'Mars Needs Moms' - The Reason for the Flop

The New York Times recently ran an article entitled "Many Culprits in Fall of a Family Film" - 'Mars Needs Moms' Flops, and Some Blame 3D Prices.  This story was then picked up and commented on around the blogging world by Gawker and the like, with the story, "Does the Mars Needs Moms Catastrophe Mean Anything?"

I would like to offer my explanation because I don't necessarily believe the conclusions drawn by the NY Times.  They put most of the blame for the failure on 3-D and IMAX ticket prices, because theaters are adding $3 to $5 (sometimes more!) surcharges onto the already exorbitant movie ticket prices.  While I think that is a valid point, it could be the 'cop out' reason any movie fails.


I think something that has been overlooked slightly is the term - "Uncanny Valley."  The uncanny valley hypothesis holds that when robots and other facsimiles of humans look and act almost like actual humans, it causes a response of revulsion among human observers. The "valley" in question is a dip in a proposed graph of the positivity of human reaction as a function of a robot's life-likeness.  A similar problem also exists in realistic 3D computer animation


In other words the more a robot or animated character looks and acts like a real human, the more flaws and problems we see with the character, to the point of being turned off or revolted by it's presence.

I have not actually seen 'Mars Needs Moms' - I don't know the story, the characters, or anything else - other then what I have inferred from the previews.  However, immediately after seeing the first preview of this movie, I said to myself, "This movie looks terrible, they're breaking the rule of the hidden valley (When referring to the Uncanny Valley I inevitably call it the hidden valley...oops)."

Now, you may be asking yourself, what is the difference between the animated family in 'Mars Needs Moms' and the animated family in a movie like - 'The Incredibles'?

Let's go to the video tape:

 

There are obvious differences in these two movies, in fact those obvious differences are very likely to be the reason that one was a critical and commercial success while the other is labeled a 'flop.'  Remember that the human response to characters such as these, according to my interpretation of the Uncanny Valley hypothesis is: the more stylized the better, the more real = more problems.

As you can see with the Incredibles, they are supposed to be humans, but they are clearly "cartoon" humans, their world, while very much based on our own is an amalgamation of styles that while clearly recognizable, it is not a world that you or I have ever actually visited, except for maybe the animated city of our dreams.

The 'Mars Needs Moms' characters, again- are meant to be humans, but instead of a cartoon-style, the creators went for a realistic look, using motion capture technology much like Avatar and Rango.  And while every nuance of each characters' movement is extremely human, one can't help but find flaws in the performance.  When a character rolls their eyes, or runs upstairs, or lifts and carries something heavy, the effect just comes off as fake; even though there was a living - breathing human being - rolling, and running and lifting. By attempting to inject so much realism into the movie, the creators have unfortunately, in my opinion, fallen head first into the uncanny valley, and taken everyone not turned off by the movie previews, there with them.

Who would you rather spend time with?

One last comment:  Why then, did motion capture work for Avatar and Rango?  Avatar and Rango worked because the final characters were not human, we don't have preconceived notions on the way aliens should perform, nor do we have a clue on how anthropomorphic lizards and shrews act either.

Would 'Mars Needs Moms' have worked as a story about Kangaroos? You tell me.