- cross-posted to:
- movies@lemmy.world
- movies@lemm.ee
- cross-posted to:
- movies@lemmy.world
- movies@lemm.ee
You must log in or register to comment.
That’s one way to guarantee I don’t watch your movie
Crap. If I hope this doesn’t mean motion sickness inducing shaky cam filming
That was exactly my first thought too
I’m glad they mentioned the release dates in the article because for a second there I was about to look up when “28 Weeks Later” came out to see if this mad lad waited 28 years to make the next movie. It came out in 2007 so it’s been 17 years. For some reason I felt like it was so much older than I remember, but it would have come out when I was a toddler if they did release it 28 years ago.
… Anyway. I’m stoked to see the movie.
The first in the series, 28 Days Later, came out in 2002 actually
True. I was comparing it to the second for some reason. But still, only 22 years and I’m just dumb. :)
Is this a big deal? Tons of movies have been shot with consumer camcorders which are probably worse than a modern phone camera.
Couldn’t even use a 16 Pro?
/s
Dude, read the article. Iphone 16 wasn’t even released 28 years ago, let alone the pro.
wooosh
??? reread it
Edit: I feel like this has a hostile tone when it was not meant to. If it helps, read it as “??? reread it :)”
Boyle is probably the biggest name to hop on the digital hype train early on, so this isn’t super shocking.
Those early digital years were brutal. 28 Days Later looks worse with every passing year, probably never fixable (the cam’s resolution and quality was just too low).
Edit: Wow, it was shot in SD 480 for some reason (I thought the cam was capable of HD 720). Fantastic article, full of tech details.
