When sequels break the old rules: 28 Weeks Later.

Today CHUD.com is featuring a new trailer for 28 Weeks Later, the sequel to 2002’s infection/zombie/eye-bleeding scarefest 28 Days Later. The trailer, coupled with the movie’s new one-sheet (found over at the ever-delightful Obsessed with Film blog), are a nifty pair of marketing pieces for what looks like another nasty descent into the unpleasantries of those who would try to kill us for our flesh, brains and blood.

But as sequels go, this looks a lot less like a sequel than they usually do.

What intrigues me about 28 Weeks Later is the idea of creating a movie sequel that builds and expands upon the original movie’s premise, yet does not include the same characters. Evan Almighty is another example of this concept; we’ll get to see if it works or not this summer. Of course it’s possible for this kind of thing to go horribly wrong – Son of the Mask immediately springs to mind – but I don’t think that sequels necessarily have to be bound and restricted by the exact characters, situations and plots as their originals.

When a blockbuster movie is launched primarily from the charisma and exploits of an actor who becomes immediately identified with the role, a sequel that includes that character, played by the same actor, is fairly imperative. Indiana Jones, Marty McFly, John McClane, Riggs and Murtagh – these are all iconic cinema characters, played by strong actors, who demand a continuation of their stories, and they’ve found great success doing so. But in cases like 28 Days Later in which the original story isn’t tethered to any one character or performance, why shouldn’t the sequel-makers be encouraged to open up the story, expand its universe and find a different story to tell? Isn’t it a bit more fascinating and challenging to us as an audience to see a new story with certain thematic elements intact, yet with different people reacting and creating different solutions to the obstacles that the sequel stories create?

The X-Men franchise could have benefited from this; keep one or two key characters (instead of 38 of them) and spin the story in a different direction with different mutants from the canon. Mission: Impossible could have done it – with different IMF teams taking on missions all over the globe, each working as a team in various circumstances. And The Animatrix achieved this with some success as well. Its stories were tied into the main Matrix universe, and several characters crossed over, but these were well-told movie stories that were sequels of a kind, but standalone pieces as well. How cool would it have been if the actual Matrix sequels had done this and then tied everything together at the end?

Of course, most sequels simply can’t be made without the characters and situations of the originals – by and large, that’s why we crave them in the first place. But I think that movies like 28 Weeks Later have the potential to break the Hollywood Cookie Cutter mold, and filmmakers should really be encouraged to find new ways to develop their stories without the restrictions that franchise properties traditionally impose.

28 Weeks Later opens on May 11th.