[...] Saved by TeoZilla on Sun 30-11-2008 Happy Birthday Otto! Saved by multani0 on Sat 29-11-2008 The Art of the ‘Hook-Up’ Saved by douglemoine on Sun 23-11-2008 Video Animate existence Tips being the Vivacious Creator [...]

[...] previous post on ‘Crossing-the-Line‘ she has done another awesome article on ‘Hook-Ups’ between shots with some great examples from ‘The Little Mermaid’. There really [...]

Well, I certainly never meant to imply that this post was a ‘complete guide to hook-ups’, that’s for sure. Just like the post ‘How to Not Cross the Line‘ is *far* from a complete guide to not crossing the line.

It was meant for beginners and people who don’t quite understand the concept or overlook it. There are other areas where you don’t have to hook-up…like in montages. And for action scenes like you describe, it can be very effective to back up a bit with each cut as you’ve explained. That could be considered more as a style and not necessarily a ‘rule’ for action scenes too.

But I agree it can be *very* useful for fast cutting action scenes. And it’s probably more common in live-action too. Though it can certainly be done in animation. You just have to know what you’re doing.

My post was just meant as another ‘learn the rules before breaking them’ (or before you learn the exceptions) kind of thing.

Thanks for your comment and input! Greatly appreciated.
K

I agree with you about the general scene to scene hook-ups, but not with action scenes. When it comes to cars running into each other, and large impacts or explosions, then perfect hook-ups don’t work. Cutting from an impact, to another angle just before the impact, and sometimes yet again from another angle, will help a viewer guage what’s going on from the action and extend the wow-factor.

I think what you focussed on here seems to be common mistakes made by storyboarders though, and not so much an overall guide to hooking up.

You’re an entertaining writer. I enjoy reading your blog.

Cheers,

M

I’m totally with you on learning from other’s mistakes. How could you not (’cause, like, people make so many… : ) )

When the story isn’t working for me, my mind drifts as well, and I start thinking logically about the whole thing. I know when I start thinking “I wonder how they filmed that scene?” that the film is in trouble. I do what you do too. Later on, I like to think how it could’ve been told differently to work better.

That’s why when I say I ‘bleeped’ over continuity errors in Pretty Woman, it was because I was enjoying myself and *not* in that way of thinking. It’s great when you get so wrapped up in a film that you even forget you’re in a theatre with strangers. Love it.

Gets far and few between sometimes though…
K

So when a film suck I often leave the theatre with a fairly detailed idea about structural weaknesses in the plot (which is the area I know most about).

In many ways this is a good thing for my own projects as contrary to [un]popular opinion you can learn from the mistake of others.

Yes and no. It can look like they ‘disappeared’. BUT there *are* rocks in the shot…they are smaller and lower.

They have ‘moved the camera’ to be more at the front of her (almost straight on) and at a lower angle (bit more of a up shot). So the rocks on the right are the low ones that are behind her back in the wide shot.

The ones on the left are kind of the ‘start’ of the huge pile that we see in the wide shot.

It’s a bit of a cheat that still works. This made for a cleaner silhouette of Ariel. And the sky and bits of rocks look better than a *wall of rock* behind her. A nicer composition if you will.

I can see how it looks like they disappear but when you think about where they’re placing the camera, it works. At least for me. Hope this makes sense.
K