This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: American / Animated This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the American cinema task force. This article is supported by the Animated films task force. Animation: American / Films High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by the Animated films work group (assessed as Top-importance). Disney High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Animation / Cinema High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Animation - American animation work group (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as High-importance).

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Should Enchanted be on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:4701:C4A0:9CBB:27F4:152F:E075 (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Omnitographer Removed the entry [1] with the edit summary "The brave little toaster was neither produced nor released by Disney, though they had a financial stake in the film it is not a Disney animated feature." Hill93 is adding it back [2] without explanation either in edit history or footnotes in the article proper as to why this film is in WP:SCOPE for this article. I couldn't find anything that refutes Omnitographer assertion so have removed the entry. At the very least, if it is added, the proper footnote needs to be applied to state why it is in scope for this article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, we call cinemas cinemas, so 'theatrical' refers to theatres, where plays, musicals and operas are performed. Would 'cinematic' be more universal? CactusPolecat (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If so, where are the Aladdin sequels (eg, [Aladdin and the King of Thieves])?

If not, it should be stated explicitly, with a link to the complete list of releases. Also, the opening line should not say 'all'. CactusPolecat (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, just spotted the topics above re other direct-to-video releases. So, I now get it. Still, where is the complete list of all releases? And my points regarding the meaning of 'theatre' and a clear statement regarding the scope of this article still stand.

CactusPolecat (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen 2 has been announced accoriding to the list of Walt Disney Animation Studios Films that it will be released on November 25, 2020 but on the Disney Wiki it's going to be released in 2019. 75.165.126.116 (talk) 03:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Evan Kalani Opedal[reply]

Why is Frankenweenie marked as a "Other Disney studio" film (grey) rather than "Third-party studio" (white)? I understand that Burton's earlier films "The Nightmare Before Christmas" and "James and the Giant Peach" were "Other Disney studio" films as they were developed by Skellington Productions which Burton had sold to Disney by that point. However, Tim Burton Productions is a separate company and is not a subsidiary of Disney. So I think it should be classed as a "third-party studio". Kidburla (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Other films by other non-Disney owned studios, released through Miramax"

The film Paris 2054: Renaissance is typo'd it says "Paris 2054: Rennaissance" but should say "Paris 2054: Renaissance". 50.43.28.161 (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 07:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'With Disney buying Fox what colour will we gith the new animted studios fox, blue sky, Locksmith Animation and any other I forgot? 92.232.119.244 (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. To make a change via edit request, you need to explain what needs to be either added to the article or removed from it and you need to provide a reliable source. CityOfSilver 15:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

with Disney buy th;e whole of fox the studios future films above will be reslase by Disney will they be added to this page if so what coulurs will be added http://www.cartoonbrew.com/business/disney-buys-fox-key-points-deal-155390.html

Your response here indicates you didn't read my message above it. Please do so. CityOfSilver 15:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Disney theatrical animated features. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130121160130/http://www.disneyanimation.com/studio/history to http://www.disneyanimation.com/studio/history
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130121160130/http://www.disneyanimation.com/studio/history to http://www.disneyanimation.com/studio/history

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FilmandTVFan28, if other hybrid films (live-action and animation) are allowed here, should we include Mary Poppins and its sequel? Films on this list like The Reluctant Dragon and Song of the South are mostly live-action with only a few minutes of animation, just like Mary Poppins. I think Mary Poppins and its sequel shoulx be included on the list? Thoughts? Cardei012597 (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of them should be included as they are not animated features so are out-of-scope for this article. It is like the difference between a musical film and a film that has a few songs in it. For a hybrid to be considered it should be mostly animated with occasional live action sequences. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make sense to me. Films like Song of the South and The Reluctant Dragon, films already listed here for years, only have about 10 minutes of animation each. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, Roger Rabbit has about 12 minutes of full-fledged animation, in Toontown. Where is the cut off with some hybrids being allowed and others not? No hybrids already on the list have more animation than live action. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They should not be listed either then. About the only one that belongs is Who Framed Roger Rabbit as animated characters are included in a significant part of the film, even in the live action portions. That is a true hybrid. The rest are too biased towards live-action to be plausibly considered an animated feature. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those films, Song of the South and Reluctant Dragon, have been here for years, it only made sense to add similar films. If we should remove them, ok. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, you can remove the other hybrid films. I can list them off if you want. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Reluctant Dragon, Saludos Amigos, Victory Through Air Power, Song of the South, The Three Caballeros, Melody Time Cardei012597 (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A possible test is if the film is described in reliable sources as a live action/animated film. Most of the listed ones are described that way in the intro to their articles. Mary Poppins (film) isn't. If the main characters are animated such as in Who Framed Roger Rabbit and Saludos Amigos that also makes it more of a real hybrid. Song of the South is more on the edge but it is described in its article as live-action/animated. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't Pete's Dragon (1977 film) have an animated major character? I don't know how much screen time that character has, though. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It did and the article calls it live action/animated and goes into some detail about the animation. This is just one character. At some point animation starts to overlap special effects. Gollum in Lord of the Rings films is also an animated character. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the Reluctant Dragon is not a true hybrid. Cardei012597 (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Reluctant Dragon (1941 film) article says 40 of the film's 72 minutes are animated and the article intro says it is live action and animated and more than half is animated. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

we should have a rule like the Highest-grossing animated films page Fanoflionking 16:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That rule, an industry rule, not a Wikipedia rule, is for award consideration as a animated feature film. That article is using it for WP:SCOPE definition. They say 75% animated means can be included in that article. That seems a reasonable rule for inclusion in this article too. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to beat a dead horse but this page is ridiculous. The title of the page is "Disney theatrical animated feature films" not "Every Disney movie with 1 second of animation". The page should be split in two, or the chart should be be split on this page. see here for an example: https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Disney_theatrical_animated_features 2600:1700:1EF0:16E1:10E6:D389:4C71:99ED (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to at least split the hybrid films from the fully animated films but it was reverted. It's ridiculous that Enchanted is considered an "animated film". Would ZX2006XZ please put back in my changes with 2 charts. Andcbii (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enchanted, G-Force, The Jungle Book, The BFG, Christopher Robin and Dumbo are Disney's live-action/animated hybrid films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B111:1DBD:4490:D8B2:DE39:572D (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unless called that in their article by reliable sources they are not. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a List of films with live action and animation. What is your point? Dimadick (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

there is a discuto on Wikipedia:Teahouse just wondering if any wants to join Fanoflionking

Like some of the other Disney Fairie series Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue had a limited US release to try to qualify it for an academy award. But it isn't included in the list - is there a standard for this that I missed above 65.127.183.235 (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=91650

The 2019 version of The Lion King seems out of place on this list. Technically, yes, it's animated, but it's not done in any recognizably animated style. The CGI Jungle Book, which was similarly photorealistic, is not included, so why is The Lion King here? Powers ^T 14:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't the Jungle Book remake have live-action elements, though? The Lion King remake was created using animation, so it should be included even if it doesn't obviously look animated. Trivialist (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons of movies on this list that include live-action elements; there's even a footnote identifying them. Only Jungle Book is missing, and I assume that's because it was photorealistic and not "animated" in style. Powers ^T 20:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen it, so I don't know how much live-action material it has. But if it's mostly animated, then it should be added too, photorealistic or not. Trivialist (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to resurrect a dead discussion, but I think the scope of this list needs to be better defined. I can't see any reason for The Lion King (2019) to be here if The Jungle Book (2016) is not here. Powers ^T 02:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How much live-action is allowable for it to still be an "animated" film? The Jungle Book combines live-action and CGI, whereas The Lion King is (I believe) all animated. Trivialist (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned earlier, there are lots of films on this list that include far more live-action elements than The Jungle Book does, so that alone cannot be the reason for its exclusion. Powers ^T 22:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Under the "Highest grossing films" section 2010 and 2019 are referencing the incorrect Toy Story movies. It currently states Toy Story 4 happened in 2010 and Toy Story 3 happened in 2019 which is not correct.198.39.4.79 (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. (For the purpose of this edit, please ignore the dis-ambiguation header at the top of this article; it's not the subject of this discussion.)

One thing I can do is sort the table by studio. This makes it so that the movies are segregated, and one section is the Disney animated features canon. However, this is only nearly true:

(1) Academy Award Review is included as if it were the first movie in the canon. (This would make Snow White the second, and Fantasia 2000 the 39th.) Does it look obvious at all that it's not part of the canon despite the way it is treated by this list??

(2) Dinosaur is put at the bottom to indicate that it was made by The Secret Lab. Does it look obvious at all that this doesn't mean it's not part of the canon (back in the days barely after the Disney Animation web site launched, there was a lot of discussion and by late 2010 it was agreed that Dinosaur is the canon's 39th film)??

(Please remember that the subject of this discussion is how we can segregate the films on this list by using the Sort option, which has the option of sorting the films on this list by studio, and doing so segregates the films so that one group is the Disney animated features canon.) Georgia guy (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this suggestion as the Disney Animation canon, once located here, has since been moved to List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films. It's not just a matter of disambiguation; that canon was once one of the purposes of this list, but no longer is. --RBBrittain (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's no longer a purpose of this list, then what still is a purpose of this list (with no other Wikipedia article competing this one)?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page should be deleted or re-direct users to a different page. First of all the info on this page is available on other pages. Second it's being cluttered by moves that most people would not consider animated. It's also missing films that potentially should be added due to the current low criteria (example The Lizzie McGuire Movie). For a full list of films animated an hybrid people should be directed to List of Walt Disney Pictures films. For animated films made and distributed by disney you should link to List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films List of Pixar films Disney Television Animation Disneytoon Studios. These four pages cover the vast majority of what's on this page (items not on them are on the full list). Andcbii (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can take it through the WP:AFD process if you'd like, though this will probably be an uphill battle for you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bring back the colors that explained which studio they mainly are from. Pederjo99 (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it on the list? I looked it up. Disney rejected making the movie straight out. 70.120.59.90 (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The film is rejected by D23 as such so yes, it shouldn't be on this list, and should be removed every time it re appears https://d23.com/a-to-z/brave-little-toaster-the-film/DoctorHver (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney Pictures was involved in the titles and opticals, so it should particularly count as one. 86.133.213.239 (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just added Alice in Wonderland, Oz the Great and Powerful, and Alice Through the Looking Glass to the list as a public service announcement because they count as "Disney theatrical animated feature films", but the edit of mine kept getting reverted without explanation. WHY? IS IT BECAUSE THE PERSON HASN'T WATCH EITHER OF THESE MOVIES AT ALL? 213.58.176.66 (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These films were not sold as animation, but as Live-action as stupid as that sounds especially in the case of Lion King 2019, with that said I think US and western film industry needs to dive Live-action films into two groups i.e pure-live action where there is no visible CGI, VFX or special effects such as most if not all comedy and drama films which are grounded in reality not to mention biographical films. and then start using the term Live-action cartoons i.e films that are so heavily dependent on CGI, VFX and special effects from them to function properly and have no bases in any kind of reality.DoctorHver (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main table seems to indicate Soul is Disney's latest, still-upcoming film. It links to a movie that came out in 2020. Probably just need a new source to fix the date. 2601:1C0:8380:15FA:AD6C:88A5:A479:D131 (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Soul was released on Disney+ in the US, and wasn't released in American theatres until January 12, 2024, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 86.133.213.239 (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is also the case for two other Pixar films, Turning Red and Luca, which were also released direct to streaming because of COVID but were originally planned for theatrical release. Perhaps it's worth an explanatory note that those films were initially released direct to streaming but are listed the way they are due to the date of their theatrical release in the US? - Purplewowies (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I note that in the {{Disney theatrical animated features}} navbox, the films are displayed with and are ordered by their original release dates instead.

Moreover, this article opens by saying that it "consists of animated films produced or released by The Walt Disney Studios", and the table in question has the headings List of Disney theatrical animated feature films § Films §§ US releases / US produced §§§ Released, so it being "about the theatrical release date" in and of itself (quoting from the reply to the edit request below) may be overstating things, and initially presenting the table so that Elemental (2023 film) comes before Soul (2020 film) and Luca (2021 film) seems counterintuitive and borderline WP:CRUFT-y to me.

If there's consensus that the table should have an "original U.S. theatrical release date" and no other date column, that's fine - but the initial ordering could still be the common-sensical one, and for those users who really do want to have the films in their literal theatrical order, all it takes is one click on that column header.

- 2A02:560:5811:5600:9F6:BD9B:4846:6530 (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soul and Turning Red are not published under the right years that the movies were released in inside of the table (for Soul, change 2024 to 2020, and for Turning Red, change 2024 to 2022). 74.15.214.79 (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: You are correct that those films were already released earlier than stated in the article. However, this list is about the theatrical release date, and the earlier dates you're referring to are releases on Disney+. --TheImaCow (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first and second link in the hatnote look to me like the overlinking that WP:HATEXTRA warns against. Users who end up here are looking for an article about films, not about filmmaking entities. Non-dab links like those belong, and already are, in the lede instead.

- 2A02:560:5811:5600:9F6:BD9B:4846:6530 (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 14:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I added "Fluppy Dogs" to the list of Disney Theatrical Animated Films, but it keeps being removed. I tried to check the standards for what would qualify to be on this page. (A clearer explanation on the page itself would be helpful both for the audience and for anyone trying to contribute).

- "This list of theatrical animated feature films consists of animated films produced or released by The Walt Disney Studios, the film division of The Walt Disney Company." Fluppy Dogs was produced by 'Walt Disney Television Animation', which is on the list.

- I understand that the 'Fluppy Dogs' film was developed as a pilot to a television series, but the series was never made.

- It is feature-length, going by the standards set on wikipedia's pages on "Feature Films" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_film and "Lists of animated films" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_animated_films (it's 45 minutes long).

I left a similar comment on the Talk page of the first user who deleted my entry, asking to discuss why it would or wouldn't be included, but they deleted my comment without reply. I hope that mentioning this here is a more appropriate place, and that I might get some sort of response! (Long-time wikipedia user, very occasional contributor, still learning!) :)

Thanks, Jellybeangrrl Jellybeangrrl (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article lists A Christmas Carol (2009) and Mars Needs Moms (2011) as Live-action/animation hybrid sold as animation. How are they partly live-action? Is the article counting motion-capture as live-action, is it some other element(s), or both? PiratePablo (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Different accounts with similar usernames, the last of whom is ~2025-36692-35, are repeatedly editing this article to claim that Frozen 4 is scheduled for release on November 28, 2029. But as I've mentioned more than once when reverting these edits, the cited source doesn't say when Frozen 4 is scheduled for release, nor could I find any source to back up these accounts' claim. I warned this user in my contribution summary that if they did this again without citing a source that gave that release date, I'd have to come to the Talk Page of the article, so here I am. Could someone please revert that user's edit? I can't right now, because that would violate the 3-revert rule. Or if someone has a source for that release date, please add it to the article. TY. PiratePablo (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's gotten to the point that I deem the edits made by the anonymous accounts vandalism, making my reverting of them exempt from the edit war policy. These accounts have repeatedly changed the scheduled release date of Frozen 4 to November 28, 2029, even after I've repeatedly pointed out that that's not supported by any sources, whether cited by the article or not. Yet they haven't given a coherent explanation for why they're adding this. So I have requested that the article be semi-protected. PiratePablo (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately after I add this Topic, I'll add the Dubious tag to the part of the article that claims that Frozen 4 is scheduled for release on November 28, 2029. PiratePablo (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately after I add this Reply, I'll add the Dubious tag to the part of the article that claims that Incredibles 3 is scheduled for release on June 16, 2028, because that's not in the cited source, nor could I find a source for that anywhere else. PiratePablo (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You tell to apologizes that is not correct to make that date releasing that is going to released in 2028 when announcement started ~2025-37019-40 (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Does that mean that you want me to apologize because the announcement said that Incredibles 3 is scheduled for release on June 16, 2028? Because in the source, it said that it's scheduled for release in 2028, but it didn't specify June 16 of that year, nor could I find any other source to back that up. Do you have a source that backs that up? Thanks! PiratePablo (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think? ~2025-37019-40 (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bush announces about the movie with non-human world like Disney animation hadn't started yet ~2025-37019-40 (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tell Bush that I come from North London, UK ~2025-37019-40 (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone puts this film on the American produced / International releases only list? It received a theatrical release in Russia (https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt3513500/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-77124-7 (talk) 12:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]