Attached Link: Too real means too creepy in new Disney animation

…Rhutt-Rhow!

URL for story at Yahoo News:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110404/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_creepy_animation

A lot of misinformation about animation & filmaking in the comments section, but some are pretty funny.

This would be the Uncanny Valley at work, at a guess and without reading the feature.

Shure-'nuff Sam.  I'd never heard it discussed:

"A theory called the "uncanny valley" says we tend to feel attracted to inanimate objects with human traits, the way a teddy bear or a rag doll seems cute. Our affection grows as an object looks more human. But if it looks too human, we suddenly become repulsed."

That would perhaps account for the largely separate Aiko & Vicky fans.

yes, is true.  tom hanks (supposedly child-friendly) cast in "polar express" as "mr. hollywood nice guy" in attempt to sell it, but unanimous consensus: his character too creepy.  adults call it creepy, but they're scared by it, same as kids.  same reason they would reject poser romance novel covers: dead-doll-look, dead eyes, no expression shown in eyes, mouth et al..  on similar note: do not break "fourth wall" rule of telly sitcoms, on pain of death.  it's too confrontational and intimidating for the masses who watch them.  no names, please.

I disagree about the fourth wall rule.  Spike Milligan, Monty Python and The Young Ones broke it regularly, to good effect.  Then again, they weren't regular sitcoms.

People better get used to it because one day actors are going to be osolete because producers are quickly learning that it's cheaper to star a CGI than to pay a real actor 10's of millions of dollars to act in a 2 hour movie.

I on the other hand cannot bring myself to sit thru a "Disney" animation. I tried to watch Kung-Fu Panda twice but could not get past about 15 minutes. Have not seen Cars, Ratatouille, Bug's Life...

Quote - People better get used to it because one day actors are going to be osolete because producers are quickly learning that it's cheaper to star a CGI than to pay a real actor 10's of millions of dollars to act in a 2 hour movie.

Not if the movies are losing huge amounts of money because people are creeped out by the cast.  When the technology is good enough to handle the huge range of subtleties in facial movements and body language, then - and only then - will CGI people start to take over.  I suspect it's going to be a while yet.

Quote - People better get used to it because one day actors are going to be osolete because producers are quickly learning that it's cheaper to star a CGI than to pay a real actor 10's of millions of dollars to act in a 2 hour movie.

Only until the small handful of exceptionally good animators with 30 years of experience and who could substitute a Harrison Ford by using CG, learn, that they could easily charge 10 million dollars, of course.

Polar express is one of my favorites. But I like almost all the animated movies.

From Final Fantasy to UP.

Quote - > Quote - People better get used to it because one day actors are going to be osolete because producers are quickly learning that it's cheaper to star a CGI than to pay a real actor 10's of millions of dollars to act in a 2 hour movie.

Only until the small handful of exceptionally good animators with 30 years of experience and who could substitute a Harrison Ford by using CG, learn, that they could easily charge 10 million dollars, of course.

Too true!!

What Computer Generated Figures can do better, and are more realistic that any other approach, Is Mosters, Animals, and other strange type of creature. You can't touch the quality and price buy using this Technique.

The only thing that will get rid of Live Actors as a mainstay, is the Price Tag on the big names Actors. Movies with out big name those big name actors tallents would be a big loss.

Im not an Aiko nor a Hiro fan but after reading this, I begin to reconsider these guys.

I guess if you are going to make an animation geared for young kids, super real characters might not be ideal.

But for the much older generation, it might still be good considering the amount of almost photorealistic games in consoles these days.

For this mars needs moms film, I still stick to the fact that it excluded the dads thats why it failed.

 Slowhands- I get your point- but more "realistic monsters?" :-)

But then we don't HAVE specific expectations of what a real monster looks/behaves like- as we do with people.

  I am tolerant of it- but I DID notice the CGI Jeff Bridges in the new Tron movie- overall they did a good job-but there were a few instances of it not being right.

Quote -  Slowhands- I get your point- but more "realistic monsters?" :-)

But then we don't HAVE specific expectations of what a real monster looks/behaves like- as we do with people.

 

 Yes the great animator , has realy worked wonders on this stage.

I think many, if not most monsters are based to some degree on life forms we're familiar with, e.g. reptillian, insectoid etc. If we see an amphibian monster, we probably expect it's skin to look a certain way as opposed to a lizard monster. We probably expect a birdlike monster to have a nest, eggs etc. There is a lot that we don't know about how dinosaurs looked/behaved but we extrapolate from what we have, basic principles of locomotion etc. Even if you imagine a completely unique creature that's totally outside anything on earth, you still probably often end up using & combining elements from the natural world.

Curiously, it's the 'Uncanny Valley' effect that most attracts me to 3d. For me that uncomfortable space between photographic realism & simpler forms of representation most appropriately defines the historical/cultural moment in which we find ourselves today. It's the Matrix-like experience of realising through an often subtle series of double-takes that things arn't quite what they appear to be. The illusions are getting very good, but our perception is very sharp.

Quote - I on the other hand cannot bring myself to sit thru a "Disney" animation. I tried to watch Kung-Fu Panda twice but could not get past about 15 minutes. Have not seen Cars, Ratatouille, Bug's Life...

Same here regrding Kung-Fu Panda. It was also a struggle to me to watch more then a few minutes. I found the Panda Bear ah, er.....Creepy looking.

iluv kungfu Panda   it's one of my weekend mainstays. Viper has the pretty flowers by her ears. tee hee.  but i also luv Mortal Kombat movies,  Eragon, Spirited Away, Knight's Tale, ...

Quote - Same here regrding Kung-Fu Panda. It was also a struggle to me to watch more then a few minutes. I found the Panda Bear ah, er.....Creepy looking.

And I really wanted to like "How to Train your Dragon", but I could only get through about half an hour of that one. T.T

what?

that was fantastic. the animation for Toothless was brilliant... part cat, part dog...

Perhaps those of us who work with cgi aren't bothered by the uncanny valley as much because we are used to vicky and sydney having that blank stare, the pose that is not quite right, etc. We see that everyday and look more at the quality of the animation and think why can't we do that? or can Poser do that? or when will poser be able to do that? (You can fill in your favorite cgi program in place of poser if you want)

To me, it's not that they are close but not quite there that diturbs me. It's how close they are getting and the fact that they are striving to get even better. Once they get true photo real animation, they can show anything and we won't know if it's real or not. No I'm not a conspiracy nut, I just watch too much scifi.  

The issue isn't when it gets too real, but when it is almost real, but not real enough.

Avatar is the perfect example of getting real enough that the figures are believable. They still weren't entirely human, so our brains aren't as bothered when things aren't 100% right. Try to do the same thing with a completely animated human form and the subtle differences from reality will seem more pronounced. We know what real humans look like and how they move. The Avatar figures were close enough to human that they retained an emotional impact, but were just different enough not to trigger negative responses. Subtle differences from expectations were covered up by the alien appearance.

Polar Express and other animated efforts aren't trying to get full realism, but somewhere between realism and a cartoon affect.

I don't see actors ever becoming obsolete. Top paid actors earn a lot of money because they bring people to the theaters. Lesser known, but equally talented actors could just as easily do the movies for a fraction of the cost. It will always be cheaper to hire an unknown real person to do a movie than to do it with a computer character that isn't there. Computer voices are still way behind the state of the visuals, so real actors will be hired to do the voices. Most animated features stick to name actors even though they're never seen (which is always odd for the actors when they do movie press in countries where other actors are doing the native voices--a Johnny Depp will promote Rango in Japan even though it's not his voice the Japanese audience is seeing). Star Wars could not be made any cheaper with digital performers than with the then unknowns: Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, and Carrie Fischer. The original Star Wars was made for less money than what it would cost to get Harrison Ford to do a sequel today.

Although many people rankle at the salaries that actors get, it doesn't bother me. When a Pirates movie makes half a billion dollars, should Johnny Depp get a nice big fat paycheck or the studio head that said "yes" to making the movie? I'd rather see the talent that made the movie get the money than the fat cats that arranged for the money. In the old studio days, that's how it worked. The big money went to the studios and not the performers.

Interestingly, if you look at the top 25 grossing movies of all time, relatively few had big name actors when they were released. The top grossing movie of all time, Avatar, starred unknowns--Sigouney Weaver only had a supporting role.

The most Important thing in Capturing A Person in CGI is Their Facial Expressions. That is what sets your top (most of the Time) Actors from the run of the mill. And as said, If you have a bland look on your face. That is not acting, same with CGI.

Both cases are what will make a quality impact. Every movie I am making now. This is the most important thing I shoot for. Most movement is easier to convience that facial moods that change in an instant, and wam! you have a winning performance. The big trick with body movement is timing, and using BVH files done correctly eleminates most of that.

I'm shooting for something more complex that your every day animated poses. I'm working on two people dancing together tightly. Example. A Waltz. Very time consuming. or Ballroom dancing. As of yet, I haven't seen anyone pull off that with The Dotted suites yet.

But An individual dance routine, Heck you can get a BVH file, and after tweeking it, there is very few problems, and a lot less time consumming in doing it.

It's kind of funny, in everyday life, I like to do a lot of things as simple as possible when I can. But when it comes to animation. I like the challange of doing the most complex situation that comes up. I won't do it just to see if I can. But if a scene calls for it. I'm going to give it my best shot, if it can be done.

"...uncomfortable space between photographic realism & simpler forms of representation most appropriately defines the historical/cultural moment in which we find ourselves today."

A very cool and intriguing observation.

Quote - yes, is true.  tom hanks (supposedly child-friendly) cast in "polar express" as "mr. hollywood nice guy" in attempt to sell it, but unanimous consensus: his character too creepy.  adults call it creepy, but they're scared by it, same as kids.  same reason they would reject poser romance novel covers: dead-doll-look, dead eyes, no expression shown in eyes, mouth et al..  on similar note: do not break "fourth wall" rule of telly sitcoms, on pain of death.  it's too confrontational and intimidating for the masses who watch them.  no names, please.

Unlike the fourth wall, the uncanny valley has nothing to do with societal norms, uncultured masses, or cultural issues. It is built into our cognition. A recent experiment showed that macaque monkeys have the same issues. They were fine looking at pictures of cartoon monkeys, or at photos of monkeys, but close but not good CGI monkeys bothered them.

Another reason why the Polar Express was so creepy (IMHO) was that it rather resembled a Soviet Socialist Elf Republic, complete with barracks, manditory social activities, and red stars.

Quote - What Computer Generated Figures can do better, and are more realistic that any other approach, Is Mosters, Animals, and other strange type of creature. You can't touch the quality and price buy using this Technique

When I watched Monsters Inc, I found my self, during the early scene on the factory floor, wondering which parts were a matte, and which were real. Seriously.

While Kung-Fu Panda and How to Train Your Dragon were DREAMWORKS movies and not Disney, looking at Bolt (Disney) or any of the Tinker Bell 3D movies (Disney) I have to agree that sometimes it's a mixed bag - uncanny valley or not. I find that fully animated features like How to Train Your Dragon and The Incredibles (Pixar) actually don't put people off as much as movies that try to intergrate CG characters in live action films. Usually with fully animated CG films, the focus is on how well the story grabs you and less about how well the characters achieve realism. Actually, in these films, realism for a character isn't about skin or even lighting but instead, do they hit the right beats of expression for the mood of the scene. That's why these tend to be better recieved, as more attention is given to facial animation, I find, than you see in films where CG characters are melded with live actors. Oddly enough, it is when CG characters are intergrated with living people that facial animation is the most important but often the most ignored.

For me, where films like Tron 2 (Disney) and the like go wrong is the facial expressions are too dead, as Slowhands pointed out. Dead in the mouth and eyes especially, and the skin is usually either too plastic or too translucent. I see lots of progress to getting beyond the problem but for now at least, full blown realistic humans are just tough to do in a two hour film since they get scrutinized more. That's why it's so jarring when you run accross a digital actor in those sort of films.

The only times a full CG feature bugs me is when lighting and animation fall short. Mouths and eyes are very expressive and in order to make a character - any character, even a human - believable, the eyes and mouths must animate with expression that carries over the face as a whole. A little exaggeration is often needed when using automated voice over apps (like Poser's own Talk Designer or XSI's Face Robot). As an animator, you will only get back what you put in, so if you don't check your frames for dead moments where you can overlay actions (eye wrinkling over smiling, eye widening when brows moved in anger, etc) you're going to make the character less appealing. It also helps to listen to the dialog as you're animating or read the script, so that your character's face can illustrate vocal changes in mood.

Quote - what?

that was fantastic. the animation for Toothless was brilliant... part cat, part dog...

Yes, the animation was quite cool, it was the story I found un-watchable. Otoh, I have a strange attraction to the Pop-tarts 3D animated commercial. X.x