‘Need for Speed’ is Getting a Post-Converted 3D Release

Published 1 year ago by

Scott Waugh directing Aaron Paul in Need for Speed Need for Speed is Getting a Post Converted 3D Release

What makes Scott Waugh’s upcoming racing game adaptation Need for Speed stand out from the multitude of other action movies being released this year is that the film doesn’t appear to rely much – if at all – on CGI. The impression that Screen Rant took away from our set visit last summer was that the movie is all about “real cars in a real place performing real stunts.”

That doesn’t mean, of course, that post-production tinkering will be kept to the bare minimum. In fact, it seems that what Need for Speed lacks in computer-generated stunts it will make up for by including a 3D version of the movie in theaters.

According to Deadline, Disney announced today that Need for Speed will also be available to watch in 3D when it hits theaters this March, thanks to the movie being post-converted to the 3D format. The story first broke in mid-December 2013 when 3D movie news site MarketSaw reported it, but seems to have largely flown under the radar until now.

Converting films to 3D in post-production is no mean feat; Pacific Rim took 40 weeks to convert to 3D and the process for Titanic took almost a full year. It’s unclear at this point exactly how long the process of post-converting Need for Speed has taken, but considering the film only wrapped at the beginning of July 2013 it’s safe to say that it probably didn’t get 40 full weeks of 3D post-conversion.

Aaron Paul and Dominic Cooper in Need for Speed Need for Speed is Getting a Post Converted 3D Release

This decision is particularly interesting in light of the fact that many people are comparing Need for Speed to the hugely popular Fast and Furious franchise, which has notably only ever been released in 2D. Fast and Furious 6 director Justin Lin has said that releasing a version of the movie that was post-converted to 3D would be “basically just trying to rip [the audience] off for a couple bucks,” since the films were “designed to be in 2D.”

Though Lin was talking about a different car chase movie to Need for Speed, his point still stands as a good general rule for 3D movies. The format tends to work best when the director has a 3D experience in mind while shooting the movie, and although the process of 3D post-conversion has come a long way in a relatively short amount of time, it remains a less than ideal way of creating a 3D movie.

3D fanatics may well be delighted by this news, but those who aren’t too fussed migh be better off sticking with the 2D version. Based on the kind of practical car stunts and high-speed chase scenes that have been showcased in the featurettes and trailers, Need for Speed will probably be a fun ride even if the cars aren’t actually jumping out of the screen.


Need for Speed arrives in theaters on March 14, 2014.

Source: Deadline, MarketSaw

Follow H. Shaw-Williams on Twitter @HSW3K
Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. How many people roll their eyes to this? I sure do. I think the best thing to do is not advertise this. Hope that people will show up and see it but so many people get turned off of 3D and this film needs the audience to not shrug it off.

    • I honestly don’t see the point either way. This movie looks TERRIBLE…

  2. I ask this sincerely: is it cheaper to post convert to 3D, or to actually film in 3D?

    • I believe it’s convenience. To film in 3D involves a huge camera that they can’t be as mobile with…? I could be wrong.

    • I believe it varies depending on the movie, though generally speaking 3D post-conversion seems to be cheaper. In another interview about the Fast and Furious franchise, producer Neal Moritz said that it would be very, very difficult to shoot a Fast and Furious movie in 3D due to the way they film the car stunts.

      3D camera systems tend to be very heavy and cumbersome, which limits the kind of shots that you can get with them. Based on the behind-the-scenes footage for Need for Speed that’s been shown, I can’t imagine that Waugh would have been able to shoot it in the way that he did if he’d been filming in 3D.

    • Post conversion SUCKS!!!!!!

    • The Director of “Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3d” said it’s more expensive to convert to 3d. There where a few scenes that had to be converted because if it being in a small room. He said the 3d camera was to large for such scenes, so they had to convert. He said it’s like $50,000 a minute to pay for it, which for him was way too expensive. Conversion you have to pay people to go minute by minute to make this change. By filming you eliminate the need to pay these people to do this. So logically it would be cheaper not to do this.

  3. That’s just great… another movie where I’m being forced to watch the 3D version because the cinemas near here only show the 3D versions of movies because the can charge more.

    Getting real tired of this s***.

    • I’d say the best thing to do is just wait and watch it in regular 2D when it finally appears on TV and streaming sites.

      I’m lucky with mine cause I get to ask for the 2D screening, even if I get funny looks from the people working there. Then again, the only movies I’ve seen in 3D and IMAX 3D that were actually worth seeing in those mediums were Life Of Pi and Pacific Rim, everything else has been better in plain old 2D.

    • ScooLoose, its time to stop the oppression of the 3D money grubbers. Just stop watching anything in 3D. That’s what I do. I also find 3D extremely irritating. I hate those glasses that you have to wear. And it’s too expensive. Further the 3D effect really isn’t that good. It’s just a cash grab. Especially if you like to watch a lot of movies.

      • I have no idea what a “money grubber” is (although money grabbers, I’m very familiar with those) but you’re right. I saw 3D movies in the 80s and then again when it was popular in the 90s and again since that horribly overrated Avatar movie and 98% of the time, it does nothing for me at all and just looks like people acting against projected screens or cardboard cutouts like a collage.

          • @Dragon – When it comes to Hollywood, it’s “money grabber”. They’ll always trying to grab YOUR money. :D


  4. You know your movie is in trouble when the 3D conversion is at the last minute. It must be REALLY bad.

    • **COUGH** G.I. JOE **COUGH**

      • Haha, agreed.

  5. Disney seem to think everything needs to be 3D to be good these days. Man are they wrong.

  6. I actually think 3D car races and chases could be pretty cool. It’s only a matter if they’ve had enough time to do a quality conversion.

  7. this movie is going to flop hard anyway. Let me ask: If a movie is post converted to 3D and nobody bothers to watch it, does the conversion still suck?

  8. I get the feeling this will be one of those sleeper hits, a la “Dredd.” Where nobody really goes to the theater to see, because they aren’t sure what to expect. Then it hits home theater and everyone loves it.

  9. I actually like 3D when it’s done well (I even watch 3D films at home).

    Most post-conversions aren’t though, so I will make a point to watch this in 2D, especially because of what Justin Lin said about his (similar) films. I respected him a lot more after reading his statement about refusing to give in to studio pressure to post-convert to 3D, and the films did just fine without it.

  10. Just what we need another redneck speeding car movie!