Is it bad that one of my favorite zombie movies isn't technically a zombie movie? 28 days later is when you get down to it a zombie movie except it's not because they are referred to a 'infected'. I know George Romero is the king of zombie movies but as a stand alone movie I love 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks later. Thoughts?
Infected??
- Thread starter Attack
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I enjoyed 28 Days Later, but not 28 weeks later. The only good scene from that movie was the incredibly intense intro, but John Murphy tends to do that to people. I have never really been a fan of Zombie flicks, but along with the original Dawn of the Dead, 28 Days Later was one of my favorite "zombie" movies as well, mainly due to the reasons A-D mentions below.
Zombies are infected. Its a question of what infects them. The infected in 28 Days later, i dont count the sequel since it was rubbish, arent undead though. They havent died and been reanimated. They simply are infected of a different kind. Hence difference in behaviour and ability. For one, they can hear, smell and see you. They also arent stronger than you due to still feeling pain unlike "proper Zombies."
So no, its not bad. Its just a different kind of Infected, which is both more human, yet still frightening. Though the underlying psychological angle of 28 Days later is what is more creepy. Because as shown at the end, uninfected humans are just as evil and "mindless" as the infected are.
So no, its not bad. Its just a different kind of Infected, which is both more human, yet still frightening. Though the underlying psychological angle of 28 Days later is what is more creepy. Because as shown at the end, uninfected humans are just as evil and "mindless" as the infected are.
Really? I thought Zombies were just dead people that came back to life but at a horrible price.A-D. said:
Eh yep. The classic Zombies are infected by some Virus or Bacteria which takes over the host and kills them ultimately, but that doesnt stop the virus from actually still being alive, hence the body is dead, the virus is just animating it. Basicly like a Puppet of sorts.Serving UpSmiles said:
The 28 Days later kind of "Zombies" were infected too but with a virus or something that induced uncontrolable rage in the infected. Basicly it didnt kill them, or take them over or anything like the traditional zombies. Hence they can starve for example, they will eventually stop following you as well because they grow tired etc.
I suppose they're bit like vampires, in that it depends entirely on the story. Sometimes vampires are demon possessed dead people (traditional folklore), sometimes they're pretty people who are "infected" with vampirism.Serving UpSmiles said:
OT: Yeah, I like 28 Days Later, but I haven't seen the sequel. I don't know what else to say.
The zombies in Romero films weren't infected with anything the dead were judt coming back to life for some unknown reason. But it is all down to personal preference and I see no problem with it. I like Infected living zombies and dead slow zombies but not really fast dead zombies.
is it bad?...seriously who cares? its agood movie I hate to use the phrase but only idiots with no life would get their underwear in a twist over weather or not a movie used "real" zombiesAttack said:
well Im not a fan of the seaquel it felt to "americanised" the first one had a unique britsh feel and optimism
i hate this distinguishing between infected and zombie or fast and slow zombies.
there all the same thing. there infected and cant die or there zombies and they cant die.
the have different sources but same outcome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution
lol i got all confused thinking my post was deleted but the OP was double post
there all the same thing. there infected and cant die or there zombies and they cant die.
the have different sources but same outcome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution
lol i got all confused thinking my post was deleted but the OP was double post