Dear Growling, Running, Twitching Zombie...

[Andy]

No but it proves that enough people consider it to be a "dead" movie (i.e. Zombie movie). What makes a zombie? Well, mindless action, for one thing. Of which 28 Days Later has abundance. I doubt any of you would disagree. What makes a zombie, um... something thats dead? or eats flesh? and dosnt starve?.. i added a poll anyway so we will see who's right.

[clanglee]

Riddle me this. Why do the rage infested people not attack each other? If they are simply filled with rage then they would just go around and attack anything and everything. . . . not just normal humans. Once again. With me anyways, the key factor in a zombie movie is the mindless teeming masses wanting to get you and make you just like them. If we throw 28 days/weeks out of the zombie movie category we will need to do so with many other movies as well. Lifeforce, Nightmare City, Demons I and II, Last Man on Earth, etc etc. These movies all have the "zombie" theme. There are also a lot of movies that I never considered zombie movies that I guess we would need to add. Mainly any movie where one corpse rises from the grave for whatever reason. I never considered movies with a singular "zombie" to be zombie movies per se. I think that this whole argument is so opinion based that it doesn't really matter. I define a zombie movie on it's theme mostly, mechanics slightly. It seems that many of you define a zombie movie on mechanics first. But even then, the lines blur on what is considered a zombie. so there are probably many many viewpoints out there. Hmmm. . .really really interesting how we can all be here because of the love for a particular type of movie. . and then disagree wholly on what exactly defines the movie genre that we all love. At least we can all agree on Romero Zed movies. . . . .I hope

[EvilNed]

What makes a zombie, um... something thats dead? or eats flesh? and dosnt starve?.. i added a poll anyway so we will see who's right. Touchy subject I see. If you need a vote to be truly settled, but the answer is already obvious... And you know it. As Clanglee pointed out, if 28 Days Later is not a zombiefilm, why is it so discussed? Anyway, mindless zombies they be. Accept it or not. This is just crazy and childish. The evidence is right infront of you. There is nothing in the film that can exclude it from being part of the Zombie-genre, as it not only "loans" a few conventions from that genre... But pretty much embodies them all. If you cannot see this, I dare say, that YOU, Andy, have either not SEEN the film, or know nothing about zombiefilms. (Btw, I don't believe either of this is the case, but this is just very silly behavior). And I agree with clanglee. "Zombiefilms" per say are something more than "a dead person walks", as that would put any number of films in this category. Heck, the Sixth Sense would be "more of" a zombiefilm than 28 Days Later! Which is just crazy. The Mummy. The Mummy Returns. X-Men 3 is a zombieflick by your definition, Andy!

[Neil]

Oh God what an impossible question! It depends how you take the 'zombie' definition. By the true definition of course it is not as they are not dead, and blowing a massive hole in their ribs will kill them - unlike a Romero zombie. But the nature of the chaos that ensues is zombie'esque. So I'm not voting... It's an impossible choice... *places butt on fence* PS: The longer standing meaning of a zombie of course is not necessarily someone who is dead!

[MinionZombie]

PS: The longer standing meaning of a zombie of course is not necessarily someone who is dead! If you mean voodoo/haitian zombies - then they have the appearance of being dead, in that those who see them believe they are dead, because they have 'seen them die', so when they see them up and walking around again in a zoned-out state, they believe they're dead. The key aspect being dead. 28D/WL features no dead people at all, and certainly not in a voodoo sense.

[krakenslayer]

My opinion - they're not zombies, but it is a zombie movie.

[SRP76]

There's nothing zombie about it. It's an "angry mob" movie. Your average lynchmob is closer to the 28 people than any living dead.

[AcesandEights]

Oh God what an impossible question! It depends how you take the 'zombie' definition. By the true definition of course it is not as they are not dead, and blowing a massive hole in their ribs will kill them - unlike a Romero zombie. But the nature of the chaos that ensues is zombie'esque. So I'm not voting... It's an impossible choice... *places butt on fence* PS: The longer standing meaning of a zombie of course is not necessarily someone who is dead! A well balanced opinion.

[JSPoole]

If you mean voodoo/haitian zombies - then they have the appearance of being dead, in that those who see them believe they are dead, because they have 'seen them die', so when they see them up and walking around again in a zoned-out state, they believe they're dead. The key aspect being dead. 28D/WL features no dead people at all, and certainly not in a voodoo sense. New guy here, thought this would be a good thread for my first post. First off, to adress this point...just because some believe voodoo zombies to be dead, doesn't mean they are dead. So the idea that a zombie HAS to be dead, is kind of silly, considering none of the original zombies from voodoo were actually dead (and that's the big catch here...believing someone dead is not the same as them being dead). At the basic core, the voodoo zombie is someone with no will of their own, and that can be applied to the 28 days later zombies (OH NO HE DIDN'T ) as they are slaves to the rage virus and have no control or self awareness. Second, I find this hate for the running zombie to be, quite frankly, close minded and rather stupid. Maybe it's just me and enjoying this pesky ''diversity'' buisness, but I love zombies. Slow, fast, whatever you prefer, I think anyone who truly love zombies wouldn't discriminate. There is no ''right'' way of doing zombies. I mean, if the dead ever do come back to life and they do act slow and plodding, THEN you can complain about ''realisim'' and how ''zombies can't run''. Till then? I'm afraid any of those statements are , to be blunt, nonsense. I personally find running zombies scarier. Why? They are like classic zombies but this time they can actually catch you. I could outrun the slow zombies with broken legs. I appriciate why slow zombies are scary, though, and find them rather frightening, and the idea that you or your loved ones could be turned into slow, stalking machines with no pity or remorse or fear. I find both scary, and I like both. And I believe this, and having a diverse range of zombies and zombie movies, is a good thing for those of us that don't like things to stagnate and repeat endlessly with no new ideas thrown in. That's my two cents anyway, and I do respect other's opinions, but there you have it.

[Mike70]

Second, I find this hate for the running zombie to be, quite frankly, close minded and rather stupid. Maybe it's just me and enjoying this pesky ''diversity'' buisness, but I love zombies. Slow, fast, whatever you prefer, I think anyone who truly love zombies wouldn't discriminate. first off - welcome to HPOTD. secondly, i'd stand to and prepare to repel boarders because running zombies have some serious haters here. i don't really care for running zombies but yet if a film is good, then i can overlook that. 28 days later was a good film (to me at least). the dawn remake was a shit movie. the fact that it was a shit movie has nothing to do with the zombies running. they could've been crawling, burrowing underground or flying through the air as a trapeze act and it would've still sucked goat testicles. yawn04 is garbage because it is vacuous, trivial, and utterly lacking in any sort of meaning. it is the diet coke of zombie films. anyhoo, i think my main beef with running zombies is that movies with them tend to devolve into cinematic track meets. the movie becomes nothing more than people running from one place to another.

[JSPoole]

first off - welcome to HPOTD. secondly, i'd stand to and prepare to repel boarders because running zombies have some serious haters here. i don't really care for running zombies but yet if a film is good, then i can overlook that. 28 days later was a good film (to me at least). the dawn remake was a shit movie. the fact that it was a shit movie has nothing to do with the zombies running. they could've been crawling, burrowing underground or flying through the air as a trapeze act and it would've still sucked goat testicles. yawn04 is garbage because it is vacuous, trivial, and utterly lacking in any sort of meaning. it is the diet coke of zombie films. anyhoo, i think my main beef with running zombies is that movies with them tend to devolve into cinematic track meets. the movie becomes nothing more than people running from one place to another. I loved the Dawn remake, as I do the original. I make no apologies for it. I can see that running zombies have serious haters here, but you know what? That's fine If people hate them, that's their view and they are entitled to it. I will forever say that it is a silly stance to take, and that zombie lovers should actually try to appriciate different aspects and takes, but I also understand some people are too set in their ways to ever appriciate different takes on stuff they consider standard. I will keep my opinion regardless, and I will continue to enjoy zombie movies with every type, instead of limiting myself and my enjoyment to only one type of zombie and one type only. Thank you for the welcome by the way

[Mike70]

Thank you for the welcome by the way you're welcome. that zombies on a trapeze line i used in my above post has me thinking. i should really approach uwe boll with that idea. i bet i'd get a development deal out of him because that sounds like it is right up his alley.

[SRP76]

I find this hate for the running zombie to be, quite frankly, close minded and rather stupid. Maybe it's just me and enjoying this pesky ''diversity'' buisness, but I love zombies. Slow, fast, whatever you prefer, I think anyone who truly love zombies wouldn't discriminate. There's always a preference. You may like pizza in general, but always go for the pepperoni before the spinach topping. Same thing with zombies. Many people will watch runners, but would prefer the shamblers.

[Neil]

If you mean voodoo/haitian zombies - then they have the appearance of being dead, in that those who see them believe they are dead, because they have 'seen them die', so when they see them up and walking around again in a zoned-out state, they believe they're dead. The key aspect being dead. 28D/WL features no dead people at all, and certainly not in a voodoo sense. someone who moves around as if they are unconscious and being controlled by someone else. It's all open to debate and interpretation, hence my buttox remain on these fence posts! *ouch! one's diggin in*

[krakenslayer]

The infected are not zombies. They do not look like zombies, they do not act like zombies, they are not technically zombies (by most people's definition). However, forget about the specifics of the "monster" for a moment - think about the empty streets, the few survivors holing up in buildings against a manifold once-human menace, the threat of becoming one of the enemy (the fear of losing your intelligence, self-will and identity, a very important trait of zombie movies), the mindless determination of the ever-present threat. To me, the movie ticks enough of the boxes to be considered a zombie movie. Yes, the term is not 100% accurate, but it manages to describe in two words enough of the style, plot, structure and atmosphere of the movie to be a perfectly workable paraphrasing of the film's genre. I think I Am Legend and Demons are two other examples of movies that fall very loosely under the zombie movie header (bearing in mind that the Will Smith movie never directly identifies the enemy as "vampires").