Not Zombies?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — 28 Days Later...
bbartolotta-92880 — 9 years ago(September 17, 2016 06:39 AM)
So according to everyone on the internet and Danny Boyle, they are infected and not zombies. So the argument is that they are not dead. And in the movie they
starve to "death" because they aren't dead
. That can't be true though, because if we're going by that logic then they would have
died off a lot sooner
. You can live a maximum of 1-2 weeks weeks without water depending on the conditions. So if the infected were alive and puking out all of that saliva, blood, etc. Then they'd have to be dead of dehydration before this movie even takes place. -
cassbtt — 9 years ago(October 30, 2016 06:39 PM)
not zombies
The filmmakers were certainly going after that audience, no matter what they're called. Personally, I find the moniker "Infecteds" pretty awkward.
As for their survival to 28 days, that may be the average (a chunky Infected may last longer, a skinny one only a week). Plus, the virus obviously screws with the system, so may shut down certain processes. Mind you, they are pretty hyper when in "hunt" mode, but they do seem to go pretty passive when there's no action going on (as in the early scene inside the church). -
lorddeano — 9 years ago(November 11, 2016 09:47 PM)
Well the original infected may have already died out. And the ones we see in the film are recently infected.
The infected guy tied up at the mansion had been infected 8 days I believe he said.
There was hardly any infected roaming around London when you think about it. Alot had probably already died out.
"What your mother and I must know, is.." -
bbartolotta-92880 — 9 years ago(November 12, 2016 06:00 PM)
It seems as though they were dormant in different areas like the church. So I think there might have been a lot in London, just not spread out everywhere. If I remember the end correctly,
They showed them dying out everywhere in the end.
So I think they had infected from the initial spread.