THANK YOU! I have been saying that they aren't zombies since the first film was released. Now I have more than just definitions of the term "Zombie" and years of established cinema lore to back up my argument. Hopefully the idiots will finally learn to refer to them as "infected." :lol:

well said Mr. Boyle. tryin to explain to people that they're not zombies is like talking to a wall. people are always like huh? how are they not zombies.

any apocalyptic epidemic movie (especially when you contract said epidemic by biting)is going to be tagged or harshly compared to a zombie movie. Anyone who can't grasp that notion is completely devoid of any knowledge of the genre.

"Something new has surfaced over at MTV (who took a break from covering TWILIGHT, finally)" - This coming from the site that has nearly thirty Twilight news topics in the last two months.

Its about time! I never called them Zombies, they are INFECTED. They look similiar to zombies and they have the look of DEMONS alittle bit but INFECTED is a whole new thing and that kicks ass. I CANT WAIT FOR THE NEXT MOVIE!!!!!!! THEY SHOULD CALL IT INFECNATION!!!!! INFECNATION!!!!! hahaha im a loser.

28 Hours Later perhaps. And yes no matter what people say. People who become infected and under the control of a virus are zombies. Sorry Danny Boyle but they are zombies.

LOL dude it has to be called 28 months later LOL thats the whole point. W/e boyle is a genius so I have huge faith in him. oh yeah and fuck twlight that pussy ass girly wannabee crouching tiger hidden dragon vampire shit. The flick looks like a steaming pile of PG-13 bullshit

yea zombies r idiot but these r not..they r smart and listening ... bring up the fucking 28 months later

I thought it was strange having a reinfection in WEEKS. I thought that following different characters during the timespan of DAYS would have been great. Having said that, as long as there's a decent script, decent acting and plenty of chases, blood and guts I'm happy!!

who gives a sh!t if you call them zombies or not? what difference does it make to the movie? does it any more "respectable" for the killers to be "infected" with a virus that makes them eat non-infected people rather than being dead people who eat living people? if danny boyle is so averse to people thinking they are zombies, maybe he should have been more original and not have had them look like "zombies", act like "zombies" and marketed as though they were "zombies". it's too late now to complain. but really, does it even matter?

Re: Sean Of The Dead Are you really telling the director of a movie that the characters in his movie are zombies, even tho he says that they are not?

Dr modem has it right i've been dyin for them to do an alternate view 28 days later. same story different charachters struggle to survive the infected. On a side note i still call em Zombies! it's not that serious to me. i love the movies regardless of what you call them.

Characters

Characters

I know how Boyle feels, I hate it when people call this a zombi movie.

So? But they are zombies right? :)

If i spell my name Bob, and tell you its pronounced "Boob" not Bob, you will call me a fucking idiot. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, mother fucker its a zombie! Oh wait my bad, "the infected" dont walk, they run.

He is so going to be directing the 3rd one. He knows quite a lot of information and if he is getting pissed off about incorrect titles i thiks thats a sure sign. Go Danny !

I agree, Texican666. They're still damn zombies. It's like if someone tried to re-invent vamipires and not call them vampires. The things would suck blood and burn in sunlight, but the person tells you they aren't vampires lol.

Perhaps they aren't zombies, they're infected. But it's still a zombie movie.

He's just defending himself against statements that don't need to be defended... The fact that some people want zombies to be taken back a notch and stumble around like they should instead of running around like psychos and even learning how to shoot guns (land of the dead = biggest load of garbage) and that he is defending his ideas against that... it is just ridiculous and kind of shows a dumb side of him. He doesn't need to defend himself or his idea against that statement/suggestion because he has marketed them as zombies all along. THEY ARE ZOMBIES, so what if they run damnit, they are still zombies, he must be full of himself on his own ideas if he really thinks that arguing his notion about his zombies not being zombies then I sense FAIL. Yeah, he has the right to defend his ideas and yes they are infected and could be put into a less-than-zombie category... BUT WHO CARES MAN, he marketed them as such and damnit the whole thing makes it out as though they are zombies, infection or otherwise.

They're not zombies. Get over it. If I recall, some one became infected because he got a drop of 'infected' blood in his eye. Don't individuals normally die before coming back as a 'Zombie'? Didn't see that happen. You get bit, you become infected and you turn. You kiss someone and swap fluids? Infection. How is that becoming one of the living dead? Did you die before full infection set in? I'd be upset, too if someone kept calling my own story what it obviously wasn't. I also don't think he intentionally wanted his film to be marketed as such. Nor, did I ever hear it come out of his mouth that he shot a 'living dead' film, either. Whatever.

I always just thought of them as people with an EXTREME case of rabies.

one of the best directors ever...champion

They are alive. The don't eat the flesh of the living. They can be killed just as easily as any other living human. They can starve to death. They can become fatigued. They are infected by a virus, they are not re-animated corpse. This is a plague series, not a zombie series. They most definitely are not zombies. Jesus cock-sucking Christ, buy a dictionary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie I can only imagine how some of you have survived without being eaten by larger animals.