Toy Story Trilogy One Film at a Time." Toy Story: How Pixar Reinvented the Animated Feature

Home , 2019 in home video, Alvy Ray Smith, Ash Brannon, Jan Pinkava, Lee Unkrich, Sharon Calahan

Holian, Heather L. " New and Inherited Aesthetics: Designing for the Toy Story Trilogy One Film at a Time." Toy Story: How Pixar Reinvented the Animated Feature. By Susan Smith, Noel Brown and Sam Summers. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2017. 59–72. Bloomsbury Collections. Web. 1 Oct. 2021. .

Downloaded from Bloomsbury Collections, www.bloomsburycollections.com, 1 October 2021, 17:29 UTC.

Copyright © Susan Smith, Sam Summers and Noel Brown 2018. You may share this work for non-commercial purposes only, provided you give attribution to the copyright holder and the publisher, and provide a link to the Creative Commons licence. 59

Chapter 4

N EW AND INHERITED AESTHETICS: DESIGNING FOR THE TOY STORY TRILOGY ONE FILM AT A TIME

Heather L. Holian

In January of 1993 Ralph Eggleston started his new job at Pixar Animation Studios as art director of the project that would become Toy Story (John Lasseter, 1995). Over the next two and a half years, Eggleston collaborated with his small team of artists to develop a visual style that enhanced and realized the vision of director, John Lasseter, while also exploiting the available technology of this fi rst CG animated fi lm. In the process, Eggleston and his crew unknow- ingly established a design aesthetic that would directly impact two more Toy Story fi lms over the next fi ft een years, and likely a fourth, scheduled (at the time of writing) for US release in June 2019. Th e original Toy Story not only launched a new visual art in the form of the 3- D animated fi lm, but it also established a rich cast of characters in a distinctive imagined world that audiences quickly came to recognize and associate with this fi lm, and ultimately with Pixar. Th e following study dem- onstrates that Pixar artists who were cast1 to design the fi rst two Toy Story sequels necessarily worked within the iconic visual world of the initial fi lm, while simultaneously seeking to make their own contributions in step with trilogy story developments, technological advances and changes of director. Not surprisingly, the origins of the Toy Story aesthetic originated with Lasseter and his collaborations with the fi lm’s crew, including its art and story teams. As such, this chapter will similarly begin with Toy Story and an exploration of those initial infl uences and design challenges of Eggleston and his artistic team, before considering how the art departments of Toy Story 2 (Lasseter, 1999) and Toy Story 3 (Lee Unkrich, 2010) inherited, reinterpreted and extended the trilogy’s aesthetic. From the start, it was clear to Eggleston that the style of Toy Story, would be shaped by two primary factors: story and available technology. ‘Th e story and those creating it were the inspirational guideposts’, he recalled. ‘Building on that were the form, color, textural and lighting supports for the specifi c needs of the

99781501324918_pi-240.indd781501324918_pi-240.indd 5599 111/8/20171/8/2017 22:49:32:49:32 PPMM 60

60 Heather L. Holian

characters and story – mostly derived from the basic conceit that our story was to be told from the point of view of the toys.’ 2 Over the course of the project’s development, collaborative back and forth conversations between the story and art teams helped determine the look of the entire fi lm, in direct response to the story’s evolving emotional content. According to Eggleston, all successful fi lm design starts with, and is grounded in, the deep investigation of ‘the specifi cs of emotional content from a character point of view’. 3 Indeed, one of his most vivid memories from those initial months on Toy Story, involved Lasseter expressing a similar sentiment to two Disney executives who visited Pixar, and who were looking at some of the earliest art for the fi lm with he and Eggleston. Th ey wished to know how the fi lm their company was partnering to produce and release was going to look in its fi nished state. Eggleston recalled that he was not sure how to respond, being not only new to the project, but also the computer animation medium and its processes. ‘I wasn’t yet sure [how it would look] – but before I could say that, John jumped in (thankfully) and said, “the fi lm will tell us what it needs to be visually”. Not only was I relieved, but it turns out that this is a true- ism.’4 Th erefore, as the story and its characters and emotional content evolved and eventually solidifi ed, the art team under Eggleston’s guidance – and with Lasseter’s input – worked to develop what would become the visual language of Toy Story . As with future Pixar productions, this collaborative development process with Lasseter involved a level of creative freedom and artistic agency whereby the fi lm’s art team was empowered and encouraged to individually respond to the story, off ering their own ideas whenever appropriate. According to Eggleston,

John was always so great about corralling our ideas and using them like a chef making a great meal. He was very hands on, but always very open to new ideas from anyone if it helped bring his story to life. Once we had a clear direction, he left us alone to plow forward, reining us in when necessary if he felt the story might be changing in a way that aff ected what we were doing. And we’d all add little details along the way where appropriate – ALWAYS ‘character’ based. 5

Of the second stylistic factor, that of technology, Eggleston observed in 2015, ‘Plastic toys and wood were easier. Fabric, simulations of (cloth, hair, water), atmosphere, and depth of fi eld [were] much harder. Th at we attempted humans at all is a wonder!’ 6 Th ese limitations meant that character clothing had to be tight fi tting or modeled into the animation, which directly impacted and lim- ited character designs, as did the fact that hair had to be modeled as well. As a result, hair was kept short or contained, like the ponytail of Andy’s mom. 7 Skin also proved diffi cult for the computer. From a design perspective these technological realities meant that the human characters had to be stylized. 8 Th ese creative limitations naturally aff ected the fi lm’s global aesthetic, but fortunately a stylized visual approach also harmonized with the exaggerated and abstracted

99781501324918_pi-240.indd781501324918_pi-240.indd 6600 111/8/20171/8/2017 22:49:32:49:32 PPMM 61

New and Inherited Aesthetics 61

forms of many real-world children’s toys, which provided direct inspiration for those found on screen, and to a large extent guided the fi lm’s overall style. Additionally, the work of visual development artists hired primarily by Lasseter off ered another critical stylistic inspiration. In fact, Toy Story established the now routine Pixar practice of acquiring alternative creative view- points from freelance artists outside the studio, with the goal being that these works would further generate energy, excitement and new ideas. For Toy Story these artists, who included illustrators Steve Johnson, William Joyce, Dave Gordon and Bill Cone, off ered Eggleston and his team various creative solutions for the stylization of form, texture and lighting. Th eir simpler approaches to hair, the rendering of fabric and the suggestion of detail through pattern and colour were especially inspirational as the Toy Story art group tackled the challenge of building a rich appealing world that was also computer-friendly. 9 According to Eggleston, however, it was the work of Bill Cone that proved particularly signifi cant for the fi lm’s aesthetic: ‘He really found the right bal- ance of cartoony and real for our uses, and his designs always have such an acute and specifi c character driven sense of humor.’ 10 Cone started as a Pixar freelancer in 1992, and was later hired as a permanent member of the Toy Story art department, where he focused primarily on set design. One of his most signifi cant designs was the exterior of Sid’s house, which Cone envisioned as a visual counterpoint to the neat, Craft sman style home of Andy that he’d already designed. He did a series of exploratory drawings refl ecting various approaches to how this contrast might be shown. Th en aft er some lively creative conversations between Cone and Eggleston during which they imagined what Sid’s parents might be like, Cone hit on the idea of Sid’s dad being a kind of ‘weekend warrior’ who ambitiously starts home improvement projects, but never fi nishes them properly. As a result each door and window of Sid’s house is a diff erent architectural style, producing what Cone described as a ‘sort of hybrid Tudor, stucco Frankenstein of a thing’. 11 Th is disturbing hybridity continues on the interior, where various, visually discordant wallpapers and fl ooring from diff erent decades contribute to the sense of unease radiated by this not very home- y house. 12 Indeed, the unpleasant ambience of Sid’s environment was pointedly perpetuated by Eggleston’s conscious use of the distinctive carpet pattern from Th e Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980) for the upstairs carpet of Sid’s house. 13 Other visual inspiration was found in the work of American painter Grant Wood, and illustrator and painter Maxfi eld Parrish, artists who Lasseter admired and brought to the attention of his team. 14 Lasseter singled out Parrish for his saturated colour and use of luminous, bouncing light, which the director found appealing. Indeed, the infl uence of Parrish’s palette and lighting can be found in the fi nal fi lm, most noticeably in the sunset shots of Andy’s house exterior and bedroom. Here the saturated palette of the fi lm is further lit by a rich, rosy hue while cast shadows appear as a vibrant violet in the style of Parrish. 15 As for Grant Wood, Eggleston noted that his stylized paintings sparked creative solutions to design problems posed by the current technology. For example,

99781501324918_pi-240.indd781501324918_pi-240.indd 6611 111/8/20171/8/2017 22:49:32:49:32 PPMM 62

62 Heather L. Holian

Wood’s use of strong light sources and his reductive approach to landscapes provided an inspiring model for how to use subtle shift s in texture, lighting or even the position of objects to imply a visual richness not possible digitally at the time. 16 Wood’s infl uence is apparent in several Toy Story shots, including the views of Andy’s living room from the opening sequence. Here bright cast sunlight combines with the careful use of shape, and changes in texture, pattern and colour to suggest the desired layers of visual detail. Despite the emphasis Eggleston placed on Cone’s important design contributions, or the key models provided by the paintings of Wood or Parrish, the fi nal, synthetic style of Toy Story was most strongly shaped by its art director. ‘I’d say Ralph Eggleston’s style infl uenced what was to become the Toy Story we saw on fi lm’, observed Tia Kratter who served as Lead Digital Painter on Toy Story. ‘He was unafraid to use bright colors or dark values as the needs of the story dictated.’ 17 Robert Kondo, Sets Art Director for Toy Story 3 shared Kratter’s opinion, frankly observing to Charles Solomon in 2010, ‘Ralph Eggleston is the aesthetic of Toy Story ’.18 Indeed, aside from creating dozens of concept works for the fi lm, Eggleston also produced the studio’s fi rst colourscript, a critical and now-routine design document that indicates a feature’s colour, mood and lighting through a series of drawings arranged in sequen- tial order. Here the colourscript consists of 33–35 unframed panels of varying length executed in rich pastel on strips of black paper measuring three by thirty inches.19 Eggleston’s stylized yet atmospheric approach to rendering the fi lm’s key shots predictably eschewed detail in favour of clear visual communication, including the fi lm’s bright, saturated palette and distinct Parrish-inspired lighting. Ultimately, Eggleston’s Toy Story colourscript became one of the touchstone design documents of the trilogy, and was referenced and studied by later Pixar artists attached to the sequels.20 Given the substance of the fi lm’s story, Kratter remembered that the art team also relied as much as they could on real-world reference to further develop Toy Story’s visual aesthetic. Th ese infl uential materials included not just the dozens of toys owned by Pixarians or viewed on sale racks at local toy stores, 21 but also dozens of photos of children and ubiquitous suburban elements, such as mini- vans and intersections, which are preserved today in Pixar’s archives. For her purposes as lead digital painter, Kratter recalled ‘forcing’ her seven- year- old son to get a fl at top haircut like Sid’s so she could take photos and investigate the hair’s appearance and texture. She also photographed her niece’s hairline as a reference for Andy’s sister, Molly. In another case, a trip to a local garden nursery produced a useful houseplant that Kratter carefully studied in order to paint the digital model of the potted vegetation covertly used by the green Army Men in the fi lm’s opening moments.22 Th e small art team responsible for fi nding Toy Story ’s design solutions and then putting them on screen numbered fi ve, including Eggleston.23 Th eir offi ces were together, in very close proximity, and among the story and technical teams. ‘And people (including me) kept their doors open’, Eggleston remembered. ‘It

99781501324918_pi-240.indd781501324918_pi-240.indd 6622 111/8/20171/8/2017 22:49:32:49:32 PPMM 63

New and Inherited Aesthetics 63

was easier to hear folks beating their foreheads on their keyboards.’ 24 K r a t t e r , Cone and Eggleston fondly recalled a lively collaborative environment in which iteration happened very quickly, 25 problem solving was ‘on the fl y’, 26 in per- son, and without the notes, email or meetings that oft en attend today’s evolving designs at the studio. 27 Th e shout of a question frequently provided many humorous as well as useful suggestions from a group of people who not only clearly respected one another, but in terms of the artists, they also came from similar artistic backgrounds, and therefore spoke the same design language, struggled equally with the new medium and bonded as a result. (Interestingly, each of these artists still works at Pixar and several of them contributed to Toy Story ’s later instalments.)

Toy Story 2

In 1996 the Walt Disney Company approached Pixar about the possibility of making a direct-to- video sequel to Toy Story . 28 Pixar agreed and work began by the fall of that year. 29 Within months, however, Pixar proposed to Disney that for internal cultural reasons, the fi lm should become a theatrical release. 30 Due to the high quality and potential of the project Disney had simultaneously arrived at the same conclusion.31 Disney approved Pixar’s request, and soon the small studio was running two full- scale productions concurrently, Toy Story 2 and A Bug’s Life (Lasseter, 1998). Th e fi nal, dramatic circumstances surround- ing this project are well known, including the fi lm’s change of director and its story reboot ten months prior to the fi lm’s November 1999 release date.32 Despite the many changes that did occur over Toy Story 2’s nearly three-year production period, no alteration was made to the global aesthetic of the fi lm when it shift ed from a video to a theatrical release, or when director changes were made in December 1998. Predictably, the budget enlarged signifi cantly as the project evolved, but this allowed for greater visual richness, rather than prompting a shift in style.33 Likewise, the late change in the fi lm’s production designers did not impact the movie’s visual language Jim Pearson was initially hired in December 1996 to serve as art director for the direct- to- video version of Toy Story 2 . When the project was upgraded, so was Pearson’s position. He became the production designer of Toy Story 2 in 1997 and oversaw much of the fi lm’s visual development and design during its fi rst two years.34 Once Lasseter and Lee Unkrich assumed directing responsibil- ities for the fi nal ten-month push, Lasseter brought in a trusted group of creative and administrative leads who had worked with him on previous projects. Bill Cone was part of this so- called ‘swat team’ and assumed the role of production designer. As such, Cone attended shading and model reviews, met weekly with Lasseter, supervised the fi nal sequences of the fi lm to go into production, and managed the same Toy Story 2 art team, which included Pearson, who became Cone’s co-production designer. 35 As Cone has stressed on several occasions, the

99781501324918_pi-240.indd781501324918_pi-240.indd 6633 111/8/20171/8/2017 22:49:32:49:32 PPMM 64

64 Heather L. Holian

re- envisioned fi lm could not have been made in such a short period if Pearson and his crew had not successfully completed an ‘enormous amount of work’, 36 which included designing all of the characters and many of the sets prior to the reboot.37 Considering that creative process, Pearson recalled: ‘When we started it was part of our mandate to make sure that we visually related the world that we built to the fi rst movie.’ 38 Th erefore, when Cone joined the team, the only revisionary work needed was the colourscript, which he did redo so that it corresponded to the revised story and better aligned with the fi rst Toy Story in terms of palette. 39 Cone’s action and Pearson’s design mandate both refl ect one of the challenges of designing for sequels, namely maintaining the iconic look of the original fi lm. Th is goal is particularly relevant to a medium where quantum leaps in technology can radically alter the appearance of the sequel, even one designed two years later. Indeed, Cone believes that ‘determining what is necessary to retain from the original in terms of look or style, and also exploring how you can expand the fi lm’s palette, or solve its problems creatively without resorting to the same solutions that were used in the earlier fi lm’ are some of the most diffi cult production design challenges for sequels. 40 Moreover, as Eggleston noted, sequels depend upon characters and environments that audiences already know, but the design challenge – and excitement – both for the art team and the audience, comes from developing and expanding the world beyond what was previously seen.41 For his part, Pearson acknowledged feeling some pressure designing for the theatrical sequel to the popular, profi table, groundbreaking Toy Story , but the positive collaborative dynamic of his art team mitigated those feelings as did the fi rst fi lm, ‘Th ey did so many things right in that movie . . . We had a really great, solid foundation of quality to build on.’ 42 Th is foundation, of course, included the design aesthetic established by Eggleston, and subsequently inherited by Pearson and his Toy Story 3 succes- sor, Bob Pauley, both of whom consulted Eggleston during their stints on each fi lm.43 Th e original set of Andy’s room off ers an excellent example of how the foundational stylistic and formal elements of Toy Story were both retained and revised by later Pixar artists. Despite appearing in a new house, the iconic, caricatured furniture designs of Andy’s memorable room were carried over in both Toy Story 2 and 3, where they were appropriately aged. Moreover, Andy’s new room also has a hardwood fl oor, and the same warm, refl ected light of the fi rst fi lm. All of these features, recognizable to audiences, continued to contribute to the sense of Andy’s room as ‘home’, and how home should feel – comfort- able, safe, inviting and familiar. Even the wallpaper is essentially the same blue, although rather than a fl uff y cloud, Pearson explained that he selected a gold star to reference both Woody and Buzz, through the sheriff badge and stars of outer space, respectively.44 According to Cone, the visual continuity of this space as ‘home’, and especially for the toys, was an important touchstone to establish, as it allowed the art team ‘leeway to imagine’ and light the new sets of

99781501324918_pi-240.indd781501324918_pi-240.indd 6644 111/8/20171/8/2017 22:49:32:49:32 PPMM 65

New and Inherited Aesthetics 65

Toy Story 2 diff erently, even in contrast to Andy’s room.45 Indeed, the exterior of Andy’s new house and his room, seen very briefl y at the end of the fi rst fi lm, were the only sets carried over, which gave Pearson, Cone and their team ample opportunity to extend the environments of the Toy Story world. Th is occurred most notably in Al’s apartment and collection room, the airport set and especially Al’s Toy Barn, referenced in fi lm one. In preparation for designing Al’s Toy Barn, Pearson looked at the concept work Eggleston and Cone produced for the Pizza Planet set of the original Toy Story. Pearson explained that the two sets felt conceptually analogous, since they were both themed and caricatured. Moreover, the Toy Barn was ‘this oddly anachronistic rural structure’ originally set in suburbia, like Pizza Planet, although with changes to the story it was later moved downtown across from Al’s apartment, further heightening the structure’s absurd incongruity with its surroundings. From a design perspective, the interior of Al’s Toy Barn off ered a kind of space that Andy’s toys had yet to encounter. It was fi lled with toys in bright, cheerful packaging and yet with a few exceptions, these beings were in a kind of eerie suspended animation. Pearson wanted to immediately convey that this was a disorienting, mysterious, even scary place for Andy’s toys, and related design discussions focused on one of the central themes of Toy Story , namely that ‘toys don’t really come to life until they’re played with’. As a result, Pearson explained that the crew decided to ‘double down’ on this idea, through the set’s cool lighting, which evoked a ‘kind of enormous cryo- genic chamber for toys’ that also served to provide the right level of forebod- ing. Th e only signifi cant exception to this atmosphere was the late addition of the pink Barbie aisle, where dolls frolic outside their packaging in a patch of warmer lighting. 46 Like Andy’s room, the toy characters that inhabit this familiar space were also inherited designs Pearson and his team contended with when designing anew. For example, the appearance and production logic of Woody ultimately dictated the new character designs for each member of Woody’s Roundup, challenging the artists in their designs. 47 Pearson and his team looked at Woody and imagined the kind of manufacturing processes needed to make a 1950s toy like him, and then applied those techniques to the design of the entire ensemble. Th erefore, all three new characters – Jessie, Bullseye and the Prospector – are made from cloth, have the same stitched knees and hip joints, and the same hard plastic heads, hands, hooves and facial details. As a result, Woody’s original design, which took some time to land upon, eventually gave rise to three more important characters, two of which were recurring. 48 Moreover, the Woody’s Roundup conceit of Toy Story 2 required the ‘reverse engineering’ of an entire backstory for Woody and an extensive set of related vintage memorabilia and packaging. 49 Pearson recalled: ‘Th e opportunity to expand the Toy Story canon by giving Woody this colorful pop culture backstory was really one of the indelible things about this fi lm, and I think for us

99781501324918_pi-240.indd781501324918_pi-240.indd 6655 111/8/20171/8/2017 22:49:32:49:32 PPMM 66

66 Heather L. Holian

as artists, as creative people, that was really kind of a cherry on top.’50 P e a r s o n and his team looked at Roy Rogers and Hopalong Cassidy paraphernalia, specifi cally studying the types of objects produced as well as how they were made and showed wear over time. Ultimately, the story and art teams closely collaborated to imagine the numerous physical items that fi nally populated Al’s collection room. 51 By the time Toy Story 2 was in development, technology had greatly advanced allowing for a hyperrealistic environment akin to that glimpsed in A Bug’s Life, and yet the computer still struggled with humans. Better skin shaders and improved hair and cloth simulation 52 enabled noticeable improve- ments over the characters of the fi rst fi lm, but encouraged a continued stylization in human design. As a result, Pearson acknowledged that one of the project’s design challenges was consciously pulling back from a realism that was now digitally possible for items such as toys or tree bark, but not possible for humans. 53 Th is design approach, however, ensured a homogenous style that also perpetuated the established Toy Story look.

Toy Story 3

In early 2006, just over six years aft er the release of Toy Story 2 , Lasseter asked his trusted co-director from that fi lm, Lee Unkrich, to helm the franchise’s third instalment. Unkrich, in turn, cast Bob Pauley, a character designer for fi lm one as his production designer, while Pauley selected rela- tive Pixar newcomer Daisuke ‘Dice’ Tsutsumi as his art director of lighting. Th ese personnel choices would prove signifi cant for the notable expansion of both the Toy Story world, and its aesthetic. For example, Unkrich is fas- cinated by horror stories and the macabre, 54 both of which fi nd their way into this fi lm through story elements as well as individual characters, such as the creepy, cymbal-playing Monkey, and the broken, shuffl ing Big Baby, whose head turns 180° in a particularly chilling scene, evoking Th e Exorcist (William Friedkin, 1973). Tsutsumi, who completed the colourscript for Toy Story 3 , responded to Unkrich’s personal inspirations by introducing both a moodier palette and overall lighting scheme that went beyond either earlier fi lm. Th is expanded approach to lighting, which was encouraged by enormous technological advances since the previous fi lm, is particularly notable throughout the daycare-as- prison sequences, where colour is desaturated and light is oft en stark. As on Toy Story 2 , Pauley and his crew inherited design assets like Pearson and his team, and they also shared a strong desire to connect their fi lm with the style fi rst introduced by Ralph Eggleston. Th ey did this strategically, in a variety of ways. For example, they continued to use the recognizable set of Andy’s room, and Tsutsumi employed the colour and lighting of fi lm

99781501324918_pi-240.indd781501324918_pi-240.indd 6666 111/8/20171/8/2017 22:49:32:49:32 PPMM 67

New and Inherited Aesthetics 67

one within the early montage of video clips of Andy playing with his toys. Tsutsumi explained to Charles Solomon: ‘We lit the montage like the Toy Story world where the shadows are bright purple and the sunlight comes through the window, bounces off the wooden fl oor and warms the entire room. Th at’s one of the signature styles of Toy Story that John really pushed.’55 Th en, when the story picks up seven years later, Andy is preparing to leave for college, playtime is over and the future of the toys is uncertain. Tsutsumi lit the room indirectly with more desaturated light to signal this contrast of time and circumstance.56 Once the toys leave the safe confi nes of Andy’s house, Pauley and his team were in new territory with the chance to again extend the trilogy’s environments. One of these spaces was Bonnie’s house. Although seen relatively briefl y in the fi lm, it was critical from a design and story perspective that this space not only felt like a safe, happy haven for toys, but was also stylistically consis- tent with the established Toy Story world. To do this, Pauley went back and looked at the shape language used in pivotal sets on Toy Story and Toy Story 2 , such as the gas station, Pizza Planet, the airport and Andy’s house. Th ese repet- itive shapes became guiding forms for designing Bonnie’s space as well, which Tsutsumi then lit with dappled sunlight.57 Th is distinctive lighting technique was purposely employed throughout the fi lm as a visual signifi er of Bonnie and her safe, imaginative world,58 and thus established a new element of the trilogy’s visual aesthetic. Th e team’s most ambitious new set designs, however, were those for Sunnyside Daycare, and the city dump. In the latter, the world takes on an especially photorealistic aesthetic, heightening the climactic drama. Th e toys stand among blowing debris and mounds of garbage, eerily lit by bulldozers and work lights that also illuminate the heavy air full of dust. Here, as elsewhere in the fi lm, available technology permitted atmospheric eff ects not seen in either of the earlier fi lms. Indeed, for the fi rst time in the trilogy such realistic passages were stylistically feasible since the human characters could now more closely match environmental fi delity. Invaluable, inspirational fi eld trips by Pixar artists to local daycares and the landfi ll helped the crew layer these sets with real- world details and light eff ects, which grounded the spaces in a tangible reality, intended to further enhance the audience’s emotional engagement.59

Conclusion

When Ralph Eggleston and his team began work on Toy Story in 1993 they were forced to envision and design a cinematic world ultimately defi ned by the confi ning parameters of current technology. However, following a range of visual inspiration provided by director John Lasseter, children’s toys, historical fi ne artists, freelancers and Eggleston’s own crew, the Toy Story art team discovered

99781501324918_pi-240.indd781501324918_pi-240.indd 6677 111/8/20171/8/2017 22:49:32:49:32 PPMM 68

68 Heather L. Holian

design possibilities and innovative solutions to technical limitations. Th e fi nal synthetic result under Eggleston’s leadership was a bright, stylized world that became the Toy Story aesthetic. During design work for fi lm two, Jim Pearson, and later Bill Cone, contended with an inherited and iconic visual style, as well as the challenges of current soft ware to expand the world of Toy Story through elaborate new sets and important recurring characters. Stylization remained an aesthetic hallmark of Toy Story 2 out of technological necessity, while also serving a strong studio desire for visual continuity. By the start of Toy Story 3 , the computer off ered no such limitations, and instead, Bob Pauley and his art team were challenged by how to employ new technology while remaining true to an inherited visual style intimately associated with Pixar’s most recognizable franchise. Design strategies which borrowed heavily upon the colour, lighting and shape language of the earlier fi lms allowed Pauley to do just that, while the cinematic tastes of Lee Unkrich and the design sensi- bilities of Dice Tsutsumi combined to dramatically extend and develop the trilogy’s aesthetic.

N o t e s

1 Th is term is widely used in the industry today to reference the way in which individuals are chosen for or assigned to particular roles on specifi c fi lms based upon their personal talents and creative strengths. At Pixar, directors cast their core creative team such as the production designer or head of story, who in turn casts some of the members of their own departmental crews. Walt Disney fi rst employed the practice with his animators beginning in the early 1930s when he carefully selected animators for particular characters or sequences based upon their artistic skills. Michael Barrier , Hollywood Cartoons: American Animation in Its Golden Age ( Oxford : Oxford University Press , 1999 ), p. 88 . 2 Ralph Eggleston, interview by the author via email, 29 June 2015. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. Th e one exception was Scud, whose fur was created by Toy Story ’s Lead Digital Painter Tia Kratter through the time- consuming process of digital painting displacement, whereby the digital model is manipulated in or out. With Scud, Kratter was displacing the model downward as she digitally painted tiny hairs to emulate fur. Tia Kratter, email message to author, 6 August 2015. 8 Eggleston also credited the particular production process of Toy Story for the appearance of the humans. ‘Some people think the “look” of the humans or Scud in Toy Story were hampered by technical limitations – and some of that is true’, he explained. ‘But what aff ected that just as much was how we approached them from a production point of view. It wasn’t as “whole- istic” as it should have been – but was understandable seeing as we were all wearing multiple hats and were juggling various phases of items in production’. Eggleston interview, June 2015.

99781501324918_pi-240.indd781501324918_pi-240.indd 6688 111/8/20171/8/2017 22:49:32:49:32 PPMM 69

New and Inherited Aesthetics 69

9 Ibid. 10 Ralph Eggleston, email message to author, 16 July 2015. 11 Bill Cone, interview by author via email, 15 October 2015. 12 Eggleston interview, June 2015. 13 Tia Kratter, interview by author via email, 6 August 2015. 1 4 M a x fi eld Parrish is a personal favorite of Lasseter and returned as an inspirational reference point for the fi lm Cars . His work had already been a touchstone for the earlier short, Th e Adventures of Andr é and Wally B . (Alvy Ray Smith, 1984), when Lasseter used Parrish as an example of the color variation in tree leaves. See Michael Rubin , Droidmaker: George Lucas and the Digital Revolution ( Gainesville, FL : Triad , 2006 ), p. 364 . Moreover, Bill Cone, production designer for A Bug’s Life believes that given Lasseter’s fondness for Parrish’s work he and his team also consulted the artist for Lasseter’s second fi lm. Bill Cone, email message to author, 11 November 2014. 15 In particular see Parrish’s paintings, Arizona from 1950, and Th e Millpond of 1945. 16 Eggleston interview, June 2015. 17 Kratter interview, August 2015. 18 Quoted in Charles Solomon , Th e Art of Toy Story 3 ( San Francisco : Chronicle Books , 2010 ), p. 31 . 19 Ibid. 20 Jim Pearson, email message to author, 28 May 2016; Amid Amidi , Th e Art of Pixar: Th e Complete Colorscripts and Select Art from 25 Years of Animation ( San Francisco : Chronicle Books , 2011 ), p. 15 . 21 Bob Pauley, interview by author, 23 April 2013. 22 Kratter interview, August 2015. Th e houseplant was also painted through the challenging displacement technique (see n. 7). 23 In addition to Bob Pauley, the fi nal member of the team was Robin Cooper. 24 Ralph Eggleston, email message to author, 16 July 2015. 25 Cone interview, October 2015. 26 Kratter interview, August 2015. 27 Ralph and Tia both make mention of this change. 2 8 Th e practice of following a box offi ce hit with a direct- to- video sequel starring the same characters had already worked well for Disney, as evidenced by Th e Return of Jafar (Tad Stones, 1994). Typically Disney’s video sequels were made oversees, on a shorter schedule and for a fraction of the price. Charles Solomon , Th e Toy Story Films: An Animated Journey ( New York : Disney Editions , 2012 ), p. 86 . 29 By the time Jim Pearson joined the team in December as art director of the project, early visualization of the fi lm had already started under the direction of Ash Brannon, who later became the fi lm’s co- director. Artists Laura Phillips and Randy Berrett were already working as full- time sketch artists and freelancers Dave Gordon and Sean Hargreaves had been hired to create visual development work for the project. Jim Pearson, interview by author, 15 October 2015; email correspondence with author, 1 June 2016. 3 0 E d C a t m u l l , Creativity, Inc.: Overcoming the Unseen Forces that Stand in the Way of True Inspiration ( New York : Random House , 2014 ), p. 67 . 31 Pearson interview. 32 For various accounts see Solomon, Th e Toy Story Films ; Catmull, Creativity, Inc.; Karen Paik , To Infi nity and Beyond: Th e Story of Pixar Animation Studios

99781501324918_pi-240.indd781501324918_pi-240.indd 6699 111/8/20171/8/2017 22:49:32:49:32 PPMM 70

70 Heather L. Holian

( San Francisco : Chronicle Books , 2007 ), pp. 142 – 61 ; David A. Price , Th e Pixar Touch: Th e Making of a Company ( New York : Alfred A. Knopf , 2008 ), p. 174ff . 33 Jim Pearson remembered that the project had a ‘laundry list of things that we were then all the sudden allowed to do, or were capable of doing when we went theatrical, because they gave us basically another year and a whole bunch more money’. Among the items on their wish list was the ability to make the trees in Andy’s yard blow in the breeze, like the vegetation did in A Bug’s Life , which was nearing completion. Th e trees were built, but before the theatrical decision enlarged the project’s funds, the production did not have the budget to allocate time to the technical team to make them move. Pearson interview. 34 Ibid. 35 Bill Cone, email message to author, 13 October 2015. 36 Bill Cone, email message to author, 15 October 2015. 37 Bill Cone, email message to author, 28 May 2015. 38 Pearson interview. 3 9 H o w e v e r , C o n e ’ s n e w Toy Story 2 colorscript, which corresponded with the rewritten story is not complete because lighting had already begun on the fi lm and there was no time to fi nish the colorscript. Instead, Cone and Sharon Calahan, director of photography, verbally discussed how some sequences should look. Cone, email, 13 October 2015. 40 Cone, email, 15 October 2015. 41 Eggleston interview. 42 Pearson interview. 43 Eggleston interview, Pearson interview. 44 Pearson interview. 4 5 C o n e i n t e r v i e w . 46 Pearson interview. 47 Originally a plastic squeeze toy named Se ñ orita Cactus, whose appearance was inspired by Carmen Miranda and Lupe V é lez, was planned in place of Jessie. According to Pearson, her character was defi ned as ‘being prickly’, but ultimately ‘cooler heads prevailed’ as she was determined to be too limiting. Pearson interview. 48 Ibid. 4 9 B i l l C o n e s p e c i fi cally identifi ed this as one of the biggest design challenges of Toy Story 2 , along with Al’s apartment and Toy Barn, while acknowledging he had ‘next to nothing’ to do with the solution since he was not then on the fi lm. Cone interview. 50 Pearson interview. 51 Ibid. 52 Cloth simulation, while improved was not yet perfected, despite breakthroughs on Geri’s Game (Jan Pinkava, 1997), and therefore Al’s pants had to be sculpted into the model, as on the fi rst fi lm. ‘We came up with a solution that worked and it was originally supposed to be a technical limitation, but we just found ways to get around stuff ’, Pearson proudly observed. Pearson interview. 53 Pearson interview.

99781501324918_pi-240.indd781501324918_pi-240.indd 7700 111/8/20171/8/2017 22:49:32:49:32 PPMM 71

New and Inherited Aesthetics 71

54 Cone, email message to author, 28 May 2015. 55 Solomon, Art of Toy Story 3 , p. 54. 56 Ibid., p. 55. 57 Ibid., p. 131. 58 Ibid. 5 9 P a u l e y i n t e r v i e w .

99781501324918_pi-240.indd781501324918_pi-240.indd 7711 111/8/20171/8/2017 22:49:32:49:32 PPMM 72

99781501324918_pi-240.indd781501324918_pi-240.indd 7722 111/8/20171/8/2017 22:49:32:49:32 PPMM