28 Days Later made $10 million in its opening weekend. 28 Weeks Later made... $9.8 million. I'm sure they hoped it would do better, but that's not exactly a shocking decline, especially when there were 4 years between the two movies.
But shouldn't sequels open better than the first one? Because there's a built-in audience, presumably? Note that I have no idea what actually happens in general.
Arguably the built-in audience was decimated by the fact that the only the producer and editor remained between the two movies. Sequels generally make more than the original, though.
Arguably the built-in audience was decimated by the fact that the only the producer and editor remained between the two movies. Sequels generally make more than the original, though.
I thought Danny Boyle was involved from a production/story end, albeit obviously not to the extent he was with the first.
A studio can generally count on a sequel making at least half of what the previous film made. Sequels which surpass previous films are not all that common.
Danny Boyle did some second unit directing on 28 Weeks.
Who really knew that in the general public, though? Joe Public looks at the credits and doesn't see Danny Boyle in the writer or director slot and thinks it's a crappy knock-off sequel.
Yes that's exactly what I thought at first.
Joe Public looks at the credits and doesn't see Danny Boyle in the writer or director slot and thinks it's a crappy knock-off sequel.
Betchya Joe Public doesn't look at the credits, or if he does, it's not for the director.
let's say Joe Geek then. Joe Public probably doesn't know who Danny Boyle is.
I don't think that there's a significant enough window of people who care that it's not Danny Boyle, but who don't find out he has some involvement. Not to skew numbers too much.