Subject: Re: Speaking of Toy Story...
From: RICK CATIZONE <[email-masked]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 23:02:41 -0500

On Wed, 20 Dec 1995, Scott Thompson wrote:

> =09I don't know if this has been discussed, so forgive me if it has.  But=
,
> for those of you who have seen Toy Story (and for those who haven't, I pr=
omise
> to keep the spoilers to a minimum... ;), how would you have done it??
> =09I know -- big 'how'.  But I'm sure there are opinions floating around
> on the list, "I coulda done that better."  Well, what was it, and how wou=
ld you
> have done it better?
c=A9%!=DE=F7=E7> =09Granted, I don't know exactly how what was done for the=
 final=20
movie,
> but as a newish/budding animator, I'm just interested in different approa=
ches
> to the same problems.
> =09For example, in one scene in Sid's room, you see his scuffed and
> scarred worktable top from about a 10-15 degree angle.  There are what ap=
pear
> to have been intended as gouge marks in the surface.  Well, from the view=
ers'
> vantage point, the surface still appears flat.  It looks, to me, as if th=
ey
> simply applied (what LW'ers would call... ) a planar image map of the gou=
ged
> surface, without any actual surface detail.  Personally, I would have app=
lied
> it as a displacement map as well to maintain the illusion of depth.
> =09Anywho, let's hear what anybody else's gripes are... ;9
>=20
> --=20
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------
>Rick Catizone here.  I have a couple of questions about why two things=20
weren't handled better, given the quality of all the other character=20
work, but as I think about it I don't want to even bring them up at the=20
moment.

You see, anyone who has ever undertaken a professional product knows what=
=20
it is liked to be faced with not enough time, not enough money, people=20
over you who often haven't the slightest notion of what you're doing,=20
managing a staff, etc.  It's amazing that ANYTHING gets produced. So=20
rather than pick at little things, I heartily comend John Lassiter and=20
the crew for giving us an enjoyable film!!!  The fact that it was=20
computer generated is of technical interest, yes; but that's not why I as=
=20
an animator love it.  It has thought, purpose, artistry in every shot=20
from the composition of the shots to the composition of the animation, to=
=20
the lighting, and mood of each shot and each environment.

there's nothing wrong with critiquing...but I'll bet John Lassiter wishes=
=20
that things could have been "better" in many shots.  Every artist does. =20
But if you're true to quality as an artist, you simply do the absolute=20
best with what you have in the time available.

GREAT JOB PIXAR !!!

RICK CATIZONE/ ANIVISION