Example Drift: Uncanny Valley

But it can also be dangerous, if we just split off the more commonly used variation from the original title, people will keep using it for the new trope.

We could also rename both versions, as Unintentional Uncanny Valley and Intentional Uncanny Valley (these names are just placeholders, we can do better).

That might work. Uncanny Valley itself could be a disambig page with the definition.

Uncanny Valley Effect would be an appropriate (and correct) name for the Audience Reaction. It's not a solution I wholeheartedly support but not one I mind as much.

edited 25th Mar '11 11:58:00 AM by Elle

Yeah, it's not my ideal, but it does make a good compromise. Uncanny Valley Effect would work for the Audience Reaction. I still like Uncannily Inhuman for the in character version.

How about Uncanny Valley Effect, and Uncanny Valley Portrayal?

Eh, the latter isn't normally something that falls into the definition of Uncanny Valley so I would rather not use the term in the name.

I prefer Uncannily Inhuman than Uncanny Valley Portrayal. The later would be too easy to confuse with Uncanny Valley Effect

edited 25th Mar '11 12:09:28 PM by Ghilz

Uncannily Inhuman, IMO, refers just tangentially enough to Uncanny Valley without stepping on its toes.

Which is what we want, no?

It was used in our definition of Uncanny Valley for a long time, commonly used that way, and commonly used this way elsewhere on the Internet, so keeping the reference would make the trope more clear, as long as we include something that shows that it is intentional. I think "Portrayal" does that.

edited 25th Mar '11 12:13:21 PM by EternalSeptember

We're trying to move away from trope decay. Using that name will just cause trope decay on the other trope. Uncannily Inhuman is a nod to the idea without causing trope decay on the trope we're splitting out by having two separate definitions of the same term.

That it's being used that way doesn't mean it's correct. If the real-life use had drifted such that using "uncanny valley" that way was generally accepted, I'd accept that argument, but the fact that we had a 6 page argument about it suggests that its not.

How would that cause Trope Decay? The more clear we make it that Uncanny Valley was cut into two halves, the more likely that people will note the difference.

Otherwise, Uncanny Valley Effect would be kept being misused for intentional examples, because people would simply miss that an unrelated-sounding trope is actually it's other half.

The 6 page long thread also kind of proves that the definition drift isn't "generally denied" either.

Because each of those halves would be using a completely different definition of the term. Otherwise we'd need to cut about 90% of the in character reactions to a completely different trope as we couldn't let in anything about personality or anyone who was human in media.

Both of them are about "human-like character's minor abnormalities make them look more scary".

The only difference is, that the audience reaction is happening when the artists tried to portray a realistic human and failed at it, while the trope is when the artists intentionally tried to portray a character as slightly unnatural.

Both subtropes can include humans, and none of them can include personalities. The only difference is author intention.

edited 25th Mar '11 12:59:13 PM by EternalSeptember

All right. If we want to cut the personalities entirely I'm ok with them both using the names. We should probably split off a third trope though for all the misuse of the name as referring to personality.

You two have lost me. Who says the invoked half of it can't include personalities? I say it can.

Example: Data's inability to use contractions in speach.

edited 25th Mar '11 1:16:52 PM by Elle

Personalities are one of the things specifically excluded from the definition of Uncanny Valley used outside this site. So we can either use the name for in character version, or we can't use the name for that trope and they have to go elsewhere.

Data's inability to use contractions is not an example of the Uncanny Valley. It's just a Verbal Tic.

edited 25th Mar '11 1:18:51 PM by shimaspawn

Also, my envisioning of Uncannily Inhuman would include characters that are biologically human, but has tics that make them act inhumanly (whether personality disorder or possession or whatever.)

Yeah, that's why I didn't want to use the phrase Uncanny Valley for it because it would make us split off in places that would make it hard for the average troper to use without trope decay. Where as Uncannily Inhuman can be a broader term for just general wrongness beging pointed out in character.

Though I do think that anything that has it's own subtrope for wrong like Verbal Tic be put there instead.

A Verbal Tic can be one of the mechanisms used to create an Uncannily Inhuman effect, no?

It can be, but it can't be the ONLY thing or I wouldn't think it counted.

Personalities are not really an issue, the trope is not really misused for them.

Originally it came up in this thread, because some people claimed that Asakura's cheerful smile while slashing with a knife is not an example, but we agreed that it includes "looking OR acting uncanny", as long as it's not a long term characterization.

So, for example, bad lip-sync as a part of bad CG animation could be an unintentional example, but it could also be intentional if it's a ventriloquist monster possessing a human body.

But long term personality, like a mood switch from pleasant to violent, is not uncanny in either of the tropes, and it isn't really used for either of them, anyways, so it's not a problem.

Edit: The verbal tic example would work better if it would make the character scary, not just quirky. Both tropes, the intentional, and the unintentional, can use voices, but on it's own, a Verbal Tic is just a Verbal Tic.

edited 25th Mar '11 1:38:07 PM by EternalSeptember

Err, this trope is normally used for long term characterization. I've never seen it as a flash in the pan thing like you describe.

Long vs. short term doesn't really have anything to do with it, I think. The important thing is that it's subtle - the sense that something's wrong or different, but it's hard to place a finger on exactly what.

edited 25th Mar '11 2:00:28 PM by Elle