28 Days Later: Zombies or No?

[ShankS]

no zombies in that film, just infected humans

[KRUGERKID13]

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

[wufongtan]

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

[newb]

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.

[jay o2 waster]

Originally posted by Stingy Jack
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?

NOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooT

[wufongtan]

no

[MrShape]

Depends on how you're defining zombies. The only real difference between the ones in 28 Days Later and George Romero's or Dan O'Bannon's zombies are that the 28's never actually die. But 28 is still a zombie film any way you slice it. Boyle's insistance that "they're not zombies" sounds suspiciously like "it's not a horror film".

[Stingy Jack]

Originally posted by MrShape
Depends on how you're defining zombies. The only real difference between the ones in 28 Days Later and George Romero's or Dan O'Bannon's zombies are that the 28's never actually die. But 28 is still a zombie film any way you slice it. Boyle's insistance that "they're not zombies" sounds suspiciously like "it's not a horror film".

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.