The baby and puppy examples were great. I think that's the reason the "strong but silent" characters like Darth Maul and Boba Fett became such breakout stars in the Star Wars films. When a character talks, for good or ill, he starts to define himself, to fit neatly into a box. But when characters hardly ever talk, yet speak more through their actions, they never get to be pigeonholed. They start to grow in our imagination because we have to do some of the work to flesh them out. They always keep us guessing. As a result, we start to assign them all sorts of characteristics and traits that may or may not actually exist, but which make them more fascinating. To a lesser extent, I think this mechanism may also be behind some of the fascination with zombies. What's going on behind those milky eyes?

CJ, this is an excellent point: "When a character talks, for good or ill, he starts to define himself, to fit neatly into a box. But when characters hardly ever talk, yet speak more through their actions, they never get to be pigeonholed. They start to grow in our imagination because we have to do some of the work to flesh them out. They always keep us guessing. As a result, we start to assign them all sorts of characteristics and traits that may or may not actually exist, but which make them more fascinating." That slots right into the whole 'less is more' ethos, and that has certainly served Clint Eastwood well [whose famous red pen has perhaps scratched out half the dialogue for his movie roles].

Yes, the Man With No Name. Good one. That character comes to mind, too.

[...] Andrew Stanton, Part 3: “The Clues to a Great Story” (TED Talk) (gointothestory.blcklst.com) [...]