I don't get the endless angst about this. In todays CGI world they would have the bone perfectly sync with the spaceship (or whatever that is) but that's not the point here. The cut could very well be fully intentional. It forces you to refocus, to think "that's a bone, in the air" ... the switch induces a sense of weightlessness ... and then you're looking not just at the present, four million years later, but a generation after the audience who saw this film in 1968.
I don't know if the bone shot was supposed to look all jumpy or not, but regardless, it drives my OCD crazy. Either that shot was meant to be in the movie or Kubrick punched himself every time he watched it.
Years ago when I first saw this I was so disappointed after hearing about it because they hadn't even bothered to cut it when the bone was in the same position! Surely it wouldn't have been too difficult... it just looks disjointed like that.
From 4 millions of years in the past to the year 2001. The bone, a new weapon/tool is hurdled up in rapturous revery and the space weapon, basically hangs with scientific precision. The editing is perfect.
the sensation of the bone falling back to the earth was matched with the weightless feeling of the ship in space... this match cut is just as much about what you feel as it is about what you see... it's way more noticeable on big screen.
@KingBerk104 If you did it your way, the bone would just be spinning in the centre of the screen. It wouldn't work. It's the movement of the camera that makes the 'match'. It essentially a reverse shot (the bones spins the other way) thus changing the audiences position. Looks simple but is actually very complex. Pure genius.
@KingBerk104 i'm with you. if Kubrick had been able to tilt up and down on the rise and fall of the bone without cutting it would maybe surpass Lean's match/sunrise cut.
I appreciate the genius of Kubrick's concept here but his execution is unusually poor by his standards.
@scriptwrighteous Nope, but Kubrick basically edited the movie himself, even though he had editors obviously. Why would he make a careless error when he obviously knew that cut was going to be so profound not only in the movie but in cinema in general? Do your research, he did it on purpose.
@LilBo10 so you make wildly speculative statements that assume an intimate knowledge of choices made in a cutting room 34 years ago and then tell ME to "do your research"?! You're making some huge assumptions based on Kubrick's famed reputation as a perfectionist... or maybe you have the research to back your claims up?
@scriptwrighteous I've read up on this. Also, I didn't want to have it come to this, but my cinema studies teacher in high school talked with Kubrick about this shot and why he chose to edit it like this. Sorry.
First tool of death skips 300,000 years and becomes the ultimate weapon of death.
most genius and haunting shot ever filmed.
zheffner666 2 weeks ago
I don't get the endless angst about this. In todays CGI world they would have the bone perfectly sync with the spaceship (or whatever that is) but that's not the point here. The cut could very well be fully intentional. It forces you to refocus, to think "that's a bone, in the air" ... the switch induces a sense of weightlessness ... and then you're looking not just at the present, four million years later, but a generation after the audience who saw this film in 1968.
OroborusFMA 3 months ago
So the bone becomes a spaceship?
vincevega0 3 months ago
@vincevega0 That's a bit literal. The monolith wasn't a genie granding ape wishes LOL.
OroborusFMA 3 months ago
@vincevega0 I think the point is that bones CAN become spaceships...
Kemster79 2 months ago
I don't know if the bone shot was supposed to look all jumpy or not, but regardless, it drives my OCD crazy. Either that shot was meant to be in the movie or Kubrick punched himself every time he watched it.
Ichiboy900 3 months ago
Years ago when I first saw this I was so disappointed after hearing about it because they hadn't even bothered to cut it when the bone was in the same position! Surely it wouldn't have been too difficult... it just looks disjointed like that.
RadiumRadiator 4 months ago
I think the power of jumping 4 million years into the future in a single frame more than makes up for a few technical flaws.
SquidkidMega 5 months ago
From 4 millions of years in the past to the year 2001. The bone, a new weapon/tool is hurdled up in rapturous revery and the space weapon, basically hangs with scientific precision. The editing is perfect.
AlfredsVisions 6 months ago
oh the hours they must have spent in an editing bay trying to get this right...
jmdglss 6 months ago
the sensation of the bone falling back to the earth was matched with the weightless feeling of the ship in space... this match cut is just as much about what you feel as it is about what you see... it's way more noticeable on big screen.
PsalmsPoetic 6 months ago
Why does the shot jerk, instead of following the bone up smoothly? It totally ruins the genius of the shot for me.
KingBerk104 8 months ago 5
@KingBerk104 If you did it your way, the bone would just be spinning in the centre of the screen. It wouldn't work. It's the movement of the camera that makes the 'match'. It essentially a reverse shot (the bones spins the other way) thus changing the audiences position. Looks simple but is actually very complex. Pure genius.
domcurrie 7 months ago
@KingBerk104 i'm with you. if Kubrick had been able to tilt up and down on the rise and fall of the bone without cutting it would maybe surpass Lean's match/sunrise cut.
I appreciate the genius of Kubrick's concept here but his execution is unusually poor by his standards.
scriptwrighteous 7 months ago 3
@scriptwrighteous he did it that way on purpose, trust me.
LilBo10 2 months ago
@LilBo10 oh, you edited 2001 did you? wow. thanks for sharing your wisdom there.
scriptwrighteous 2 months ago
@scriptwrighteous Nope, but Kubrick basically edited the movie himself, even though he had editors obviously. Why would he make a careless error when he obviously knew that cut was going to be so profound not only in the movie but in cinema in general? Do your research, he did it on purpose.
LilBo10 2 months ago
@LilBo10 bingo
OrthodoxFilms 2 months ago
@LilBo10 so you make wildly speculative statements that assume an intimate knowledge of choices made in a cutting room 34 years ago and then tell ME to "do your research"?! You're making some huge assumptions based on Kubrick's famed reputation as a perfectionist... or maybe you have the research to back your claims up?
scriptwrighteous 2 months ago
@scriptwrighteous I've read up on this. Also, I didn't want to have it come to this, but my cinema studies teacher in high school talked with Kubrick about this shot and why he chose to edit it like this. Sorry.
LilBo10 2 months ago
@LilBo10 sorry dude but I just contacted Ray Lovejoy (editor of 2001) via ouija board. He says you're talking rubbish.
scriptwrighteous 2 months ago
@scriptwrighteous aww fuck. The ouija board doesn't lie; can't argue with that one.
LilBo10 2 months ago
A History of Invention: Abridged Edition
evilegg288 1 year ago 25