28 Days Later: Zombies or No?
 

Okay, here's something that got me thinking. A lot of people are saying that the infected in 28 Days Later are zombies, and some are saying they are not. IMO, being infected with a mind-controlling disease doesn't make one a zombie. That would make Cujo a zombie St. Bernard because he was infected with rabies!

So, let's vote. 28 Days Later ... zombies or not? And why?

Not really zombies, but given the overall feel of the movie, it has been referred to as a zombie movie. I think because "Post apocalyptic, infected mindless people dominating the planet" Movie is a bit wordy :)

If you want to nitpick, then 'no', in the world of horror technically they are not zombies because they never really died. (Although the zombies in Serpent and the Rainbow never died either and they are probably as close to real life zombies as you can get.)

I consider 28 Days Later a zombie movie, but I am not a nitpicker. If you watch it, it clearly has the feel of many classic zombie flicks. So what if they became ravenous flesh eaters in a slightly different manner? It doesn't change the feel of the movie. All it does (IMO) is add a slightly different twist to the zombie genre. I happen to like when people get creative and think of new ideas instead of copycatting what has already been done.

I totally agree. BTW, were the people in 28 Days flesh eaters? I don't recall them ever eating anyone . . .

no, all they do is puke blood and beat people

not zombies

My mistake.

They are infected, people beaters and blood pukers, but not flesh eating zombies.

I guess I need to watch that one again. It seems to be slipping my memory.

Freddy quoted me, but didn't say anything. What am I supposed to think about that?

lol

LOL Great quote.

no zombies in that film, just infected humans

first off originall zombies were people controlled by a unknown force (black magic etc...) example: white zombie

The undead were known as ghouls (died and awoke for brain) example NOTLD. Infact they never call them zombies they call them ghouls but overtime hollywood fused them together and know use the word zombie.

So technically they are zombies but not what we consider zombies today

either way the movie sucked

ya 28 days was ok but it could have been a lot better. if say ......i wrote it

Yeah this burning question has been floating around here for a while. I'll give the same answer that I did before. Zombies are dead people who walk the earth chewing on various body parts of the living. Infected people, such as the ones in 28 Days Later have never been dead.Just a little cranky. If you kill the infected person, they will stay dead,It's not pinin,' it's passed on! This infected person is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! This is a late infected person! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! Its metabolical processes are of interest only to historians! It's hopped the twig! It's shuffled off this mortal coil! It's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible! This.... is an EX-INFECTED PERSON!

Forgive me for stealing from Monty Python, but it seemed appropriate.

Re: 28 Days Later: Zombies or No?
 

NOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooT

no

Actually, I believe Boyle was reluctant to categorize 28 Days as a horror film, due to the stigma attached to the genre. I think he was trying to do more of a commentary on how unprepared we are for a possible epidemic, in response to things like the anthrax scare and SARS. But it is a horror film ... no denying that.