Example Drift: Uncanny Valley

The page is YMMV bannered anyways, so it's not like we need proof that someone is an example of the trope.

Also, don't forget that very originally, the term is specifically about "realistic humanoid robots looking more scary than industrial robots or completely believeable robots".

The way we currently use it, along with most of the Internet, that "realistic artificial characters looking more scary than either obvious monsters, or standard real life people" is already using it as an expanded analogy.

There is nothing "incorrect" about expanding it a bit further again.

edited 16th Mar '11 1:10:35 PM by EternalSeptember

First, I gotta reiterate that the page itself does say that behavior counts. As for this Ryoko character, I haven't watched Haruhi Suzumiya, so if she's drawn differently in relation to other characters, I can't tell. From what I've seen of the art and other characters, she looks like anyone else to me. If she only has two facial expressions, happy and disappointed, I'd say that's actually less Uncanny Valley than a Stepford Smiler. At leas she has some range of emotion, even if it's exaggerated. Since I can't tell if there's something "off" about her smile by the art alone, I wouldn't call her that. Maybe someone who watches the show could see it, but not me. If other characters mention it, it could be that she's meant to look that way, but Special Effects Failure or whatever you want to call it made it hard to tell out of universe.

The Ghost In The Shell examples work better.

Saying "You could define it as 'any anime character with fucked up hair or eye color" sounds like slippery slope fallacy to me. That said, I can't think of an example right now, but if, say, everyone but Carol have realistic shades of hair, but Carol's looks "too black", that could still be an example. More importantly, as I said in my first post, it's a YMMV trope. You may not see it, I may not see it, but it's possible someone else does.

Not showing emotions does not make someone Uncanny Valley.

Take Spock. Despite being (Functionally) emotionless and constantly reminding us of it, his placement near or away from the valley is entirely dependent on his physical looks.

Ryoka is not an Uncanny Example, but it's not because she shows emotions. She's Uncanny Valley because, if you were to look at her and watch her talk/walk without seeing the context of her actions, she'd look perfectly normal. If Ryoka looked emotionless, she'd still not count in the valley.

Also, the "Too black" example is Nonstandard Character Design.

That's the problem.

edited 16th Mar '11 2:07:46 PM by Scardoll

Not showing emotions may put someone in the Uncanny Valley would be more correct.

That being said, I don't remember feeling that way for any emotionless character. The opposite, actually. Showing the wrong emotion in some context is way more creepier.

Creepy doesn't mean Uncanny Valley.

Uncanny Valley means creepy.

Showing the wrong emotion is generally Dissonant Serenity, and is not related at all to the original idea of how the closer something looks and moves to human without being human, the creepier it is. Something in the Uncanny Valley is creepy in any situation; Dissonant Serenity can be creepy, but it's creepy only in a specific context.

Once again, Ryoko smiling isn't creepy. Ryoko smiling while she's impaling some other chick is creepy. A robot or 3D model built in the Uncanny Valley looks and moves creepy in any situation it's in.

I'm just worried that the Uncanny Valley page seems to be transforming into one that covers a bunch of different things, but nothing specific.

NINJA EDIT

edited 16th Mar '11 2:25:34 PM by Scardoll

Re: Hair being too black being Nonstandard Character Design- Depends on the context of the work, and whether or not it was intentional. That page makes it seem more like an art mistake rather than something done intentionally, and has a very wide definition, boiling down to "one character, probably the main character, is drawn differently." If their given a Nonstandard Character Design specifically to invoke the Uncanny Valley feeling, it fits both.

It has to be a Nonstandard Character Design. It can't be Uncanny Valley on its own out-of-universe because the rest of the character doesn't look human. You're comparing that character to other ones for reference, which means the character design is nonstandard.

Nonstandard Character Design is often intentional.

edited 16th Mar '11 2:23:19 PM by Scardoll

((May be a wall o'text coming up.))

First off, Uncanny Valley is a YMMV trope- what I think fits may not match up with what you do, so if one character looks weird compared to the others, and that invokes that feeling, it's entirely possible for it to fit that trope.

Secondly, yes the character design is nonstandard, but that doesn't mean it's not uncanny valley. In fact, it could be just the opposite. If we take Uncanny Valley to be an appearance trope, then in non-live-action media, we pretty much have to use a character's Nonstandard Character Design to determine if it is or is not.

Even in live-action media— let's take an example from the description of the page- A clown can be considered to be in the uncanny valley, because, in relation to normal humans, something about it is off. his feet are too big, his smile is exaggerated, his face is pale. He's got a nonstandard character design, though it's by choice. A robot with a human face is in the uncanny valley, because, in relation to normal humans, its face looks slightly wrong. The "skin" is too rubbery, too perfect. The mouth moves wrong. It's got a Nonstandard Character Design.

Using my example- This character, compared to the others, looks weird. The hair is too black, so they don't fit in with the rest of the group. Maybe their behavior is wrong too. In this case, the behavior, combined with the slightly wrong hair puts it in the valley. In relation to the other characters, something is "off" about them.

As for nonstandard character design being intentional- It certainly can. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it usually is. The stub of a description, however, doesn't do a good job of emphasizing it. It actually says ". Usually a main character and most likely because this main character was designed before the artist could get into the swing of drawing the rest of the characters" Although it admittedly backpedals and says "it could be to set the character apart." Still, nothing about that says that it can't also be uncanny valley.

edited 16th Mar '11 2:46:28 PM by Wulf

The problem is, it's supposedly Uncanny Valley because of slight differences compared to other characters who don't look realistically human. The clown is scary because he looks like us, not just because he looks like the other people in the film, but that same familiarity just isn't present in the valley.

It might be scary, but it isn't scary because of familiarity, which is the entire point of the trope. If he looked more human than the other characters, there might be some element of the meaning, but he does not. In fact, he should be falling away from the Uncanny Valley for that reason, since he looks less familiar to us than characters who are already heavily stylized.

Remember, the reason this trope exists in the first place is because of how we perceive each other's faces.

edited 16th Mar '11 2:46:30 PM by Scardoll

I'm having a lot of difficulty following this thread because of all the direct responses going on, but I really don't see why Uncanny Valley can't be caused by behavior or mannerisms.

Wiktionary defines it as "A range of appearances, mannerisms, and/or behaviors subtly different from humanoid in an otherwise humanoid figure that may cause negative reactions, such as fear, discomfort, or revulsion." Wikipedia says that "Mori's hypothesis states that as a robot is made more humanlike in its appearance and motion, the emotional response from a human being to the robot will become increasingly positive and empathic, until a point is reached beyond which the response quickly becomes that of strong revulsion." (Emphasis added.) Weird, slightly inhuman motion can absolutely affect the Uncanny Valley.

Motion is not the same thing as behavior.

And does a serial killer fall into the Uncanny Valley? This is actually an honest question, since if one does, then that opens the gates for plenty of other behavioral examples.

edited 16th Mar '11 2:52:25 PM by Scardoll

Motion isn't all behavior, but it's the important kind of behavior.

Depends of the Serial Killer, Probably.

edited 16th Mar '11 3:36:55 PM by Heatth

It really just depends on how detailed the picture is, the character, and person looking. Going from stick figures to more realistic drawings will raise the familiarity—to a point. At that point, the more detailed and humanlike it looks, the more it'll creep you out. Where exactly that point is depends on who's looking. If everyone in the show is already nearing that point, someone's hair looking out of place and "too black" may be enough to start to push it down the valley.

I also think I didn't do a very good job explaining what I meant, and should have picked a better example than hair being too black, but it's too late now.

EDIT: Re: Serial Killers- I don't think so, no. I second that "movement" is the important kind of behavior, although others can affect it. That's why I'd say a Stepford Smiler affects it, though it's not far enough in the valley for me, personally, to say that that's uncanny valley to me.

edited 16th Mar '11 3:05:45 PM by Wulf

That's basically just defining the trope as "anything creepy" when the trope is about a certain type of creepy. It's about a characters appearance, and yes movement is part of appearance being slightly off from human and this causing a reaction of wtf in a person. It's not about anyone who acts a little weird. It's not about Dissonant Serenity. It's certainly not about Serial Killers.

edited 16th Mar '11 3:03:41 PM by shimaspawn

Bullhonkey. The trope is not "Anyone creepy".

EDIT: What Shimaspawn said.

edited 16th Mar '11 3:07:08 PM by Ghilz

No. It depends of how the Serial Killer looks and acts. That is why I said 'depends'. The fact it is a Serial Killer has nothing to do with the trope, though, so I guess the better answer is, indeed, "no". I was just saying you could have a case of Uncanny Valley that just happen to be also a Serial Killer.

Oh, yeah. I actually think it is less likely to a Serial Killer fall in Uncanny Valley. By being an Serial Killer, something most people would classify as 'inhuman', a viewer might not feel the killer as even remotely 'human', therefore pushing the Serial Killer away from the Uncanny Valley (he would be creepy for other reasons, though).

edited 16th Mar '11 3:33:15 PM by Heatth

So... Uncanny Valley is not behavioral at all then? Serial killers look and move perfectly human, but do some strange, inhuman behavior.

If a serial killer is too inhuman, then how does an emotionless, murderous, alien anime chick who has even more inhuman behavior fit in the valley?

edited 16th Mar '11 3:39:16 PM by Scardoll

Yep. Uncanny Valley is 100% appearance and movement, 0% personality and actions. It's not about when the character smiles, but how that smile looks. A completely human smile while shooting someone is still a completely human smile.

A serial killer isn't too inhuman, they're just human. They're just a person. Nothing Uncanny Valley about them. They might express sister tropes like Dissonant Serenity, but they are still human.

edited 16th Mar '11 3:40:16 PM by shimaspawn

Exactly.

Now I think on it, I phrased wrong my other post. I meant that it would probably depend of the Serial Killer. Not that it is probably the Serial Killer fall under the Uncanny Valley. Sorry about that.

I believe the important thing is how 'close' the object feels human. If, for some reason, you can 'feel' from start the object is definitively not human, then it is not Uncanny Valley, even if it is creepy. However, if it is so similar you might even feel it is human, but for some reason you just know it isn't, then it is Uncanny Valley. The fact it is so close, yet so distant of 'humanity' is what make the Uncanny Valley.

Edit:I disagree. 'Human' is not quite the word. Better would be 'normal/average human'. It is about how close it is to you and how much you could connect with.

edited 16th Mar '11 3:45:27 PM by Heatth

Which is why I oppose the inclusion of animated/drawn characters who are not photorealistic. A character will never feel human. I love The Simpsons, but none of them FEEL human, or will ever be. Same for an Anime/Manga character. They will not feel human, they are drawings. Doesn't mean you can't feel empathy for those characters. That's not what I am saying, nor am I saying drawn characters are less possible to relate to. Just that they will never feel human. Humans never have yellow skin, or are black and white, or two dimensional... It's a limitation of the media.

edited 16th Mar '11 3:48:08 PM by Ghilz

When I was applying this to animation and video games I was only applying it in the Uncanny Valley theory as a whole where Humanoid Robots, Artificial Human or construct are almost identical to normal humans but have small imperfections (in various ways) that make them different and creepy when compared to the rest of the characters. They are invoking the actual theory itself and or trope is expanded around that theory. Ghost In The Shell, Haruhi and SMT Nocturne are examples.

If they are just drawn differently that's Gonk and other tropes.

Edit: Gonk is for extreme examples... Hmm .

edited 16th Mar '11 4:12:27 PM by Raso

Live action movie characters are also flat, two dimensional, made of pixels, their voice is coming from outside, and they are a few inches short so why do they apply?

But seriously, "It's a limitation of the media" is exactly why they can feel human. Live action, 3D animation, and 2D animation, are all just ways of symbolically portraying real life humans, it's your mind that makes them "realistic".

And it's possible for the mind to fail at doing so. By and large the entire reason I avoid anime/manga is that the art style (especially with female characters) fails my personal ability to see the characters as "human" and instead creeps me out. It's not the Uncanny Valley in the classical sense, but it is something related (like a lot of the animation entries are).

Perhaps we could split off a new trope for so-called unsettling animation and restrict Uncanny Valley to live action examples?

edited 16th Mar '11 4:25:13 PM by nrjxll