Example Drift: Uncanny Valley

It does IMO although it's mostly in the eyes they look so soulless uncaring with the smile it is really inhuman. And Yuki is the exact opposite you can tell there is something there especially in Endless Eight and Day of Sagatarius (sp?) but with a blank expression.

Maybe I an reading too much into the Anime. But it was what was intended since the term and theory get talked about in the book to describe them.

And how is a cheerful smile stuck on someone's face NOT part of her appearance?

I would agree that behaviors are not part of the Uncanny Valley, so for example someone can't be in the Uncanny Valley for believing in Santa as an adult, for liking rotten food, or for speaking in a strange syntax, even though all of these are "slightly off" compared to normal humans.

But all of these things we previously discussed, the dissonantly cheerful smiling, the emotionless non-reaction, and even the mechanical movements, are part of the appearance.

It's the visual image of a cheerful girl with a knife that is in the Uncanny Valley, or the image of a girl blankly staring during a fight.

I think it's too restrictive to say that the character's body itself must be physically deformed, we can safely expand it to "scenes where a character looks slightly off".

I don't think that's Uncanny Valley because it requires context. If you need plot context, you're dealing with a non-appearance trope, and Uncanny Valley was originally all about appearance (Whether static or in movement). The girl's smile doesn't fit because the smile is only uncanny in relation to her other behavior.

A good way to think about it: Is a picture of Ryoko smiling creepy, or is a picture of Ryoko smiling while doing something horribly violent creepy?

It's anime. You can't use "look at the eyes" when the eyes already look inhuman and highly stylized in almost all the characters.

edited 16th Mar '11 11:52:34 AM by Scardoll

But if you add movement to an image you are no long talking about appearance alone. A moving corpse is no long as creepy if it acts and talk like a human. That is how you get so much fetishism for vampires. Just like zombies, they are still waking corpses (hence the cold touch and pale appearance). However, unlike zombies, they act 'normally'(more normal then zombies, anyway).

In Ryouko example, you don't really need context. Just the fact she killing someone while still looking cute is enough to creep. It is the image of something so humane looking acting so human yet so non-humanly that creep people. And that is why she trigger the Uncany Valley.

"It looks like a cute girl but it is slashing at you with a knife" doesn't require any more plot context than "It looks like a rotting corpse but it's running towards you", and the latter is used as the standard example of the trope.

ninjad.

• Invoked for Kazuo Kiriyama in Battle Royale [manga]. He was deliberately drawn with no reflection in his eyes, and while barely noticeable, it still manages to give his face a look beyond creepy.

You try to use the trope for "difference from photorealistic humans" only, but as most fiction requires some level of immersion, it's understandable that the viewer decodes the stylized style, and treats it as the normal, healthy human, while everything else is "slightly off" compared to it.

edited 16th Mar '11 12:11:00 PM by EternalSeptember

Because the smile is a behavior. Take a human who is a Stepford Smiler. Does she qualify for the Uncanny Valley? No, because she's fully human. The smile can be a side effect of this trope, but it's not specifically this trope.

Not an example. He's HUMAN. He can't fall under the Uncanny Valley. This is another trope. You can't be an example if you aren't 100% human. A Cyborg might, but no matter the art style, you can't meet the trope if you are a real vanilla human.

I can accept the trope can be invoked in animes (Drawing a character without pupils is a common way to do this). But it's still an apparance trope. The trope CAN be accompanied by behaviors, but those are just accessory. If the character doesn't LOOK the part, then the behaviors are just one of many many other tropes.

edited 16th Mar '11 12:20:41 PM by Ghilz

No, he is not human. He is a piece of drawing.

In-Universe I mean.

But sure, using your logic: He's a drawing. Drawings not even close to being resembling a human (two dimensional for one). So not an example either way.

edited 16th Mar '11 12:23:54 PM by Ghilz

x6 Eyes are the single most important thing on an anime character's face we have quite a few tropes about it like Tareme and Tsurime. Ryoko's has only two modes closed [1]◊ and open extremely wide [2]◊ doesnt help that her eyebrows are set really high from her eyes while her eyes themselves are set low.

It's all in the subtle details that stack up into something not quite right about her.

edited 16th Mar '11 12:30:53 PM by Raso

But this is not an in-universe trope, this is an audience reaction, incuding 3D animated, and rubber foreheaded characters unintentionally failing at looking human. (though they are, in the plot.)

Edit: see post 30: You try to use the trope for "difference from photorealistic humans" only, but as most fiction requires some level of immersion, it's understandable that the viewer decodes the stylized style, and treats it as the normal, healthy human, while everything else is "slightly off" compared to it.

edited 16th Mar '11 12:29:54 PM by EternalSeptember

Look okay, I know you love discussing that one example. But that's not conductive to repairing the trope. Does she LOOK (and I mean strictly her appearance) different from real humans by a small degree? Yes or no? If yes, then she can be this trope. If not, then she ain't.

That being said, something needs to be made to repair the page, and I do think Uncanny Valley Girl, who is not quite related to this, can't be helping with reducing the misuse.

Then we go back to point B if it's not in-universe: He's not an example because he's not nearly close enough to look like a human (he's a 2 dimensional drawing). Still not an example.

Coz that's what the pre-existing term MEANS. the term refers to photo-realistic medias (originally robots).

edited 16th Mar '11 12:34:48 PM by Ghilz

I think you are playing in two directions, you just said that characters must be non-humans in-universe.

Then yes, she looks only slightly different from humans in-universe.

edited 16th Mar '11 12:34:15 PM by EternalSeptember

Goes back to what I said earlier, does anyone refer to her appearance as such in story? Yes? Then the trope is invoked. If the only thing anyone ever remarks upon his her behavior, and we are just inferring she must look slightly different in universe, but no one ever says it, then its not an example

For example, Raso's eyebrow thing. Does anyone in-story remark on that? Or say her eyes look weird/creepy/whatever? Then you could say the trope is invoked.

edited 16th Mar '11 12:38:52 PM by Ghilz

The trope was invoked by the artists who drew her that way.

The books do which are told first person from Kyon's perspective He even uses this trope by name as I said in my first post the details in the anime are just how the animators chose to express this trope.

Anyway sorry for going off on how so and so is an example.

edited 16th Mar '11 12:50:28 PM by Raso

Just trying to sum up the point i've been trying to make over several posts:

1. The trope is based on appearance only. This appearance can be accompanied by behaviors, but that's only a cherry on the sundae.
2. Animated & Drawn characters cannot be this trope, no matter the origin, unless they provoke the reaction from someone else in-story. No matter how they are drawn, though exception could be made for photo-realistic drawing styles. CGI characters can qualify, since they can look closer to a real human.

My side:

1. The trope is based on visual presentation. Movements, surroundings, facial expressions, and other traits present at the scene count, but longer term plot points not.

2. Unintentional examples must look eerily similar to a photorealistic human, but artists can invoke the trope in non-realistic art, by drawing something as "slightly off" compared to the "normal", as it is defined by the work's style in general.

I could accept your #1, but I think this is opening the door to alot of potential misuse, having characters who should not be here (like a Live action character whose human and played by a human be listed here simply coz he acts weird due to being a Cloud Cuckoo Lander). I don't agree with #2, as that is far from what the term actually means.

Agree with Eternal September on 1).

The problem I have with Ghilz's number two is that shows like Ghost In The Shell androids have very subtle differences than normal humans even though its all animated mostly in eyes, skintone and other places and its all 100% intentional to get this trope across.

I found this quite funny, considering the page image caption of Stepford Smiler has a pot hole for Uncanny Valley. And I definitively feel she is in the Uncanny Valley, btw. Her 'not quite normal' smile is pretty creepy precisely because it seems as it was supposed to be a normal smile.

Anyway, to fall in the Uncanny Valley you don't really need to be perfectly like a human. Just need to give you the feel you are supposed to related with it. In a manga (or any other drawing) the 'humans' can be caricatures, but there is something in the drawing style that allow you recognizing it as 'human'(or similar) to relate with it. Removing that 'something', while still allowing you to think on it as 'human'(or similar) is what trigger the Uncanny Valley.

edited 16th Mar '11 12:58:30 PM by Heatth

Raso, this a trope about a RL human's reaction. By this logic, any anime character with fucked up hair/eye color could be an example. I would rather limit them to IC examples that mention the trope.

Do the characters in the show remark that the skin is too pale? Yes? Then its an example.

As a compromise, how about a trope about 'Uncanny Valley' but in animation/drawing and in relation to animation/drawing? That is it, a trope for when a character is purposely drawn to be 'off' when compared to the other characters in the show.

I think that could agree with that. It would prevent misuse of Uncanny Valley, allow room for stuff like when one wants to outline a human character's evil through subtle artwork change.

Not the subtle ones from the normal androids like the Major the only source that it was a 100% intentional is Word of God on how and what changes he made in his drawing style in the attempt to invoke this trope. But the extreme ends of this do come up in convos and the second movie's plot revolves around this trope.

edited 16th Mar '11 1:07:18 PM by Raso

Not evil. 'Creepy'. There is a difference.