In the film 28 Days later, the infected want to kill. From what I understand, their instinct is just to simply kill - they do not distinguish between uninfected and others who are infected. So my question is, why don’t the infected kill each other? With reference to the tunnel scene where the rats flee from the infected, the diseased run towards the healthy main characters, and not towards each other… am i missing an element here?
I had the same problem with the film
That, and what makes them stop once they’ve bitten and infected a healthy person? Why don’t they kill him?
I had the same problem with the film.
The answer being “because if they attacked each other, or actually killed some folks, the opening scenes of the movie wouldn’t have been anywhere near as creepy.”
One is very much inclined to wonder how the hell you have some of the pandemonium in London – a VERY large city – that is described by some of the characters… without generating so much as a single corpse for our protagonist to trip over during the initial ten minutes of the movie.
I still liked the movie, though.
Yup, bothered by same here. Was kinda murky in that regard.
My take on this issue was that the virus was a man-made or genetically alterted pathogen that was ‘defective’ as it didn’t go through a proper QA cycle (as it was released into the general population after a lab break-in).
The singular purpose of the virus was to propogate itself, and the best ways were for the infected to bite, scratch, or vomit blood on the uninfected. While the virus seemed to be very efficient at doing this, as it reduces infected individuals into mindless vectors, it does it to a fault, as the newly infected are no longer attacked and other body functions (e.g., eating) are ceased, and the infected gradually starve to death, burning out reservoirs of the virus. Thus, the only way the virus to survive is to continuously find new hosts and spread faster than the rate at which the infected die off.
This is the same argument that comes about with every single zombie film. “Why don’t the zombies attack other zombies?” The basic answer is, whatever it is that infected the person, causes them to mutate into a different species (typically, zombies decompose slower than normal humans and don’t need internal organs to live as an example; the “zombies” in 28 Days Later are a bit different in that they’re technically still alive, but their bodies have gone through some sort of mutation. What exactly it was is never really discussed, but the eyes and the fact it takes them about 30 days or so to starve to death without really worrying about thirst is another example).
At this point, the zombies are able to recognize others of their “species”, and thus, don’t attack one another. I found it interesting that it seemed that the rage virus seemed to have some sort of self-propagating sense to it. Infected didn’t always just kill, they also had an inclination to spread the disease. When outnumbered, they tended to infect the nearest person to them as a means of “reproducing” if you will You see this once in the very beginning, when the girl spits in the guy’s face, but more to the point at the end when the black guy comes in threw the window, and the first thing he does is vomit all over the other guy, and then leave him to be taken over by the virus as he chases down the others.
So there you have it. Zombies/infected are able to recognize the infection in others, and because the virus inside (like all living things) seeks to grow in populus, they don’t kill off one another. If that doesn’t satisfy you, then just remember that one of the key aspects to zombie horror is the swarm! Without it, you’d have a group of “survivors” wandering around, occassionally bumping into a lone zombie, dispatching it quickly, and the movie would be incredibly boring. Same reason why there were no corpses in the streets or hospital (but there were some in the church, mind you). It’s all atmosphere and mood, which are essentials in a zombie film, and I think 28 Days Later did a great job of that.
Which is why the island was under quarantine. The only intelligent part of the whole, lousy film.
Although my wife and I continue to have a good time making fun of the sounds.
[Zombie in London]
Wrr-BlaaaHHHHHH!
[/ZiL]
GOD DAMNIT!!! Alright, aleong’s post was NOT there when I typed mine! When will I ever learn to use the damned “preview” button before posting?
First of all, thanks for clearing it up for me. But
A.) If the nature of the virus is as involved as all that, Boyle/Garland could have done a much better job filling in the blanks. Maybe a longer sidebar from the black chick.
B.) Sometimes the infected killed you (bit, mangled, mauled, et al.), and sometimes they just spit or vomited on you. If the filmmakers didn’t want to waste time on a long exposition, they should’ve at least tried to stay consistent in the zombies’ methods. Would’ve lead to fewer people scratching their heads (i.e., “Wait, they killed that guy? Then why didn’t they kill that guy?!”).
Yes… I think you hit the nail on the head with respect to one of the great missed opportunities in “28 Days Later”… the biology of the virus is fascinating and should have been covered in more detail.
Sorry, I don’t buy it. It was a straightforward zombie movie, and they tried to dress it up as something else. It would have been SO much better if they stuck with the virus acting like a virus though.
The plot points of the movie would not even have to change in any significant way, it’s just that instead of the infected working together in packs, they would just constantly be looking for someone to maim. If someone caught the attention of several of them, and an uninfected person would likely be something of notice among the “mutated” people, they could all attack that person. They’d just be attacking each other if they happened to get in each other’s way, which could be more frightening really. It would be more true to the idea of a small group of uninfected fighting against an ever growing population of mindless, blindly raging infected folks.
LC
Just popping in to say that I’m very much in love with Naomie Harris. Of course, now I know the answer to, “If the world ended and there was only one other person left, who should it be?”
[sub]Assuming auntie em couldn’t make it to the party, mind you.[/sub]
It’s also worth noting that the rage zombies aren’t entirely mindless. The infected kid the protagonist kills in the abandoned gas station says something to him (“I hate you,” I think) right before he gets beaten to death. It could be that the virus causes the victim to get enraged at anything that isn’t infected, and subsequent unusual zombie behavior is caused by defective human brains.
I also figured that there were no bodies in central London because the zombies had dragged them off for food: they can’t do anything complex like create a renewable food source or hunt game, but I assume they can eat food that’s just lying around.
I agree to some extent. Yes, it’s a straightforward zombie movie. A good one at that, with the classic elements in place: End of civilisation, survival, attack of violent psychos and the obligatory loved-one-turned-into-a-monster bits as well as plenty of suspense, shock and gore.
Only thing they did differently than Romero was offering a definite explanation (“it’s a virus” as opposed to “possible radiation from Venus probe”) and eliminating two elements of zombieism: Being dead (and thus able to function despite missing vital organs or being smashed to bits etc.) and the whole silly craving for brains… live brains.
The decision Boyd and Garland made in updating the zombie mechanics is, IMO, a good one. I agree that more could have been made of the whole epidemic perspective, and that taking away the zombies’ motivation without replacing it with something else is problematic. But to me it makes sense that the infected are driven by a desire to spread the disease. Which is just as good in terms of plot and general scariness as having them want to eat peoples’ brains because when coupled with the fact that the virus also diminishes the victims’ self-preservation instincts, this makes for some very violent and just as nasty zombies.
YMMV
The bit about eating brains isn’t from George Romero; you’re confusing his movies with the “Return of the Living Dead” series.
I guess you’re right about that, Baldwin, at least about the line being from the spoof “Return” movie. I might even have added to my own confusion with some of Fulci’s stuff and various others (Peter Jackson’s “Braindead / Dead Alive”, literature). Despite that, my general feeling is still that the accepted cliché is that zombies eat the brains of the living… Though I might be mistaken.
Guess I’ll just have to watch the Romero films again, to make sure if his zombies are brain-eating or only flesh-eating.
OK, no spoiler box so don’t read this post if you don’t want to have the movie screwed up for you.
Problems with this movie.
-
I was wondering that myself, “Why don’t the zombies attack each other?” since it made no sense.
-
At the start of the movie, female infected person gets bitten by monkey, gets infected, projectile vomits blood on friend, he gets infected. As mention in a previous post, near the end, infected black soldier does the same after he is set free. Now, while he is on a chain, British officer is about 3 inches from his face talking about him. Zombie turns head and vomits blood away from officer. Made no sense what so ever.
-
Million of people in London die within days of when you wake up and go looking for them. The city is going to have a stench beyond imagination. You won’t have to go searching for them, just follow your nose. None of said people die or get attacked in hospital since there is no blood or bodies.
-
I read this one on a website about virus transmission. People get infected and turned into zombies within minutes. So how are their cases in New York? A plane would be full of zombie infected people and I doubt they can fly. Even if the cockpit is locked, the zombies don’t bust the door in and the plane lands, I doubt customs is going to let the zombies through security. Even the durg sniffing dogs will realize something is wrong with these people. None of that had-to-hand combat stuff either. In New York the security and police forces are going to have guns. Ships would be turned back as soon as widespread virus reports were made.
Beyond the problems, I enjoyed the movie and thought it was an interesting concept.
Unflappable Ticket Agent: Yes, sir, that’s one First-Class ticket to New York. will that be spewing or non-spewing?
Passenger: Blearrrrrrrgh.
Agent: I see. Spewing, then.
The totally implausible behaviour of the virus ruined the movie for me, the way bullshit technobabble can ruin a sci-fi movie. If you want a scientifically plausible explanation for your zombie movie, at least put some effort into it.
Actually, they mention this in the movie. When Jim first meets the girl (I forget her name,) she says that the radio reported the virus popping up in New York and Paris, implying basically the end of civilization. However, at the end, Jim sees a plane flying, this is what makes him realize that wasn’t true. The virus couldn’t get out of England, save someone putting infected in a boat themselves, and while staying uninfected, piloted it somewhere and somehow got them off the boat. I know that in the end, I’m not sure if it is still at the Army base or before they are rescued, someone says how it was impossible for that to happen, that the world keep on going without England. And then they were rescued.
The cases reported in New York and Paris might just have been inaccurate news reports, made in a period of confusion and near mass-hysteria.
Or, some zombie fluids (like a blood/vomit stain) might have been brough over on a plane, and didn’t come in contact with a living human until after landing.
In any case, I’m not very optimistic about what happened to Paris or New York after that. Anyone remember The Andromeda Strain, or Fail-Safe? :eek: