http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/should-avatar-be-considered-for-best-animated-oscar

This article by Brad Brevet questions whether James Cameron's latest film Avatar merits consideration for this year's Academy Award for Best Animated Feature. Brevet quotes Academy regulates on what constitutes an animated feature: "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." The takeaway question Brevet poses at the end of the article is: When is CGI no longer considered visual effects and when is it considered animation?

Having not seen the film, I don't want to jump to any conclusions, but if advance reviews and comments about it are any indication, I say yes, Avatar does indeed deserve to be considered an animated feature. Although it makes use of motion capture technology (as do some of the films being considered for Oscar contention), reactions to the film's groundbreaking and extensive use of CGI indicate that it has crossed the threshold between "visual effects" and "animation". If the studio does submit the film for consideration, however, then the Academy might want to be a little more specific in their definition of animation.