Warning: This article contians spoilers for 28 Years Later.28 Years Later has blown up a major debate that has plagued the series. It is the third installment in the post-apocalyptic horror franchise, which features the British Isles being ravaged by the Rage virus, which transforms the people who become infected with it into ravenous, mindless creatures who chase after the living, biting them and pᴀssing along the disease.
The franchise began in 2002 with 28 Days Later, which starred Cillian Murphy as Jim, a bicycle courier who wakes up from a coma in a transformed London. In 2007, the movie was followed by the standalone sequel 28 Weeks Later, which followed repatriation efforts in England going terribly wrong when the Rage virus began to spread again.
Original director Danny Boyle and screenwriter Alex Garland reunited for 28 Years Later, another standalone sequel that explores life in the now-quarantined British Isles after many years of the Rage virus, featuring a cast that includes Jodie Comer, Ralph Fiennes, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, and Alfie Williams. The movie is intended to kick off a new trilogy in the franchise.
While the third installment has yet to be funded, the upcoming 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple is set to debut in January 2026. The sequel is set to follow directly from the events of 28 Years Later, which featured a key moment that added an important new dimension to franchise lore, challenging a major debate.
There Is A Longtime Debate Surrounding 28 Days Later’s Infected
Do They Count As Zombies?
One of the biggest debates surrounding the 28 Days Later movies is whether they count as zombie movies. While the Infected bear many similarities to modern zombies, including losing higher brain function and transferring the virus via bites, the virus does not kill its victims, meaning that the Infected are not technically unᴅᴇᴀᴅ.
Not only are the Infected not unᴅᴇᴀᴅ like zombies, the ending of 28 Days Later also depicts them dying of starvation rather than remaining eternally unᴅᴇᴀᴅ. Thus, while the post-apocalyptic franchise bears many deep aesthetic and thematic similarities to zombie franchises, particularly Romero’s ᴅᴇᴀᴅ movies, its classification within the zombie genre has been frequently debated.
28 Years Later Explodes The Zombie Debate
The Term Was Used In-Universe
Although this debate about whether the Infected truly count as zombies has surrounded the franchise throughout the course of its 23-year history, 28 Years Later has thrown a major wrench into the conversation.
This comes in a scene where stranded Swedish NATO soldier Erik Sundqvist (Edvin Ryding) is arguing against Isla (Jodie Comer) taking care of a baby that has just been born from an Infected, even though it shows no signs of being infected itself. During their argument, he describes the baby as a “zombie.”
The screenplay shatters the notion that the Infected inherently don’t belong in the same conversation as zombie classics…
This scene marks the first time that the word “zombie” has been used in any installment of the franchise. By using Erik to acknowledge both the existence of zombies, the screenplay shatters the notion that the Infected inherently don’t belong in the same conversation as zombie classics such as Night of the Living ᴅᴇᴀᴅ and Dawn of the ᴅᴇᴀᴅ.
There Are Still Counter-Arguments In The Infected Vs. Zombies Debate
Erik Is Not Necessarily A Reliable Source
While this adds a great deal of weight to the argument for the 28 Days Later films being zombie movies, it does not end the debate completely.
The baby scene is the only time from the beginning through the ending of 28 Years Later that the word “zombie” is mentioned, and Erik is not a character whose use of the term means that the Infected should be definitively classified as zombies.
The word “zombie” was originally used to describe reanimated corpses used as slaves in Haitan folklore and was later reappropriated and attached to the virus-spreading flesh-eaters of cinema.
For one thing, he is not a native of the British Isles and has never seen an Infected before the events of the movie. Additionally, his depiction in 28 Years Later shows that he is pithy and sarcastic, so he may be deploying the term somewhat ironically.
Regardless, Alex Garland’s inclusion of the word in his 28 Years Later screenplay seems to directly acknowledge the long-standing debate, so this disruption of the idea that the Infected are not proper zombies seems very intentional.
