What the Success of ’28 Weeks Later’ Meant for an ‘Indiewood’ Still Finding Its Footing

While media consolidation isn’t anything new — just look at literally the last week of stories in the entertainment industry — but it does tend to come in waves. Before the merger madness around Warner Bros., Paramount, and Netflix, there was Hollywood’s “Conglomerate Era,” from 1989 to 2004.

In his new book, “Power Surge: Conglomerate Hollywood and the Studio System’s Last Hurrah,” Thomas Schatz examines that precise period of time, when six global media giants took control of the American film and television industries. Schatz’s book tracks major studios like Warner Brothers and Disney and “Indiewood” power players like Miramax and Searchlight. Schatz previously wrote the hailed book “The Genius of the System: Hollywood Filmmaking in the Studio Era.” Schatz is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Radio-Television-Film at the University of Texas at Austin.

Per the book’s official synopsis, it follows a period when “all the old studios either merged with other media giants or were swallowed up by even bigger diversified behemoths, leading to an infusion of money and fast-tracking the digital revolution. Yet even as CGI and piles of cash fueled a new breed of blockbusters — ‘Batman’ and ‘Titanic,’ ‘Toy Story’ and ‘The Lord of the Rings’ — an indie ethos permeated the industry. And at the crossroads of commodification and aesthetic vision, auteurs ranging from Steven Soderbergh and Quentin Tarantino to Sofia Coppola and Ang Lee became household names.”

IndieWire shares an exclusive excerpt from Schatz’s book below, which examines the production of and influence of Danny Boyle’s “28 Days Later” on the Indiewood ecosystem. The book will be released by University of California Press Publishing on Tuesday, July 7.

Indiewood hit its stride in the early aughts, reaching critical mass with nearly a dozen conglomerate-owned indie outfits. Fox Searchlight and Focus Features dominated the sector, and their success was fueled by multiple factors. One was the rise to mini-major status of Miramax and New Line, leaving a void at the high end of the indie food chain. Another was the support of their parent conglomerates, enabling them to finance many of their releases. Both were helmed by talented executives — Peter Rice at Searchlight and the team of James Schamus and David Linde at Focus — who took charge in the early 2000s and operated comfortably within the corporate ecosystem.

Launched in 1994, Searchlight saw little success until Rice took charge in early 2000. A 33-year-old Brit and a seasoned production executive at Fox, his mandate was to double Searchlight’s output to a dozen films per year, financing up to half of them. Based on the Fox lot, Rice inherited staff of 30 and assembled his own executive team, and he immediately turned things around with 18 straight profitable releases.^[1] The biggest of these was “28 Days Later,” a British picture that scored in the UK in 2002 before becoming a much bigger hit in the US in 2003, thanks largely to Searchlight’s astute handling.

“28 Days Later” also marked a comeback for British filmmaker Danny Boyle, who got his start in British TV before directing two offbeat low-budget hits, “Shallow Grave” (1994) and “Trainspotting” (1996). Those led to more ambitious productions — notably “The Beach” (2000), Leo DiCaprio’s disappointing “Titanic” follow-up for Fox, which soured Boyle on star-driven studio pictures. Soon he was back at the BBC directing TV films and developing a partnership with British DP Anthony Dod Mantle, a master of DV (digital video).

’28 Days Later’©20thCentFox/Courtesy Everett Collection

“28 Days Later” began with Boyle’s producing partner Andrew Macdonald and writer Alex Garland (author of “The Beach”), who pitched him the idea of a post-apocalyptic zombie film that tapped into current fears of AIDS, Ebola, and other viral diseases. Boyle liked the contagion idea but pressed them to make the story more “emotionally involving.”

Garland’s eventual script focused on a bike courier, Jim, who awakens from a coma alone in the hospital, 28 days after an epidemic has struck London, leaving few human survivors and hordes of rampaging, hyper-contagious, flesh-eating zombies infected with viral “rage.” Jim wanders the city and teams up with a tough survivalist, Selena, a lethal widower Frank and his daughter Hannah. They flee London and, after Frank is infected and killed, they wind up in a makeshift military post on a country estate where, in a frightening twist, they battle a squad of deranged soldiers as well as the invading “infecteds.”^[2]

Boyle and Macdonald budgeted “28 Days Later” at $8 million, with Dod Mantle’s digital approach a crucial component. They planned to shoot on consumer camcorders (Canon XL1’s) which cost less than $2,500 and would enable Boyle to work quickly with multiple cameras. This was vital to the early scenes in London, which would have been costly and difficult on film with a full crew. Boyle also liked the XL1’s “particular way of recording fast motion,” which created a “staccato effect” that depicted the infected “in a slightly unnerving way” — and precluded the need for heavy CGI work.^[3]

In May 2001, after securing half the financing in Britain, Macdonald pitched the project to Peter Rice, who had supervised “The Beach” and quickly agreed to co-finance and distribute “28 Days Later.” The budget ruled out stars, so Boyle cast unknowns Cillian Murphy as Jim and Naomie Harris as Selena. The only name player was Brendan Gleeson as Frank, who could be shot out quickly due to his character’s untimely demise. In July, Boyle and Mantle grabbed some early morning footage in London with Cillian Murphy, when the authorities briefly held up traffic in a few choice locations. Principal photography began September 1, just days before 9/11, which added another dimension to the grim tale of human rage and civil collapse.^[4]

‘Power Surge’

Boyle and Dod Mantle took full advantage of DV, employing an improvisational, run-and-gun approach. The film unfolded through distinct movements: a nightmare prologue in a pitch-black animal lab that starts the epidemic; the harsh realism of the London sequences, filtered to create a yellowish tinge; the lush green midsection as the impromptu family flees to the countryside; and what Boyle termed the “Gothic” final movement in the trashed, cavernous mansion. In the film’s ferocious climax, Jim is shot but escapes with Selena and Hannah, and the story closes (28 days later) back in the countryside as a jet flies over and augurs their rescue. After heated debate about the upbeat epilogue, Boyle shot two other endings — one in which Jim dies and another in which his fate is left uncertain.^[5]

“28 Days Later” was ready by summer 2002, but its U.S. release was delayed because of 9/11. Fox distributed it in Europe that fall, and Searchlight gave it a Sundance debut in January 2003, with a wide release slated for June. “28 Days Later” was shrugged off by the critics in Britain but scored with moviegoers, becoming an instant cult classic — bolstered by the DVD rollout in England, prior to its the U.S. release, which included the alternate endings.^[6]

Opening stateside that summer, “28 Days Later” grossed over $30 million in four weeks. The critics lauded Boyles’ ingenious genre piece — a timely social critique that revived the zombie film — although some found the ending too optimistic. Roger Ebert, for instance, confessed that after jet flyover, “I wish it had appeared, circled back — and opened fire.”^[7] By then the alternate endings were a hot topic, and Rice pulled an outrageous stunt. In late July, 28 days after the U.S. opening, Searchlight appended the alternate ending featuring Jim’s death (following the intertitle, “What if…”) to the 1,400 prints still in circulation. The box-office jumped to $45 million, making it the year’s top indie release.^[8]
 
[1] Dave McNary, “Searchlight: low, steady beam.” Variety (July 1-14, 2002).
[2] “The Premise.” 28 Days Later Production Notes, Fox Searchlight. Boyle quoted in John Horn, “Highbrow horror show.” LAT (June 25, 2003).
[3] Douglas Banskton, “All the Rage.” American Cinematographer (July 2003).
[4] Tim Swanson, “Searchlight beams over pair of pics.” Variety (June 15, 2002).
[5] A.O. Scott, “‘28 Days’ hedges its ending.” NYT (July 21, 2003).
[6] Don Groves, “Boyle zombie pic opens ok in UK.” Variety (November 11-17, 2002). “Intl. box office.” Variety (December 9-15, 2002).
[7] Roger Ebert review, Chicago Sun-Times (June 27, 2003)
[8] John Horn, “DVD-like ending to ‘28 Days’ in theaters.” LAT (July 16, 2003). A.O. Scott, “‘28 Days’ … (op. cit.).

Excerpted from “Power Surge: Conglomerate Hollywood and the Studio System’s Last Hurrah” by Thomas Schatz, courtesy of the University of California Press. Copyright © 2026.