Bad acting and the uncanny valley

Post Reply New Topic

This isn't really a complaint, just something I've noticed:

I am terrible at picking up bad acting. What I mean is, when I watch a movie or a television show, I don't usually notice the quality of the acting. Other people will say that a particular actor was bad in a particular movie, and I have no idea what they're talking about. To me, they were on the screen, saying their lines, and that's the same thing everyone else was doing. This is assuming people are correct about their assumptions regarding bad acting and not affected by some other bias - but this happens all the time.

I will add that I tend to find character-driven (rather than plot-driven or action-driven or special effects-driven) movies to be fairly boring and difficult to get into. This isn't 100% true, and I can and do get emotional about characters, but I often find it difficult to relate to a lot of the interpersonal interactions I see on screen, and if that's all there is - or most of it - I lose interest.

I don't get the uncanny valley. I mean, when people say something looks creepy because of the uncanny valley, I don't know what they're talking about. I first heard about it in relation to Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. In a discussion on this other forum, people were talking about how the characters' eyes looked "dead" to them, but I couldn't see the distinction. The faces and expressions seemed a bit stiff, but not creepy or downright unnatural, as people were saying. The eyes, though, other than being CGI I couldn't really see a difference from real eyes.

This comes up fairly often due to the dancing, singing robots on Youtube or in-game cinematics from video games. But none of these look creepy to me.

The closest to making a human look creepy to me is, say, something like the girl in The Ring, with clearly unnatural movements that aren't even remotely human.

I guess I just wonder if anyone else can relate to these things.

I understand how you feel.

Some say that Crispin Glover's acting is bad, but I don't know what they're talking about. Having seen the majority of his movies, I can say he is typecast into one role - the creepy and/or mentally ill guy - and he plays that role very well in my opinion.

I am very fascinated by the uncanny valley. Come to think of it, it might even qualify as a minor special interest. However, I am almost never affected by it. Part of my fascination with the uncanny valley is deliberately finding things that will trigger the reaction in me. I started by looking through the examples in TV Tropes, but most of them aren't even remotely creepy to me. Same with youtube. So far in my search I have only come across three things that have caused the uncanny valley reaction in me: this, this, and this. Even then, I don't find them to be scary in broad daylight with other people in the house.

Yeah, he does that really well.



None of those seem creepy to me - and yes, I do go looking for things that are supposed to be "uncanny valley" and none of it is creepy to me. For a long time I doubted it was even real, but other people say it is a real thing for them, so I guess it must be.

I don't recognize bad acting either. It looks perfectly natural to me.
I do notice over-the-top theatrics though. The Pirates of the Caribbean movies overflow with it. I find them nearly unwatchable.

As for the uncanny valley, I feel the same way that you do. I'm not easily disturbed by things that give people the creeps. Such as clowns, for instance. I don't understand the scariness factor that people attach to it. They're humans with colorful makeup on, not some separate species, and people seem to forget that.

Only time I have noticed bad acting is in comedy skits when the actors pretend to get upset or scared. They don't even look upset nor sound it. They don't even look scared either or sound it. Just them acting.

Some actors have done well by sucking dick, some through merit and hard work.

Some awards for good acting, are simply given due to the societal programming of the content ie 'Slumdog Millionaire' as India westernises itself.... USA gives awards....

What about liking humans who look like dolls? The more like dolls, the more attractive? Is this some kind of reverse uncanny valley?

I find most acting to be bad acting, because it all looks like overacting to me. I like Keanu Reeves.

Something I've wondered about in the past is, does bad acting/writing affect how real people relate? We all know people pick things up from TV, movies, games, yeah?

This is interesting. One of the kinds of pictures that is supposed to evoke the uncanny valley are pictures of young girls in beauty pageants touched up to look "older." They apparently look a lot like dolls in those pictures, and I do find them to be extremely artificial - but not creepy,



I find most emotional reaction to be overreaction, but in that sense actors portraying emotions come off no differently to me than people I meet in real life.

I know consensus is Keanu Reeves is a bad actor, but I read about what he does on the set - like buying motorcycles for the stunt men he "beat up" (the group of Agent Smiths) in Matrix Reloaded, and I can't see the bad acting, so. It may just be that he doesn't display much emotional range, but that seems more natural to me.

Also, Christian Bale in the new Batman movies.



This is an interesting question that I have no answer for.

movies.

He sounds like a wonderful co-worker. But how he behaves on set (which sounds wonderful) has no bearing on how he behaves on screen, and how he behaves on screen is the only thing that counts in acting.

I just don't know what to think of Keanu Reeves. In all his recent roles he is very wooden and has no emotional range. But I can't tell if it's because he thinks the characters he's playing have no emotional range (and thus he is playing them as written) or if he can't play an emotionally broad character. If all I'd ever seen was the Matrix movies and Lake House I'd say he was a bad actor. But he was able to play wildly different types at the beginning of his career, such as in the Bill and Ted[/i] movies.

Back to Uncanny Valley. Cracked did a piece on this:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18867_5- ... alley.html

They look at both dolls that look like people and people that look like dolls (or rather, anime characters) and give good explanations for why this is considered creepy.

I don't have a problem with his acting, I just thought it was interesting that he was so generous with his co-workers, especially as much of the criticism I've read of his acting also seems to cast aspersions on him as a person.



I don't have an issue with his emotional range. I mean, part of it is ... that's what I am like in real life. But mostly, I don't see how the emotional range translates to good or bad acting. I can't tell whether these characters are supposed to be intensely emotional or not very emotional at all, and the actors are all doing the same thing on screen - engaging in dialogue. There's some level of perception here that I'm missing, that others are able to determine subjectively whose performances seem qualitatively better than and whose are worse, but to me it's all basically the same except at the very extremes.



Okay, I read the explanations and watched the videos. I don't get it - what am I supposed to see here? Nothing looks creepy to me. These are the reasons why some people perceive an uncanny valley and react to it? What I find strange is that this is expressed as a kind of universal perception even though it clearly is not.

Edit: Except the close-up picture of Paula Deen staring straight at the camera, but those kinds of pictures always make me uncomfortable.

Edit 2: I'm not trying to come across as argumentative (I don't know if I am, but just in case) and I appreciate your explanations.

I can recognize bad acting when it's REALLY bad

example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyophYBP_w4

Is that bad acting or an attempt at comedy? Or both?

It's both. It's humorous because the acting is so bad, but I doubt it was that bad on purpose. It's from a movie called Troll 2, which is regularly cited as one of the worst movies ever made.

EDIT: When looking over the wiki page for the movie I noticed something interesting. The article mentioned a "distinct lack of emotion" in the line delivery, but that's not what caught my attention. I thought the acting was bad because of how unrealistic/unbelievable both the scenario and lines were.

So I think this gets at the core of what NT's consider "bad acting": when the emotion either isn't there or doesn't feel genuine.

Well, I thought it was strange that he'd stand there and soliloquy instead of trying to get away, but I don't get the "lack of emotion" criticism. He seemed emotional, but then I think he seemed that way because he described emotions. I can't say whether his expression of said emotions is good or bad, but the situation was ridiculous and made no sense.