Photo: 20th Century Fox
I'm not going to ask why Avatar isn't on the Academy's short list for Best Animated Oscar because the answer to that question is obvious… it wasn't submitted. Perhaps that's just the problem though. Why not? And don't go jumping to a quick decision. Let me give you a little food for thought. I might be able to make a case that will have you considering it much more than you may think.
First off, let's look at a few details to help the discussion along. Here are four of the 20 films that were submitted for consideration in the Best Animated Feature Film category:
- Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel
- Disney's A Christmas Carol
- Monsters vs. Aliens
- Up
Keep those films in the back of your mind for a second while I ask (and try to answer) a few questions you may already be asking and preparing for the comments.
Next, how much of Avatar is CGI and how much is live-action? In reading an article at Gawker recounting a Hollywood Reporter article it says, "When completed, Cameron expects Avatar to be about 60% CG animation, based on characters created using a newly developed performance capture-based process, and 40% live action, with a lot of VFX in the imagery." That works for me considering there's most likely no real way to tell for sure.
Taking this into account, let's follow that up with a peek at the first part of the Academy's rules for what is and what isn't an animated film, at least in Oscar's eyes:
An animated feature film is defined as a motion picture with a running time of at least 70 minutes, in which movement and characters' performances are created using a frame-by-frame technique. In addition, a significant number of the major characters must be animated, and animation must figure in no less than 75 percent of the picture's running time.
Now the big question… Is Avatar animated? The first place I went in search for an answer to this question was the production notes for the film where it actually includes a separate section labeled IS IT ANIMATION? The section begins as such:
Ask the animators at WETA, and they'll tell you that the avatars and Na'vi are animated. Ask Jim Cameron, and he'll say the characters were performed by the actors. The truth is that both are right. It took great animation skill to ensure that the characters performed exactly as the actors did. But at the same time, no liberties were taken with those performances. They were not embellished or exaggerated. The animators sought to be utterly truthful to the actors' work, doing no more and certainly no less than what Sam, Zoo or Sigourney had done in the Volume. Of course the animators added a little bit, with the movement of the tails and ears, which the actors could not do themselves. But even here, the goal was to stay consistent with the emotions created by the actors during the original capture. So when Neytiri's tail lashes and her ears lower in fury, they are merely further expressing the anger created by Zoe Saldana in the moment of acting the scene.
One way of looking at the information above is to say instead of putting actors in rubber suits or makeup all James Cameron did was apply makeup and creature effects with CGI. Sort of like last year's Best Makeup Oscar-winner, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
However, to the point of staying faithful to the actors performances similar techniques have been used in hand-drawn animation forever such as when the role of Snow White was acted out by Marge Champion as reference material for Disney animators for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Also, as you can see in the video to the right, Helene Stanley was used for Sleeping Beauty. Obviously this is not the exact same thing as performance capture, but with this conversation it seems we're getting into varying shades of gray and it will ultimately come down to your interpretation of the facts.
Take all of this into consideration and what do you come up with? Is Avatar animated and if so, is it animated enough to be considered in the Best Animated Oscar category? What about the films I mentioned at the opening? The ones included on the short list for consideration.
To the question of how much of Avatar is CG and how much is live-action the answer was 60% CG and 40% live-action. Adding to this and having seen the film, I would put good money down saying there isn't a single frame of that film that doesn't include CG animation, let alone a scene that has more live-action elements than it does CGI. Compare this to Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel in which the only animation is six of the film's characters and based on that alone I think Avatar is already more of an animated film.
I already touched up on it a little bit, but how about performance capture? Like Avatar, Disney's A Christmas Carol is a performance capture feature with characters portrayed inside CG environments and it is considered animation. Doesn't this mean Avatar should be considered animation as well?
Look at the clip from Avatar to the right, to my knowledge there isn't a single element of that image that isn't CGI, it's simply performance capture, animated creatures and CG environments.
Finally, the one thing the four contending films listed above have in common is they all employ CGI, just like Avatar and many, many other films we could open this discussion to. I bring this up because it has pretty much been agreed upon around the Internet Avatar will be taking home the Oscar for Best Visual Effects, which creates an interesting conundrum. Why is the CG in Avatar considered visual effects while the CG employed for a Pixar or DreamWorks film simply considered animation? If Avatar is up for Oscar's Best Visual Effects award shouldn't Up and Monsters vs. Aliens be as well? The fact they aren't, but A Christmas Carol is, interests me.
 Loading ... |
Perhaps the real question is When is CGI no longer considered visual effects and when is it considered animation? The line has to be drawn somewhere because it seems extremely grey at the moment.
What are your thoughts on the matter? And if you think Avatar is animation what about something like Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, which sported Davy Jones and his beard of tentacles and the giant Kraken?
Based on the films included on Oscar's short list I would say Avatar undoubtedly belongs. All the creatures in Avatar are animated as are the lead characters with the most screen time. The environment is nearly 100% animated and instead of make-up effects they make use of CG animated costumes. You'd be hard-pressed to convince me Avatar is absolutely not an animated film, but I am open and interested in hearing your opinions… Let loose below.
If Alvin and The Chipmunks: The Squeakquel can get nominated (Considering that its only has a couple of CGI characters.) There is no reason for Avatar not to be considered.
I agree it technically is "animated".
The reason most people wouldn't consider this 'animated' is it looks too "real".
When you get your CG to the point where it fools they eye into thinking it's truly real, then we should probably rename the "animated" category to something else…
"cartoon"?
I asked myself this a while ago. Considering the oscars rules, it's an animation, no doubt about it.
But I mean, is the academy's definition of an animation the *right* one? If not… Which is? Because I think this whole overload of CGI in the movies of the last decade puts all of this in consideration. If Avatar does have 60% of CGI, isn't it mostly animated? So, isn't it animation?
An example that comes to my mind: the last Pirates of the Caribbean movie, the whole climax is an ABSURD OVEREXPOSURE of CGI elements. I think the actor were 'there' only at the close-ups, every single other shot was animated. So, should we say that scene is an animation? I think so.
I think it only tends to become more and more complicated.
You know what I think the academy should do? Scrap the 'Best Animation' oscar and put everything into the same category: MOVIE. Aren't they all movies, regardless of the technique? Isn't Up as much as a movie as Inglourious Basterds and Avatar? Yes! So, why bother trying to decipher which one is an animation or not? They're all movies, that's all that matters!
The key element is that the film was not submitted for the animated category. If it had been, it would undoubtedly qualify based on your explanation above. I feel like it was a matter of marketing and likely Cameron's choice to not allow it to be submitted.
Think about it, how many animated films since the creation of that Oscar category have also been nominated for Best Picture? Cameron is shooting for the big prize, and if he submitted it to the Animated category, he'd likely win that and still receive nomination for Best Picture, but it may skew the chances of winning that as well.
Unfortunately in Hollywood, there is still a stigma attached with Animated features, which will hopefully disappear with the expansion to 10 nominees for Best Picture.
I for one am glad Avatar wasn't submitted for Best Animated Feature because I really want Up to win!
QUOTE: animation must figure in no less than 75 percent of the picture's running time
If Cameron's measure of 60% is correct (and I haven't seen the film myself to judge), then Avatar is NOT animation , by this admittedly arbitrary definition. If there are enough scenes with Weaver & Lang & Ribisi's characters that do not involve the avatars, then maybe Cameron is correct (those scenes may have Visual Effects, but not animation). I would also guess that by this definition, Alvin… does not meet the 75% criterion, but perhaps I under estimate the screen time given to the chipmunks.
Whether it is an animated movie or not is irrelevant to answer your question…even if it was animated there is much more prestige in being nominated for a best picture award rather than best animated picture.
And as Matt above said, it is rare for a movie to be nominated for both.
I've been posing this argument ever since this year's Animated Feature shortlist was released. If "Alvin & The Chipmunks" is considered "animated" because animated characters are featured in more than 70% of the film, then why not "Transformers"? Or "District 9"? And, as you say, if "A Christmas Carol," then why not "Avatar"? Or, by the Academy's rules, "2012"? "Star Trek"? "Harry Potter"? Computer-generated visual effects are, by nature, animation. This year proves that the Academy's rules differentiating what constitutes "animation" and what constitutes "visual effects" need to be reexamined.
@Matt B.: Actually, animation figures into nearly 100% of Avatar's running time it's just like Chipmunks where the entirety of the scene isn't 100% animated. The wording there can be a bit misleading so by definition I think it definitely meets the Academy's requirements.
These awards organizations are always slow to catch up to reality. The Grammy's just yanked a song from "best song written for a movie" because the song existed before the movie and was only rewritten for it. Whatever.
Avatar seems like the latest and greatest in animation, and it will be hughly successful. Of course it should have been nominated, and it should come away with a number of awards. Interestingly, a common practice now for statuary is molding to a real body, and then finishing it in detail. Traditionalists call this "cheating", but it's simply the newer, cheaper, faster, better on average, updated way of doing things.
who cares? animated films should be allowed in the best picture category as well, so why is an article warranted if an animated film isn't submitted into the animated category?
@zach: Animated films are allowed in the Best Picture category and you obviously care or you wouldn't have clicked the article or bothered to comment. You're obviously thinking about it.
I would say it's definitely not animated. Why? All the Na'vis are created with motion capture and I believe even most of the creatures were made the same way. So even if the result is CGI just as in for example UP's case it was created a completly different way.
ok lets be realistic, this film is only winning special fx, maybe screenplay and maybe score plus a possiblity of director. precious and up in the air are still the most likely to win best picture
But "A Christmas Carol" was also motion-capture, and it's considered animation. Explain that.
Well, the way the rules are written, it obviously qualifies. On a side note, although I haven't seen it myself, I would probably take the "every frame features animation" bet Brad suggested, as surely there are scenes with just the human characters interacting with props on display in the trailer (the lead actor about to be connected to his Avatar by Sigorney Weaver, for instance). Also, I think you spin off into even more confusing territory if you start debating whether digital alterations and additions to backgrounds count as "animation"… may as well start counting all practical films that used matte paintings as employing the same process, and then we're really getting in deep.
It seems to me that the rules should be changed and the category replaced with "Best Animation in a motion picture." This would be for character animation work done in any film, and not some separate "Best Picture" category for animated films as a whole. I think the Academy would be able to recognize the level of challenge and artistry needed to make traditional animation work compared to a 1 to 1 translation of motion capture animation for something like "Avatar", where it's not the animation that is so impressive as much as it is the seemless blending of it with live-action elements… something that is more appropriately awarded in the FX categories. So while all of the movies under discussion would be eligible, the most talented animators would still be the ones most often rewarded for their hard work, which would seem to be th point of offering an award in this field at all. If a digital character in a live action film really stole the show (Gollum, for instance) it would still have a good chance of winning too.
I always thought that the best animated feature was the best cartoon movie of the year and movies that are CGI like this are special effects. If you start adding movies like Avatar into this category, some good animated films won't get the attention they deserve.
This is really such a great question and I'm surprised it hasn't come up before with films like you mentioned, such as Pirates of the Caribbean. To be perfectly honest, I had never even thought of Avatar as an animated effort, but based on this article, it's hard to argue against the facts presented.
I wrote an article a while back about how the animated category seems to be looked down upon a little bit. What I mean by that is I think that whenever a film like WALL-E, Finding Nemo, or anything else of its kind gets a best animated feature nomination, it is taken with a grain of salt because they were denied a best picture nod.
What I find interesting about the fact that Avatar wasn't submitted is the fact that Cameron himself says the characters were completely performed by the actors. The way I interpret that comment is that Cameron doesn't want his film to be looked upon as an animated feature, and that's very intriguing. One would think that with the amount of work Cameron and company put into the technical element of this film that they would want to grab any accolade possible, but the fact that it wasn't submitted reinforces (at least for me) that the animated category doesn't carry much weight.
Avatar is mocap animation not 'keyframe animation'. If it had been selected for the Best Animated Oscar it would've just been cannon fodder for one of the 'keyframed' films like UP. Look at Transformers 2 — it's CG and mostly animated and it wasn't nominated for 'Best Animated Oscar'.
I saw Avatar last night and it immediately went to my top 5 movies of all time and I have seen all nominated movies for Oscar's almost every year for the last 25. Whether or not it is an animated film is a mute question…it is a breakthrough movie like Citizen Kane. Aside from the awe and spectacle of it, the capture technique of the cast was so realistic they were truly life-like. You had empathy for them…they were real. Having seen Christmas Carol, there is no comparison. Have not seen Hurt Locker yet, but Avatar is clearly the best movie I have seen since Million Dollar Baby. I understand that the Academy normally does not go for this type of movie (consider ET, although it was up against a great list that year), but Avatar is so breakthrough in its conception and implementation it is truly deserving. Moreover, it does have th epic quality the Academy often goes for. If it is not a significant contender for Best Picture, I will have lost much respect for the Academy.
I'm an animator at a medium sized TV series and commercial animation studio and I will say that Avatar is an impressive film visually which I thoroughly enjoyed. The story is unremarkable and unoriginal but it was a safe solid base for the very expensive visuals. I look forward to a film of this visual caliber with a more complex storyline and characters a bit thicker than velum, but I'm not holding my breath.
As to whether this film counts as an animated film, well that's a different story. There is animation in Avatar (the flying beasts, secondary features and such) and the animators who worked on it did an excellent job, but most of the film is motion capture and that is not really the same as animating from scratch. In films like Up the animator is in a sense the actor, we work from storyboards and with the voice acting, and sometimes some other reference, and create fully all the character's actions that you see. We breath life into an inanimate object. In Avatar the actors were the life of the characters, the animators made strengthened that existing acting, but they didn't create it. So with that difference in mind I would say that Avatar is a film with animation, not an animated film.
Let´s be sincere. The reason why Avatar isn´t nominated as animation is because the medium is still considered inferior in cinema. Everybody wanted to say that and knew it.
What I think is that years ago the visual effects category existed because life action movies had real effects and perhaps very few animation, but now the Hollywood movies have become animated movies with some life action.
This hurts me, Avatar was the most amazing movie i've seen in a long time. But due to the use of motion capture and live action i think there should be a NEW category in the Oscars one for purely animated films like UP and another for Mixed media like Avatar. This would take all live action and animated pictures into consideration. Also Allowing more animators to be recognized for their dedication and hard work.
Alvin and the chipmonks is character animation, created by animators with reference. Avatar is performance capture, which caputures more information that motion capture, almost live action with a cg effect on top, more so than christmas carol which is motion capture, which requires a more hands on technique than avatar. All that said, these instances do blur the lines when we try to decide what is animation and whats not. In my opinion, any character we bring to life is animation, but does that include puppets. In theory it could even include actors or dancers.