Except the satellite is higher in the frame than the falling bone was in its frame. Continuity of motion would dictate that the satellite should be slightly lower in frame than the bone was as it fell
Kubrick’s edit works better, has more of a forceful feeling. He knew editing quite well. Simply matching two shapes doesn’t give the effect. You have to allow for the space in between the two images. He let the audience absorb the transition and that’s why it registered so well with a viewer’s mind.
Exactly! The reason I think it works well as Kubrick edited it is because the human brain anticipates the position where the bone will keep rotating and the satellite picks up from there. Also, the switch from the rotation of the bone to the smooth (no rotation) gives the viewer a transformation of sorts -- from chaos or "primitive" to order and "advanced." The bone and satellite are both heading down -- which certainly helps.
But also why is there a mini cut before the jump? like the bone gets out of frame and then...cuts? and then another bone from a mirror axis and THEN the spaceship? That cut will always haunt me.
I wondered if there was an actual empirical reason why Kubrick’s original cut is so satisfying, so I went ahead and counted the frames of the second bone shot (0:09) and the satellite from the exact moment both objects appear to when they disappear. The bone shot (when its visible) is roughly 96 frames. The satellite is about 108 frames. I’d say those extra 12 frames (half a second of 24 frame projection) were added for the audience to process the cut, but otherwise these shots are virtually symmetrical in timing. Editing brilliance.
This may sound pretentious, but somehow the Kubrick cut is off-putting enough to be almost scary. Its unpredictability makes it more profound. An exact match seems safe, expected.
How it can be expected if it is completely another scene? Kubrick's cut feels crooked, sloppy and unfinished, unpolished. It stood out in a bad way on a very first watch.
Everyone here neglected to mention that the time length of the bone shot before cutting to the satellite in Kubrick's version simply has a better, more satisfying rhythm. In the version with the exact match cut, the shot of the bone obviously cuts to the satellite way too early, causing an unintended "mistakenly" rushed feeling - the match is correct, but it happens too early, destroying the hushed pause needed to properly appreciate the sudden shift in time and place. This was an excellent demonstration of something that had been nagging at the back of every Kubrick fan's mind for a long time. Thanks!
This is an important point. Kubrick almost always edited to music (usually removed or replaced later on) - so it's not surprising that there might be a sense of ideal timing in the Kubrick cut. That said, I am obviously not as discerning as the rest of you - because the exact match-cut worked fine for me (though the longer I watch the two, the more I agree that I prefer the former). Indeed if I am honest, I am not even entirely sure that, in watching the original on TV, way back in 1982 or thereabouts, I made the association between tool-use and technology (or warfare and space-tech) that this jump cut is supposed to enforce. (Perhaps, at sixteen, one is allowed a little leeway on ability to interpret "the language of cinema.") But I do remember that both 2001 and Midnight Cowboy had a lasting impact which remains to this day.
Kubrick didn't want you to think the bone magically turned into a nuclear warhead satellite. He wanted to stress the passing of time and the result is still the same.
This graphical match cut destroys the fluidity of motion that is in perfect speed continuity in Kubrick's cut. He merges the "two tools" so smoothly like teleport by surprise, this fake cut makes you step back, you almost blink, it breaks the continuity- the new image attacks you. The audiences attention is on the movement that dominates the bone-shot, it's speed, not framing.
I think the imperfection of the cut has to be intentional, since from the available footage it would have been fairly easy to make the frames match better than they did. But I don't think Kubrick or his editor wanted the match to be so on-the-nose that the audience thought of it as a magic trick, as if the bone had literally turned into a spaceship. They wanted a cut that *suggested* the kinship between the bone and the spaceship without too forcefully asserting it.
Still, a brilliant moment in cinema. In one associative cut, not a scene, not a phrase, summarizes 4 million years of pre-human and human existence. Was stunning 50 plus years ago, and remains so upon re-watching today.
I always wondered why Kubrick made it in that way. It's obviously imperfect and his cinema is known for its perfection. I was going to cut it by myself too, but now I found this video and there is no need. Thank you. Anyways I think that the Kubrick's cut was made too early, not too late, I propably would have preferred to see another spin of the bone and then cut.
Yeah, I'm not sure I feel this is any kind of attempt to make better Kubrick's film, just a curiosity like you had. Though after seeing the two versions, I don't really think this is an improvement on the original. If anything, the fact that the bone doesn't line up with the ship might make it more interesting simply because you'd think it would be obvious for the two images to be in line with each other and they aren't.
It’s always bothered me that this is called a “match cut.” It clearly isn’t, and calling it one makes it seem like Kubrick and Lovejoy were somehow incompetent, that they were unable to figure out how to match the two shots, which is absurd. Thanks for doing this, it only increases our awareness of how expertly executed this edit actually is.
Knowing the perfectionist Kubrick was (even though I found a pretty blatant error in 2001 that I'm surprised made the final cut) I know this was intentional and it does create more of a dramatic cut than the exact match IMHO.
that is because it's not a match cut, it's more of concept being shown, but it still bags the crap of me the cut in midle of bone still in the air, why kubrick?
This is very cool. I agree with most commenters that your edit is less effective (and I know you weren't necessarily trying to improve it). But I think part of the reason yours is less effective is to do with the timing, and not the position of the bone. I'd like to see the cut after the bone flips one more time. It would be a little lower in the frame but the angle would be the same. Kind of a compromise between the two, and the timing would be better.
Looking at your slow motion version at the end, I think cutting it even a split second after the angle matches, when the bone is closer to horizontal, would be more interesting. So it's not the exact same angle, but close. Kubrick lets it go a full 45 degrees from horizontal, in the opposite direction of the spaceship.
I think if the bone was spinning length wise (like it looked when the bone was still first tossed) but the angle remained the same and the bone was in pretty much the same place on-screen, it would’ve definitely worked.
I think for the exact match cut, if you let the bone come down further as it does another 180, that wouldn’t looked better and felt better than the current match cut, as it feels too rushed. It still wouldn’t be as off putting as Kubrick’s edit however, as that was his intention for the shot in the first place.
People say that exact cut destroys the flow of the throw and the dynamic of the time moving forward, however i think a common ground can be achieved between these 2 with a fade instead of a hard cut, the fade starts somewhere in the middle of the throw and by the time it reaches the position of the nuclear satellite the fade is complete. for me that would be the perfect way to show what people say that Kubrick was trying to show and at the same time maintain visual aesthetic. Just my 2 cents.
I don’t think a fade has the same impact as a cut in this case. Fades are typically used for the passage of time anyway, so it’s less surprising to the viewer.
Kubrick's cut is the best. Good cinema is made to urge people's thinking rather than driving it. Filmmakers know how to play with audiences and how to manipulate the message. They may hide you a subtle message via a smooth cut or viceversa highlight it with a disorientating cut, like this one, which engages your psychic defences thus activating reasoning to ask yourself what happened.
Thank you for this. The original cut has driven me just a bit crazy for years -- I probably have mild OCD. Anyway, when I see the exact match cut and the original side-by-side, I can't really decide which is more satisfying. I'll probably stick with the original cut, because I think I just realized that the satisfaction is actually coming from the fact that someone else saw the cut and questioned it like I have. Although knowing Kubrick's penchant for detail, it's still annoying for this to have never been talked about before, that I can find, and what his intention could have been to not match the orientations. Also, Kubrick himself filmed the bone spinning because the original cameraman couldn't keep the bone in frame for the whole time, not that Kubrick did much better!
Excellent video. The exact match-cut is more beautiful. The falling bone seems to melt into the spacecraft and a strong symbolism of the cheapness of gravity and the elegance of the non-gravity of space is also exemplified, which is exactly what the whole Blue Danube sequence is about.
However, that was not the real intention. I think the true meaning of this is that although they are different stages of a ''weapon'' (But, remember that the bone was indeed discovered and used as a weapon while the space device was created by mankind with violent purposes), they depict different stages of human mind evolution. The first case was a weapon used for surviving, the second one was used for egotistical purposes. In summary, although our intellectual wisdom and bodies evolved with the help of the monolith, our mind was corrupted with greed through time. The bone and the space weapon are same technologies *with different nature and opposite intentions* . That's why the cut had a symbolic purpose more than a sign of beauty: *They have opposite meanings with a superfluous appearance* . An exact match-cut is very simple and widely used these days (one more time Kubrick broke beforehand the standards or ''laws'' we are used to watch).
Thanks for this edit! Always wondered why it wasn't an exact match, or closer, given Kubrick's attn to detail. That said, imo, your match comes to early - I offer this alternative as a match after the bone falls a little further and has more of a feel of gravity & momentum to it. ua-cam.com/video/aBHtzc00b80/v-deo.html
Slowing it as you do at the end also improves it a great deal as well. People talk about this as the most famous match-cut in cinema, but it is technically very sloppy.
You can read too much into something. I don't subscribe to the "Kubrick never made a mistake" school of analysis. He was a great director but a questionable cinematographer.
jmackmcneill Lmfao. How does a "questionable cinematographer" get away with the best visual effects film in history, films like A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, Shining etc., all renowned for their visual style?
OK, learn the difference between "directing" and "cinamatography". . Also, see earlier commment regarding "aclaimed" is not the same as "never made a mistake"
The first time I had a chance to freeze frame that jump cut, I was a little surprised at how the bone and the satellite didn't match perfectly. Congratulations on out-Kubricking Kubrick!
HA HA!! Well, after ALL these years of wondering about it, it just goes to show an 'exact match cut' DOESN'T WORK. I'd like to think that they achieved an 'exact match cut' to begin with and rejected it cos it's....well, it's AWFUL. Who would've thought, eh? That's put that one to bed for me. Anything else you'd like to 'put right' in this technology-obsessed, tools-obsessed 21st century world? (yep irony intended)
I'm a big Kubrick admirer but this is just perfection. Like it or not, all those justifications of "ambiguity", "unconventionality" etc. are just pretentious and defensive hogwash. The edit is poor in this case and it has finally been corrected and looks very fluid. I'm 100% sure that Kubrick would've liked this guy's edit.
Totally wrong. Kubrick took years to make this movie and this is probably the most important cut in the whole film. He made it disruptive on purpose as a figure of speech. Distruptivity between the bone and the ship reflects the previous disruptive cut in between bone rotations. While you're watching it it's impossible to not ask yourself what's going on. Making it out of control was the purpose.
@@ThomasJr I know that's not what you're implying. I'm telling you it's irrational and ironic to compare 1968 special effects to anything invented post-1968. It's like saying that the first firearm looks like an AK-47 designed by a 10-year-old.
What your version sacrifices is the "continuity of motion" which is just as important as the "graphic match cut".
Tyler Danna right. it has more flow to it in the original.
Except the satellite is higher in the frame than the falling bone was in its frame. Continuity of motion would dictate that the satellite should be slightly lower in frame than the bone was as it fell
Kubrick’s edit works better, has more of a forceful feeling. He knew editing quite well. Simply matching two shapes doesn’t give the effect. You have to allow for the space in between the two images. He let the audience absorb the transition and that’s why it registered so well with a viewer’s mind.
It feels odd
Exactly! The reason I think it works well as Kubrick edited it is because the human brain anticipates the position where the bone will keep rotating and the satellite picks up from there. Also, the switch from the rotation of the bone to the smooth (no rotation) gives the viewer a transformation of sorts -- from chaos or "primitive" to order and "advanced." The bone and satellite are both heading down -- which certainly helps.
@@CClaudin agree. very well said
no dude lol this was way better 😂
But also why is there a mini cut before the jump? like the bone gets out of frame and then...cuts? and then another bone from a mirror axis and THEN the spaceship? That cut will always haunt me.
I wondered if there was an actual empirical reason why Kubrick’s original cut is so satisfying, so I went ahead and counted the frames of the second bone shot (0:09) and the satellite from the exact moment both objects appear to when they disappear.
The bone shot (when its visible) is roughly 96 frames. The satellite is about 108 frames. I’d say those extra 12 frames (half a second of 24 frame projection) were added for the audience to process the cut, but otherwise these shots are virtually symmetrical in timing. Editing brilliance.
This may sound pretentious, but somehow the Kubrick cut is off-putting enough to be almost scary. Its unpredictability makes it more profound. An exact match seems safe, expected.
And strangely this version doesn’t look as good
Exactly this. Kubrick’s cut gives you a jolt, like when your stomach drops on a roller coaster.
It's not pretentious to discuss cinema and director's intentions. Discuss away! We're all here for this conversation.
How it can be expected if it is completely another scene? Kubrick's cut feels crooked, sloppy and unfinished, unpolished. It stood out in a bad way on a very first watch.
@@FAKKER_rap not that you would expect the cut while watching, but that's how you'd expect the cut to be executed/edited.
Thanks you for exploring this.
Everyone here neglected to mention that the time length of the bone shot before cutting to the satellite in Kubrick's version simply has a better, more satisfying rhythm. In the version with the exact match cut, the shot of the bone obviously cuts to the satellite way too early, causing an unintended "mistakenly" rushed feeling - the match is correct, but it happens too early, destroying the hushed pause needed to properly appreciate the sudden shift in time and place. This was an excellent demonstration of something that had been nagging at the back of every Kubrick fan's mind for a long time. Thanks!
This comment really straightens out this comment section for me. Helps me to contextualize the criticisms.
This is an important point. Kubrick almost always edited to music (usually removed or replaced later on) - so it's not surprising that there might be a sense of ideal timing in the Kubrick cut.
That said, I am obviously not as discerning as the rest of you - because the exact match-cut worked fine for me (though the longer I watch the two, the more I agree that I prefer the former). Indeed if I am honest, I am not even entirely sure that, in watching the original on TV, way back in 1982 or thereabouts, I made the association between tool-use and technology (or warfare and space-tech) that this jump cut is supposed to enforce.
(Perhaps, at sixteen, one is allowed a little leeway on ability to interpret "the language of cinema.") But I do remember that both 2001 and Midnight Cowboy had a lasting impact which remains to this day.
Kubrick didn't want you to think the bone magically turned into a nuclear warhead satellite. He wanted to stress the passing of time and the result is still the same.
Audience: Just line up the damn shots
Kubrick: I’m sorry, I’m afraid I can’t do that.
This graphical match cut destroys the fluidity of motion that is in perfect speed continuity in Kubrick's cut. He merges the "two tools" so smoothly like teleport by surprise, this fake cut makes you step back, you almost blink, it breaks the continuity- the new image attacks you. The audiences attention is on the movement that dominates the bone-shot, it's speed, not framing.
Yep.
I think the imperfection of the cut has to be intentional, since from the available footage it would have been fairly easy to make the frames match better than they did. But I don't think Kubrick or his editor wanted the match to be so on-the-nose that the audience thought of it as a magic trick, as if the bone had literally turned into a spaceship. They wanted a cut that *suggested* the kinship between the bone and the spaceship without too forcefully asserting it.
How strange, you would think in theory that the match cut would work better but it doesn't.
The exact cut is more visually pleasing but the original cut is more effective, and I have no idea why.
Maybe we're all biased from having seen the original first?
Still, a brilliant moment in cinema. In one associative cut, not a scene, not a phrase, summarizes 4 million years of pre-human and human existence. Was stunning 50 plus years ago, and remains so upon re-watching today.
I still dont get the ugly cut at 0:09. Nobody seems to bother. It hurts my eyes.
First: looking back in the past, then sudden cut that is the monolith, and then looking at the future
You mean the change of direction of the bone?
I completely agree, I understand the change in direction but they could’ve made the change so much better
I always wondered why Kubrick made it in that way. It's obviously imperfect and his cinema is known for its perfection.
I was going to cut it by myself too, but now I found this video and there is no need. Thank you.
Anyways I think that the Kubrick's cut was made too early, not too late, I propably would have preferred to see another spin of the bone and then cut.
Yeah, I'm not sure I feel this is any kind of attempt to make better Kubrick's film, just a curiosity like you had. Though after seeing the two versions, I don't really think this is an improvement on the original. If anything, the fact that the bone doesn't line up with the ship might make it more interesting simply because you'd think it would be obvious for the two images to be in line with each other and they aren't.
I think mistake was there because cutting was more dificult at the time
it was intenional
@@kokoberi600 No, he cut it that way on purpose. And as this comparison illustrates, it was the right call.
Ur mom was intentional
very interesting observation
I must admit I never saw it as a match cut. The critics did. You just proved that..
It’s always bothered me that this is called a “match cut.” It clearly isn’t, and calling it one makes it seem like Kubrick and Lovejoy were somehow incompetent, that they were unable to figure out how to match the two shots, which is absurd. Thanks for doing this, it only increases our awareness of how expertly executed this edit actually is.
"It’s always bothered me that this is called a “match cut.” It clearly isn’t..."
It's one of the most famous match cuts in history.
@@redlightmax yes, and yet… oh why do I bother?
Knowing the perfectionist Kubrick was (even though I found a pretty blatant error in 2001 that I'm surprised made the final cut) I know this was intentional and it does create more of a dramatic cut than the exact match IMHO.
when i watch the kubrick cut i prefer the exact match but idk why when i watch the exact match i prefer the kubrick one
that is because it's not a match cut, it's more of concept being shown, but it still bags the crap of me the cut in midle of bone still in the air, why kubrick?
Kubrick may have gone through the same thought process.
I like how the Kubrick version leads into the motion but I feel it could have been cut slightly earlier imo
This is very cool. I agree with most commenters that your edit is less effective (and I know you weren't necessarily trying to improve it). But I think part of the reason yours is less effective is to do with the timing, and not the position of the bone. I'd like to see the cut after the bone flips one more time. It would be a little lower in the frame but the angle would be the same. Kind of a compromise between the two, and the timing would be better.
Looking at your slow motion version at the end, I think cutting it even a split second after the angle matches, when the bone is closer to horizontal, would be more interesting. So it's not the exact same angle, but close. Kubrick lets it go a full 45 degrees from horizontal, in the opposite direction of the spaceship.
I prefer Kubrick's because of the momentum that is captured upon the switch.
I think if the bone was spinning length wise (like it looked when the bone was still first tossed) but the angle remained the same and the bone was in pretty much the same place on-screen, it would’ve definitely worked.
Thanks for this video!!!
it's simply Kubrick preferring more ambiguity over obviousness.
Kubrick films are both at the same time. So that argument goes out of the window.
@@DC-zi6se Not necessarily, since it’s a question of relative degree - for each.
I think for the exact match cut, if you let the bone come down further as it does another 180, that wouldn’t looked better and felt better than the current match cut, as it feels too rushed. It still wouldn’t be as off putting as Kubrick’s edit however, as that was his intention for the shot in the first place.
People say that exact cut destroys the flow of the throw and the dynamic of the time moving forward, however i think a common ground can be achieved between these 2 with a fade instead of a hard cut, the fade starts somewhere in the middle of the throw and by the time it reaches the position of the nuclear satellite the fade is complete. for me that would be the perfect way to show what people say that Kubrick was trying to show and at the same time maintain visual aesthetic.
Just my 2 cents.
I don’t think a fade has the same impact as a cut in this case. Fades are typically used for the passage of time anyway, so it’s less surprising to the viewer.
Kubrick's cut is the best. Good cinema is made to urge people's thinking rather than driving it. Filmmakers know how to play with audiences and how to manipulate the message. They may hide you a subtle message via a smooth cut or viceversa highlight it with a disorientating cut, like this one, which engages your psychic defences thus activating reasoning to ask yourself what happened.
And the answer is: weapons and progress are out of your control, dear spectator.
Thank you for this. The original cut has driven me just a bit crazy for years -- I probably have mild OCD. Anyway, when I see the exact match cut and the original side-by-side, I can't really decide which is more satisfying. I'll probably stick with the original cut, because I think I just realized that the satisfaction is actually coming from the fact that someone else saw the cut and questioned it like I have. Although knowing Kubrick's penchant for detail, it's still annoying for this to have never been talked about before, that I can find, and what his intention could have been to not match the orientations.
Also, Kubrick himself filmed the bone spinning because the original cameraman couldn't keep the bone in frame for the whole time, not that Kubrick did much better!
@paul w pretentious Kubrick stans suck
And has anyone noticed the hint of skull on the planet?
Excellent video. The exact match-cut is more beautiful. The falling bone seems to melt into the spacecraft and a strong symbolism of the cheapness of gravity and the elegance of the non-gravity of space is also exemplified, which is exactly what the whole Blue Danube sequence is about.
However, that was not the real intention. I think the true meaning of this is that although they are different stages of a ''weapon'' (But, remember that the bone was indeed discovered and used as a weapon while the space device was created by mankind with violent purposes), they depict different stages of human mind evolution. The first case was a weapon used for surviving, the second one was used for egotistical purposes. In summary, although our intellectual wisdom and bodies evolved with the help of the monolith, our mind was corrupted with greed through time. The bone and the space weapon are same technologies *with different nature and opposite intentions* . That's why the cut had a symbolic purpose more than a sign of beauty: *They have opposite meanings with a superfluous appearance* .
An exact match-cut is very simple and widely used these days (one more time Kubrick broke beforehand the standards or ''laws'' we are used to watch).
Watch out guys, the Virgins are MAD
That little jerk in the angle is Kubrick my friend.
Thanks for this edit!
Always wondered why it wasn't an exact match, or closer, given Kubrick's attn to detail. That said, imo, your match comes to early - I offer this alternative as a match after the bone falls a little further and has more of a feel of gravity & momentum to it.
ua-cam.com/video/aBHtzc00b80/v-deo.html
The falling of the bone is important, more dynamic. Kubrick was right.
finally
Isn’t this entire scene over 10 minutes long?
Unpopular opinion but I prefer the exact match cut far more
Slowing it as you do at the end also improves it a great deal as well. People talk about this as the most famous match-cut in cinema, but it is technically very sloppy.
Time moves forward. Nothing is sloppy. An exact match would have been a bit tacky.
You can read too much into something. I don't subscribe to the "Kubrick never made a mistake" school of analysis. He was a great director but a questionable cinematographer.
jmackmcneill Lmfao. How does a "questionable cinematographer" get away with the best visual effects film in history, films like A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, Shining etc., all renowned for their visual style?
OK, learn the difference between "directing" and "cinamatography". . Also, see earlier commment regarding "aclaimed" is not the same as "never made a mistake"
jmackmcneill You can't even spell. Why should anyone consider what you have to say? Lmao.
The first time I had a chance to freeze frame that jump cut, I was a little surprised at how the bone and the satellite didn't match perfectly.
Congratulations on out-Kubricking Kubrick!
Oh noooo the original is the best, it’s intentional. But i see why u made this
I see a lot of professionally pretentious comments here
weird
Whirr
Whirr
Whirr
Whmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Yours is better, Ryan. Kubrick took his eye off the bone.
HA HA!! Well, after ALL these years of wondering about it, it just goes to show an 'exact match cut' DOESN'T WORK. I'd like to think that they achieved an 'exact match cut' to begin with and rejected it cos it's....well, it's AWFUL. Who would've thought, eh? That's put that one to bed for me. Anything else you'd like to 'put right' in this technology-obsessed, tools-obsessed 21st century world? (yep irony intended)
I’m the 300th like
I'm a big Kubrick admirer but this is just perfection. Like it or not, all those justifications of "ambiguity", "unconventionality" etc. are just pretentious and defensive hogwash. The edit is poor in this case and it has finally been corrected and looks very fluid.
I'm 100% sure that Kubrick would've liked this guy's edit.
Totally wrong. Kubrick took years to make this movie and this is probably the most important cut in the whole film. He made it disruptive on purpose as a figure of speech. Distruptivity between the bone and the ship reflects the previous disruptive cut in between bone rotations. While you're watching it it's impossible to not ask yourself what's going on. Making it out of control was the purpose.
@@Tuttigiu get a life
@@Tuttigiu did he say that personally? These internet smartasses..
@@hil449 it's more than obvious for any good filmmaker and / or professional film editor.
This scene just sucked in general no way to fix it
they made earth look like a very badly colored picture, a photoshop gone awry.
The movie came out in 1968. Photoshop wasn't even around then
@@ThomasJr I know that's not what you're implying. I'm telling you it's irrational and ironic to compare 1968 special effects to anything invented post-1968. It's like saying that the first firearm looks like an AK-47 designed by a 10-year-old.