whats up with the ending of 28 weeks later?

[QUOTE="skivit"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

That's a logical fallacy. Not once in the course of Aliens did you ever see an Alien eat someone, and not once in Tremors did you ever see a worm defecating. To cite that they never showed it as proof that the monsters don't do it simply doesn't make sense. Particularly when you consider that in 28 Days Later, you rarely ever even see the infected KILL someone, and even then it's generally a quick shot and they don't linger on the effects.

Your second point is also fallacious. They CAN'T assume that all the infected are dead once the captured zombie dies, anymore than you can assume that all unifected people starve at the same rate. That doesn't take into account metabolism or body fat content. They would STILL have to assume that there are still infected roaming around even AFTER that one guy dies.

Thirdly, as you brought up before, the infected obviously DRINK if they live long enough to starve. Particularly if, as seen in 28 Days Later, they're always vomiting blood. If they DRINK, then it stands to reason that they probably also EAT.

ski11buzz

but you can't assume that the infected simply dont eat or drink. you cant assume that just because you didnt see it in the movies. the movies are based on the survivors, not what the infected are doing when theyre chillin by themselves. you cant expect an infected to eat a turkey while theyre attacking non-infected.

Well, if they eat, it's likely that they ONLY eat uninfected humans, the same way that they only ATTACK unifected humans. They don't kill each other, and there's no evidence that they attack nonhuman animals. So if they eat, they probably DON'T eat turkeys or apples or bread. They would probably ONLY eat uninfected humans.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="skivit"]

Well they dont drink, its called a mistake/goof. They often happen in movies either acidentally or on purpose. If they infected died on dehydration then the infection wouldnt of really spread as well as it did, and therefore the plot would of been pretty poor. So for the sake of the film, they had to let it go a little sci fi there.ski11buzz

No, it's only a goof if they don't drink, which I've said you have no evidence of. You're assuming that they don't eat/drink and then citing that as a flaw with the movie when the movie actually DOES imply that they both eat and drink.

exactly. theres no evidence of them not eating or drinking, therefore arguments against that will not work.

K im going to sleep now, so ill just leave you with this:

Link 1

"Why 28 Days Later is not a Zombie Film:. they're not dead, they're infected by blood-borne "rage" virus; they're don't eat people - just attack and kill"

Link 2

"In "28 Days Later", we get people that have been turned into homicidal maniacs instead of flesh-eating zombies"

Link 3

"They don't eat people, but instead beat their victims to death or rip them to ..."

Link 4

"They don't eat them-- they just attack them"

Tomorrow if i have some spare time ill try and search for the interview with danny boyle where he states that they do not eat other people or each other or anything at all for that matter.

skivit

Well, let me know when you find that interview, because movie reviews by random people who had nothing to do with the movie are not definitive proof of anything. If that were the case, everyone who watched the movie would be an authority on it.

[QUOTE="ski11buzz"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="skivit"]

Well they dont drink, its called a mistake/goof. They often happen in movies either acidentally or on purpose. If they infected died on dehydration then the infection wouldnt of really spread as well as it did, and therefore the plot would of been pretty poor. So for the sake of the film, they had to let it go a little sci fi there.skivit

No, it's only a goof if they don't drink, which I've said you have no evidence of. You're assuming that they don't eat/drink and then citing that as a flaw with the movie when the movie actually DOES imply that they both eat and drink.

exactly. theres no evidence of them not eating or drinking, therefore arguments against that will not work.

They didn't run into the helicopter blades, he flew a helicopter into a crowd of them. That's like saying that if you get shot, you ran into a bullet.

Another question. You say that they're singularly obsessed with murdering people. Well watch 28 Days Later again, and tell me what they're doing when there is no one around to murder.

[QUOTE="skivit"]
You both seem to ignore what the virus is. It LOCKS the infected into a PERMANENT STATE OF RAGE. They can think of nothing less than constantly killing and murdering anything that isnt infected. Therefore they dont think about surviving. Such as in 28 weeks later when he flys the helicopter blades into them.

Obviously the infected would only drink and eat to survive. So therefore they would have survivial instincts. If they had those instincts why run into helicopter blades.... Seriously...Hewkii

so...if a victim will kill anything that's not infected, then how do they become infected in the first place?

[QUOTE="skivit"]
You both seem to ignore what the virus is. It LOCKS the infected into a PERMANENT STATE OF RAGE. They can think of nothing less than constantly killing and murdering anything that isnt infected. Therefore they dont think about surviving. Such as in 28 weeks later when he flys the helicopter blades into them.

Obviously the infected would only drink and eat to survive. So therefore they would have survivial instincts. If they had those instincts why run into helicopter blades.... Seriously...Hewkii

so...if a victim will kill anything that's not infected, then how do they become infected in the first place?

By being bitten, scratched, etc.

The thing is, they don't kill each other, and if they eat, they won't eat each other. Due to how fast infection occurs, killing/eating would often be halted due to the victim becoming infected before they are killed.

[QUOTE="skivit"][QUOTE="ski11buzz"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="skivit"]

Well they dont drink, its called a mistake/goof. They often happen in movies either acidentally or on purpose. If they infected died on dehydration then the infection wouldnt of really spread as well as it did, and therefore the plot would of been pretty poor. So for the sake of the film, they had to let it go a little sci fi there.MrGeezer

No, it's only a goof if they don't drink, which I've said you have no evidence of. You're assuming that they don't eat/drink and then citing that as a flaw with the movie when the movie actually DOES imply that they both eat and drink.

exactly. theres no evidence of them not eating or drinking, therefore arguments against that will not work.

They didn't run into the helicopter blades, he flew a helicopter into a crowd of them. That's like saying that if you get shot, you ran into a bullet.

Another question. You say that they're singularly obsessed with murdering people. Well watch 28 Days Later again, and tell me what they're doing when there is no one around to murder.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="skivit"][QUOTE="ski11buzz"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="skivit"]

Well they dont drink, its called a mistake/goof. They often happen in movies either acidentally or on purpose. If they infected died on dehydration then the infection wouldnt of really spread as well as it did, and therefore the plot would of been pretty poor. So for the sake of the film, they had to let it go a little sci fi there.skivit

No, it's only a goof if they don't drink, which I've said you have no evidence of. You're assuming that they don't eat/drink and then citing that as a flaw with the movie when the movie actually DOES imply that they both eat and drink.

exactly. theres no evidence of them not eating or drinking, therefore arguments against that will not work.

They didn't run into the helicopter blades, he flew a helicopter into a crowd of them. That's like saying that if you get shot, you ran into a bullet.

Another question. You say that they're singularly obsessed with murdering people. Well watch 28 Days Later again, and tell me what they're doing when there is no one around to murder.

Not if you're in a crowd. Get in a dense crowd and then try so much as jumping out of the way of a slow moving car.

Secondly, you're acting as if knowledge of the mechanics of machinery is equivalent to basic biological urges. The infected clearly exhibit very limited mental faculties.

Anyway, my point was, they only exhibit murderous rage when they are around the uninfected. When there is no one around, they are sitting around, RESTING, NOT running around in a murderous rage angrily looking for someone to kill.

Got this from Wikia Entertainment-
"The Rage virus does not directly cause the death of its host, but because the host is solely focused on infecting or killing the non-Infected, it causes those infected to become disinterested in self-nourishment which will eventually cause death by starvation. Since the virus causes those infected to act with no regard for self-preservation, they will not act to evade mortal danger, such as fire or chemical gas."

Apparentaly they don't eat.