Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is clearly divisive, but if there’s one thing you can guarantee fans will be bickering about for years to come, it’s the fact that this version of The Dark Knight kills. Of course, he’s not the first Batman to do so; Christopher Nolan’s take on the Caped Crusader left Ra’s al Ghul to die on a train in his very first solo outing in 2005!


10 things you need to know about Zack Snyder’s Justice League after seeing Batman v Superman


When we caught up with the filmmaker today, he shed some light on why this version of Batman takes such extreme measures, and honestly, it’s hard to argue with his justification.

I tried to do it in a technical way. There’s a great YouTube video that shows all the kills in the Christopher Nolan movies even though we would perceive them as movies where he doesn’t kill anyone. I think there’s 42 potential kills that Batman does! Also, it goes back and includes even the Tim Burton Batman movies where this reputation as a guy that doesn’t kill comes from.

So, I tried to do it by proxy. Shoot the car they’re in, the car blows up or the grenade would go off in the guy’s hand, or when he shoots the tank and the guy pretty much lights the tank [himself]. I perceive it as him not killing directly, but if the bad guy’s are associated with a thing that happens to blow up, he would say that that’s not really my problem.

A little more like manslaughter than murder, although I would say that in the Frank Miller comic book that I reference, he kills all the time. There’s a scene from the graphic novel where he busts through a wall, takes the guy’s machine gun…I took that little vignette from a scene in The Dark Knight Returns, and at the end of that, he shoots the guy right between the eyes with the machine gun. One shot. Of course, I went to the gas tank, and all of the guys I work with were like, ‘You’ve gotta shoot him in the head’ because they’re all comic book dorks, and I was like, ‘I’m not gonna be the guy that does that!’

Batman v Superman producer Charles Roven confirmed that this take on the character serves as “the jury and executioner” earlier this year, and the fact that the hero kills many of the crooks he comes in contact with is never directly addressed in the movie; it’s just something he does! Regardless, you can bet your life it will create some controversy.

However, what Snyder is saying here isn’t wrong. All of the previous incarnations of Batman have killed, while the fact that the critically acclaimed comic book this movie is based on features a murderous Dark Knight should mean that fans really don’t get all that upset about the same thing happening in the movie. Regardless, you can check out the interview below.

Needless to say, the video does include some other spoilers for the movie, so be warned!

  • Clark Kent

    A better answer would’ve been him admitting to being an idiot that doesn’t understand his characters and prefers style over substance.

  • Cunts

    Spoilers in a post title? You clickbaity cunts. Fuck you.

  • Saber Khai

    Well, it wouldn’t be a comic book movie if we didn’t have know-everything fans who see it a certain way and think it’s the RIGHT and ONLY way.

    I have news for you: Snyder didn’t f**k up Superman because he had him snap Zod’s neck. He got it wrong because his Superman is not a font of optimism and hope. He’s dour, he’s brooding, he’s even a bit whiny. But guess what? Yep, he kills when necessary. He did it in the comics.

    The same with Batman. He’s killed people in the comics, he’s killed people in the movies (Hell, in Batman Forever, he basically killed Two-Face to sate Robin’s lust for vengeance), and he’s obviously killing by proxy here. Deal with it. It’s not a new thing.

  • Michael

    For a guy who repeatedly stated that his Batman would be different from Christopher Nolan’s, he sure tries to justify a lot of his decisions by bringing up Nolan’s Batman..

  • Miller

    …but that isn’t what happens in the scene in The Dark Knight Returns, you f**king hack.
    Batman takes the thug’s gun, and shoots around the head of the other thug so he gives up the baby. Batman DOESN’T KILL EITHER THUG.

    Has Snyder even READ The Dark Knight Returns???

  • Samuel Shaw

    If he had, he would remember this

  • I always thought he shot him in the shoulder, there’s blood. But regardless, Batman doesn’t kill. Especially in the DKR. “Rubber bullets. Honest.” He doesn’t kill because he doesn’t need to kill. If he did, he’d just be a really dorky version of The Punisher. If Batman kills, it negates the reason he wears the costume, it negates striking fear into criminals, and it negates the character as a whole.

    Fuck Snyder.

    But thank you. I was starting to think I woke up and the Internet collectively forgot about Batman’s no kill policy.

  • Batman’s killed in his earliest comics appearances because they were still figuring out the character, transforming him from the blatant Shadow rip-off he was. His no-kill policy was established less than a year into his publication.

    The movies have never adhered to this. Nolan tried but failed.

  • imsmi

    Superman snapping the neck of Zod never bothered me simply because of the context. Superman not making an active attempt to take the battle out of Metropolis bothered me. Clark Kent wrapping the semi truck around the light pole (or whatever it was, my memory is a little hazy) in a petty act of retribution against the truck driver bothered the hell out of me. Pa Kent telling Clark that maybe he should have let his class mates drown was downright preposterous. Basically Zack Snyder decided that Superman isn’t cool and edgy and erased all the traits that have come define him and replaced them with all the grit and edginess of your average 90s Image comic.

  • HyldenKing

    He didn’t even bother to research the graphic novel.

  • HyldenKing

    He didn’t even bother to research the graphic novel…

  • PretenderNx01

    Is in line with the first Batman stories “Death to Dr Death” like moments where he kinda is responsible yet he judges it as their own actions leading to their demise.

  • MrX13

    Who cares if he kills or doesn’t kill people. Whatever the decision of that being made, it worked in the movie. Besides, Michael Keaton’s Batman killed the Joker’s men and he even had a part in killing the part Joker by wrapping his leg to the gargoyle, in which it made him fall to his death.

    Get it over it!!

  • MrValderviche

    “Also, it goes back and includes even the Tim Burton Batman movies where this reputation as a guy that doesn’t kill comes from.”
    Actually that reputation comes from the comics, you know the original source material. Or, well, I guess you don’t.
    Also, if Batman killed willy-nilly in TDKR, what was that whole part with him trying and failing to make himself kill the Joker in there for?

  • Miller

    Er. No. Not if you’re a Batman fan. The no kill policy is a cornerstone of the character. It’s a statement of intent:

    “I do not kill, because if I do I cross a line that I can never return from. If I kill, I will slide into the abyss and become a thing far worse than my enemies.”

    To do away with this aspect of the character is just lazy f**king story telling. Instead of having Batman kill, work out a creative way to NOT have him kill.

  • mike alexander

    Batman kills in even the Nolan movies. It’s fine if people get pissed about it, it’s fine if people wanna pretend it’s not the case, and we are in ‘peak’ anti-Snyder circlejerk, but it is a fact. When he slams the Tumbler into the garbage truck in TDK there is not a chance in hell the driver survived – it’s Vehicular manslaughter. When he shoots the truck driver from the Bat in TDKRises, he’s not using explosive rubber bullets.

  • Stephen Ely

    Batman killed in his earliest comics appearances in 1939 and 1940 because they (Bill Finger and Bob Kane) were inspired by Zorro and the Shadow. “Blatant Shadow rip-off”? Nope. When did the Shadow wear a bat costume with a cowl and tights and have a colorful Robin Hood-esque boy wonder sidekick? His no-kill policy was enforced in 1941 by DC editor Whitney Ellsworth creating an Editorial Advisory Board with a no-kill policy for ALL DC characters. It was an editorial mandate.

  • I was referring more to the type of stories being Shadow rip-offs, and I was referring more to pre-Robin, but either way, my sentiment still stands: the character was still being formed.

  • Joffrey

    If it worked in the movie it would be fine but it doesn’t work

  • MrValderviche

    We ain’t talkin’ movies, son. It’s been a staple of the character in the comics for most of the time the character has existed. Now, you can go and say that the character did kill in the early years, but that’s bs because Batman, like every comic character, has gone through many years and many writers to become what he is today and using the early character would be ignoring that. It would be like the Deadpool movie being about a generic mercenary or Green Lantern being about Alan Scott.
    Also, if you want to talk movies, the Nolan films did show hardcore violence, but they never broke the illusion that Batman didn’t kill, even though in a realistic universe he probably would be killing people. Throwing cars around is fine, it’s Snyder’s almost Bay-like love of explosions in the Batman sequences that is irritating because that blows the illusion out of the water.

  • Stephen Ely

    I loath the Superman v Batman movie but not over violating a no-kill policy for Batman. Trying to dismiss the early Batman stories as just a bunch of Shadow rip-offs until the no-kill policy (as if that policy made Batman original) is ridiculous. Early various Batman stories ranged from a number of influences: The Shadow, Sherlock Holmes, Dracula, noir gangster movies like Public Enemy No. 1, The Mark of Zorro, Robin Hood, Frankenstein, King Kong, The Man Who Laughs, etc. Bill Finger explained in Jim Steranko’s History of Comics volume 1
    (1970), “I patterned my style of writing Batman after The Shadow. Also
    after the old Warner Brothers movies, the (film noir) gangster movies
    with James Cagney, George Raft, Bogart. I always liked that kind of
    dramatic point of view. It was completely pulp style. Batman was a combination of Douglas Fairbanks (Zorro) and Sherlock Holmes.” The character in 1939-1940 was still purely formed by the creators as the mysterious Zorro-esque, Shadow-esque nocturnal brutal vigilante in a gothic/noir-esque Gotham, until the 1941 editorial mandated Roy Rogers-esque clean-cut wholesome deputized lawman with a no-kill policy and appearing in broad daylight, signing autographs, being interviewed, etc.

  • I agree with everything you’re saying, but my original point was that Snyder was specifically citing DKR, a book in which Batman does not kill.

  • MrX13

    Exactly! Even in the two Tim Burton’s Batman, he kills all of the Joker’s men INCLUDING The Joker himself as well as the Penguin’s henchmen! So yeah, Batman has killed before.

    I believe in one version of the comic, he kills but I’m not too sure

  • Matheus Alves

    That’s right! The panel was intentionally ambiguous but I think Miller made its real meaning pretty clear later on, where it repeats several times that Batman never killed anyone. Lana Lang says it during the TV debate, Batman haters confirm it by saying he killed “indirectly”(by his sociological impact, implying he never murdered anyone “directly”). The police only added homicide to his charges when the Joker leads them to think he was murdered. Heck, only a few pages later Batman himself states that he never crossed his line. That’s the whole point of the comic : Batman can’t even when his brain tells him to do so, because of his trauma. That’s again the whole point of the Joker participation on the next issue.

  • Matheus Alves

    My real problem with Superman killing Zod is that this scene doesn’t strike me as being as dramatic as Snyder intended. Whenever Superman kills someone in the comics it feels heavy and necessary, but part of the impact lies on the fact that Superman is a beacon of light and wouldn’t do anything so extreme unless there was no other way. But in Man of Steel he is frowning all the time, wears dark colors, destroys half of the city, and them kills someone on his very first fight. Killing someone makes sense here, and for Superman, it shouldn’t.

  • Wall Staples

    It’s like an inkblot. In Snyder’s mind superheroes should murder criminals, so that’s how he interpreted it.

  • Luke Greensmith

    Batman is as insane as anyone in his rogue’s gallery, and that includes a pathological inability to kill even if it makes perfect sense to do so.

    He doesn’t compromise, often leading to much more problems, because that’s who and what he is.

    Zack Snyder should have made The Authority to film instead if being given the DCU to play with <.<

  • DD7

    yes how dare Pa Kent choose the life of his own son over the life of his classmates, what an asshole.

  • DD7

    you mean Nolan movies pretended that he does not kill, and the fact that doesn’t kill was even a plot point in the dark knight, when he had already killed a couple people in batman begins. If you complain about batman killing now you have to complain about batman killing in all those movies.

  • imsmi

    It’s one thing to be concerned about the welfare of your adopted son and another thing completely to tell your adopted son to let ’em drown. A far more poignant way to have done the scene is simply have Clark successfully save all the kids except one or the bus driver. You never have to show it, it’s just something Clark discovers. In his dismay that he didn’t save them all, Pa Kent could have told him something along the lines of, “sometimes, you can’t save them all. You did a great thing by trying.” I’ve never met an adult who wouldn’t have simply been proud of their child’s brave act.

  • Saber Khai

    Ultimately, that’s the core problem with the Snyderverse in general. He just does not understand Superman at all and wants to do his own “take” on the character. That take is to turn Superman into a brooding, scowling, insecure idiot.

  • MrValderviche

    I don’t remember him killing anyone in Batman Begins. And it’s very kind of you to tell me what I have to do. I don’t like having to decide what to do on my own.

  • DD7

    The welfare of his adopted son? If clark was discovered by the government he could have been taken away from them and experimented on. Possibly even killed. When your child does something that reckless, it’s easy to not show him being proud of him because you are extremely concerned for him. How many parents, given the choice would choose their own kid instead of his classmates?

  • imsmi

    That is valid and of course would be a concern of any parent. Still, telling your child to stand by and basically ignore your peers as they die when you could have done something is a bit drastic. Not to mention callous, cold and very selfish. All things that most parents would try to not instill in their children.

  • DD7

    And just because you don’t remember it then it didn’t happen? That seems to be your counter argument to me saying that he killed people in batman begins. Fine don’t complain about the nolan films and complain about this one, whatever suits your narrative. I just wanted to you to make sense, my bad.

  • MrValderviche

    Alright, how about this: Batman didn’t kill anyone in Batman Begins.

  • DD7

    If he had coldly told clark to let them die, then you would have a point. That’s not the case though. He, full of doubt, just said maybe. Because he doesn’t want to tell clark to just let them die, but he also don’t want Clark to put himself in danger. Pa Kent didn’t know the right answer, he was obviously conflicted. He wasn’t the perfect dad that always had the right answers. He was human. That’s what the film tried to convey. Can you blame him for making that choice?

  • DD7

    yeah I’m sure he didn’t kill anyone when he blew up the League’s HQ, especially the fake Rah’s that was fighting him while it was exploding. No to mention leaving the real Rah’s to die in the train.

  • MrValderviche

    He gave everyone enough time to leave. Fake Ra’s took his own life when he stayed behind to fight Bruce. And Ra’s is the one who sped up the train and Gordon blew up the track. It was Batman’s plan, so it’s pretty close to the line, but it’s not nearly as bad as him actually pulling the trigger as he does in BvS.

  • DD7

    how exactly did he gave everyone enough time to leave? Yes, fake Ra’s took his own life when he wanted to stop the guy who blew up his house. That’s totally fake Ra’s fault. No blame at all to the guy who blew up the place in the first place. Batman left Ra’s on a train to die, a train that was gonna crash because Batman ordered Gordon to blow up the tracks. isn’t that more like premeditated murder.

  • MrValderviche

    How did he not give them enough time to leave? Fake Ra’s was the only death shown in that scene and it was because he stayed in the building too long. And if you stay inside a burning building and die, it’s your fault even if you think the reason for staying is justifiable.
    As for Ra’s, I’ve already explained that. Ra’s is the one who destroyed the controls. It’s his fault that the train can’t stop.

  • darquehex

    Your reply is perfect, I’m saving it. Thanks!

  • DD7

    You are the one who is saying he is giving them enough time, the burden of proof is on you. Some members are still inside by the time it completely blows up, the movie just doesn’t show it to pretend that batman didn’t kill anyone, watch the scene again after Bruce picks up Henry Ducard and tell me if those ninjas being blown away are alive.

    Bruce blowing up the place makes him at least indirectly responsible for all those deaths, including fake Ra’s.

    What was Batman’s plan? he clearly said it isn’t to stop the train. Ra’s didn’t even notice that he destroyed the controls, so Batman at least counted on him doing it, or was gonna destroy the controls anyway. Batman didn’t plan to stop the train + ordering Gordon to blow up the tracks + leaving Ra’s on the train to die=???? murder.

  • MrValderviche

    Actually, you’re the one saying he did kill people in Batman Begins and picking out certain examples, so the burden of proof would be on you.
    In that scene, Bruce starts a fire which causes an explosion which causes a bigger fire. He then fights a man and then carries another to safety. Are you seriously going to argue that in the time it takes him to do all that, the best ninjas in the world can’t walk out the door?
    As for the train scene, I’ve already said that it’s pretty close to the line. However, Batman doesn’t kill Ra’s. He tricks Ra’s into killing himself. And Gordon blew up the track, so if you want to say someone besides Ra’s is responsible, it’s still not technically Batman.

    Also, you clearly misunderstood my first post. I’m not arguing that Batman didn’t kill people. I’m arguing that it made Batman’s more brutal moments at least seem survivable and, when deaths were shown, it made them not technically Batman’s fault. It’s not a perfect representation of the character from the comics, but it’s vastly better than the one who goes around blowing up cars and shooting people and is completely prepared to shove a spear into Superman.

  • DD7

    I’m giving you proof that those best ninjas in the world couldn’t walk out the door. Like I said seconds before Bruce escapes, ninjas can be seen been blown away inside the place, some of them even a little bit on fire. So I really don’t know how you can argue that.

    on who’s orders did Gordon blew up the track? Yeah he only tricked Ra’s into killing himself. Is not like he left him to die in a train that’s gonna crash because of batman’s actions. How did leaving Ra’s on the train seem survivable? or the two-face fall? or straight up shooting the truck that’s carrying the bomb, which kills Talia (and the driver, I think)? How were those last two not his fault?

  • Ben Culture

    I don’t believe Snyder’s ever read.


  • Nick Fletcher

    your problem should be relevant if he had actually let them drown, but he risked exposure to save them, which is very superman of him. As for putting several poles through the truck. He was young, and everyone is allowed a petty moment

  • imsmi

    Except I was criticizing Pa Kent and his response that maybe he should have let his classmates drown. As far as Clark’s petty act of vengeance (which destroyed someone’s livelihood most likely) is concerned, if you want to essentially change someone’s character to fit what you think would be cool, why not just create a different character or base him on someone else entirely?

  • lloyd mongul

    He doesn’t kill in TDKR it’s a major part of his philosophy it is a book showing all the ways Batman is damaged one of them is he is irrational about his ideals really any rational person would kill the Joker this theme is central to the plot of the book so I want to buy Snyder this book so bad and then read it to him it’s apparent he can’t read or comprehend things it’s also sad because it’s the biggest complaint I have about the movie if Batman after the murder of his parents takes the vow to never kill any human as well as end crime then doesn’t see Superman as a human until realizing he has a mother and considers him human it designated making a broken narrative merely flawed

  • Andrew197

    @ Josh Wilding: Please don’t trust the interviewee when citing source material. Fact checking 101.
    Then you wouldn’t make embarrassing mistakes like this:
    “However, what Snyder is saying here isn’t wrong. All of the previous incarnations of Batman have killed, while the fact that the critically acclaimed comic book this movie is based on features a murderous Dark Knight should mean that fans really don’t get all that upset about the same thing happening in the movie”.
    As you can see below (or simply by reading TDKR), Zack Snyder is wrong.
    All the previous incarnations have not killed.
    The critically acclaimed comic book this movie borrows from does not feature a murderous Dark Knight.
    It features a Dark Knight that kills exactly: no-one. Even if you misinterpret the admittedly ambiguous panel panel in question, there’s a little thing called context to clarify it – the story spends a great deal of time illustrating, before and after this event, that he doesn’t and more importantly, why he he doesn’t. Repeatedly.
    This scene is early in the story, not at the end. Which is how Frank Miller was able to contextualise this scene as specifically not being a “kill” both before and especially after it.
    Also, about “the Tim Burton Batman movies where this reputation as a guy that doesn’t kill comes from”.
    Is this the same Tim Burton that was fired from the director’s chair by WB after the backlash from the (heavily implied not explicitly shown) kills his Batman commits in his second movie?

    Still, in your defence, it is not entirely unreasonable to expect the man WB has entrusted with bringing to DCEU to life would actually know a bit about the characters, or even the source material he says he’s basing his interpretation on.

  • Harry Juicystick

    He doesn’t kill in DKR? He launched a mutant directly into a neon sign and electrocuted him… Then there was the rubber bullet scene where a mutant drops a live grenade after being hit by the tank and kills a few mutants. Plus, besides the rubber bullets, the tank also had giant cannons on the front which he fired into crowds without hesitation.

  • Harry Juicystick

    And also, lets not forget that he breaks the jokers fucking neck lmao… Sure the joker makes the last little tweak, but batman did kill him. He couldn’t move or do anything. Was he supposed to live the rest of his life without ever looking to the side?

  • So Christopher Reeve died after he fell from that horse and it just took 15 years? Stephen Hawking dead, too? Moron.

  • Kylo Wren


  • Jonny Gannett

    Batman HAS killed before in the comics. In fact while it’s true that most of his decades don’t have him kill, in the early 40’s Batman was introduced as a killer. Same with Superman. It was the editor who insisted Batman stop killing after WWII ended. But to say that Batman never kills is dumb. And frankly I couldn’t give a shit about any of the lame arguments to keep things stuck in a forever status quo 1950’s batman and superman. I don’t want a boy-scout hero who won’t do whatever is necessary to save the world. if he HAS to kill, then I WANT HIM TO KILL. Batman being a killer in a movie is basically nothing new. He killed people in every movie basically. Especially in Nolan’s and Burton’s movies. Ra’s Al Ghul in Batman Begins, Two-face in The Dark Knight, and I’m pretty sure he’s responsible for Talia Al Ghul’s death too. Batman let the joker fall to his death at the end of Batman 89. Same with Batman Returns with the Penguin. A Batman who won’t kill the Joker is insane. The guy get’s out EVER FUCKING TIME. Joker has killed thousands of people. And Batman’s inability or refusal to end him makes him a murderer. He FUCKING SAID SO IN THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS. “Do you know how many people I’ve murdered by letting you live?” He just about broke the Joker’s neck at the end, and the Joker finished the job and frames him. Ultimately i want a modern and more reasonable character. I agree Superman’s too often a boy scout who won’t do what’s necessary to keep both the planet and his loved one’s safe. Even Batman thinks he’s a boy scout. Ultimately I love the Zac Synder interpretation of both Superman and Batman cause at least it’s reasonable and relateable far more than the comics have been since like the mid to late 40’s.

  • Andrew197

    Oh Look – another vapid casual with access to Google. With even less knowledge of the character than Snyder.
    I want a killer Batman WAAAAHHHH! Oh look, I found the caps lock button. I must be right.
    Congrats. You just won the argument.
    Oh wait, no you didn’t.

    Yes, Batman originally started out as a pulp rip-off of The Shadow. With teeny purple gloves, like they eventually gave the Riddler.
    Guess what? He was about as popular as Snyder’s characters until they changed that.
    Even in those, he doesn’t kill as indiscriminately and casually as Snyder’s caped idiot does.
    Pre-1940’s killer Bat didn’t survive long.
    Like Snyder’s interpretation won’t last and is hated by actual fans.

    Your infantile tirade proves one thing: your reading and comprehension skills are on a par with Snyder’s.
    This argument isn’t about whether Batman killing is reasonable.
    It’s about the idiocy inherent in what comes out of Snyder’s mouth.
    Everything he says about the previous movies and TDKR is wrong.
    He completely misunderstood both characters – the source material and the nature of their enduring appeal.
    His pathetic attempts to justify what he’s done by referencing other works is embarrassing.
    It makes him look like a complete idiot. Even a delusional one. If he’s not outright lying, then he either has serious learning difficulties or a problem with reality (I reject your reality and replace it with my own).

    See Luke Greensmith’s succinct explanation above for why Batman doesn’t kill. It invalidates your caps-lock attempt at repudiating 70 years of character history in defense of Snyder.

    Batman can’t kill because of his childhood trauma. Watching his parents be murdered has made him incapable of it, even when he should. When it’s perfectly justifiable. That’s the constant theme of TDKR. The fact that Snyder believes the opposite is the point.

    As for his Superman and Batman being more relatable? If you find mentally ill, intellectually challenged characters relatable, well, that says a lot about you as a person.

    Myself, I have higher standards and expectations for average humanity than that. Let alone those supposed to be Heroes.

    The simple test of character is this – if you knew these people in real life, would you admire them? Would you want them as friends? Or would you feel something more akin to pity or contempt for them?

    I find nothing admirable in either.

  • Andrew197

    Because that is what Zack clearly is.
    The Snyderverse is a representation of himself.
    His characters are all insecure, mentally deficient killers because that’s what he’d be in that situation.
    His thought process clearly isn’t “In this situation, what would Superman/Batman do”, but “In this situation, if I was Superman/Batman, what would I do”.

  • nikhil dharne

    dude either you have only seen the movie and not really understood the depth of it or just going with the crowd.
    it was clark’s first day of flight and even realizing the true strength. he has never been violent before nor has he used all of his powers. when a foe or rather one of the only few people whom he can related tries destroying his adopted world, he defends it.
    now, a person who just learnt how to fly or use his strength, he ofcourse went off balance. to top it uup, this foe is equally stronger who is fuck adamant on killing everything that there is. and honestly most of the city was destroyed when the conversion was on.
    in the end, he had to kill zod because thats what he was left with. no fight experience, + he knew zod wasn’t going to stop. what to do in such fucked up time?