Berkeley philosophy professor Alva Noe has a pretty fascinating take on the Uncanny Valley as caused by 3D computer-generated movies like The Polar Express and Tintin (which I talked about recently). If understand him right, he's arguing that the feeling of uncanniness happens when CGI simulations of people are incorporated into a movie, which we watch passively. This confuses our expectations, because cartoons usually demand a level of interactive imaginativeness in our viewing:
Cartoons don't give us glimpses of worlds, they give us worlds to play in and toys to play with. Live-action movies, in contrast, don't give us opportunities to play; they give us access to hidden worlds... the uncanny valley yawns [when animators]... get confused about what kinds of stories they are telling: Are they inviting audiences to play, or giving them an opportunity to watch? [emph. mine]
Read it all here. I think Noe's theory also explains why the Uncanny Valley effect doesn't seem to happen as much in 3D virtual worlds like Second Life -- while human-like avatars should tweak our sense of the uncanny, the fact that we're interactively participating in the simulation, with the knowledge that a real human is at a keyboard, operating each avatar, keeps us away from the Valley.
Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan. Noe, by the way, gave a great and accessible Google talk about consciousness which goes down like a smooth bourbon:
Saw Tin Tin and didn't experience -any- level of uncanny valley feelings. I gathered the rest of the audience was with me as well in enjoying the film.
Haven't read the linked info though yet. Will have to now to see if this professor is trying to claim Tin Tin is a trigger film.
Posted by: Pussycat Catnap | Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 12:50 PM
ps: SL could just be a film we'd be stuck watching unable to click a single thing, and it still wouldn't trigger. No matter how human people try to make their avatars, they're still about as cartoony as those in World of Warcraft (albeit in different ways)...
Not only in the look, but the animation as well.
Posted by: Pussycat Catnap | Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 12:53 PM
Ok read the article and thankfully I can still stand by above 2 comments, but with some notes.
Yeah, I think it -is- in the story and less in the realism.
This is -why- Tin Tin didn't trigger for me - despite being hyper real it also clearly felt like a cartoon and invited that play mindset.
BY CONTRAST...
Avatar felt just as hyper real, but invited me to voyeur at a story and world, thereby not triggering the 'uncanny'.
Two animated films, which succeeded, by taking opposite paths.
Curiously... I think this also explains why I have so much trouble with Chinese 'wire flying' martial arts movies. They are not animated, and have real actors, but people flying around or across tree tops and mountain cliffs... triggers my sense of the uncanny by trying to 'cartoon me' during live-action...
- I find myself getting almost angry everytime I see one of these movies, and end up having to make snippy comments to RL friends, interrupting the movie, about 'where mah Bruce Lee @?'
- I start blaming it on poor acting and talking about Lee's famous charm, when perhaps its really those darn wire-acts throwing it off for me (and this is a context thing, because I can sit there a super-hero movie and not be bothered one bit - because that presents itself in a cartoonish premise).
Posted by: Pussycat Catnap | Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 01:08 PM
I think there's definitely an "uncanny valley" for physics. We can enjoy a production where the laws of physics are vastly different, we can enjoy a production where they're utterly realistic, but we're put off by effects that shoot for some sort of realism but just miss the mark.
The best action sequence in Iron Man 2 had nothing to do with Iron Man; it was Scarlett Johansson kicking some serious butt as the Black Widow. Wires and other aids were used, but the sequence feels real -- it looks like something that could happen in real life... if somebody were a super badass Olympic gymnast secret agent ninja.
On the flip side, there are several instances in the
X-Men series where Wolverine gets hurled through (random obstacle) to demonstrate how powerful (random villain) is, and I flinch each time because he never follows a ballistic arc -- it's always a stunt guy getting yanked back by a wire. It's just slightly off, and that bothers me more than something that's just plain wrong (like, say, the amazing vacuum aerodynamics of the X-Wing fighter).
Posted by: Arcadia Codesmith | Wednesday, February 01, 2012 at 06:51 AM
Apparently a certain candidate for the GOP presidential nomination has a similar problem: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/the-uncanny-valley-what-robot-theory-tells-us-about-mitt-romney/252235/
Posted by: Qie Niangao | Wednesday, February 01, 2012 at 12:46 PM
Thanks for that link, Qie. Food for thought.
Posted by: Arcadia Codesmith | Wednesday, February 01, 2012 at 01:13 PM
I like the uncanny valley so much i keep digging :)
Posted by: Connie Arida | Friday, February 03, 2012 at 10:31 PM