@AncientSwordRage the model was made by the same company that handles the various Project Diva games. So a company that is fully capable of doing good 3d character models that are used in a dance game, with lot of facial expressions and movement.
I still think the outrage against original model seemed . . . a tempest in a teapot? Manufactured outrage? People seeing someone quote the fancy-sounding phrase 'uncanny valley' and parroting it despite not even having an objective criterion for something being 'uncanny valley'?
The difference between old and new model seems overhyped and not as big as the reactions to it.
@SPArcheon Oh, definitely . . . and inevitably, what with the medium change. Even with medium retention models often are not exactly faithful to the original (e.g. how Agent 47 changed).
@AndrasDeak These kinds of discussions remind me of this scene from Interstate 60 where the connoisseurs say, while staring at a good work of art, that it has no soul (replacing 'no soul' with pretty much just as ephemeral 'uncanny' criticism).
@vicky_molokh-unsilenceMonica that is kinda different I fear.
This...
is kinda different from this...
which is also very different from this.
but I guess that in this case the audience is different and they kinda expect differences in styles, story, and so on.
The problem with Sonic is that you have a community that was already kinda feed up with the "real world" thing (coff coff coff Sonic 06 kiss...) and in a market that had already quite a lot horrible "dropped in real world" movies (Smurfs.....)
So, the fans probably were already on the aggressive side.
The trailer looked quite bad on the plot too (see: Sonic and the anesthetic dart, the "meow" scene where he pretends to be a cat, the "it is my baby" scene with the elevator....)
So, having a Sonic that didn't look at all like the game was the final straw that everyone jumped at.
The issue is that while people probably accept that Raven looks different in the various not-always related media... videogame characters are often defined by a specif appearance and changing that... is a big no most of the time.
If someone made a Metroid movie... and made Samus red haired, people would rage. A green Megaman would cause rage too (see: Captain N)
That probably comes from different expectation.
With a comic character getting another comic, you enjoy seeing something new and even expect it.
When a game character gets a movie, you want to see the games you played made into a movie, not something different.
@vicky_molokh-unsilenceMonica if you believe that connoisseurs thinking that a piece of work "has no soul" is the same as some possibly-evolutionarily-ingrained aversion to not-quite-human entities, then sure
I'm obviously biased as someone who can tell what came out of the uncanny valley and can't tell what piece of art has a soul (or even worth or quality)
@AndrasDeak @vicky_molokh ... let me try to be a pacifier here... To be fair, I think that the term "uncanny" that Andras used wasn't mean as for its "dictionary" meaning. The reference was probably to the "Uncanny valley" trope
In aesthetics, the uncanny valley is a hypothesized relation between an object's degree of resemblance to a human being and the emotional response to the object. The concept suggests that humanoid objects that imperfectly resemble actual human beings provoke uncanny or strangely familiar feelings of eeriness and revulsion in observers. "Valley" denotes a dip in the human observer's affinity for the replica, a relation that otherwise increases with the replica's human likeness.
Examples can be found in robotics, 3D computer animations and lifelike dolls. With the increasing prevalence of virtual...
@SPArcheon Oh, I understand it's what the reference is too. But both of the aforementioned statements seem to be, at best, results of glitches in neurology where people attribute some intrinsic difference in æsthetic quality to a thing in a situation where, objectively speaking, the artistic merit is comparable.
@vicky_molokh-unsilenceMonica possible, but that probably isn't the intent there. @AndrasDeak probably just meat that the picture ended up felling disturbing for him.
Well, yeah, I can only say for sure that the original creeped me out. People's mileage will vary. But when enough people seem to have consistent experiences concerning some concept (something something qualia) it might make sense to speak in more general terms. Like, colours (which many people perceive differently or not at all), or the uncanny valley (which I assume many people perceive differently or not at all).
Perhaps what I find different between the two cases (valley vs artistic criticism) is that uncanniness is not an aesthetic category here, to me. It's a more physical response to the thing. Low-key "run away" vibes.
Yeah, colours seem like a perfect comparison, because what people think a colour is . . . is often very different from what it objectively is. The human perception is buggy, and so there are cases where people label two colours as the same when they're very distinct, or the reverse. (The most obvious example would probably be non-spectral 'colours' that are often confused with certain spectral colours.)