As human beings, we are intrigued and somewhat obsessed with technology and the future; robots in science fiction is a reoccuring theme often used in films to depict the future, and perhaps soon enough, may become an everyday reality.

When we see humanlike robots in films or even in real life, we may naturally try to empathize with them. There is, however, a thin line and if the robot becomes too humanlike for our liking, our emotions make a strong u-turn into repulsion. This measurement of repulsive response is called the Uncanny Valley, a hypothesis introduced by Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori in 1970. On a graph, the valley is a dip in positivity of human reaction.

Realistic character rendering from Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within

Wikipedia sums up The Uncanny Valley in these words:

…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 repulsion. However, as the appearance and motion continue to become less distinguishable from a human being, the emotional response becomes positive once more and approaches human-to-human empathy levels.

Hypothesized emotional response of human subjects is plotted against anthropomorphism of a robot, following Mori's statements. The uncanny valley is the region of negative emotional response towards robots that seem "almost human". Movement amplifies the emotional response. -MacDorman, 2005.

The Uncanny Valley in Films

The uncanny valley effect is very evident in films, particularly in CGI animated fare. Examples that best represent this are Beowulf, The Polar Express, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within and hinted at in the trailer, the forthcoming Avatar. The film industry takes this concept very seriously as negative reactions from moviegoers could hurt their bottom line. This is an interesting topic as a double-edged sword; audiences may feel let down if they think the CGI animation in a film is subpar or not detailed enough, however, if the filmmakers create too much realism, that could teeter into an uncanny valley effect.

Screen shot from Beowulf

Perhaps we’d like there to be clearer distinctions between the real and the artificial. Through the ever-advancing technology in moviemaking, the boundaries have been blurred to uncomfortable levels for some audiences. We see something that looks humanlike (such as any of the characters from the aforementioned films) but we know they aren’t human actors and it’s jarring as we try to comprehend this.

This doesn’t apply to computer generated animals, objects, or non-homosapiens for that matter; I mean nobody would be repulsed by Woody from Toy Story right? But make a computer generated human too human and the rules have changed.

Why?

It has been suggested that there are several reasons that underpin this theory, but the most interesting I have come across is the idea that these uncanny robots remind us that we aren’t immortal and death awaits us all. Morbid as it may sound, we begin digging our graves as soon as we’re born, and so we create defense mechanisms to deal with this. Meanwhile, an uncanny robot comes along and somehow raises our subconscious thoughts to the surface, using our own fears against us. We fear that we’re all just predetermined machine-like beings with little control over anything. A subject matter cleverly discussed in The Matrix.

Closely linked to our fear of death is the notion that we’re all replaceable, especially as we bear witness to astounding scientific achievements over the years. Couple this with films such as Artificial Intelligence, I, Robot, The Terminator, and The Matrix and we’d be right to think that robots and technology will be able to outlive and outsmart us in all walks of life. As a highly intelligent and evolved species who have fought hard for our survival, it is natural that we would feel threatened by uncanny robots, so seeing them on-screen might aggravate our fears and insecurities.

How Far Should We Go?

The challenge for designers and filmmakers is, how far should they go? Perhaps the answer lies in context. For example, if a robot lives in genres such as fantasy and science fiction, then we may be able to cognitively accept it as looking lifelike, but due to the environment, we are always aware that it isn’t. On the flipside, imagine the same robot in 2009 walking through an iconic city, and it suddenly becomes intimidating and real, at which point we walk through the valley of revulsion.

Screen shot from Polar Express

Closing

This is a complicated topic with many more theories and discussion points that I urge you to investigate further. This subject isn’t only skin deep and it raises many questions about the human psyche and the world we live in. It also begs us to question our reality. Film is one medium where reality and fiction blend but is this true of our everyday lives?

For all we know we might be walking amongst uncanny robots already, after all, how would we know?

Sponsored by

Advertise on Fuel Brand Network.
Fuel Brand Network 2010 cc (creative commons license)

With a recent surge in the number of 3D movies being released, it seems that 3D is certainly enjoying the spotlight. The last year alone has seen the release of My Bloody Valentine, Bolt, Coraline, G-Force, Monsters vs Aliens, The Final Destination and Up, and that is by no means a definitive list. This begs the question of why now, and is the rise of 3D movies worth talking about? In order to obtain more insight into this matter, we need to think about the good, the bad, and the future of cinema.

The Good

Perhaps the biggest advantage 3D movies have right now is that they are still a novelty. Yes, this year has seen an influx of them, but they do have a long way to go before they outnumber 2D movies. For now, 3D movies do seem to be high on studio’s agendas, and they are being used to breathe new life into otherwise forgotten or badly reviewed movie franchises. Only time will tell as to how successful this will be.

Another string to the 3D bow is that there is the potential to take audiences into the reality on the screen. I recently watched a 3D horror movie and people were jumping in their seats and grabbing in the air. There was a fun, social energy in the auditorium; one that I have never experienced with a 2D movie. 3D undoubtedly makes what we are seeing more vivid and dare I say it, real. We can almost touch the world the characters exist in, and there have been a few rare moments where I felt like I was at the same table as the characters I was watching. But ‘rare’ is the key word here; it isn’t always that easy to blur the boundary between our worlds and the worlds on the cinema screen, which leads nicely onto the downside of 3D movies.

The Bad

Some movie-goers have experienced motion sickness during a 3D movie. It is yet to be determined if it’s the 3D itself or the glasses. Either way, there has been a strong correlation between 3D movies and headaches and sickness. The glasses are another argument against 3D movies. Some may have no qualms, but for others, they can be uncomfortable and distracting. Thankfully, we have moved away from the days of cardboard glasses, and cinemas now offer plastic specs at an extra cost.

Another negative aspect is style over substance. A 3D movie might well break all box office records but it could be awful in terms of narrative, character development and emotional impact. The Final Destination was a recent example of this. The story was ridiculous, the acting less than impressive, and the characters forgettable, yet it managed to find an audience and was by no means a disaster.

Currently, 3D is an exciting experience on the big screens, but what about when we watch these movies at home? I recently watched Journey to the Center of the Earth in 3D at home and it didn’t quite work; not for me anyhow. My TV is of average size, and the 3D effects simply did not translate well. At this moment in technological time, 3D movies provide little to no dimensional impact on the small screen, and that isn’t the only area where they fail to transcend.

Lastly, modern 3D genres are limiting. The majority of 2009’s 3D releases fall into the category of animation, placed alongside a few horror movies thrown in for cheap thrills. When will we see a stunning 3D movie from another genre?

The Future

In a recent issue of Empire Magazine, Peter Jackson was reported saying that he wants to make 3D versions of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, but the Warner Bros. says there aren’t enough 3D screens to justify this. Jackson also has 3D visions to release a remake of the classic 1954 film, The Dam Busters. With a budget of £24 million, this will certainly be on everyone’s watchlist. There is still a long way to go before 3D can really dominate and as it currently stands, such movies can only be shown in selected cinemas. James Cameron’s action/adventure/sci-fi  movie Avatar is imminent, and if we believe the hype and the articles to date, it may change the face of cinema forever according to CNN. It is also reported that 2010 will see the release of a 3D television, and we are also promised 3D versions of Toy Story and a tie-in 3D computer game. Regardless of all the arguments against it, 3D looks to have a big future ahead of it.

Further Reading

• 3-D Film at Wikipedia
• The Illustrated 3D Movie List
• AMC’s Top Ten 3D Movies

Sponsored by

Advertise on Fuel Brand Network.
Fuel Brand Network 2010 cc (creative commons license)