Pixar and the Uncanny Valley
Monday, October 4, 2004
In addition to their focus on a well-told story over a star-studded, a-list cast, an article in the New York Times, A Part-Human, Part-Cartoon Species, illustrates why Pixar’s latest film, The Incredibles, aesthetically rises above the rest of Hollywood’s 3D animated fare.
The article discusses director Brad Bird’s dedication to refining the look and movement of the movie’s characters to be, ultimately, cartoonish in nature. One of the reasons I don’t like Shrek is that the human characters have no, well, character to them. They look too human, and not like cartoons at all, and so have a stiff, “dead doll” quality to them. The same goes for the human characters in the Toy Story movies.
The moment I saw the trailer for The Incredibles, I knew that Pixar had done something that no 3D film had done yet—they had created human characters that had some style to them and that didn’t try to emulate life. I agree with Bird in that those who think that creating something absolutely lifelike with animation are missing the point. What’s great about the characters in The Incredibles is that they are first and foremost cartoons. They look like they’ve jumped out of a Chuck Jones short or something Disney might have produced in the 60’s.
This uneasy feeling with characters that are “too human” is something that I think has a lot to do with a theory in robotics called the Uncanny Valley. Basically, the theory states that people feel a certain affection and comfort towards objects that have certain anthropomorphic qualities to them. Applied to robotics, people gradually begin to feel more comfortable when robots have a higher level of anthropomorphism, and more closely resemble people.
However, there is a dip in the curve when the robots too closely resemble people. We feel uneasy and creeped out by robots that are too human. But then the curve suddenly spikes back to a high level of comfort when robotics has achieved perfect mimicry of a living human. This dip in the curve is called “the uncanny valley” and it’s where, I believe, the human characters from Shrek and Toy Story lie.
Finding the perfect balance between being human and being a cartoon has finally been realized in three-dimensional animation, and I am excited like a kid at Christmas for this movie. Pixar + superheroes + Brad Bird = one giddy robot.
Fink says:
Interesting opinion. While I agree with you about animated movies trying to make everything as real as possible (Final Fantsay and Tom Hanks new x-mas movie) is ultimately a failure (why bother, just film the bloody thing), I feel that Toy Story’s treatment of human characters is appropriate.
It helped separate the two “worlds” and was one of the things that was so charming about the movie. What do your toys do when your not around? Humans never seemed intended as main characters but rather as vehicles used to create tension and move along the plot (most times they are partially obscured). They never knowingly interact with “live” toys and are completely unaware of their world. Because of that they should act as they would in “real life”. I always felt that the fact that the human characters in Toy Story looked and acted as human-like as they did only served to juxtapose and therefore accentuate the exaggerated (cartoon-like) movements of the main characters.
Similarly, in Monsters Inc. the question was pondered, what if Monsters were just hired stiffs and scaring people was just their boring everyday job? The characters acted as “normal” as possible (lunch boxes, 9 to 5 tedium) to show how funny or strange a concept that was.
In “The Incredibles”, they ARE the main characters of their outlandish world and seem to act accordingly. I cannot wait for this movie to come out.
Ryan says:
Bah, people can use graphs and numbers to prove anything. 86% of all people know that.
That is seriously interesting though. Makes sense. And explains my nightmares thoroughly.
Kevin says:
Sire Jon Lasseter is my almighty King and God, and thou shall exalt over thine land of Animated Providence forever more! Hail thy reigning Lord. Peasants, bow down before your master and beg for pathetic mercy! You are all not worthy!
Sincerely,
An animation fanatic
Ward says:
Fink, you do have a good argument regarding the differences between the toy world and the human world of the Toy Story movies, but I believe that at the time of Toy Story in ‘95, the technology wasn’t advanced enough to replicate humans in less quirky ways. I believe that if they had the means, Pixar would’ve gone the route that Dreamworks currently has by going with fine hair, skin tone and blemishes, stubble on chin, etc., essentially going in the more realistic realm, and not because of an aesthetic decision. The reason the humans look awkward in the first Toy Story was solely because of lack of technology. (Plastic and metals have always fared better in computer imagery & animation [ease of rendering] and that’s why the stories they’ve choosen throughout the years reflect that.) By the time Toy Story 2 was in production, the technology was getting there, but since they had to go back to the world and aesthetics of Toy Story 1, there was a visual obligation to not go too “real” in the production design aspect of the sequel or else the two films would’ve looked like two completely different movies, thereby lacking any continuity. However one can notice that in the new human character of Big Al, Pixar loosened the reins a bit and that they worked hard on getting the skin tones and the stubble/beard just right. They were headed in the exact same direction that Dreamworks, by now, were already going with in their new film, Shrek. Pixar still couldn’t pull it off, however, as the motion and movements (weight distribution, walk cycle) still were stiff and quirky. Very robotic. It’s amazing to see how much Woody and Buzz look and act and move more “human” than ANY one of the human characters of the Toy Story and Shrek franchises, combined. And they are characters supposedly made of plastic.
I’m very excited by The Incredibles. Have you noticed that there is more emotion emitted by the characters in the posters alone than in all of Shrek the film? The Art of Incredibles book looks great, too. Fantastic artwork. And all of it with “traditional” mediums! Pixar respects the artform and does all their pre-production work with pastels, pencils, paint, charcoal,… Very cool. Yet another reason to want to work for Pixar. Sigh...some day.
Calvin says:
“ The reason the humans look awkward in the first Toy Story was solely because of lack of technology.”
Not entirely true. Technology was part of it, but according to the folks who worked on the film, time and money were the major factors. Seems that since the toys were the bulk of the story, they decided to put the humans on the back burner and focus on more important elements. When time came to build the human characters, time was running out and things got a bit rushed. As usual!!
Ward Jenkins says:
Well, maybe I should’ve have said “solely,” but you get the basic premise to my post. And even if they DID have the time and money to focus on the humans in Toy Story, it wouldn’t have mattered anyway, because the CG human beings in later Pixar films still had that stiff, awkward, mannequin-like movement that most CG humans possess. Even in Finding Nemo, the Dentist moves with a strange puppet-like style, like a marionette.
Tom says:
Even though The Incredibles was amazing (the best animated movie ever...yet!), Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius was actually one of the first movies to have “human” stylized characters (after Toy Story and TS2.)
Jon P. says:
“Uncanny Valley” my foot. There is nothing repulsive about the Final Fantasy animated characters, DUH. The girl is beautiful.
Paranoid says:
You don’t get it. Saying “I don’t like Shrek because the characters look like dead dolls” is all fine and dandy, as long as you realise it’s just your personal opinion. Shrek won an Oscar for Best Animated Feature! People loved it. That automatically proves that Uncanny Valley DOESN’T apply to it, because if you ask all people about their emotional reaction to characters, it would be enormously positive, not in the valley.
Pixar makes great films, but they aren’t great because they stay outside of this mythical valley. Noone did any research to find out whether the principle applies to computer animation and so we have no reason to believe that it does. Except for a vocal minority of people who don’t like the film, noone complains about “creepy” animation. And you know what, when I don’t like a film, I can find a million reasons why it sucks, but I don’t pretend for a moment that there is some deep scientific meaning behind it.
Robot Johnny says:
Calm down, Paranoid. Nowhere did I say this was scientific fact. In fact, even in robotics it’s an unproven theory. But it’s what I believe makes me uncomfortable about those characters.
paperdog says:
Hmm, very interesting indeed......but have you considered a z-axis of ‘relative power’ (or ‘benign factor’)? I’m thinking the Pillsbury dough boy, cute at the size of a breadbasket, not as cute at the size of the empire state (ala ghostbusters).
Also I loved how they emulated plastic for the characters. I could almost smell those floral/toxic puffs of air you get from squeezing My Little Ponies.
Erika says:
Paranoid—no where did anyone say that the point at which one dives into the Uncanny Valley is the same for all people. It’s just a general principle.
Personally, I don’t find Shrek creepy, nor the humans from Toy Story. It doesn’t mean I don’t have an Uncanny Valley, just that mine is probably narrower than the author’s is.
Mushmong says:
I am facinated by computer graphics animation, and just learned of this “uncanny valley”. I understand the feeling one gets when seeing something that is “not quite right. I believe that as technology improves, we will cross that valley and live actors will be phased out of the picture entirely. If computer animation can fool the viewers into thinking they are looking at real people, the possibilities are endless, and the artists who create this will be the true movie stars.
elite says:
???
Dayv says:
??????
Scavenger says:
As a point, back when Shrek 1 was being made, they made Fiona less real looking to avoid the UV effect.
Creford says:
How wonderful it is! Today, I had seen the film - “The Incredibles” this afternoon, My father also had seen this film in this evening. This cartoon movie is powered by Disney Company.
In this film, I love the people’s sensation, scene, bugbears. The scene is so sublime.
With the great imagination.
Feero says:
erm...you guys think to much about a movie...how about just forget the “qualities” and just watch the stupd thing
“While I agree with you about animated movies trying to make everything as real as possible (Final Fantsay and Tom Hanks new x-mas movie) is ultimately a failure (why bother, just film the bloody thing)”
i do agree to that one though…
robots fan says:
wow I LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE robots now because it has ewan in it and i think he’s hot but yeah the movie is pretty cool too!