amlah6 wrote:How is someone in a Romero movie getting bit by a zombie and turning any different from 28DL consuming the blood of a zombie and turning?
28DL using a virus as a catalyst is just a modern update of the original zombie concept.
In a Romero film you become a Zombie when you die. You don't have to get bitten. Biting kills you but it's not what turns you into a Zombie.
28 Days Later is not a Zombie film because the creator says it isn't. That's the bottom line.
Zombie films are about death and how people cope with it. In 28 Days Later they're dealing with a disease. That's completely different. You can cure a disease, you can quarantine, you can take measures to prevent its spread.
You can't cure death. It doesn't matter how fast you run, it will always catch up to you eventually.
Zombies aren't monsters, OK. They're not werewolves. A Zombie film isn't about running away from baddies that are gonna get you. It's about death.
And I like 28 Days Later. It's a good film. Since it's not a Zombie film it doesn't bother me that they got Zombies wrong. I don't even mind running Zombies. They're obviously inferior and it suggests that the creators don't get what it's about but it's a minor detail, really. I'm not gonna avoid a film because it has running Zombies in it.
28 Days Later is about what people get up to when they think no-one's looking. You're missing the point, not only of Zombies but of 28 Days Later if you write it off as a take on Zombie films. It's about rage
, not death.
It's not Day of the Dead, it's Day of the Triffids.