A lot of submitted films are in danger of being disqualified.
If 0-2 films get disqualified, we'll have 5 nominees.
If 3-5 films get disqualified, we'll have 4 nominees.
If more that 5 films get disqualified, we'll only get 3 nominees.
The submitted films in danger of being disqualified are:
-the CG/live-action hybrids: "The Smurfs", "Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked"
-the motion/performance-capture films: "The Adventures of Tintin", "Happy Feet Two", "Mars Needs Moms"
-the rotoscoped films: "Alois Nebel", "Chico & Rita"
The animated feature category is now a decade old, and in that time, the category has served up three nominees in all but two of its previous 10 years, when the number of eligible submissions was great enough to expand the ballot to five slots.
Last year nearly made the cut, until CG/live-action hybrid "Yogi Bear" was disqualified, leaving Golden Globe nominees "Despicable Me" and "Tangled" unrecognized by Oscar.
"What a shame that because we were short one film, we lost two nominees," says Academy governor Bill Kroyer, who serves on the short films and feature animation branch.
That's why the org decided to instate an intermediary threshold. If 12 or fewer toons qualify, the race stays small (at three noms), but if 13 or more toons receive theatrical release, the category expands to four noms. And if 16 or more open, there can be five.
From the 18 submitted films, the prognosticators will start to examine which ones might be disqualified the way "Yogi Bear" was last year. At risk, "The Smurfs" and "Alvin" rely heavily on live-action footage, foreign submissions "Alois nebel" and "Chico & Rita" use a fair amount of rotoscoping (a technique akin to tracing live-action footage), and "Mars Needs Moms," "The Adventures of Tintin" and "Happy Feet Two" blend motion-capture with the keyframe style the Academy prefers.
"We're trying to preserve the animation process as a performance art, not a visual effects art," says Kroyer, whose own CV involves both "traditional" animation and performance-capture experience.
That said, the Academy is generous in its definition: "Every artist from Picasso to Vermeer has used live models, but you look at a Picasso and think, 'That's real art,' and you look at a Vermeer and say, 'Man, he could have taken a photograph and achieved the same effect,'?" notes Kroyer.
In other words, the Academy aims to recognize performances created by animators, not flesh-and-blood actors. To make that determination, the Academy relies on "the word of the filmmaker," Kroyer says. This year, since Spielberg believes animators were integral to "Tintin," (he claims that it's 85% animation), the film should be considered eligible and becomes a formidable contender in the Oscar toon race.
Source: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118045826/
If it's just the "word of the filmmaker" that the Academy takes into account, and there's no real research and investigation, wouldn't all filmmakers lie so their films will be deemed eligible? Just taking their word for it is absurd!