Screenplay Edit: “Avengers: Endgame”

A line-by-line edit of a scene from the script.

Screenshot by the author; © 2019 by Marvel Studios.

Avengers: Endgame tells the story of the Avengers as they reassemble to travel back in time and reverse Thanos’s destruction, thus restoring life to the universe. The script was written by Christopher Marcus & Stephen McFeely, based on the comics by Marvel.

In this scene, Steve, Natasha, and Scott are petitioning Tony for help with a plan to reverse Thanos’s snap by traveling to the past and collecting the Infinity Stones before Thanos.

💬 Original lines appear as code blocks, edited lines appear as “quote blocks,” changes appear as boldface, and commentary appears as regular text. Original lines that do not require editing are run into the same code blocks as original lines that follow them and do.

Original Text

EXT. STARK ECO-COMPOUND, PORCH - DAY
STEVE, SCOTT, and NATASHA sit with TONY.
TONY
I just want to thank you folks for dropping by. It’s not every day one gets to contemplate biting it on an inter-dimensional timescape.
NATASHA
You’ve got some objections to the plan.
TONY
So you’re calling it a plan. To me, it sounds like an exotic suicide method. Not to mention, it’s impossible.
SCOTT LANG
We know what it sounds like.
STEVE
Tony, after what you’ve seen, is anything really impossible?
TONY
Quantum fluctuation kinda messes with the Planck Scale, which then triggers the Deutsch Proposition, can we agree on that?
(offering more tea)
Chai?
(back on message)
In layman’s terms, it means you can cancel your Netflix subscription because you’re not coming home.
SCOTT LANG
I did.
TONY
Which was a billion-to-one cosmic fluke. Now you want to pull a- What are you calling it?
SCOTT LANG
A time heist.
TONY
Oh, of course, a time heist, why didn’t we think of this before? Right, because it’s a pipe dream. Who are you again?
SCOTT LANG
Still Scott...
STEVE
Tony, the Stones exist in the past. We could get them and bring them here.
NATASHA
We can snap our own fingers. We can bring everybody back.
TONY 
Or screw it up worse than he already has.
STEVE
I don’t believe we would.
Tony stares at Steve, a lot of water under the bridge.
TONY
Gotta say it. Sometimes I’ve missed that giddy optimism. Sadly, all your high hopes won’t help me if there’s no logical, tangible way for me to safely execute said “time heist.” I believe the most likely outcome would be our collective demise.
SCOTT LANG
Not if we strictly follow the rules of time travel. No talking to our past selves. No betting on sporting events-
TONY
Stop, Scott. Stop. Are you telling me that your plan to save the universe is more than loosely based on Back to the Future?
SCOTT LANG
(meaning “yes”)
No...
TONY
Good. Because that would be horseshit. Scientifically speaking, your brother’s picture doesn’t disappear just ‘cause you went to the dance with your mom. That’s not how quantum physics works.
NATASHA
We have to take a stand.
TONY
We did stand. And yet here we are.
SCOTT LANG
Look, Stark- Can I call you Tony?
TONY
Please don’t-
SCOTT LANG
Tony-
TONY
Fine.
SCOTT LANG
I get that you’ve got a lot on the line, here. You’ve got a wife. A daughter. But I lost someone very important - a lot of us did - and now we have a chance to save her, and everyone else, and you won’t even-
TONY
No, Scott. I won’t. Even.
Suddenly, MORGAN walks onto the porch.
MORGAN STARK
Mommy told me to come save you.
Tony takes Morgan into his arms and heads inside.
TONY
Good job. I’m saved.
(to Steve)
I wish you were coming here to ask me something else. I’m honestly happy to see you. If you want to stay-
Steve tries one last time.
STEVE
Tony, I get it. And I’m happy for you. I am. But this is a second chance.
TONY
Yeah, well, I got my second chance right here. I can’t roll the dice on it. The table is set for six. If you don’t talk shop, you’re welcome to stay for lunch.
He exits.

Line Edit

EXT. STARK ECO-COMPOUND, PORCH — DAY

Unless designating place names (such as a city within a state or province — for example, Phoenix, Arizona), elements in scene headings should be separated by dashes. So let’s replace the comma in this scene heading with a dash.

EXT. STARK ECO-COMPOUND — PORCH — DAY

STEVE, SCOTT, and NATASHA sit with TONY.

All-caps is used to denote character-name introductions, camera direction, and sound effects; thus, since the words styled in all-caps in this sentence do not meet this criteria, let’s remove the all-caps styling. (And to avoid repeating this edit, let’s do the same for all other similar instances of all-caps). Also, since we’re encountering the characters already performing an action (sitting), let’s indicate as much by using the present-participial form of the verb that references the action they’re performing (sitting).

Steve, Scott, and Natasha are sitting with Tony.

That the characters are “sitting” with Tony does not tell us what they are doing — for example, are they conversing? meditating? looking through photographs? Further, it’s not clear how or in what the characters are sitting. In a few lines, Tony will offer everyone more tea, so let’s allude to how and in what the characters might be sitting, as well as specify why they are sitting, by establishing that they are drinking tea.

Steve, Scott, and Natasha are sitting with Tony, drinking tea.

TONY
I just want to thank you folks for dropping by.
It’s not every day one gets to contemplate biting it on an inter-dimensional timescape.

Since this sentence expounds on the previous sentence, let’s combine them with a semicolon.

I just want to thank you folks for dropping by; it’s not every day one gets to contemplate biting it on an interdimensional timescape.

Timescape is a term coined by Gregory Benford in his 1980 science fiction novel Timescape. The term refers to timelines, or landscapes of time, and it is unique to this novel — meaning, timescapes are fictional. And although it’s possible that Tony is referencing Benford’s novel, it’s also unlikely, given the (relative) obscurity of the reference. But even if Tony is referencing Benford’s novel, the ambiguity may make readers question, as it did me, whether Tony (the authors) simply misused the term. So let’s avoid this potential hiccup by replacing on an inter-dimensional timescape with the more broadly understood in inter-dimensional space. And let’s also remove the hyphen in inter-dimensional.

I just want to thank you folks for dropping by; it’s not every day one gets to contemplate biting it in interdimensional space.

NATASHA
You’ve got some objections to the plan.

When we (people) presume the minds of others, we don’t state our presumptions outright; we ask questions based on our presumptions. For example, if I want to see a movie with my friend but can tell that my friend doesn’t want to see a movie, I don’t say to him, “You’ve got some reasons for not wanting to see a movie” and then expect him to tell me the reasons; I ask, “Why don’t you want to see a movie?” So instead of having Natasha state to Tony that Tony has objections, let’s have her ask him what his objections are.

What are your objections to the plan?

Or, more natural:

What’s wrong with the plan?

TONY
So you’re calling it a plan. To me, it sounds like an exotic suicide method. Not to mention, it’s impossible.

While I recognize that, per Tony’s personality, these lines are meant to be facetious, they read as evasive, especially given that we changed Natasha’s line to be a direct question — indeed, although Tony’s lines imply his answer to Natasha’s question (“it’s not a plan, we will die, and it’s impossible”), they don’t actually answer it; Natasha asks what’s wrong with the plan, to which Tony replies, essentially, “It doesn’t sound like a plan.” So let’s revise Tony’s lines to have him answer Natasha’s question directly.

First, it’s not a plan; it’s a suicide mission. And second, it’s impossible.

SCOTT LANG

Throughout this script, character names are configured as either first names, last names, or first and last names; however, all of these configurations should be equal. So let’s employ consistency by configuring all character names equally; since most of the character names are configured as only first names, let’s conform the rest to this configuration.

SCOTT

The following lines must be considered and edited as a whole:

We know what it sounds like.
STEVE
Tony, after what you’ve seen, is anything really impossible?
TONY
Quantum fluctuation kinda messes with the Planck Scale, which then triggers the Deutsch Proposition, can we agree on that?
(offering more tea)
Chai?
(back on message)
In layman’s terms, it means you can cancel your Netflix subscription because you’re not coming home.
SCOTT LANG
I did.

That Scott came home is evidence of the possibility of the plan. Thus, if Tony’s counterargument is that the plan is impossible, then Steve, Natasha, and Scott should (and would) immediately refute his argument with Scott as evidence; indeed, this is why they’re petitioning Tony in the first place — because the plan is possible. So when Tony initially states to Natasha that the plan is impossible, Scott’s response should not be, as it is, “We know what it sounds like,” rather, given Scott’s experience, “It’s not impossible.” So let’s remove the lines between these moments and alter Scott’s response accordingly.

TONY
First, it’s not a plan; it’s a suicide mission. And second, it’s impossible.

SCOTT
It’s not impossible.

TONY
Which was a billion-to-one cosmic fluke.

Since we removed the previous lines and altered Scott’s response, this line no longer makes sense. So let’s revise it by specifying the fluke Tony is referring to as Scott coming back. Also, cosmic means “characterized by greatness[,] especially in extent, intensity, or comprehensiveness”; thus, since Tony’s initial description of Scott’s fluke is “billion-to-one,” cosmic is redundant. So let’s remove this redundancy.

You coming back was a billion-to-one fluke.

Again, the following lines must be considered and edited as a whole:

Now you want to pull a- What are you calling it?
SCOTT
A time heist.
TONY
Oh, of course, a time heist, why didn’t we think of this before? Right, because it’s a pipe dream. Who are you again?
SCOTT
Still Scott...

The purpose of these lines is threefold: first, to name the plan a “time heist”; second, to demonstrate Tony’s reluctance and incredulity; and third, to create levity. In the first case, the plan is referred to as a time heist only once after this moment (again by Scott, in a passing comment sixty-four pages from now) — meaning, calling the plan a “time heist” is inconsequential to the story. In the second case, Tony’s reluctance and incredulity are already apparent and needn’t be reinforced. And in the third case, I think one joke is sufficient to create levity in this scene, and the forthcoming joke about Back to the Future is the right one to do it. So let’s remove these lines — at least, most of them; let’s retain elements of the first line that reinforce the absurdity of the plan by having Tony state to Scott that, instead of trying to perform a “time heist,” Scott is simply trying to replicate a billion-to-one fluke.

You coming back was a billion-to-one fluke, and now you want to replicate it.

STEVE
Tony, the Stones exist in the past.
We could get them and bring them here.

Italics is used to denote emphasis; however, emphasis is usually necessary only when clarifying or comparing — for example, as Hermione Granger says to Ron Weasley regarding the spell for levitation, “It’s leviosa, not leviosa.” Further, emphasis is necessary only when context is insufficient to convey tone or gravity. However, given both the content of the characters’ lines in this scene as well as the context of their speaking them, both the tone and the gravity of their words are self-evident; thus, their words needn’t be emphasized. So let’s remove this and all other instances of similar emphasis.

We could get them and bring them here.

NATASHA
We can snap our own fingers. We can bring everybody back.

Traveling to the past and retrieving the Infinity Stones are hypothetical actions; thus, the cans in this sentence should be coulds. So let’s replace them.

We could snap our own fingers. We could bring everybody back.

TONY
Or screw it up worse than he already has.

Since Steve and Natasha both proposed hypotheticals, let’s employ parallelism by having Tony do the same.

Or we could screw it up worse than he already has.

STEVE
I don’t believe we would.

When engaging in arguments, or when attempting to persuade others with reasoning, it is effective to validate others’ positions (and beliefs and reservations) whenever possible, as doing so demonstrates empathy and makes others feel heard and understood, which encourages them to open. It also makes the conversation more productive, as it demonstrates a willingness to arrive at a mutual conclusion instead of simply a desire to refute and disagree. Steve has an opportunity here to demonstrate empathy as well as appeal to Tony’s reservations, which he can do simply by affirming them. So let’s add a simple affirmation to the beginning of his line.

Yes. But I don’t believe we would.

Tony stares at Steve, a lot of water under the bridge.

Although this line helps convey the relationship between Tony and Steve, it nevertheless feels unnecessary — or, at least, inefficient. Tony’s next lines express his nostalgia for Steve’s optimism, which expression is sufficient for conveying the space between the characters. Thus, we can remove this line. However, I think the authors are using it to convey a pause — perhaps a pause in which Tony considers the water under the bridge between him and Steve — so let’s accomplish this by other means; let’s remove this line and simply have Tony pause before speaking his next line.

TONY
(beat)
Gotta say it.
Sometimes I’ve missed that giddy optimism.

Since this sentence amplifies the one before it, let’s combine them with a colon. And let’s also add a comma after sometimes, to indicate this as an introductory phrase, and replace I’ve with I, to indicate that Tony continues to sometimes miss Steve’s optimism.

Gotta say it: sometimes, I miss that giddy optimism.

Giddy means “lighthearted” or “euphoric.” As such, the term is inaccurate for describing Steve, as Steve is, not lighthearted or euphoric, rather positive, optimistic, and stoic. Further, qualifying Steve’s optimism with giddy, silly, naive, or any similar word makes Tony come off as demeaning, even if only minimally. And although Tony coming off as demeaning would be a problem anywhere, it’s a problem here especially, given that Tony is being sincere. So let’s remove giddy.

Gotta say it: sometimes, I miss that optimism.

Sadly, all your high hopes won’t help me if there’s no logical, tangible way for me to safely execute said “time heist.”

Again, this line reads as demeaning, which is due in part to the language (all your high hopes) and in part to Tony referring to himself instead of to the team. So let’s soften the language and replace Tony’s personal references with collective references (we). Also, logical refers to reasoning, and tangible refers to material; thus, these words are irrelevant in describing the execution of a plan. So let’s replace them with practical and reliable. And since the plan is no longer referred to as a “time heist,” let’s call it something else; let’s lean into Tony’s personality and have him refer to the plan as “not-a-plan.”

But it won’t help us if there’s no practical, reliable way to safely execute this not-a-plan.

I believe the most likely outcome would be our collective demise.

That Tony believes the most likely outcome would be their collective demise is self-evident in Tony’s statement; thus, I believe is unnecessary. So let’s remove it. Also, our is sufficient to indicate that the demise is collective — meaning, collective is redundant. So let’s remove this too. And since it’s not clear whether, by demise, Tony means that the team will fail or die (as both are definitions of demise and are relevant in this situation), let’s specify the demise as dying or disappearing.

The most likely outcome would be that we die or disappear.

SCOTT
Not if we strictly follow the rules of time travel.

To follow rules is an absolute action; indeed, one either follows rules or one does not. Thus, qualifying follow the rules with strictly in this sentence is meaningless. So let’s remove this qualification.

Not if we follow the rules of time travel.

No talking to our past selves. No betting on sporting events-

Since Scott is listing rules, let’s combine these sentences into a comma-separated list and connect them to the previous sentence with a colon. And while we’re at it, let’s replace the hyphen at the end of the sentence with a dash, to indicate interruption. (And to avoid repeating this edit, let’s replace all other similar hyphens with dashes).

Not if we follow the rules of time travel: no talking to our past selves, no betting on sporting events —

The following lines must be considered and edited as a whole:

TONY
Stop, Scott. Stop. Are you telling me that your plan to save the universe is more than loosely based on Back to the Future?
SCOTT
(meaning “yes”)
No...
TONY
Good. Because that would be horseshit. Scientifically speaking, your brother’s picture doesn’t disappear just ‘cause you went to the dance with your mom. That’s not how quantum physics works.

Tony’s dialogue at the end of this block feels like overkill; his initial reference to Back to the Future is sufficient to convey that the science in that film is fictitious, and since Scott already delivered the punchline of the joke, having Tony explain the joke diminishes it’s impact. So let’s remove these lines. However, the reference to quantum physics is useful, especially since we removed Tony’s previous line describing the complexity of quantum physics, so let’s keep this reference and add it to Tony’s initial response to Scott; instead of having Tony ask if Scott’s plan is “more than loosely based on Back to the Future” (which is a humorous but irrational interpretation), let’s have Tony simply reiterate to Scott that they are talking about quantum physics, not Back to the Future. Also, since Back to the Future is the title of a work, let’s italicize it.

TONY
Stop, Scott. Stop. We’re talking about quantum physics, not Back to the Future. Are you serious?

SCOTT
(beat)
Nope.

Again, the following lines must be considered and edited as a whole:

NATASHA
We have to take a stand.
TONY
We did stand. And yet here we are.

To “take a stand” is vague, as what exactly does it mean to take a stand? What does Natasha believe that the Avengers must do, and to what end? Maybe she doesn’t have answers to these questions but instead simply feels that the Avengers must do something. So let’s revise these lines to reflect this; let’s replace take a stand with do something, and We did stand with We already did. And to ease the transition from Scott speaking to Tony to Natasha speaking to Tony, let’s have Natasha begin her line by saying Tony’s name, to get his attention. Also, I think there’s another opportunity here to appeal to Tony’s reservations, which Natasha can do simply by acknowledging them. So let’s have her do this as well.

NATASHA
Tony, we know this sounds crazy, and we understand the odds, but we have to do something.

TONY
We already did.

The line that follows these lines is delivered by Scott, and it takes the conversation in a slightly different direction. However, before going in this direction, I think Natasha should try again with Tony, to further demonstrate to him her resolve. So let’s add a simple line for her in which she acknowledges Tony’s counter but doubles down on her imploring.

NATASHA
Then we have to do something else.

SCOTT
Look, Stark - Can I call you Tony?

Let’s lowercase Can.

Look, Stark — can I call you Tony?

TONY
Please don’t — 

A dash at the end of a line of dialogue indicates interruption; thus, lines of dialogue can be interrupted — and as such may be terminated by dashes — only if they are incomplete. However, Tony’s line here is complete, so the dash is inappropriate. So let’s replace it with a period.

Please don’t.

SCOTT
Tony — 
TONY
Fine.
SCOTT

Since Scott’s next line is a continuation of his previous line, let’s indicate as much by including a CONT’D extension beside his name.

SCOTT (CONT’D)

I get that you’ve got a lot on the line, here.

Let’s improve the mechanics of this sentence by beginning the sentence with a dash, to indicate resuming, and removing the unnecessary comma after line.

— I get that you’ve got a lot on the line here.

You’ve got a wife. A daughter.

Given the context, the “a lot” that Tony has on the line is self-evident. So let’s remove these lines.

But I lost someone very important - a lot of us did - and now we have a chance to save her, and everyone else, and you won’t even — 

Since important is an absolute quality, qualifying important with very in this sentence is meaningless. So let’s remove this qualification. And let’s also specify that Scott lost, not someone generally important, but someone important to him. And, per the events of Avengers: Infinity War, if half of all life in the universe was eradicated by Thanos, then it is likely that, not simply a lot of people lost people important to them, but all people did. So let’s replace a lot with all.

But I lost someone important to me — all of us did — and now we have a chance to save her, and everyone else, and you won’t even —

That Scott begins this line speaking about himself is fine; however, that he slips back into speaking about himself after correcting himself is not, as it reads as selfish and myopic. So let’s replace her, and everyone else, with them. And since save is vague, let’s specify this as bringing them back.

But I lost someone important to me — all of us did — and now we have a chance to bring them back, and you won’t even —

TONY
No, Scott. I won’t. Even.
Suddenly, Morgan walks onto the porch.

If an action or event occurs suddenly, then simply having it occur suddenly will convey its suddenness to readers. So let’s remove suddenly.

Morgan walks onto the porch.

MORGAN
Mommy told me to come save you.

Since it’s not clear who Morgan is speaking to, let’s clarify that she is speaking to Tony. And although we could do this by including this information in a parenthetical, a better option is to specify that, when Morgan walks onto the porch, she also walks over to Tony. So let’s revise the line of action that describes this.

Morgan walks onto the porch and over to Tony.

MORGAN
Mommy told me to come save you.

Tony takes Morgan into his arms and heads inside.

To “take Morgan into his arms” is ambiguous, as what does it mean for Tony to take Morgan into his arms? Does he hug her? hold her? cradle her? So let’s specify this action; let’s replace takes Morgan into his arms with picks up Morgan. Also, Tony heading inside is premature; I think what the authors mean is that, instead of actually heading inside (which would remove Tony from the scene), Tony makes to head inside, which he can and would do simply by standing. So let’s replace heads inside with stands.

Tony picks up Morgan and stands.

It makes more sense for Tony to stand before picking up Morgan (or to do both at the same time), as her weight would probably make it difficult for him to rise and balance. So let’s swap the order of these actions. And since it’s obvious that Tony is picking up Morgan, let’s avoid the redundancy of naming her by replacing Morgan with the pronoun her.

Tony stands and picks her up.

TONY
Good job. I’m saved.

Since these lines are closely related, let’s combine them with a semicolon.

Good job; I’m saved.

(to Steve)
I wish you were coming here to ask me something else.

To wish is to express a desire for something that is not, or that does not exist. Thus, if a sentence begins with I wish, then the sentence is inherently hypothetical, requiring its verbs to be conjugated accordingly. This line expresses a hypothetical situation in the past, which requires the relevant verbs to be conjugated in the past-perfect tense (had + [past participle]). So let’s replace were coming with had come. And to maintain Tony’s casual tone, let’s contract you and had into you’d.

I wish you’d come here to ask me something else.

I’m honestly happy to see you.

Since this line is closely related to and expounds on the previous line, let’s combine them with a semicolon.

I wish you’d come here to ask me something else; I’m honestly happy to see you.

If you want to stay — 

Since this line is delivered to everyone in the scene, let’s add a parenthetical to indicate as much. Also, the line feels like it is cut off too soon, as it gives no indication of what Tony is trying to say; as such, the words are simply floating. So let’s clarify that Tony is trying to invite everyone to stay for lunch by adding for lunch before the interruption.

(to everyone)
If you want to stay for lunch —

Steve tries one last time.

That Steve tries one last time is self-evident in his trying. So let’s remove this line.

STEVE
Tony, I get it.
And I’m happy for you.
I am.
But this is a second chance.
TONY
Yeah, well, I got my second chance right here.

Since it’s not clear what Tony is referring to as his second chance, let’s add a parenthetical to clarify that he is referring to Morgan. Also, although “I got” is common in speech, in writing, this shorthand may confuse readers by reading as past tense. So let’s avoid this potential confusion by replacing I with I’ve.

(re: Morgan)
Yeah, well, I’ve got my second chance right here.

I can’t roll the dice on it.
The table is set for six.

Since Tony was just speaking to Steve, let’s add a parenthetical before this line to clarify that Tony is now speaking to everyone.

(to everyone)
The table is set for six.

If you don’t talk shop, you’re welcome to stay for lunch.
He exits.

Exit is a stage direction that refers to actors disappearing from sets or stages. And although this term may be appropriate in scripts, its appropriateness is dependent on writing style. In the case of this script, exit is inconsistent with the writing style, as the style is realistic and not theatrical. So let’s remove this line.

Edited Text

EXT. STARK ECO-COMPOUND — PORCH — DAY
Steve, Scott, and Natasha are sitting with Tony, drinking tea.
TONY
I just want to thank you folks for dropping by; it’s not every day one gets to contemplate biting it in interdimensional space.
NATASHA
What’s wrong with the plan?
TONY
First, it’s not a plan; it’s a suicide mission. And second, it’s impossible.
SCOTT
It’s not impossible.
TONY
You coming back was a billion-to-one fluke, and now you want to replicate it.
STEVE
Tony, the Stones exist in the past. We could get them and bring them here.
NATASHA
We could snap our own fingers. We could bring everybody back.
TONY
Or we could screw it up worse than he already has.
STEVE
Yes. But I don’t believe we would.
TONY
(beat)
Gotta say it: sometimes, I miss that optimism. But it won’t help us if there’s no practical, reliable way to safely execute this not-a-plan. The most likely outcome would be that we die or disappear.
SCOTT
Not if we follow the rules of time travel: no talking to our past selves, no betting on sporting events -
TONY
Stop, Scott. Stop. We’re talking about quantum physics, not Back to the Future. Are you serious?
SCOTT
(beat)
Nope.
NATASHA
Tony, we know this sounds crazy, and we understand the odds, but we have to do something.
TONY
We already did.
NATASHA
Then we have to do something else.
SCOTT
Look, Stark - can I call you Tony?
TONY
Please don’t.
SCOTT
Tony -
TONY
Fine.
SCOTT (CONT’D)
— I get that you’ve got a lot on the line here. But I lost someone important to me — all of us did — and now we have a chance to bring them back, and you won’t even — 
TONY
No, Scott. I won’t. Even.
Morgan walks onto the porch and over to Tony.
MORGAN
Mommy told me to come save you.
Tony stands and picks her up.
TONY
Good job; I’m saved.
(to Steve)
I wish you’d come here to ask me something else; I’m honestly happy to see you.
(to everyone)
If you want to stay for lunch — 
STEVE
Tony, I get it. And I’m happy for you. I am. But this is a second chance.
TONY
(re: Morgan)
Yeah, well, I’ve got my second chance right here. I can’t roll the dice on it.
(to everyone)
The table is set for six. If you don’t talk shop, you’re welcome to stay for lunch.

I hope this demonstration has been useful to you, and that it furthered your understanding of editing as well as enabled and encouraged you to improve the quality and efficiency of your own work. See you next time.