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.