28 Days Later

[Maitreya]

Although I did like the movie, would you really consider the infected Zombies?

I mean, sure they had zombie-like traits, but they really weren't dead if you think about it, they could be killed like any normal human. They also starved to death.

I mean, they became infected like, 10-15 seconds after they were bitten or something like that? No reanimation there.

Let me know what you think.

[panic]

Yup Maitreya, most here would agree that the infected from 28DL weren't zombies in the traditional sense. I think a lot of folks still enjoyed the movie -- although some begrudge it as the stylistic forerunner of the Dawn remake.

For all the reasons you mentioned, the infected probably don't qualify as true zombies.

[Craig]

But they sure made for a great zombie-esque film.

[Griff]

Yeah, its still our loved ones coming to attack us, without remorse, memory or soul - and the catalyst for society's destruction (even if, at the end, a resolution is in sight). Very zombie-esque indeed.

[Rottedfreak]

Does anyone consider Romero's living dead as zombies? a zombie isn't a walking corpse it's a man brought back from the brink of death (and put there from drugs) and used as a slave.
Romero's living dead are corpses risen from the grave but they are dead, they don't rot and they remember things and build on that with problem solving, they also eat flesh, somehting zombies don't do.

[Griff]

a zombie isn't a walking corpse it's a man brought back from the brink of death (and put there from drugs) and used as a slave.

Aye, that might be technically accurate but they were believed to be dead. Like it or not, the term 'zombie' has been somewhat redifined by western popular culture.

Romero undoubtably agrees with you (the Z word is used only twice in the whole series) but I think that, for brevity's sake, 'zombie' is appropriate, if not 100% applicable.

[p2501]

Main Entry: zom·bie
Variant(s): also zom·bi /'zäm-bE/
Function: noun
Etymology: Louisiana Creole or Haitian Creole zõbi, of Bantu origin; akin to Kimbundu nzúmbe ghost
1 usually zombi a : the supernatural power that according to voodoo belief may enter into and reanimate a dead body b : a will-less and speechless human in the West Indies capable only of automatic movement who is held to have died and been supernaturally reanimated

2 a : a person held to resemble the so-called walking dead; especially : AUTOMATON b : a person markedly strange in appearance or behavior

3 : a mixed drink made of several kinds of rum, liqueur, and fruit juice
- zom·bie·like /-bE-"lIk/ adjective

In a classic sense they are in fact zombies.

[Philly_SWAT]

In 28 Days Later, the infected are very "zombie-esque", but definately not zombies. If you want to know who is a zombie, try Jason starting from Friday the 13th Part VI and on.

[Adrenochrome]

they don't rot...
Are you sure you're watching the right flicks?:D

[DjfunkmasterG]

Are you sure you're watching the right flicks?:D


I was about to comment on the same thing. :D

[Tullaryx]

28 Days Later may only have a passing resemblance to the zombie films of Romero, but it does carry the themes from those earlier films. If Boyle's film has any resemblance to an earlier horror film it has to be Romero's very own Crazies.

[Deadman_Deluxe]

Does anyone consider Romero's living dead as zombies? a zombie isn't a walking corpse it's a man brought back from the brink of death (and put there from drugs) and used as a slave.
Romero's living dead are corpses risen from the grave but they are dead, they don't rot and they remember things and build on that with problem solving, they also eat flesh, somehting zombies don't do.


You need to realise the difference between the traditional haitian folklore zombie, and GARs zombie flesheaters ... things should seem a whole lot clearer once you get to grips with that.

Seeing as how this is a GAR tribute site, when most people talk about the zombie here, they are actually refering to GARs zombie flesheater.



And for what it's worth, i personally consider 28 DAYS LATER to belong in the horror/post apocalypse sub genre, rather than in the horror/zombie movie sub genre.

[Andy]

ive added a poll for you becuase i think this is a interesting one.

and no, the infected are not zombies :p

important difference, their alive! :confused:

[MinionZombie]

Thematically and stylistically, 28 Days Later was a zombie movie ... in actuality though, the "infected" were just that - "the infected". Alive and 'well' human beings infected with a virus *think rabies* and had never died in the process. They also died out relatively quick from starvation (in a fairly realistic timeframe). In conclusion - 28 Days Later DOES NOT have zombies in it. :cool:

[creepntom]

no........

[Deadman_Deluxe]

Who is the clownshoe who voted yes? I want his head on a stick ... twice!

[coma]

Thematically and stylistically, 28 Days Later was a zombie movie ... in actuality though, the "infected" were just that - "the infected". Alive and 'well' human beings infected with a virus *think rabies* and had never died in the process. They also died out relatively quick from starvation (in a fairly realistic timeframe). In conclusion - 28 Days Later DOES NOT have zombies in it. :cool:

I agree completely, But when I think Of My Fav Zombie Movies, 28 Days Later (After GAr of course) is right at the top of the list (even though it isn't. Oh the paradox)!
I think it is more like a Zombie Movies than not like one. Other than Rage and starvation. It;s a zombie movie. If they ate people and were dead, it would fall smack in the genre perfectly. And it;s damn good. So remove House of the dead and repkace with 28 days later.

If I sorted My DVDs by Gener. It wouldn't be with outbreak. it would be next to the GAR section

[Danny]

Does anyone consider Romero's living dead as zombies? a zombie isn't a walking corpse it's a man brought back from the brink of death (and put there from drugs) and used as a slave.
Romero's living dead are corpses risen from the grave but they are dead, they don't rot and they remember things and build on that with problem solving, they also eat flesh, somehting zombies don't do.

exactly, i say they were zombies becuase its only cus of resident evil and day of the dead that all this "its a virus if you get bit you turn" bollox arose, they are under the influence and control against there will of a foreign substance in there body and they cant control what there doing, the virus is, hence .zombies.:)

plus romeros creatures werent called zombies at first remeber they were ghouls, creatures which feast on human flesh, though usually from graveyards (giles aint got nothing on me :D) but its only been accepted that they were zombie over the decades because, didnt one review call them zombies or something and it just stuck, i call em zombies but think ghouls in my head, you want a real zombie film watch the serpent and the rainbow, oh and i voted yes too.

[MinionZombie]

You've got three clownshoes to poke on a stick now...

...seriously people, they're NOT zombies. Even the filmmakers themselves, including the bugger who WROTE the movie, say they are NOT zombies.

Wake up people ... before it's too late ... heads on a pole and all that, he's coming for you people, Deadman is coming for you!!! :eek:

[Andy]

exactly, i say they were zombies becuase its only cus of resident evil and day of the dead that all this "its a virus if you get bit you turn" bollox arose, they are under the influence and control against there will of a foreign substance in there body and they cant control what there doing, the virus is, hence .zombies.:)

plus romeros creatures werent called zombies at first remeber they were ghouls, creatures which feast on human flesh, though usually from graveyards (giles aint got nothing on me :D) but its only been accepted that they were zombie over the decades because, didnt one review call them zombies or something and it just stuck, i call em zombies but think ghouls in my head, you want a real zombie film watch the serpent and the rainbow, oh and i voted yes too.

actually their referred to as zombies in the original dawn. :p

the true defination of zombie, is a re-animated corpse. for whatever reason, virus or not..

28 days later are NOT zombies becuase they are NOT dead, they are alive and suffering from a virus which has altered their behaviour. eventually they starve to death.

they are not zombies :|

[EvilNed]

Thematically and stylistically, 28 Days Later was a zombie movie ... in actuality though, the "infected" were just that - "the infected". Alive and 'well' human beings infected with a virus *think rabies* and had never died in the process. They also died out relatively quick from starvation (in a fairly realistic timeframe). In conclusion - 28 Days Later DOES NOT have zombies in it. :cool:

I agree with that.

The infected were not zombies, yet 28 Days Later falls under the "Zombie movie category".

[Graebel]

the true defination of zombie, is a re-animated corpse. for whatever reason, virus or not..



Isn't that a new definition? After reading the Serpent and the Rainbow about Haitian zombies, they were only "considered" dead by their families. The people were still alive, including a few who tried to return to their villages. The process of zombification was a ritual death rather than a literal one

I guess it depends on how narrowly you define it. :)

[Andy]

when i say death i mean clinical death. no pulse, no heartbeat and not breathing.

[MinionZombie]

Exactly, what "the infected" in 28DL have is like people catching rabies - they're not dead, but they're infected with a disease that changes them. Zombies are DEAD PEOPLE WHO HAVE RETURNED TO LIFE. Not one of "the infected" in 28DL ever died prior to being bitten or getting blood in their eye or whatever. Also, you didn't have bodies rising from cemetery graves, and yet another thing - Jim's dead parents, they topped themselves with a bottle of pills, and they didn't come back to life - ergo, 28DL is NOT a f*ckin' zombie movie!!!

It just looks like a zombie movie. Just like Cliff Richard, he might look like a pop star, but he's actually just an old man with a bus pass who doesn't know when to quit...:D

[AcesandEights]

Thematically and stylistically, 28 Days Later was a zombie movie ... in actuality though, the "infected" were just that - "the infected". Alive and 'well' human beings infected with a virus *think rabies* and had never died in the process. They also died out relatively quick from starvation (in a fairly realistic timeframe). In conclusion - 28 Days Later DOES NOT have zombies in it. :cool:

Couldn't have said it better myself (without expending needless amounts of mental energy). I agree that the movie parallels the genre in many respects, and for this purpose (and the fact that I'm not a total tit) I do not jump down people's throats for daring to bring up 28 Days Later during *most* conversations regarding zombie movies, but, NO, the infected are not zombies in the manner, in which most people in this community would classify zombies.

[erisi236]

points to "The Omega Man" and "The Last Man on Earth" and thinks of "28 Days Later" :)

just because it's an apocaylptic world and the villians want your blood dosen't make it a zombie movie :)

[coma]

It IS a Zombie Movie!
How can you be so bliiiiind?!?!?
You stupid men with your stupid minds!
You're all Stupid
STUPID!

[raym]

Until the day I see an "infected" from 28 Days Later with its head cut off and then the head comes alive and tries to walk around with its tongue, they are not Zombies.

[Griff]

How many more geniuses are gonna come on here and argue that the infected in 28 DAYS LATER are not zombies... when no one here has even seriously said that they are? Everyone knows that, technically, they're not zombies. You don't have to point out the obvious.

Therefore, its not a question of content here but one of form. 28 DAYS LATER adhere's to conventions of what has become the zombie sub-genre - in particular, those films written and directed by George A. Romero. It plays like a f*cking zombie movie people and, quite obviously, deliberately so.

Otherwise we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

[Kaos]

Until the day I see an "infected" from 28 Days Later with its head cut off and then the head comes alive and tries to walk around with its tongue, they are not Zombies.

I kind of would like to see that actually. :skull:

[Maitreya]

How many more geniuses are gonna come on here and argue that the infected in 28 DAYS LATER are not zombies... when no one here has even seriously said that they are? Everyone knows that, technically, they're not zombies. You don't have to point out the obvious.

Therefore, its not a question of content here but one of form. 28 DAYS LATER adhere's to conventions of what has become the zombie sub-genre - in particular, those films written and directed by George A. Romero. It plays like a f*cking zombie movie people and, quite obviously, deliberately so.

Otherwise we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

I disagree! Apparently 5 people at least feel this way, and I've seen a few people on this board, and other thinking that they are.

Those people will also be caught, arrested, and punished to the full extent of the law at some point.

[EvilNed]

It IS a Zombie Movie!
How can you be so bliiiiind?!?!?
You stupid men with your stupid minds!
You're all Stupid
STUPID!

Haha :D Nice quote.

[MinionZombie]

Actually I've seen many, many people thinking/considering 28DL is a zombie movie, not just on HPOTD. It's an issue that's sprung up now and then ever since the film was released and folk here on the forum started chatting about it.

[Deadman_Deluxe]

It is to be expected that those who have "minds like jelly" will be confused over such a simple conundrum ...

And while this may well be a paradoxical or insoluble dilema for certain members, the majority of us should just stand back and laugh :skull:

[kortick]

the movie says it all

the leader has the infected guy on a chain
to see how long it takes him to
starve to death

typically you dont try to kill a zombie
by starving it to death....

[MinionZombie]

Zactly, and 56 days after the outbreak the remaining infected are lying around like bags of skin and bone keeling over from starvation, having not rotted at any point in their infected life (which was just their normal life plus a nice big kiss of infection).

[Deadman_Deluxe]

Zactly again, plus they don't even eat flesh .... and the infected themselves have more in common with DEMONS, another movie which can be dumped into the horror/post apocalypse sub genre.

[Griff]

I think someone could regard 28 DAYS LATER as being a zombie movie whilst simultaneously acknowledging its not a movie about zombies, per se.

Anyone here ever heard of 'lateral thinking'?

[kortick]

the only flaw with 28 days
is the rage virus itself

it makes sense that the zombies in romeros films
dont attack each other

but those infected by rage should attack
anyone, even other infected people


maybe it should be called
'selective rage'

[kar98k]

zombie

n 1: a dead body that has been brought back to life by a supernatural force [syn: zombi, the living dead]

this is the dictionary.com definition of a zombie. we all know that also that you have to destroy the brain to permenantly dispose of a zombie. in 28 days later, you kill an infected the same way you would kill a regular human. the infected are just that: infected. they are still alive, just they have been infected with the rage virus. one must be a reanimated corpse in order to be a zombie.

[OddDNA]

If it is discovered in an upcoming GAR film that the undead are brought back to life by a virus or radiation from the venus probe we will all have to come to terms with the fact that all this time GAR has not even been making zombie movies and James Gunn may be known as the father of the zombie genre.<---laughing smiley face goes here at the end, I just dont know how to do all that stuff.

[zombiegirl]

HMMMM This brings back memeroies of a debate I had with friends about Night Of the Comet. Definately not zombies there either. ;)