Johnny Depp's Gothic Thriller Surges on Streaming Ahead of Remake

0:00It's not just electric, it's Toyota Electric. And during Toyota's easy-to-toys sales event, going electric is easier than ever. Right now, save instantly on a new Toyota EV with special incentive programs for first-time EV buyers and prior EV owners. Choose the sleek Beasy, the adventurous Beasy Windland or the Sporty CHR. But don't wait! These special savings won't last. We make it easy. Toyota, let's go places! In 1999, it took $100 million and a sprawling physical village built from scratch in the English countryside. And just this absolute army of practical effects artists to turn a Hollywood leading man into a Gothic detective. Yeah, a massive mass of undertaking. Right. But today, in 2026, it is taking a fraction of that money. And just the invisible silent math of a streaming algorithm

1:00to attempt to bring that exact same actor back from the brink of career exile. It really is wild when you put it like that. I mean, the contrast between those two areas of Hollywood is staggering, but they are deeply, deeply connected. Oh, for sure. Like, we are looking at a landscape where the digital archives of the late 90s are being mined to actively pave the way for a modern theatrical release. The past is quite literally being weaponized to sell the future. Welcome to The Deep Dive, everyone. We are diving into a really compelling intersection of cinema, literature, and just raw industry economics today. It's a great topic. It is. And our compass for this is a piece published on October 2, 2026 in Movie Web. It's written by James Meltzer. And the article zeroes in on Johnny Depp's 1999 R-rated thriller Sleepy Hollow. A classic. Right. And right now, 27 years after its release, it is suddenly surging up the charts on streaming platforms. Which is fascinating timing.

2:00Exactly. Because this isn't happening in a vacuum. It is surging just weeks before Depp makes his first major mainstream Hollywood return in a new film called Ebenezer, which is hitting theaters in November. Yeah. And the timing is definitely not coincidental. I mean, what Meltzer's article provides here is a real-time case study in the anatomy of a cinematic comeback. Yeah, a total blueprint. Exactly. It forces us to examine the shifting financial realities of the studio system over the last quarter century. And perhaps most importantly, for you listening, it shows how classic literature is constantly dismantled and re-engineered to fit the psychological needs of modern audiences. Right. Let's start with the immediate data from the article. So as of early October of 2026, Sleepy Hollow hit number nine on the 2B streaming platforms' most popular list. Before it rotated off on the first of the month. Yep, just a quick spike. Exactly. And it's also currently sitting on Pluto TV and Paramount Plus. And on top of that,

3:00another Gothic film with his, From Hell, is sitting at number two on 2B. Wow, number two. Yeah. So you have these decades-old blood-soaked period pieces suddenly just dominating the digital landscape. I mean, the instinct is to look at that and just say, well, you know, it's October. Right. People want spooky movies. Exactly. And the functionality is a massive factor, obviously. We really have to look at how these platforms actually manufacture that desire. Okay. What do you mean by manufacture? Well, it isn't just a digital library and moving a folder from the back to the front of a website, you know? Right. The algorithms running 2B and Paramount Plus are incredibly sophisticated predictive engines. They utilize a mix of content-based filtering and collaborative filtering. Okay. Walk us through the mechanics of that because to the average user, you know, to you listening, it probably just feels like opening an app and seeing a row of Halloween movies. Sure. It feels organic. Yeah, it feels organic. So how does the system push a specific 27-year-old movie into the top 10?

4:00Okay. So content-based filtering is basically the baseline. The metadata tags on sleepy hollow, things like gothic, horror, tim Burton, witches. They align perfectly with the calendar shift to October. Right. So the system knows to surface those tags right now. Exactly. But collaborative filtering is where it gets really aggressive. The algorithm tracks micro-behaviors. Like what kind of behaviors? Well, say a cluster of users recently watched the trailer for the upcoming Ebenezer movie on YouTube. And then they log into 2B and watch, I don't know, 10 minutes of sleepy hollow. Oh, wow. Right. The system recognizes a pattern. It realizes there is a latent synergy between Johnny Depp's past gothic work and his current news cycle. That is wild. It is. It then tests that assumption by putting sleepy hollow on the home screen of thousands of other users with similar viewing habits. And when they click, the feedback loop closes and the movie skyrockets to number 9. Okay. So let's unpack this. Because it's like streaming platforms are these

5:02massive rotating haunted houses. Right. Oh, I like that analogy. Yeah. Yeah. Where they purposely shuffle the rooms right before Halloween to manufacture a cultural moment. Right. And it just, it isn't just, you know, just waiting for you to search for the movie. Right. It's aggressively curating a vibe based on real world news cycles. And Meltzer actually points out in the article that from hell rarely gets the attention it deserves. Yeah. It's a bit of a deep cut. It is. Yeah. Which really highlights how these algorithmic surges can, you know, temporarily rescue films from total obscurity. The system doesn't really care about the film's legacy. It only cares about its current engagement metrics. Right. But I have to push back on the idea that this is just the algorithm doing the heavy lifting here. Oh, really? Yeah. I mean, doesn't the audience have a conscious role in this? Or are people just passively absorbing spooky content? Or is the audience doing like deliberate homework? Homework in what sense?

6:02Well, we know there's a new movie coming out. People are highly connected to entertainment news. I'd argue the audience is actively seeking out its past work to contextualize this upcoming return. That's a fair point. The audience is definitely participating. But their motives are pretty complex. We cannot ignore the larger context the article provides. Meltzer explicitly frames this November release as a comeback following depths highly publicized legal battles with Amber Heard. Right. And just to pause here for a second. Whatever the public stances on those personal headlines and we should be clear to the listener. We are strictly relaying the context provided by the movie web article regarding the timeline of this career. Exactly. We are not taking sides on the legal matters or endorsing any viewpoint settle. Right. Exactly. We're just looking at the mechanics of the industry. But from a purely industry perspective, the studio is having to navigate an incredibly complex PR landscape. Absolutely. They are trying to reintroduce a highly scrutinized figure

7:02to a massive global audience. Exactly. I mean, the media narrative surrounding him has been entirely non-cinematic for years. Yeah, it's been all tabloid in legal news. Right. So when an audience member boots up a streaming service and chooses to watch Sleepy Hollow, they might be subconsciously looking to reconnect with the idea of the actor before the controversy. Oh, that is really interesting. Like a nostalgia trip. Exactly. They're revisiting a time when his brand was defined purely as an eccentric, highly stylized theatricality. The streaming service serves as almost a palette cleanser for the audience before they buy a ticket to the new film. That makes the endurance of Sleepy Hollow even more fascinating, honestly. It isn't just a random movie. It's a specific type of cinematic identity. A very specific identity. Right. And to understand why that specific identity still holds so much weight after 27 years, we have to look at the DNA of the film itself. We definitely do.

8:02Because what Tim Burton did in 1999 wasn't just adaptive story. He violently mutated it. Yeah, the article details just how radical of a departure the 1999 film is from Washington Irving's original 1820 story. Right. I mean, most people forget what the original story actually is. Exactly. Irving wrote what was essentially a lighthearted, somewhat satirical ghost story. The original Ikebud Crane is a deeply superstitious, cowardly, bumbling school teacher. Right. He is a caricature of rural anxiety. He's the punchline. He really is. The villagers literally play a prank on him. Yeah. But the film takes that foundational text and just inverts the protagonist entirely. Completely. In the 1999 version Ikebud Crane is a New York City police constable. He is a man who strictly adheres to the scientific method. And he's dispatched to an upstate village to investigate a string of decapitations. Right. So he's not a scared local. No. He refuses to believe in the supernatural, which clashes directly with the locals who are absolutely convinced

9:06a demonic Hessian horseman is responsible. Right. And this thematic clash is the engine of the entire movie. You have New York City representing the enlightenment, you know, modernity, logic, early forensic science. Yep. And then you have the village representing romanticism, tradition, folklore, and the occult. But here's my question. Why make that change? Why change the core of the story? Yeah. Doesn't taking a classic American folktale and turning it into a gritty police procedural just strip it of its original cultural value. Like, aren't we just slapping a famous brand name on a generic script? Well, it's a risk, certainly, but it solves a massive problem of audience surrogacy. Okay. Tell me more about that. Think about the audience in 1999. You cannot make a terrifying multi-million dollar horror film. If your main character is a goofy schoolteacher who runs away from a pumpkin on a stick. Right. That's a comedy. Exactly. Modern audiences are inherently cynical. They demand logic. So by making crane a rigid skeptic, a man who literally builds intricate, bespoke magnifying glasses

10:12and autopsy tools to explain away the magic. Right. He's basically 18th century Batman. Basically. And by doing that, he becomes the avatar for the audience's own skepticism. Oh. So he's trying to force 20th century logic into an 18th century ghost story. Precisely. And the psychological thrill for the audience is watching that rigid, scientific world view violently shatter. Oh, man. When the man of science is finally confronted with a headless demon holding a bloody sword, the horror is magnified because his foundational understanding of reality has collapsed. Right. Our skepticism collapses with his. Exactly. And the article gives us a massive clue as to how this tone was achieved. And here's where it gets really interesting because it explicitly names the writer Andrew Kevin Walker. Yes. A very important detail. Right. For anyone unfamiliar with him, Walker wrote the script for seven. The quintessential dark procedural. Exactly. He also wrote eight millimeter and did some uncredited work on five club. Which is the key to understanding the genre alchemy at play here.

11:15You take a writer who is a master architect of the bleakest, most punishing psychological mystery boxes of the 90s. And you hand him a children's Halloween fable. It completely explains the tone. Right. The film ceases to be a ghost story and becomes a heavily stylized, r-rated, gothic murder mystery. The horror isn't just jump scares. It's procedural. Yes. Crane is doing literal autopsies. Yeah. He's investigating conspiracy and witchcraft among the town elders. And you cannot sell a procedural conspiracy steeped and witchcraft without a cast capable of delivering highly theatrical borderline absurd dialogue with absolute dead pants and serenity. Right. It could easily fall apart. Oh, it could be a disaster. But the ensemble listed in the article is just staggering. You have Christina Ricci, Miranda Richardson, Michael Gambon, Casper Van Dien, Jeffrey Jones, Christopher Walken as the headless horseman. Walken playing a demonic hessian mercenary with file down teeth who rarely speaks. I mean, it is absolute peak 90s cinema.

12:17It really is. But why spend the money on Michael Gambon and Miranda Richardson? You have these classically trained, heavy-hitting theatrical actors in a movie about a ghost with no head. Well, it acts as an anchor. An anchor. Yeah. In genre filmmaking, especially when dealing with the occult or heightened gothic aesthetics, there is a constant danger of slipping into unintentional camp. Right. It gets silly. Exactly. If you cast a roster of B-movie actors to run around in the fog screaming, the audience stops taking the threat seriously. It becomes a parody. Yeah, you stop caring. But when you have Michael Gambon, an actor with immense Shakespearean gravitas, treating the threat of the horseman with deadly seriousness, its signals to the audience that the stakes are real. Oh, I see. The prestige of the cast forces you to respect the world building. So, it provides a seal of approval for the weirdness. Exactly. But creating that world, you know, the practical fog, the massive physical sets, affording actors of that caliber, that requires an economic model that is almost unrecognizable

13:19today. Oh, completely. It's a different universe. Right. And the article gives us the specific financial metrics from 1999, and they are eye-opening. Yeah, the production budget for Sleepy Hollow was roughly $100 million. $100 million in 1999. Let that sink in. For an R-rated horror film where people are routinely decapitated, that is a breathtaking amount of financial risk for a studio to take on a genre that traditionally relies on micro-budgets. It speaks to the massive overhead of physical production during that era. I mean, to achieve that specific Tim Burton aesthetic, they couldn't just shoot on location. Right. You can't just find a creepy town. No, they had to build the entire town of Sleepy Hollow. Every building, the cover bridge, the woods, they built it all inside sound stages at Leavesden Studios in England. That is insane. They were paying for massive lighting rigs to simulate perpetual gloom, elaborate period costuming, and just a massive crew. Wow. And the article notes that it grossed $207 million worldwide.

14:24And the author, Meltzer, he calls it a modest box office hit. Very specific industry term. Right. Because when a movie doubles its budget, calling it modest sounds almost insulting to the average person. So walk us through the actual Hollywood accounting behind that phrasing. Why is doubling your money considered just squeaking by? Well, it all comes down to the hidden costs that aren't included in that $100 million production budget. OK. The production budget only covers the cost to make the physical film. It doesn't cover P&A, prints and advertising. Right. In 1999, physically printing thousands of heavy celluloid film reels and shipping them and metal canisters across the globe was incredibly expensive. Oh, sure. The physical media of it all. Exactly. Add to that a massive global marketing campaign, TV spots, billboards, press junkets. And the theaters don't just show the movie out of the goodness of their hearts, right? Exactly. The theater chains take roughly half of the box office gross.

15:24Half. Yep. $2007 million, the studio is only seeing around a hundred to 110 million of that in actual revenue. Wow. So it barely covers the production. Right. When you subtract the marketing and distribution costs, a $100 million movie grossing $207 million means it likely just broke even during its theatrical run. That is wild. It wasn't a massive windfall until it hit the home video market with VHS and DVDs. Hence, a modest hit. Right. It survived, but it wasn't printing money at the box office. Exactly. But the legacy of the film isn't defined by its break even theatrical run. It's defined by the reception metrics the article highlights. The reviews, yeah. Right. So critics gave it a 71% on Rotten Tomatoes. Decent, solid, but not universally acclaimed. However, the audience score, the popcornometer, is hitting it an 80%. And that gap between the critical consensus and the audience passion is exactly the breeding

16:25ground for cult classics. OK. So what does this all mean for the listener? I look at an 80% audience score and I actually see a healthier metric for long term survival than a 95%. That's a bold claim. Why? Hear me out on this. In the modern blockbuster era, studios are terrified of alienating anyone. The engineer movies for what they call for quadrant appeal. Meaning they want to hit men, women, audiences under 25 and audiences over 25, the entire demographic grid. They want everyone. So they sand down all the rough edges. They inject broad humor, they remove any challenging thematic elements, all to ensure that everybody who walks out of the theater says, well, yeah, that was fine. Right. Nobody hates it. Exactly. They get their 95% audience score. But because the movie is so smooth and inoffensive, it completely evaporates from the cultural memory three weeks later. Nobody is thinking about a generic four-quadrant action movie from 2018 today. Right. The universal mild approval does not generate passion.

17:27Very true. But an 80% on a deeply weird, hyper stylized, incredibly violent, gothic procedural, that means the movie took genuine artistic risks. Oh, absolutely. It probably alienated 20% of the audience completely. They walked out. But the 80% who stayed, they connected with it on a visceral level. They bought the DVDs. Yes, they talk about it online. And 27 years later, they're the ones driving it up the Toobie algorithms in October. It wasn't built to be disposable. It was built to be singular. And Paramount, the studio behind both Sleepy Hollow and the upcoming Ebenezer, they understand the value of that singular passion perfectly. They know what they have. They do, but they also understand that the financial gamble of 1999 is no longer viable. The economic strategy laid out in the article for this new film is a complete pivot from the $100 million practical era. Right, which brings us to the November 13, 2026 release of Ebenezer. We are looking at a reimagining of Charles Dickens, a Christmas Carol.

18:30An absolute staple. Yeah. And the tagline Paramount is using is brilliant. The name you know, the story you don't. It is a masterclass in risk mitigated marketing. They are deploying the exact same intellectual property strategy that drove Sleepy Hollow. Okay, let's break down that tagline. Because the name you know is doing a tremendous amount of heavy lifting for the studio. Massive heavy lifting. Right. They are utilizing a 19th century public domain property. Everybody on the planet knows the basic architecture of Ebenezer's Grooch. You don't have to spend $30 million in marketing just to explain the premise of the movie to the audience. Exactly. They already know about the three ghosts and the Bahumbu attitude. The barrier to entry is practically zero. The audience has the comfort of familiarity. Right. But the story you don't is the hook. If they just pitched another straight adaptation of the book, nobody would care. Yeah, we have the Muppets version. Right. We have the George C. Scott version, the Alistair Sim version. The culture is totally saturated. By promising a subversive twist, they are promising a disruption of the familiar.

19:36And the most vital signal of that disruption is the director they hired. The article notes the film is directed by Ty West. This is a crucial piece at the puzzle. It really is. Ty West is not a safe down the middle studio director. He made his name in the trenches of independent, slow burn, highly stylized horror. Movies like The House of the Devil or the Extriloge? Exactly. He's associated with a very specific modern brand of tension driven, prestige genre filmmaking. He's an author. Right. So my question for you is, why do you take a major star looking for a mainstream comeback in a classic Christmas property and hand the reins to an indie horror author? Because it completely changes the critical context of the film. How so? Well, if Paramount hired a traditional comedy or family film director, critics and audiences would immediately dismiss the project as a cynical, desperate cash grab. Like oh, they're just trying to rehabilitate an actor's image with a holiday movie.

20:36Exactly. But by hiring Ty West, the studio creates artistic friction. They are signaling to the industry that this is a serious, potentially dark, autore-driven project. Oh, that makes sense. It borrows the cultural credibility of the independent film scene to validate a major studio release. It gives it edge. Exactly. And they back up that edge with the supporting cast. We aren't just looking at a solo vehicle here. The article lists Rupert Grint, Andrea Reisboro, Sam Claflin and Daisy Ridley. That is a strategically flawless assembly of actors. I look at that list and I see a massive financial insurance policy. Is that too cynical of a read? Not at all. Because when you have a lead actor whose public narrative is currently defined by off-screen controversy, surrounding him with beloved franchise veterans like Grint and Ridley seems like a deliberate move to stabilize the project. It's not cynical. It's just the reality of international film financing. It goes far beyond just having recognizable faces on a poster to distract from the lead.

21:38OK, what's the deeper strategy? In the modern industry, a studio offsets the cost of a film by pre-selling international distribution rights. Foreign distributors buy the rights based heavily on the bankability of the cast. Oh, so the cast literally pays for the movie. Pretty much. Rupert Grint and Daisy Ridley bring massive, built-in, global fandoms from Harry Potter and Star Wars. Here inclusion guarantees foreign pre-sales, which severely de-risks the project for Paramount before a single ticket is even sold to the public. That is brilliant. It is. And furthermore, actors of the caliber of Andrea Reisboro, who brings immense critical prestige, do not sign on to a script unless the material is genuinely strong. Her presence is a qualitative voucher for the production. That makes perfect sense. Now the article also drops a small bit critical detail about Depp's recent career trajectory. The Indie Detour? Yeah. It mentions he's taken an art house detour of the last few years, staying away from mainstream blockbusters. How does stepping away from the Hollywood machine prepare an actor for a role like Scrooge?

22:40Honestly, it might be the exact calibration he needs. For decades, his mainstream brand was defined by hiding behind massive amounts of makeup, CGI, and eccentric affections. The Jacks Barrows and the Mad Hatters. Exactly. But the art house environment strips all of that blockbuster artifice away. You are relying entirely on the raw mechanics of the performance. Right. There's nowhere to hide. Priss Saisley. And Ebenezer Scrooge is not a cartoon character. He is a man crippled by isolation, bitterness, and regret. Yeah. It's a deeply dramatic role. Stepping into that role requires a grounded, emotionally exposed register. The time spent in smaller, character driven films has likely retooled his approach. During him for a role that demands psychological realism rather than theatricality. That makes the artistic proposition really compelling. But ultimately, you know, Hollywood is a business. Always. And the success of this comeback rests entirely on the math. The article lays out the financial stakes for Ebenezer, and the numbers are a shocking

23:43contrast to the world of sleepy hollow. They really are. The production budget for Ebenezer is just $38 million. $38 million in 2026. Think about that. Sleepy Hollow was $100 million in 1999. It's crazy. It even if you ignore 27 years of inflation, $38 million for a major studio holiday release with a global cast is remarkably lean. How is that even possible today? It is entirely due to the evolution of production technology and a massive shift in how talent is compensated. OK. Bring that down for us. Well, Paramount is not building physical 19th century London streets on a sound stage. They are almost certainly utilizing modern volume technology. Right. Like what they use on the Mandalorian. Exactly. The massive LED screens powered by video game engines that create photorealistic real-time backgrounds, it slashes location and set construction costs dramatically. Wow. OK. And furthermore, to keep the upfront budget at $38 million, it is highly likely that the

24:48major actors and perhaps Ty West himself took significant pay cuts up front in exchange for back-end deals. Meaning they get a percentage of the box office profits of the movie succeeds. Right. So the studio pushes the financial risk off their own balance sheet and onto the talent. So if the movie bombs, the studio only loses $38 million. Exactly. But if it hits, everyone gets rich. And the projections in the article suggest a very high likelihood of it hitting. Yeah. Talk about those projections. Conservative estimates place the worldwide gross at $120 million, which against a $38 million budget is a massive win. Right. Even with marketing costs, the break-even point is so low that the conservative estimate guarantees high profitability. They have expertly protected their downside. But the article also gives us the liberal projections. Early estimates suggest the film could gross upwards of $423 million worldwide. More than $23 million.

25:48That isn't just a profitable holiday movie. That number indicates the analysts believe this could be a massive cultural event. They are betting that the audience is not only curious, but actively invested in a redemption narrative. And that is where the genius of the specific property they chose comes into focus. Absolutely. The author of the article, James Meltzer, ends the piece with a truly remarkable observation. He writes, Either way, it will be interesting to see if audiences welcome depth back with open arms or, like Ebenezer himself, if the sins of the past still haunt him. Oh, man, that line gave me chills. It's a great line. It perfectly articulates the meta-narrative at play here. You have an actor who has been publicly scrutinized, stepping into the literal shoes of literature's most famous man, who is forced by ghosts to reckon with his own past mistakes. What's fascinating here is how the lines between the fiction on the screen and the reality of the PR campaign are entirely blurred. Totally. The studio is leveraging the archetypal weight of a Christmas Carol, a story fundamentally

26:51about the possibility of forgiveness and societal reintegration to frame a real-world comeback attempt. It is a literal redemption arc on screen, designed to trigger a redemption arc in the culture. Exactly. The film is going to watch Scrooge face his isolation, realize his flaws, and beg to rejoin humanity as a better man. The emotional catharsis of the movie is engineered to bleed over into the public's perception of the actor. Right. If he gives a raw, vulnerable performance, the narrative writes itself, the man who faced his ghosts. Yes. And whether the film makes $120 million or $423 million, the fact that the entire architecture of this comeback relies on the thematic power of a 19th century novella is just a testament to why these stories survive. They provide a framework that can be mapped on to almost any modern anxiety or crisis. Which brings us back to where we started. We opened this deep dive looking at a simple data point. Sleepy Hollow hitting number nine on 2B in October.

27:52A single data point. Right. But, unpacking that single metric reveal the entire hidden machinery of the entertainment industry. We saw how algorithms manipulate seasonal aesthetics to prime audiences for upcoming theatrical releases. We broke down how a master writer like Andrew Kevin Walker can proceduralize a folktale to bypass the cynicism of modern audiences. Exactly. And we looked at the death of the $100 million practical gamble and the rise of the $38 million technology driven risk mitigated studio strategy. And we examined the psychology of a comeback. How you pair a scrutinized star with an EGO tour. Surround them with bulletproof supporting actors to guarantee foreign pre-sales. And use the greatest redemption story ever written is your PR shield. It's all connected. And my overarching takeaway for you listening is to never view a remake or reimagining as just a lack of originality in Hollywood. That's a great point. When you see a classic text being altered, whether it's turning a cowardly school teacher

28:54into a forensic scientist or handing Ebenezer Scrooge over to an indie horror director, look at the specific friction points of those changes. Right. Ask why they changed it. Exactly. Those alterations are highly calculated mirrors. They reflect exactly what the studio believes modern audiences fear, desire, and are willing to forgive. The alterations are the entire point. And that leaves me with a final thought I want to throw out there for you, the listener, to chew on after this is over. What's here? We've spent this entire time talking about how Washington Irving and Charles Dickens are constantly being mutated. Yeah. It's essentially the ship of theesia supply deliterature. Oh, wow. Right. If you take a story like Sleepy Hollow, change the genre to an R-rated procedural, completely rewrite the protagonist's motives and strip away the original themes. And yet the audience still instantly recognizes it as Sleepy Hollow. Exactly. So what actually makes a story a classic?

29:55Are we attached to the actual plot of these old books? Or are we just renting the emotional real estate of a familiar title to build entirely new houses that fit our modern neuroses? That's a fascinating question. If you change every single gear inside a clock, but leave the face exactly the same, what are you really looking at when you check the time? It seems like the digital streaming platforms aren't the only revival houses. What do you mean? Well, the characters themselves, Scrooge, Ikebaud Crain are just empty haunted houses, waiting for the culture to shuffle the rooms and move new fears inside. Wow. The old trunk in the attic opens and we find whatever we need for the season. Thank you so much for joining us on this deep dive. Keep questioning the algorithms. Look closely at the math behind the magic. And keep exploring the hidden narratives behind the screen. We'll see you next time.