The Morning Show

Editors Carole Kravetz Aykanian, Plummy Tucker, ACE, and Henk Van Eeghen, ACE, discuss the ramifications of the new DGA TV rules for director’s notes, their approach to a blank timeline, the benefits of cross-boarding, and how context affects pacing.

Today on Art of the Cut, we speak with the editing team of the Apple TV Plus show, The Morning Show. We’re speaking with Carole Kravetz Aykanian, Plummy Tucker, ACE, and Henk Van Eeghen, ACE.

Carole’s work includes features like The Little Prince, Out of Time, High Crimes, and Devil in a Blue Dress, as well as TV series like Dirty John, Ballers, and The Affair. 

Plummy was last on Art of the Cut to discuss editing the feature film Destroyer. Her other features include The Invitation and Aeon Flux, as well as documentary work like Alex Gibney’s Client 9. Her other TV work includes Yellowjackets and Power.

Henk won an ACE Eddie for editing About Sarah, and was nominated for three Emmys, including two for Lost, for which he was also nominated for two more ACE Eddies and then won an Emmy for Lost. His other work includes the TV series Watchmen and Fargo.

AYKANIAN: I’m Carole Kravetz Aykanian and I’m one of the editors on The Morning Show season 3. I cut episode 1, 6, and 10.

TUCKER: I’m Plummy Tucker, another editor on The Morning Show. I cut episodes 2 and 10 with Carol. 

VAN EEGHEN: I’m Henk Van Eeghen, and I cut episode 305 of The Morning Show. 

What is your approach when you get a blank timeline in front of you, and you have a new scene, let’s just say it’s a dialogue scene. What do you do? 

AYKANIAN: I usually try to get a first pass as quickly as possible. That first pass is never to be shown to anyone. It’s to have something to look at instead of a blank page. Most of the time, I assemble the scene using the last circled takes in order to discover it. 

Once I have that rough assembly, I start exploring the different angles and performances. To have that assembly helps me identify what I’m looking for. It’s a part of my process. 

And you do that looking at the last takes, or the last circled take? 

AYKANIAN: Usually, I use the last circled takes. It depends on the scene. My goal is to have something put together quickly so I can get a sense of the scene and how it needs to play. It’s an approach that works well when you have to work fast.

I probably wouldn’t do it like this on a feature, but in television, when you have tight schedules, I found that this technique works well for me. It also takes the pressure out the the first pass.\

When you’re going through that, are you looking for the structure of the scene shot-size-wise? Like, “I’ll start on this close-up of this person, then at this point, I want to be on a two-shot.” Is that what you’re trying to do quickly? 

AYKANIAN: Yes. I go for the obvious, which is not how a scene always needs to be put together. I take what I think is meant to be the opening shot. When you start a scene, you cut out of context. I’ll cut scene 20, and then I’ll move on to scene 12.

In the beginning, I don’t know how I’m going to get out of a scene or transition to the next one. So I need to get a feel for them.

And in order for me to get a feel for them I must free myself from being uptight, because sometimes as an editor, especially when a scene is complicated, you can put too much pressure on yourself to make the right decisions right away.

I try to enter the scenes with no pre-conceived ideas, find them, then refine them. 

Totally get it. It’s like what scriptwriters like to call a “vomit draft.” 

AYKANIAN: Exactly. And then it has to be thrown away and never looked at again.


But you get something on paper. What about you, Plummy? 

TUCKER: What Carol said about that she might approach it differently on a feature: having worked so long in features, and when I was coming up as an assistant on features and watching editors work that way, I kind of got a process going.

When I worked with Bill Anderson — who used to cut for Peter Weir — I got trained on film to watch dailies and make notes of the stuff that you like. Bill would do this, and then he would mark ins and outs in grease pencil on the film to indicate his selects, and the assistants would build select reels.

I actually still like to watch dailies and make notes, but in TV, you don’t always have time. And even in features now, you don’t have that much time because they shoot so much more. There’s no way editors can watch seven hours of dailies and then also cut the scenes.

If you have a really heavy day, you have to pick out how you approach the material. I’ve always aspired to do it the way Carole does. 

I would say it depends on what time allows. If I can watch all the circled takes and make my notes, great, but when there’s too much footage for that in my first pass, then I will try an approach similar to what Carole does, where I look at the last couple of circled takes and I try to get a sense of all the shots and the performance that I think the director was going for and put something together from that.

Sometimes you can say, “They shot three cameras here, but that one camera is only for the entrance and that one camera is only for the exit” or whatever, so you can pare it down and just watch what you need to watch.

Sometimes I’ll take a scan through the dailies. I have my assistant assemble all the dailies in shooting order and I high-speed it to see what they shot, to see what I’ve got, then I go back in and watch.

It would also depend right on the length of how much footage they shot. For example, if you only have to watch 42 minutes or something, maybe you watch all of it, but if you have to watch four hours, then you can’t. 

TUCKER: Right, and that’s what I do. Like Carole said, too, if it’s a complicated scene, you might approach that differently than you approach just a short dialogue scene that’s simple.

This happens to me on features too, but in TV, you get to a point where, “I have this much time to get this much done. And then actually tomorrow I’m going to be working on the producers cut of my last episode, then next Tuesday I’m going to be working on the second network cut of my first episode.” 

There’s usually that rolling thing in TV, which - for me and probably for Henk on this show - wasn’t happening because I only had episode two (302).

I was supposed to just do 302, then I ended up going on to help Carole with 310 because it was just such a big time crunch. There was a lot going on. And so it was not the usual TV crunch for me, this particular experience. It was great. Working with Mimi was great and working with Carole was great.

Henk, what about you? What’s your approach to a scene when you when you’ve got a blank timeline? 

VAN EEGHEN: I do try to read the script, but I am guilty of not reading the script sometimes. I do advise anybody who starts editing “do read the script” because I’ve missed stuff not having read the scene very carefully.

Depending on the director, I’d look at the first take and the last take just to see what they kind of were going for. In my case, I had Stacie Passon as a director, who is really good, so it was fairly easy for me to put together - kind of follow her thoughts.

On the one hand, you’re trying to put your own aesthetics into it, and on the other hand, you’re trying to read what the director is doing. 

Are you creating select reels or are you just going straight from your bin?

VAN EEGHEN: Usually, I go straight into an assemble mode, but it’s only a first assemble, so you really don’t want to have anybody watch it. The hardest part comes when people say, “Oh, have you put that scene together already? Can we just quickly watch it?”

That is a heart-stopping event because they’re usually not ready to be seen. If a line is bad, I’ll go and look through the takes to find that particular line. But you don’t have time to watch six hours of dailies.

Were they cross-boarding? 

AYKANIAN: They cross-boarded 301 and 302. 

TUCKER: …which makes all the difference. 301 was a huge episode and 302 was very complicated and it just had a lot of footage and a lot going on, so it gives you the time to actually do your job. I’m on a show now where it’s cross-boarded like that, and it just makes all the difference. If it’s block shooting and you have to do both episodes in a block, it’s just a lot.

I mean, it’s like being on a feature. You’re doing dailies every day and it’s really just the extreme amount that they shoot now. It’s a luxury, as Carole said, but I think it’s really smart of post producers and producers, EPs who do cross-board just for the editing process.

VAN EEGHEN: In the old days, I literally memorized dailies and I would just know where everything was, and I would know if there was a take where he picked it up with his left hand or with his right hand because you had 30 minutes to 45 minutes of dailies every day. That was it. 

AYKANIAN: Even though my approach is like a bulldozer in the beginning, I end up watching absolutely every take over and over. I analyze all the performances, all the different angles because take one and take two might not have the same camera move.

As you start to craft the episode, you realize that what you thought was right in the beginning in terms of performance or line reading actually is not quite what is needed, and you have to go back and adjust performances.

And like Hank says, you make some very interesting discoveries - things you didn’t really know were there - and in the end I become familiar with everything that was shot.

TUCKER: It’s interesting that we all have that background from when there used to be less footage because it was a different time where you had 45 minutes of dailies because it cost money to print it up. If they said, “Well, maybe we there was one where he didn’t do that,” then we would print it up from B-negative.

(B-negative is footage that was shot but not printed for dailies.) So you would just get another take. But as Carole was saying, now you have to kind of go the other way where you put it together and then go back to see what else do you have, as time allows, and I think that having ScriptSync is kind of crucial now in that way for me in my process.

It really helps me to work quickly - especially in television - where you maybe want to ask, “Did he ever say this or did he ever do it that way?” that you have it ScriptSynced and you can check specific areas quickly.

We used to do it without because you knew that a given line was this far into the take, so you could jump around in the other takes and find alternates, but now they never turn the camera off so there could be five resets in one take, which also didn’t used to happen, so finding alts can be cumbersome.

It’s interesting having this conversation because the process has really changed for us as editors, I think, over time.

Carole mentioned the fact that when you’re cutting the scene for the first time, you don’t have the context of the scenes around it. You know from the script where you are, but cutting the scene, you’re just cutting the scene. Once you put the scenes together, talk to me about understanding that you need to change the dynamics of the pacing. 

AYKANIAN: It’s a matter of balance. A scene that was designed to be fast-paced - like in your episode 302, Plummy with all the chaos - that scene was always designed to be like that. We are also a dialogue driven show with many stories to follow.  So I’m always looking for the moments when I’m able to slow down the pace.

Obviously, a chaotic scene, you can’t. It has to be chaotic. But if you cut every scene at the same speed, that consistent rhythm will kill the overall pace of the episode.  I’m always looking for the moment when I can hold the tension, use more visuals and spend time with the characters’s inner life. Each episode must find it’s own fluid rythm.

The performances are amazing in our show. It’s a pleasure to build them but we must give our actors the time they need to do that. HULLFISH: Initially, the pacing is derived from the footage you’ve been given - the way it’s been shot. But once everything’s together, do you also find you’re changing that pacing? 

VAN EEGHEN: When everything comes together, that’s really when the work starts. Because in the beginning, I’m kind of clueless how to do all this stuff, how to put all the scenes together.

So for me, once the whole episode comes together, that’s when the pleasure starts and you start seeing, “Oh, this could be a little bit faster. This should really start with close ups. We should have some air here with wider shots.

This is where a musical moment can be because it feels like a new chapter.” So that’s when the fun starts and then all of a sudden the episode starts lifting off and becomes a pleasure to watch. 

Before then, it’s really just kind of strung out in intuition mode, especially because nowadays we do so much: scene 35, scene 2, scene 7. It really comes to life when it’s all together. That’s when for me, the pleasure starts. 

AYKANIAN: I agree. I always compare editing to the work of a sculptor. You keep at it constantly until you find the right shape, until everyone is satisfied. “I take a little something there, a little there, add a piece here” until I find that balance.

VAN EEGHEN: Dragging the marble block into your studio? That’s really the hard part. 

TUCKER: That’s where I am right now! I feel like the beginning - when you’re first getting dailies in - the first few days is like dragging that block. You’re thinking, “I’ll put it here. I’ll put it here. I’ll put it here.” and finally just get into it. 

It’s like that first “getting into the sculpting” is that you’re kind of clueless. As Henk was saying earlier: I always read the script and that is good advice - especially in television, but in anything - if you don’t really know your director or your EPs, you have to assume in television that the EPs want what’s on the page.

And then if you find out later that it’s a free for all, then fine. It’s a writer-driven medium. Sometimes I get surprised. I’ll start watching dailies and then I’ll say, “Let me just read again.” I’ll read it and see, “So this moment and that moment I need to look for and I didn’t really see it or I did see it.

This is why it’s hard for me in the beginning because it’s so much more fun once you have a bunch of scenes cut and you can put them together, then you start to see the shape and say, “Oh, I started this with the wrong thing.

Or I want to maybe draw this out or make more of this moment for this character.” Sometimes I hit it in the first pass, but usually not. Usually it’s once you hang it together that you feel like, “Oh, this is working. That’s not. I need to readjust.” 

VAN EEGHEN: Essentially, I try not to sweat the first pass. I see sometimes people who struggle on their first pass and spend hours and hours trying to get something. And then afterwards, it’s not important.

It’s like killing yourself to pick that first shot, then realizing - once you put the scenes together - that your first shot can’t be your first shot because of whatever the scene is that’s before it.

Another question I have is about intercutting, how intercutting changes from the script and why it changes from the script. The one that I can remember out of the episodes that I watched is the space launch intercut with the abortion story. What is driving the intercut other than the script? 

AYKANIAN: That intercutting in 301 was designed as a parallel moment between Alex and Bradley’s storylines - They exchanged what they were supposed to do. Alex wasn’t going to go into space, instead she was going to report on the anti-abortion protest that Reese wanted to cover.

And Reese was gonna go into space instead of Alex. In this particular case, it was scripted that their stories were going to be told at the same time. But there are some other instances when parrallel stories are not scripted. 

As you start adjusting the scenes in an episode you discover a different but more powerful way to tell the story. This is the fun and creative time when you toy with structure. So it really depends. You just have to be opened and constantly challenge yourself. 

I figured that that was a planned intercut between those things, but did they intercut at the same exact moment that the script said or did you tie multiple moments together into a longer block because it felt like the audience wasn’t being able to understand the entire arc before you cut to the next scene? Were there any things like that with any of your other episodes that when you were intercutting something, you felt like, “Oh, no. That needs to change. That has to go before this or this has to go before that. Or I want to make this edit at this point because it’ll track the emotion through here,” whatever it is? 

VAN EEGHEN: When Reese Witherspoon finds out that her brother was involved in the January 6 - spoiler alert for those who haven’t seen it yet - attack on the Capitol, she’s washing the dirt off her hands in a hotel bathroom, and it’s intercut with moments that were very intense during the attack on the Capitol and her finding her brother.

In the end, we know that she’s in a hotel room and she’s dragged her brother out of there and brought him to the hotel. That intercut went through different stages, trying out different moments of the hand washing, different pieces of the attack on the Capitol.

So that the experience kind of it became simpler in the end. Because I think that the way it was originally planned was maybe on the page, you can read more than you saw in the intercut. So you can’t always have the interpretation that you would want that you can just write on the page.

It’s not always there in the picture, so that intercut became much simpler. 

There was a scene, it must have been in 301, I guess, where Reese’s character - Bradley - is calling an abortion activist on the phone to apologize, and then she sees a sign with her face on it with the word “truth.” And the scene starts in sync and then it goes out of sync. You’re continuing to hear her talk, even though now she’s looking at the sign. Was it designed that way or did you find that you wanted to compress it? 

AYKANIAN: It wasn’t designed that way. Bradley leaves a long message on the activist’s phone while walking down the street . She hangs up and  arrives at the billboards where she sees the advertisement for The Morning Show and is confronted with the hypocrisy of her actions .

It was a very long message (too long) and once she starts talking we knew what she was going to say because in the scene before,  Alex tells her that sometimes as a journalist, there are certain things you have to give up.

So you understand what Bradley’s doing as soon as she says, “Hey, I’m sorry.” I kept two lines in sync then I cut to the second part of the scene while still playing the message. So we hear Bradley’s message while we see her realizing how dishonnest she is.

That’s a good example of how you can make a sequence more visual, moving and poetic. It was very much created in the cutting room.

How much did you need to worry about time (length of the episode) at all on these shows? Were there any time restrictions? On a lot of TV you’re having to hit an exact minute for an act break or for a total episode. On this show did you find you were tightening things and it didn’t really matter what the length was? 

AYKANIAN: No, it does matter. Length matters. But there is a little leeway.

TUCKER: I think you have more leeway on an Apple show than you do on a lot of other TV, but they did have parameters. I can’t remember exactly what they were. But in the case of 302, it came in about right. Even on my cut, it wasn’t too long.

It moved along. So that wasn’t a problem. It wasn’t too long or too short. On 310, I’m trying to remember, Carole. It was long in the beginning, right? 

AYKANIAN: Yeah, it was long. It was long. We had to bring it down.

TUCKER: I think there is a little bit of leeway for the first episode in a season and the last episode in a season. They’re willing to go over, but they’re really trying to be under 60 minutes. How long was your episode, Henk?

VAN EEGHEN: I don’t remember there being any conversation about time. It’s usually somewhere between 55 and an hour.

What were some of the thoughts on tightening things because of the story itself or because of the pacing of the episode? 

AYKANIAN: The scenes have a tendency to run long. And so you really have to shape them and figure out if all the words are needed. Sometimes you can say, “Well, we can just lose that line.” We give a last pass to the writing. We analyze all the lines and we cut the things that we feel run too long or are not needed.

TUCKER: Yeah, because sometimes, you know, it’s like anything, you need it on the page to understand what’s happening, but once the actor is embodying it you don’t need to say some of the things anymore. Writers know that too, but they have to have it in there so that the episode makes sense initially. 

VAN EEGHEN: Usually the pacing is what makes it the length of the show. Do they need to walk all the way over there? Do they need to say that extra line at the end of the scene? Do they need to walk away or do they need not need to walk away? All that stuff.

That’s much more about pacing. And because the show is very well written, you don’t have to reconstruct scenes or switch things around a lot. I don’t think I even switched around scene numbers. Sometimes you get lucky and then you get an episode that’s just well written and well directed and well acted and kind of an easy gig.

Can you talk about the delicate dance in television between working with the director creatively and then working with the showrunner and how there’s kind of that handoff or was there less of a handoff since Mimi was also a producer on the show? Sometimes the director is just a hired gun, right? So how did that work out in the editing room dealing with the director and then dealing with the rest of the team? 

AYKANIAN: Yes, so it’s a little different when Mimi directs the episode because she’s also the executive producer. So when you work with Mimi on this show, it’s almost like working on a feature. She’s present throughout post.

So it’s not like she has four days to do her cut. She’s the producer. So it’s very different. And on this show, I have never worked with another director other than Mimi - even on season one.

VAN EEGHEN: Stacie Passon (my director) did a really good job. Sometimes there’s a conflict - not on this show - but sometimes on other shows there is a conflict between the director’s view and the showrunner’s view.

And when you finished your cut and you present it to the director, at that point, I let go a little bit of my “this is my baby” feel. As we move on to a showrunner, then the director often falls away. And then when you work with a showrunner, you just want to hear what their ideas and how can you implement it.

Sometimes the footage is not there and you need to become very creative to create that because whatever went wrong on the set or whatever went wrong with the actors or whatever went wrong with the director. I haven’t run into a lot of politicking between the two parties because one is done and the other moves in. 

TUCKER: Well, it’s interesting that you say that, Henk, because have either of you worked yet in this new world of six director’s cut days? They get two extra days now because of what they won in the DGA contract negotiation.

So we’re all used to: you work on the director’s vision for their period. They pass it off, then it becomes the EP’s vision and their overarching vision for the whole series, obviously. And then however involved or not involved the director of an episode continues to be has to do with their relationship with the EP’s and not so much with us.

So I think in general, they move on. But now you get notes from the producers on that director’s cut and then you have two more days with the director, where the director’s given the opportunity to address with the editor the first thoughts of the producers.

I did not know there was a change! 

TUCKER: Yeah. So that’s new. And that’s really a big deal. It’s great, I think, for the directors. It’s really creating some log jams and issues in the editors’ schedules. You can imagine: it’s just adding three days. So that means the overlaps of episodes are becoming more problematic for us.

I think it’s great that the directors get that and they get the chance to say, “Oh, you want it like this?” and have that dialogue. But they’re not opening up the shooting schedule. So we are just effectively losing three days.

Once I have multiple episodes I’m wondering what’s going to happen because I’m just starting my second episode now. Perhaps adding another editor to the rotation on some shows might make the most economic sense, but we’ll see what happens as more shows encounter this.

VAN EEGHEN: I have had the six days, but I haven’t had what you were talking about. I can see that that 

would be also a little confusing sometimes. 

TUCKER: We’re used to: You do the director’s vision and they hand it off to the EPs and then we get the EP’s notes and we’re doing the EP’s vision, right? Or we’re discussing what that is with them. Then if they say, “Why’d the director do whatever?” you can say, “Their idea was this,” or whatever. 

This new system gives the director a chance to see the producer’s reaction and actually try to address it themselves with you. I guess you can approach it in any way, but to me, my approach was I’m still working with the director to make her vision happen. 

She’s going to decide what she wants to do of these notes in the time that we have these two more days. And we do that. 

VAN EEGHEN: I can see that that’s challenging because I’m so used to just compartmentalizing things. 

TUCKER: Exactly. 

VAN EEGHEN: There’s a comfort to that.

I just had dinner with a European TV director and was explaining this system to him and he could not believe that this is the way it worked. He said, “They just leave?” I said, “Yup. They just leave. You’re done.” 

AYKANIAN: Honestly, the transition from working on features to TV was absolutely shocking for me. I worked on features only for years. Then I started to venture in television and I remember working with a director who I knew personally, he was a friend.

At the end of the four days he left and I said, “You’re leaving?” And he said, “Yeah.” And this new group of producers came in and sat and started to rework the show. I was shocked. And I did not understand how the producers could think it could make the show better. 

I now understand how television works but at the time I kept thinking, “You don’t know the footage! How can you come in and recut things without understanding how it was shot?”

I have a question about spotting music. I have a specific scene which Plummy and Carol edited, which is one of the very last scenes in episode 310. There’s a kind of the final scene between Jennifer Aniston’s character and John Hamm’s character out on the balcony of the building. And it’s a very emotional scene and there’s no music until almost the end of the scene. Can you talk to me about spotting music? When you decide this is the moment to put music in or when you decide, I think, putting music in this scene is like putting a hat on a hat, whatever it is. Why do you not put emotional music in an emotional scene? 

AYKANIAN: Music is such an amazing addition to a scene, but it can also be dangerous if it’s overused. You have to be very careful to make sure that whenever you add it, it’s because it brings you to a different place. You don’t want music to illustrates what’s going on. In this scene the emotion was  powerful. Jennifer and John’s performance was beautiful and moving. 

Putting music too early would have illustrated something that you could feel. Sometimes silence is more powerful. And in this scene, because there is anguish, love, but also anger and disappointment I thought the silences were a stronger to underline those emotions. 

In the cutting room we probably had music earlier to begin with. I don’t really remember, but I know that once I get on the mix stage - I don’t know if you guys feel the same way that I do - I realize that I can bring the music later or maybe do a whole scene without music, because all of the sound elements finally come together and you can see how things can play dry or how delaying the music can make the scene more powerful. 

We adjust a lot of music when we are mixing, because sometimes in the cutting room, because of a lack of sound effects - even though we do add effects - and background is just very different than on the stage at the end. 

There is a tendency to put a little bit too much music, especially score, and you can’t underscore every single emotion every time otherwise there would be music from the beginning to the end. So you really have to be careful to not overdo it. 

That’s the way I think of music: that it has to be deserved. It has to bring you to a different dimension and not just underlining something that you’re already seeing and feeling.

TUCKER: I completely agree. 

AYKANIAN: You don’t want to create melodrama. You want it to be real, grounded, emotional, but not melodramatic.

What comes after that scene is a moment where the audience needs to react and feel and absorb this incredible scene. So there are a few shots of the city and other things to give you a little space before the next scene. 

VAN EEGHEN: I totally agree with that. Putting less music in, especially at the end. In the earlier stages of editing, sometimes you put music in because the scene is not quite there yet. So you start to help it with a little music. 

The danger is that you start announcing something or telling people, this is how you should feel about it before people have discovered themselves. There are many scenes where just at the very end is when the release comes emotionally and then you just leave the scene dry. 

TUCKER: Yeah, I totally agree. I just had this experience on what I’m working on. Chris Dold, who was my assistant editor on The Morning Show and is working with me on this. He’s really good with music. I love to cut my own music, but sometimes when you’re busy, you pass it on to your assistant. 

He and I were just having this conversation about a scene where he had put temp score in for me, and then I went in and I sculpted it down so that it was only in this one section in the middle where we ended up keeping it. 

He said, “I feel like it’s much more powerful if you don’t tell people up front, oh, this is going to happen. Or this is how you should feel” like what Henk was saying. You want them to get from the performance what’s happening with the characters, and then that music will enhance it or support a moment or whatever, but not just wallpaper it.

It’s interesting that you sculpted it so that the music was only in the middle. Oftentimes I think of music as a transitional device, kind of like the way you did in that scene at 310, which was it comes in right at the end to take you into the next scene. You didn’t want to foreshadow in your scene that you were talking about where you put music only in the middle. Why was it only in the middle?

TUCKER: Usually I would agree it’s more what Carole did at the end of that scene and we do that a lot. You’re kind of landing the emotion of a particular scene and transitioning it into the next place that you’re going. 

And that’s really pretty common. And a lot of times people will underscore a whole emotional scene. But I think as Carole was saying, that would have really taken away from the performances that we had. 

And in this case, the scene that I was cutting was of a guy and then in the middle of the scene, there’s a kind of tense altercation with some other people. Instead of starting it at the beginning before the people arrive and the tense altercation happened, we delayed it. We crept the score in and it became fuller in the middle when that was happening. 

And then as the tension dissipated, we had the score also dissipate and become just very spare to get us out of the scene.

I would like to thank you all for talking to us about The Morning Show and thanks for a great bit of entertainment. And congratulations to all three of you and the rest of the team. 

VAN EEGHEN: Thanks for the interview. 

AYKANIAN: Thank you. Thank you for having us.