Should Avatar be considered an animated film?

[Petrie.]

Saw this link on another board and it got me thinking:

http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/shoul...-animated-oscar


My response:

Now that is a very peculiar question.  I would say Alvin and the Chipmunks had less total computer animation than Avatar, but Avatar is no Up or Ratatouille or other CGI films that are clearly all CGI.  If you go back to the blending of animation and live action found in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, you'll see that WFRR was not nominated as an animated film, yet a lot of animated footage clearly exists.  If following how WFRR was classified twenty years ago, Avatar is not worthy of an animated film oscar, but then again, Alvin shouldn't be there either.  I think the award was meant for all-animated films, meaning 100% done by animation, not some psycho-blend of two mediums.

[Malte279]

Perhaps with the advance of technology used in film-making they may have to introduce a new category for the Oscar before long.

[Kor]

If it has both animation and live action I'd consider it a hybrid film myself.

If I was in the Oscar classification I'd look at is the movie primarily live action or animated.  Then I'd look at the key plot point scenes and are those primarily live action or animated since I doubt the Oscars will ever have a hybrid category at least not till a sizable number of movies that are hybrid come out.