the virus. The sister and pilot wouldnt of fully understood that, so a simple sharing of a water container could easily lead to either of them becoming infected. Helicopter crashes, infection satrts in france, easy pesy. Not too sure what there wasnt to understand about that really...

To the guy who said wed see 28 months later. Erm you what? you did what 28 days later didnt you? The infected die out within 2 months.

skivit

That's only if they don't have anything to eat.

Another 28 days later, someone calls for help over the radio of Flynn's helicopter, which turns out to be abandoned in a field. A group of Infected are shown running through a subway tunnel through the Palais de Chaillot toward the Eiffel Tower, revealing that the Rage virus has spread to mainland Europe.

Wikipedia is good for all.

[QUOTE="skivit"]

The boy was a carrier of the virus. The sister and pilot wouldnt of fully understood that, so a simple sharing of a water container could easily lead to either of them becoming infected. Helicopter crashes, infection satrts in france, easy pesy. Not too sure what there wasnt to understand about that really...

To the guy who said wed see 28 months later. Erm you what? you did what 28 days later didnt you? The infected die out within 2 months.

MrGeezer

That's only if they don't have anything to eat.

I distinctly recal the general in 28 Days Later keeping a zombie chained up so that he could find out how long it takes for them to starve. This would be a particularly pointless action if they in fact don't eat.
MrGeezer

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]I distinctly recal the general in 28 Days Later keeping a zombie chained up so that he could find out how long it takes for them to starve. This would be a particularly pointless action if they in fact don't eat.
skivit

No, he SAID that he was trying to find out how long it takes for them to starve. He actually SAID that.

This is also supported by the fact that they didn't kill it. Why keep it chained up when you can simply kill it? That is, unless you're trying to find out something about it. And they specifically stated that they were trying to learn how long it takes for them to starve.

[QUOTE="skivit"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]I distinctly recal the general in 28 Days Later keeping a zombie chained up so that he could find out how long it takes for them to starve. This would be a particularly pointless action if they in fact don't eat.
MrGeezer

No, he SAID that he was trying to find out how long it takes for them to starve. He actually SAID that.

This is also supported by the fact that they didn't kill it. Why keep it changed up when you can simply kill it? That is, unless you're trying to find out something about it. And they specifically stated that they were trying to learn how long it takes for them to starve.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="skivit"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]I distinctly recal the general in 28 Days Later keeping a zombie chained up so that he could find out how long it takes for them to starve. This would be a particularly pointless action if they in fact don't eat.
skivit

No, he SAID that he was trying to find out how long it takes for them to starve. He actually SAID that.

This is also supported by the fact that they didn't kill it. Why keep it changed up when you can simply kill it? That is, unless you're trying to find out something about it. And they specifically stated that they were trying to learn how long it takes for them to starve.

And like I said, that only works if they DO eat.

The one that they had chained up was one of the LAST to become infected. This happened AFTER the non-infected human population had all but been eradicated. Which means that almost every infected person in existence has been infected LONGER than the one that they had chained up.

Do you see where I'm going with this? If the infected don't eat, and they ALL ultimately starve to death, then by the time the captured zombie starves, the infected will ALREADY have pretty much completely died out.

The very nature of the experiment implies that the infected DO eat, otherwise the entire experiment is utterly pointless.

[QUOTE="skivit"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="skivit"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]I distinctly recal the general in 28 Days Later keeping a zombie chained up so that he could find out how long it takes for them to starve. This would be a particularly pointless action if they in fact don't eat.
MrGeezer

No, he SAID that he was trying to find out how long it takes for them to starve. He actually SAID that.

This is also supported by the fact that they didn't kill it. Why keep it changed up when you can simply kill it? That is, unless you're trying to find out something about it. And they specifically stated that they were trying to learn how long it takes for them to starve.

And like I said, that only works if they DO eat.

The one that they had chained up was one of the LAST to become infected. This happened AFTER the non-infected human population had all but been eradicated. Which means that almost every infected person in existence has been infected LONGER than the one that they had chained up.

Do you see where I'm going with this? If the infected don't eat, and they ALL ultimately starve to death, then by the time the captured zombie starves, the infected will ALREADY have pretty much completely died out.

The very nature of the experiment implies that the infected DO eat, otherwise the entire experiment is utterly pointless.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="skivit"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="skivit"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]I distinctly recal the general in 28 Days Later keeping a zombie chained up so that he could find out how long it takes for them to starve. This would be a particularly pointless action if they in fact don't eat.
skivit

No, he SAID that he was trying to find out how long it takes for them to starve. He actually SAID that.

This is also supported by the fact that they didn't kill it. Why keep it changed up when you can simply kill it? That is, unless you're trying to find out something about it. And they specifically stated that they were trying to learn how long it takes for them to starve.

And like I said, that only works if they DO eat.

The one that they had chained up was one of the LAST to become infected. This happened AFTER the non-infected human population had all but been eradicated. Which means that almost every infected person in existence has been infected LONGER than the one that they had chained up.

Do you see where I'm going with this? If the infected don't eat, and they ALL ultimately starve to death, then by the time the captured zombie starves, the infected will ALREADY have pretty much completely died out.

The very nature of the experiment implies that the infected DO eat, otherwise the entire experiment is utterly pointless.

That's a logical fallacy. Not once in the course of Aliens did you ever see an Alien eat someone, and not once in Tremors did you ever see a worm defecating. To cite that they never showed it as proof that the monsters don't do it simply doesn't make sense. Particularly when you consider that in 28 Days Later, you rarely ever even see the infected KILL someone, and even then it's generally a quick shot and they don't linger on the effects.

Your second point is also fallacious. They CAN'T assume that all the infected are dead once the captured zombie dies, anymore than you can assume that all unifected people starve at the same rate. That doesn't take into account metabolism or body fat content. They would STILL have to assume that there are still infected roaming around even AFTER that one guy dies.

Thirdly, as you brought up before, the infected obviously DRINK if they live long enough to starve. Particularly if, as seen in 28 Days Later, they're always vomiting blood. If they DRINK, then it stands to reason that they probably also EAT.

That's a logical fallacy. Not once in the course of Aliens did you ever see an Alien eat someone, and not once in Tremors did you ever see a worm defecating. To cite that they never showed it as proof that the monsters don't do it simply doesn't make sense. Particularly when you consider that in 28 Days Later, you rarely ever even see the infected KILL someone, and even then it's generally a quick shot and they don't linger on the effects.

Your second point is also fallacious. They CAN'T assume that all the infected are dead once the captured zombie dies, anymore than you can assume that all unifected people starve at the same rate. That doesn't take into account metabolism or body fat content. They would STILL have to assume that there are still infected roaming around even AFTER that one guy dies.

Thirdly, as you brought up before, the infected obviously DRINK if they live long enough to starve. Particularly if, as seen in 28 Days Later, they're always vomiting blood. If they DRINK, then it stands to reason that they probably also EAT.

MrGeezer

Well they dont drink, its called a mistake/goof. They often happen in movies either acidentally or on purpose. If they infected died on dehydration then the infection wouldnt of really spread as well as it did, and therefore the plot would of been pretty poor. So for the sake of the film, they had to let it go a little sci fi there.skivit

No, it's only a goof if they don't drink, which I've said you have no evidence of. You're assuming that they don't eat/drink and then citing that as a flaw with the movie when the movie actually DOES imply that they both eat and drink.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

That's a logical fallacy. Not once in the course of Aliens did you ever see an Alien eat someone, and not once in Tremors did you ever see a worm defecating. To cite that they never showed it as proof that the monsters don't do it simply doesn't make sense. Particularly when you consider that in 28 Days Later, you rarely ever even see the infected KILL someone, and even then it's generally a quick shot and they don't linger on the effects.

Your second point is also fallacious. They CAN'T assume that all the infected are dead once the captured zombie dies, anymore than you can assume that all unifected people starve at the same rate. That doesn't take into account metabolism or body fat content. They would STILL have to assume that there are still infected roaming around even AFTER that one guy dies.

Thirdly, as you brought up before, the infected obviously DRINK if they live long enough to starve. Particularly if, as seen in 28 Days Later, they're always vomiting blood. If they DRINK, then it stands to reason that they probably also EAT.

skivit

but you can't assume that the infected simply dont eat or drink. you cant assume that just because you didnt see it in the movies. the movies are based on the survivors, not what the infected are doing when theyre chillin by themselves. you cant expect an infected to eat a turkey while theyre attacking non-infected.

[QUOTE="skivit"]

Well they dont drink, its called a mistake/goof. They often happen in movies either acidentally or on purpose. If they infected died on dehydration then the infection wouldnt of really spread as well as it did, and therefore the plot would of been pretty poor. So for the sake of the film, they had to let it go a little sci fi there.MrGeezer

No, it's only a goof if they don't drink, which I've said you have no evidence of. You're assuming that they don't eat/drink and then citing that as a flaw with the movie when the movie actually DOES imply that they both eat and drink.

exactly. theres no evidence of them not eating or drinking, therefore arguments against that will not work.

K im going to sleep now, so ill just leave you with this:

Link 1

"Why 28 Days Later is not a Zombie Film:. they're not dead, they're infected by blood-borne "rage" virus; they're don't eat people - just attack and kill"

Link 2

"In "28 Days Later", we get people that have been turned into homicidal maniacs instead of flesh-eating zombies"

Link 3

"They don't eat people, but instead beat their victims to death or rip them to ..."

Link 4

"They don't eat them-- they just attack them"

Tomorrow if i have some spare time ill try and search for the interview with danny boyle where he states that they do not eat other people or each other or anything at all for that matter.