Apparently, it's 60% CGI. Isn't there a relatively lax rule for animation eligibility? I know Looney Tunes was eligible a few years back, and there were almost no fully animated scenes.

Where's Naz!? I posed this possibility back at the start of the year.

The AMPAS website reads

Hmm, might qualify at the end of all this. I'm amazed Attack Of The Clones/Revenge Of The Sith didn't qualify.

Its actually not eligible for any awards.

I'm guessing much like Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11, Cameron could simply pull it out of contention for Best Animated Feature.

Don't you have to actually submit yourself to be in contention for these specialty categories? Moore didn't pull out in 2004, he just didn't submit the film. So Cameron/Fox will probably just ignore the possibility and not even try, as I'm sure they think it would demean the film.

Pull out of contention by not submitting, yeah. He has until the start of November.

Moore actually violated the Academy's rules by showing the film on TV (so it could reach the most amount of people before the elections), that's why it got shut out.

I thought the rule was you can show it on tv as long as its shown in a qualifying theatrical run first?

Eligible for EVERYthing.

I'm here!!!! Just noticed this stupid thread.

If Avatar is animated why not liken Pirates of the Caribean (or any other movie that features CGI characters) to Who Framed Roger Rabbit, it's live-action with animated characters, after all? You see, i don't consider computer special effects that aim at photorealism animation in the sense of a cartoon. There's a distinction to be made. I'm sure Cameron / Fox are agreeing with me here.

Animated Film does NOT equal cartoon. A cartoon is a funny drawing or piece of animation with caricatured or exaggerated expressions and characters. Animation is simply the illusion of life. You sound almost insulted by the comparison. There's nothing wrong with a cartoon or being animated.

Plus, Pirates Of The Caribbean wasn't 60% CGI.

Did i liken Pirates to Avatar? No, i compared it to Roger Rabbit, as i have clearly stated. I did that to bring my point home that there are special effects on one side and animation on the other, which i consider to be two different things. All that is aimed at photorealism are special effects, everything else is animation (cartoons are just an even more caricatured or crude version of animation if you will) in my book. And i like to think that the Academy is of a similar opinion. Just because Avatar happens to have a lot of special effects which happen to be CGI i doubt they'd consider it eligible for best animated movie.

No, i have nothing against cartoons, what i don't like is the notion that cartoons are only for kids. Everything without kiddie sensibilities, that is not full of slapstick and humor gets seemingly rejected by the public, at least the western public.

While it fits the definition set by AMPAS for the category and therefore is eligible, I doubt it'll show up.

Avatar may not be eligible, considering that the character animation is mo-capped. Robert Zemeckis thinks that the Academy don't consider motion capture to be animation. I think he's right, and the Academy are right too.

Cartoons aren't necessarily "crude". They are a great and difficult art, more difficult than perhaps any sans architecture. You must extend physical comedy towards something essentially non-physical. You want to tell me the works of Chuck Jones and Bob Clampett are not legitimate art?

And no, that's not the definition. Animation is the simple illusion of life. The Academy (and perhaps the public at large) may think all animation is either weird experimental stuff by Europeans, postmodern ironic shit their kids watch or hyperactive sugar rushes that their grandkids watch, but they are wrong.

There was no Best Animated Film Oscar when Who Framed Roger Rabbit? was released. If there had been, I think Roger Rabbit would have had a strong shot at the win (it won three, got six nominations.) Coincidentally, that film was directed by Robert Zemeckis, the other pioneer of 3D mo-cap.

Making a line in the sand between animation and special effects is small minded. There's brave talent out there crafting wonderful experimental films that seek the equator between animation and live action. Waking Life, The Polar Express, Speed Racer, Beowulf, Wall-E, and Waltz with Bashir are pioneers. Beyond that, CGI special effects are often blended with animation, yet the end result is still anime or a 'cartoon.'

Too bad the Academy remains biased against any film that seeks true freedom from imperical categorization. Avatar will be too good for that bigoted category.

Shouldn't have uttered the word "crude". Now i had to listen to a rant about how animation is art even though i don't disagree. Sorry, wrong word, my bad.

And it may not be the official definiton but it's where i personally draw the line.

Chrad brought up a good point also, directors that use mo-cap extensively consider CGI a sort of extension, like make-up, from their perspective it's not animation and there's some truth to it because the performance comes less and less from the animators but from the actors.

I hope you're not calling me small minded just becasue i have an urge to categorize. Because in my case i don't deem animation as something inferior but different. If it's great i'd be all for a "cartoon" getting an Oscar for best film.

Nothing in that post was meant to be taken personally.

Sadly, it takes more than being great for an animated film to get nominated, let alone win. Even with ten nominees, I fear.