Comments on: No Zombies for Danny Boyle

By: Don

Don — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:27:17 +0000

Language evolves. Forty years ago, there was only one kind of zombie, and you needed corpse dust and dried puffer fish to make one. Romero’s flesh eaters were called “ghouls” be everyone who chose to assign a specific noun to them (rather than “things” or “those people”). A thousand years ago, a ghoul was something completely different – a shape-shifting demon which fed on the dead, not a dead body which fed on the living.

Danny Boyle wants to say his Infected aren’t zombies, that’s his business. We’ll see what people call them in forty years.

By: The Pork-Eater

The Pork-Eater — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:02:57 +0000

Of course the 28 Later movies aren’t zombie movies, since they don’t have any zombies in them.

Romero’s Dead movies aren’t zombie movies either, by the way, since they are about ghouls and not zombies. They should really be called flesh-eater movies.

By: undeadmuffin

undeadmuffin — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:17:54 +0000

It seems to me that everyone who makes a movie that can be called a zombie movie (and be damn good) Says they didn’t do a zombie movie. Romero’s Flesh Eaters anyone? I mean I know lots of people don’t think that the 28’s are zombie movies, but I feel at the core you can find a nice little zombie nugget…

Ideas for the next 28 movie… 28 more days later… you know, because there is more now and off of Britten.

By: Messeya

Messeya — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:43:44 +0000

Of course it won’t be 28 Months Later. Everyone knows the next one will be 28 Fortnights Later.