MovieChat Forums > 28 Days Later (2003) Discussion > Rage virus RIDICULOUSLY more dangerous t...

Rage virus RIDICULOUSLY more dangerous than being (the walking) Dead

posted 11 years ago by cosmic_bubblebloom
9 replies | jump to latest

I'm an old fan of 28 Days Later and a brand new viewer of The Walking Dead (almost done w/ S3). They're both marvellous but hella different, and TWD is unbelievable to me... here's why:

In S3E8 there's a shot of one walker looking hungrily upon the town, which reminds me greatly of 28DL, when one bite from one infected means doom for everyone because the tiniest bite makes you turn really quickly...which got me thinking...how are zombies in TWD even close to as dangerous as those in 28 Days/Weeks Later? In TWD, one walker wouldn't threaten a whole town by any means, and people take forever to turn--there is no domino effect of mad biting from person to person. So how are there possibly so many Dead??? Both back stories of 28DL and TWD claim similar rates outbreak, basically by the month. I guess I just don't know how the outbreak started in TWD but how could anything have "spread" at all?

Love TWD but I found a big appeal of zombie stories to be the fear of the littlest contamination, so a widespread paranoia ensues, but in TWD you simply have to be dead--everything's set in stone and straightforward. With fear of contamination out of the picture in TWD, it's all just about avoiding death in general, so the paranoia that should be there is less warranted, right? Therefore it can hardly be a show about zombies, but rather about people killing people...right?

I assume I need no introduction.

[–] TearTheStarsOutFromTheSky 11 years ago

The walking dead sucks plain and simple. The writing is horrendous.

[–] highpriestess32 11 years ago

It's only because of 28 Days Later that I watched TWD at all and my ex and I watched all up to the penultimate series via streaming. It was a fantastic series - shame I'll probably not get to see any more until I get a broadband connection set up etc in my new place. So glad to see another fan on this board!

As you say, in TWD it seems that you only have to die to become a zombie - you don't need to be infected by another zombie (remember how Rick killed his copper mate and then he too turned?). I thought they were going to explore the physiological reasoning behind this after the original cast reached that lab building and convinced the guy inside to let them have sanctuary. The scientist guy started to explain that something after death reactivated part of the brain so the corpse would be sort of reborn but only with very basic functions. I don't think we are ever going to know what was responsible for the TWD aombie phenomena unless the writers see fit to elaborate. But we do know it wouldn't need to be spread via cross contamination so some may have been been turned by other zombies and some just by dying of "whatever cause" (possibly exposure or starvation or infection from injuries as they fled to other areas).

Therefore it's about avoiding a premature death at the hands of walkers because to die at their hands would render the victim the same way and then become a catalyst in killing off/infecting the rest of the healthy people and eventually the healthy need to pulverise all of the walkers.

To think how nonchalantly they were eventually killing the walkers though by spearing them in the head through the abandoned prison fence as if it was more of an inconvenience than a life-threatening situation

"Has anyone seen my wife?" - Columbo

[–] moonglum9 10 years ago

I guess there are issues with both types of zombies becoming worldwide epidemics. In 28 Days Later, the onset of the virus is so rapid that it wouldn't have moved off of England. You wouldn't have any unknowing carriers traveling to the mainland before the symptoms start since it is almost instantaneous. Since they aren't undead, I assume any mindless Rager would drown if it wandered into the sea.

On the other hand, Walkers are so slow moving and slow to turn virally, any military and/or police force realistically would have little difficulty containing an outbreak.

It's a tradeoff. Turn fast and move fast, you'd be limited by geographical barriers. Turn slow and move slow and there's no way the virus would spread quickly enough to overwhelm society.

Zombie movies still kick ass though!

[–] liverpool26 10 years ago

"the onset of the virus is so rapid that it wouldn't have moved off of England"

It didn't go world wide in the movie 28 days later the island of great Britain was the only place infected and was quarantined. The movie 28 months later explained how it was later spread to mainland Europe and Europe is connected by land to the majority of the world apart from America's and Australia.

[–] notalama 10 years ago

Turn slow is actually more likely to succeed, especially in an unprepared society.

As you said, turning quickly presents the risk of being trapped by geography, especially if you turn as quickly as the 28 Days infected.

However, turning slowly presents very little risk. You can take a flight from Hong Kong to London, and not turn before you land. If you turn in the airport terminal, you may be able to wound or even kill four or five people before you are taken down. Depending on circumstances and preparedness, your victims may be taken to hospital and left unsecured. If they turn, they will be taking any medical professionals attending them with them. These people would also be unsecured, leaving them free to infect more patients. Eventually infection in the hospital will reach critical mass, leading to as many as a hundred zombies spilling onto the streets.
At that point, the town is lost and the only thing to be done is an evacuation with shoot to kill orders in place. No police force will be able to hold the dead back, especially when you point out (as many, many people have done) that headshots are hard, and that police officers are trained to shoot for the centre mass.

Remember that my baseline zombie model is the Solanum zombies as portrayed by Max Brooks in World War Z and the Zombie Survival Guide. There, the location of the bite is critical, and zombification occurs shortly after the virus hits the brain. In a neck wound, it can take seconds, but in the case of, for example, an infected scratch, infection and conversion can take many weeks.

And that is why I like slow zombies. You don't have to be fast if you have 100% infection and conversion rate and an unprepared population.

[–] lawsonfam-1 10 years ago

The Ragers (Infected) ARE NOT ZOMBIES. They are alive but the inhibitor in the virus just causes them to be extremely pissed off. Walkers and Ragers are two completely different things

[–] jeffnova 10 years ago

Two completely different types of zombies. I've never heard anyone call them ragers. Not in the films. Not in real life.

[–] Mellow-Fellow 10 years ago

It's been hella long since i've heard someone use hella as an adverb, yo.

[–] uhrdavid 10 years ago

You also have to take into account that in TWD the zombie virus is actually already in everyone, so you aren't just worrying about the ones who are infected, it's anyone who dies, for any reason. Also, in 28DL, it seemed that many of the infected were killed by being shot in the torso, so it seems to me that since they are not "dead" so to speak, as traditional zombies are, you can kill them by damaging their vital organs, whereas in TWD, you HAVE to destroy their brain. I don't know if you've ever shot a gun at a moving target, but trying to score a head shot, no matter how slow or how close is a tricky affair. In TWD they walk slow and the infection takes time to kill, but there are other factors to consider.

All in all, I did find the infected people in 28DL to be more panic inducing, but I wouldn't come to the conclusion you came to so matter of factly.

We are here to help the Vietnamese, because inside every *beep* there is an American trying to get out