Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

See THE NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS Digital 3-D Reissue Poster!! For Real This Time!!

Merrick again...

Here's a look at the poster for the forthcoming Digital 3D reissue of THE NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS.

We posted a prototype version of this a while back...but there was a boo boo...and it had to go away...because it was the prototype and not the real thing...but this one here is the real thing...and I like it a lot. Very sharp. Purty colors.

It'll be very cool to see this film 3-Dimensionalized (is that even a word? "Klytus! Charge the 3-Dimensionalizer!") Believe it or not, I know someone whos tried to watch this film several times -- and she's fallen asleep each time. Maybe this time around she can manage to stay the hell awake...with Oogy jumping into her lap and all.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Aug. 23, 2006, 9:33 p.m. CST

    So what was the "boo-boo"?

    by McGsStepson

    well Merrick?

  • Aug. 23, 2006, 9:36 p.m. CST


    by Joseph Merrick

    A non-final version was accidentally distributed for posting. 'Twas removed to await the arrival of this finalized version.

  • Aug. 23, 2006, 9:37 p.m. CST

    Keep the 3D glasses?

    by Avenger534

    What would you do with them?

  • Aug. 23, 2006, 9:38 p.m. CST

    It looks exactly the same as the first one to me...

    by JohnGalt06

    I don't see much difference. Sally is still jacking Jack off.

  • Aug. 23, 2006, 9:39 p.m. CST

    I'm not down with Jack wearing sunglasses

    by Bryan

    Would it have been so hard to make a poster somewhat in the spirit of the movie? I guess I should be thankful he's not riding a skateboard or something. Anyway, despite the ugly poster, I look forward to seeing this.

  • Aug. 23, 2006, 9:39 p.m. CST

    "You can see real life in 3-D!!!"

    by JohnGalt06

    "Isn't life already in 3-D?" "Yeah, but I mean, come on..."

  • Aug. 23, 2006, 9:39 p.m. CST

    Never saw the movie, might catch it in 3D :p

    by digital8

  • Aug. 23, 2006, 9:49 p.m. CST

    i saw this preview

    by hellas1g7

    when i saw monster house in 3D. Take my word for it, this looks hella good in 3D!!!!

  • Aug. 23, 2006, 9:53 p.m. CST

    big difference

    by waggy

    the protoype was waaayyyyy more obvious with its ... um .... sight gag

  • Aug. 23, 2006, 9:56 p.m. CST

    Thanks Merrick.

    by McGsStepson


  • Aug. 23, 2006, 10:01 p.m. CST

    Does this digital 3-D

    by BrunoTheDog

    Give horrible headaches like the original? I have never been able to watch a digital 3-D movie without getting monster headahces.

  • Aug. 23, 2006, 10:02 p.m. CST

    Clearly I meant "original 3-D movie" and not "digital"

    by BrunoTheDog

  • Aug. 23, 2006, 10:06 p.m. CST

    Now thats a Tom-Boy Beanpole!

    by solartaco3

  • Aug. 23, 2006, 10:07 p.m. CST

    It's ok, but show me something I've never seen before.

    by Vim Fuego

    Like 2 movie stars painting a boat. Man, that'd be sweet.

  • Aug. 23, 2006, 10:17 p.m. CST

    Not sure the 3-D thing is as popular as most think

    by chickychow

  • Aug. 23, 2006, 10:26 p.m. CST


    by Shaz_bot80

    The answer is no, the digital 3D movie do not give you a headache. Tis a wonder of science.

  • Aug. 23, 2006, 10:26 p.m. CST


    by JohnGalt06

    Lock him in a box! Lock him up for 90 years and then see if he talks! ............. Okay, I got that out of my system...

  • Aug. 23, 2006, 10:30 p.m. CST

    Interesting to see that Disney is claiming the film...

    by loodabagel

    this time, now that they've got their own official Disney brand "3D-a-fier" But does this mean the title is now "Disney's Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas-In 3 Beautiful dimensions!"? Do you suppose Coraline will look anything like this?

  • Aug. 23, 2006, 10:31 p.m. CST

    I also noticed that Disney is now claiming credit...

    by JohnGalt06

    for the movie. When it was originally released, it was under the Touchstone banner. Will that be removed and replaced by the Disney logo for this re-release? What a crock...

  • Aug. 23, 2006, 10:32 p.m. CST

    I will never learn to proofread my posts.

    by Shaz_bot80

    And this is just a 3D re-issue movie. The only two objectives of the poster is to make you aware that it is The Nightmare Before Christmas and that it is in digital 3D. Ok, got that Bryan!? Those are 3D glasses that Jack is wearing! 3D GLASSES!! NOT SHADES!

  • Aug. 23, 2006, 10:36 p.m. CST

    Totally fucking cool!

    by dirtsandwich

    I just saw Monster House digital 3D. Awesome shit people. It's getting better and better. They showed the trailer for "The Nightmare Before Christmas (in 3D). Fuck it was killer. It was like it was snowing in there theater. So well done. Go to all the 3Ds movies coming out. The IMAX 3D is suppose to be the best. Better glasses. No it doesn't give you a headache. The glasses were more heavy duty and comfortble. Avatar and Journey to the Center of the Earth are going to be filmed in digital HD 3D. I can't wait.

  • Aug. 23, 2006, 10:40 p.m. CST

    There is no red and blue glasses anymore!

    by dirtsandwich

    You can wear them as shades. They are clear but just slightly tinted. I'm fucking serious don't miss this shit. Find the nearest digital theater and go. It's worth the drive. Check this site... dlp_cinema_theater_listing.asp

  • Aug. 23, 2006, 10:49 p.m. CST


    by MCVamp

    The original intent of the Touchstone banner was to keep the "Disney" banner from being attached to something potentially non-family-friendly, to give the double benefit of not keeping adults away from an assumed kiddie movie and being able to take advantage of a more mature market that the Disney label just wouldn't look right on. Movies like TRON and THE BLACK HOLE would have definitely received the "Touchstone" banner had it existed at the time. Disney now absorbs Nightmare for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, yes, they are annexing it from the Touchstone library, as is their right...they own it. The sub-reason for this is because at the time, N.B.C. was actually considered not only an obvious split from the classic, standard, (bland and safe) Disney animated classic. It was even considerd to have inappropriate content, which is amusing now only a decade later, where "kids" movies with fart jokes and blatant sexual innuendos are the accepted norm. Secondly, it was recently announced that in a money-saving measure, Disney was going to severly scale back its production schedule and lay off entire divisions of people. Unconfirmed but widely suspected is the Touchstone Pictures banner. Disney has reached the point where it's comfortable releaseing all types of movies under its label, since they have been able to shake the "Shaggy Dog & Love Bug" studio label...and ironically, they re-made both of those movies in the past 2 years. Now they're going to be circled around Pixar, inspirational "true story" pictures, and the occasional remake or rework of an old property. For better or for worse, Disney can sustain itself by sticking to what they've been putting out for the last few years and not have to release "edgier" stuff under Touchstone since Disney is now going to mean "fun for the whole family" again. Either way, it's not like the MGM lion is disappearing, who cares? But mainly, Disney realizes they made a mistake by initially releasing this under Touchstone and they're swiping it for reputation. Of course I could be wrong...

  • Aug. 23, 2006, 11:01 p.m. CST

    The touchstone crack...

    by loodabagel

    Sheese, man. I mean, well written post and all, but I think we were just trying to be bitches about it.

  • Aug. 23, 2006, 11:13 p.m. CST

    Fell Asleep?

    by Larry of Arabia

    I know not all movies are for everybody, but dude it's time to re-evaluate this friendship.

  • Aug. 23, 2006, 11:13 p.m. CST


    by Vim Fuego

    Thanks for that. I was being ironic (prev story), but that's pretty cool, so cheers. BTW Of course I've seen Shawshank. It's one of my favourite films, but then again so is "Carry on Cleo". "Sooth Sooth!"

  • Aug. 23, 2006, 11:21 p.m. CST

    I am Jack's giant penis...

    by Roguewriter

    ... which apparently likes popcorn.

  • Aug. 23, 2006, 11:34 p.m. CST

    Here's why she may have fallen asleep:

    by Zeke25:17

    The movie runs a little over 80 minutes, and feels like two hours. Parts of it are brilliant, no mistake (and I love the annual Haunted Mansion Holiday conversion at Disneyland, ten times more fun than the original film IMHO). But other than a few very good musical numbers ("What's This?", "Kidnap the Sandy Claws" and "The Oogie Boogie Song") and some rare wildly colorful scenes...the movie looks, and sounds, drab. Drab and dull, folks. (I don't care if Halloween Town is supposed to look gloomy all the time; it didn't have to look battleship gray!) Once you get past the novelty of the stop-motion ain't exactly an exciting script; and to me can't come close to anything in Rudolph, Santa Claus is Comin to Town or Year Without a Santa Claus. The IDEA behind it, however, is genius. Maybe the 3-D effects will help it out. And did you notice how comparitively colorful Corpse Bride was?

  • Aug. 23, 2006, 11:37 p.m. CST

    Can't wait for Schindler's List 3D!

    by Ace Hunter

    Seriously, I think we're about to be bombarded with these 3D-ized movies.

  • Aug. 23, 2006, 11:41 p.m. CST

    A chick who can't stay awake for this film...

    by The Pusher

    ...Is a keeper in my book.

  • Aug. 23, 2006, 11:49 p.m. CST

    Porn 3D

    by dirtsandwich

    Fuck yeah!

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 12:33 a.m. CST

    All this shit...

    by Drworm2002

    and they don't you nkow that the trailer for Saw III is on line.

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 12:40 a.m. CST

    MAybe cuz the 1st two are SH!T!!!!

    by Malebolgia

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 12:42 a.m. CST

    LOTR and Star Wars...

    by mattyholmes

    are they going to be re-released in 3D and when? Do you have to wear them geeky glasses to watch the movie?

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 1:04 a.m. CST

    "Classic" my balls

    by Liberty Valance

    This movie reeks of mediocrity. A bunch of instantly forgettable songs wrapped around some half decent stop-motion. Of course, the same marketing geniuses who call this a "classic" made the decision to release a movie with "Christmas" in the title in October. Bloody brilliant.

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 1:08 a.m. CST

    This type of stop motion always freaked me out.

    by Shermdawg

    Remember the short where that dude stole the little boy's eyes??? That would scare the shit out of a kid.

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 1:33 a.m. CST

    Liberty Valance

    by calami-shami

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 1:47 a.m. CST

    Deja Vu

    by Heisenberg85

    Did you guys just copy the old complaining about Disney now accepting this title from the original post of the poster or was it an accident? Because seeing the same series of posts twice just pisses me off.

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 2:29 a.m. CST

    are they making a reference to the paul rubens arrest?

    by s0nicdeathmonkey

    because if they are, thats pretty awesome.

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 3:06 a.m. CST

    The original is here...

    by Brendon is the "jacking off" more obvious?

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 3:29 a.m. CST

    Great, can't wait to play "Dodge the Emo"...

    by Grando

    When I go to see this. Luckily they will be too busy writing bad poetry, thinking about cutting themselves and listening the Fallout Boy to watch the movie.

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 4:06 a.m. CST

    Liberty Valance

    by Bryan

    Okay, so you don't like the movie, but your argument doesn't hold any water. The movie is 12 years old and is about ten times more popular now than it was when it came out. Over the years it went from a movie that Disney tried to distance itself from to a merchandising juggernaut, and in a way that's not really comparable to any other movie. If you walk around Disneyland these days you see as many people with Jack Skellington on their heads as Mickey Mouse ears. I guarantee you the popularity of this movie outlives all of us here. Of course it's a classic. But forget that. You're seriously telling us that the animation is only "half decent"? How do you expect to be taken seriously when you're exaggerating like that?

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 4:07 a.m. CST


    by ELGordo

    looks like a sequel to Scary Movie.

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 4:19 a.m. CST

    Falling Asleep

    by Sleeping_Angel

    Hmm, what's not to fall asleep about this movie? Tim Burton is so, I dunno, overrated.

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 4:44 a.m. CST

    Anyone know if this will get a london release?

    by partyman

    Wouldn't mind seeing this again at IMAX. On the whole 3D thing, the jury is still out for me. Went to see superman with the 20 mins of 3D last week. I'm glad the whole wasn't in it because I might have been puking! It's ok if there isn't much movement on screen, but during more chaotic scenes its just annoying. Plus you need to have a decent seat to get the full effect. If you're stuck near the front or the sides it ain't as good. Must say the 3D in the Ant Bully trailer was impressive though!

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 5:06 a.m. CST

    No London release...

    by Brendon

    ...well, doesn't look like it from this:

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 6:49 a.m. CST

    I agree

    by pandamaster83

    I think the movie is totally overrated. I saw it once with extremely high hopes and was very let down. I think one reason for Pixar's success was the exclusion of songs in their movies. As for this film, it's like people see it and say "ooh it's all dark and creepy and twisted," and -if you swing that way- "how appealing to my particular choice of sub-culture". The visuals are brilliant and original, I'll give it that.

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 6:57 a.m. CST

    I'm also aware

    by pandamaster83

    of the lack of a coherent arguement in that previous post. What I meant to put across is that film's need more than cool visuals: they need great stories and (in this case) better gags (and less songs). I can't say this sort of thing in front of my friends though because any form of criticism aimed at this film (or Batman 1 and 2 for that matter) amounts to unforgivable blasphemy.

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 7:44 a.m. CST

    I'll only see it

    by tracheattack

    if it's sync'd up with KID A.

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 8:02 a.m. CST

    Touchstone was gone there for a while

    by Terry_1978

    I see it's making a comeback though. Remember Roger Rabbit was under that label as well, mostly due to the semi hard PG rating.

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 8:08 a.m. CST

    Old Poster versus New Poster - Flash Interface

    by Christopher_atUC

    The difference between the old poster and new poster had NOTHING to do with the placement of Sally's arm. The poster was redone because the glasses changed. They also took that opportunity to rework the characters. Notice the difference in the lighting/shading, colors, clarity, and characters at this link:

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 8:09 a.m. CST

    This Poster

    by Raschied

    gives me a great idea for an X-rated Skittles ad. Remember the guy with the prehensile beard feeding the woman Skittles?

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 9:09 a.m. CST

    It's dark...

    by The Pusher

    There's 80-some minutes to go, emo kids everywhere, I'm all out of popcorn, and we're all wearing sunglasses.

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 9:51 a.m. CST

    Doesn't have to be IMAX though does it?

    by partyman

    Can this not be shown in 3D at any cinema with a digital projector?

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 10:04 a.m. CST

    The Pusher

    by occams_razor

    Thanks for the laugh, I needed it today. As for the movie, I might see it. Really liked the musical numbers and Oogie Boogie was freaky enough but overall, I didn't really get into it that much. The Hot Topic peanut gallery might be worth it, though.

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 10:06 a.m. CST

    Ok, let's get somethings straight.

    by Shaz_bot80

    First, no you cannot wear the 3D glasses as shades as they do NOTHING to block the UV rays from the sun. It says that on the package. Second, The new digital 3D can be shown on all screens, provided that it has a digital projector. (ANd yes, you HAVE to wear the damn glasses to see the 3D effects!) Third, after Pirates of the Carribean; Disney has not really used the Touchstone banner. And lastly, if you don't like the movie thats just fine. But you have to remember that more than a decade after the movie was released, merchandise from the film is still selling. People like and respond to this movie, so if you hate it you are in the minority.

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 10:36 a.m. CST

    This film..

    by A G

    ..was boring on soo soo many levels. The merchandise still appeals to 15 year old "goths" though.

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 11:06 a.m. CST

    Yeah but

    by pandamaster83

    people still buy A-team t-shirts 20 years later. Does that mean The A-team was actually good?

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 11:14 a.m. CST

    It's a movie with a better rep than it deserves

    by TimBenzedrine

    I agree with pandamaster.The movie has great visuals that appeal to the goth sect, but as a FILM,with compelling characters and an engaging story, it really falls short. I saw this movie at the premiere at the The El Cap with one of the biggest Tim Burton fans I knew and we both left the theatre feeling a little let down. We really wanted to like this movie, and it just didn't do it for us. I think we concluded that the story dragged, and half the songs were pretty weak, and the main characters, while interestingly designed, were sort of ambiguous. Is Jack a good guy or a bad guy? -Of course he's a little misguided and he means well, but throughout the film, you never really seem to be in anyones corner. There were some interesting characters(who DOESN'T like Sally?), but their relationships and motivations lacked-that-SOMETHING that makes you really suspend your disbelief and think of them as real. It was like watching an 80 minute long window display. It seemed like the makers of the film had that same problem --Jack's dilema gets old real fast and so they introduce a real villianous character halfway into the film. I think it would have made more sense to have Oogie Boogie be more essential to the plot, possibly having HIM pushing Jack to pursue his Christmas fettish so HE'd get a chance at being king of Halloweentown for the next year. At least that would explain his desire to lock up Santa Claus. --And poor Santa is really handled badly in all this. I mean I understand that the point was to be all post-modern edgy and devoid of sympathy, but come on, this is *Santa* we're talkin about.(it IS nice that he makes it snow at the end--sure, it's corny, but those corny old cliches WORK and they give the movie a little bit of badly needed "heart". I've seen the movie a couple of times since it was released, and everytime I see it I reach the same conclusion: as a technical excercise the movie is brilliant, but it's still a movie with no heart.

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 11:20 a.m. CST

    She fell asleep cuz Elfman's score SUCKS.

    by SleazyG.

    The guy is an overrated hack who records the same shit over and over again. I stopped caring about anything he did 15 years ago, and stopped caring about Burton at least 6-8 years ago. Rehash, rehash, rehash--and from what I ehar, "Corpse Bride" was supershort and supersucky, too. I love 3-D shit, but just can't bring myself to care about this.

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 11:21 a.m. CST

    Since we keep getting to keep the 3D glasses...

    by SleazyG.

    ...does that mean we can bring our pair from home and get a discount on the ticket? Cuz they're charging extra for each 3D movie because of the glasses, y'know...

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 11:44 a.m. CST

    Chicks dig it...

    by Billyeveryteen

    Guess, I'm going. I need me more of that hot goth poontang.

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 12:08 p.m. CST

    Kinda cool this is coming in 3-D, but I would

    by finky089

    prefer to just have Bay and co. NOT FUCK UP TRANSFORMERS! Oh, sheesh, wrong TB.

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 12:10 p.m. CST

    My God, not literally wear them as sunglasses!

    by dirtsandwich

    When you wear them outside they're similar to sunglasses. As they darken or tint the brightness. You can wear them if you want to look like a fucking dork. How much cost to make .30 cents. You'd have to be a stupid fuck to use in replacement of true sunglasses. Even the cheap $1 store sunglasses are better than these.

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 12:16 p.m. CST

    I have a digtial projector,

    by dirtsandwich

    I wonder if it will work on that when it comes out on dvd using these glasses? Is it the version they are playing or is it the projector itself.I know locally that they installed a curved silver screen for the 3D to be shown on.

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 12:26 p.m. CST

    Can live action be updated to 3D,

    by dirtsandwich

    or does it have to be filmed in 3D? Shouldn't they be able to add the effect to a film like The Matrix or King Kong? I'd rather see them re-release good movies in 3D then watch crap ass remakes like Poseiden. I know if they were to re-release a movie not intended for 3D the in your face effect will be limited greatly compared to a movie being filmed with 3D in mind.

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 1:27 p.m. CST

    The original was already in 3D,

    by Ingeld

    In fact all movies are. They have height, width and time--three dimensions. This movie and others like it add depth, thus they are 4D. You will curse me for being so pedantic, but you will be repeating this at your next geek outing. You know you will.

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 1:47 p.m. CST

    Tim Benzedrine

    by Bryan

    I'm sorry you don't dig it, but I have to say, your suggestions of how the plot could be "improved" would ruin the movie in my view. Oogie Boogie push Jack into wanting to be Santa Claus? It's not an evil plot, it's just Jack being bored of his life and because he is a Halloween creature he doesn't understand that he's scaring everybody. He's just overzealous. You could compare him to other protagonists of Tim Burton movies, - a lot of Ed Wood, a little Edward Scissorhands. He's flawed - see how he ignores Sally - but you like him because he's passionate and because he's a skeleton. This to me is much more interesting than a generic good guy/bad guy story. I can understand why not everybody would like the movie, but part of what I like about it is that it's not trying to follow traditional rules of movie storytelling. I'm not sure it would work with more three-dimensional characterizations. The look obviously takes inspiration from Edward Gorey, but I think the story does a little too. It's all about mood and the emotions are heightened instead of true to life. My favorite scene is when Jack lands all burnt up in the graveyard and sings "what have I done?" but as he thinks out loud through song he slowly convinces himself that what he did was great and the music builds from lament to triumph. The funny thing is that my favorite scene in Toy Story is very similar, when Buzz discovers he's a toy. He doesn't sing but the Randy Newman song follows the same trajectory of despair to excitement, although when he tries to fly he plunges to the ground so there's not a happy ending to the scene. Finally, I would like to say in my own defense that I am not goth, I have never been goth, and do not personally know any goths, but I love this movie. I've never owned a Cure record in my life, but I have pretty much the entire Wu-Tang discography. Also I don't know what emo is but if it has something to do with Emo Philips I don't want anything to do with it.

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 2:31 p.m. CST

    As far as the Touchstone thing goes...

    by TheBZA

    Touchstone is alive and well, the recent studio cutbacks will effect production under the Touchstone banner in the future, cutting back from 10 or so pics a year to 2 or 3, but recent and upcoming Touchstone pics include: Flightplan, Dark Water, Shopgirl, Casanova, Annapolis, Stick It, Step Up, The Guardian (9/29), The Prestige (10/20), Deja Vu (11/22) The switch from Touchstone to Walt Disney Pictures for Nightmare was a studio decision, Nightmare and the characters involved have become a large part of Disney's character stable and therefore it makes sense to have it under the WDP banner. FYI, Pirates: Curse of the Black Pearl was originally under Touchstone not WDP.

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 4:29 p.m. CST


    by AlgertMopper

    My stock in HOT TOPIC just sky rocketed

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 7:59 p.m. CST

    On The Downside...

    by MarkoOhNo

    Disney insisted on incorporating Stitch into a cameo role. (heh jk It'd BETTER be the same film.)

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 10:58 p.m. CST

    So I assume this is going to be limited to IMAX 3D?

    by Jopapa

    Or will they also be able to show it in DLP-equipped theaters? I have yet to see a theatrical movie in digital, but a theater near my folks place just got a nice new DLP projector and I'm wanting to see something there. Be cool if it's this since I've never seen it (yeah I suck).

  • Aug. 24, 2006, 11:54 p.m. CST

    It can be shown at the regular digital theaters

    by dirtsandwich

    Just like Monster House 3D. The trailer for NBC is before the movie in 3D. So you get a little taste of it. And it's super fucking cool.

  • Aug. 25, 2006, 4:37 a.m. CST

    Is that what 3D Glasses look like now?

    by pokadoo

    It looks like they're watching 'RAY' in 3D!

  • Aug. 25, 2006, 10:33 a.m. CST

    Ok, ok.

    by Shaz_bot80

    Sorry if I offended those of you who hate the movie. It seems alot of you hate the movie. Fine. Relax. I'm not saying it's great, I'm just saying that it CONNECTED with people. Alot of people connect with the Family Guy, which I hate with a passion. I won't knock the show, it's just not my taste. I also don't think the whole digital 3D thing would be released on DVD. The whole gimmick is to get asses in the theater. I may be wrong, but we'll see.