‘Man of Steel’ Being Post-Converted to 3D

Published 1 year ago by , Updated February 27th, 2013 at 2:09 pm,

Superman Man of Steel Post Converted to 3D Man of Steel Being Post Converted to 3D

Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel is potentially the first in a wave (but definitely not a “phase”) of new superhero films from DC Entertainment and Warner Bros., though the style, tone, and music will likely owe a great deal to the last wave – specifically, Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy.

However, one way in which the upcoming Superman film will be a departure from Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Rises will be its utilization of post-converted 3D.

According to a recent press release from Warner Bros.:

“‘Man of Steel’ will be presented in 3D in select theaters, as well as in 2D and IMAX, so fans of the iconic superhero will be able to experience the much-anticipated movie in their format of choice.”

Of course, this doesn’t come as much of a surprise, as the vast majority of blockbusters released today are shown in 3D. The Dark Knight Rises was the only major superhero film last year to not get a 3D release (and one of the few blockbusters of 2012 besides The Hunger Games and Skyfall), and the lack of 3D may have ultimately cost it the number one spot at the box office to The Avengers.

Man of Steel in 3D Man of Steel Being Post Converted to 3D

Superman in…3D?

Some of you might say – but isn’t Christopher Nolan producing Man of Steel? And doesn’t that Nolan fellow hate 3D from deep down in the cockles of his heart?

While it’s true that Nolan is no proponent of 3D – hence the reason TDKR did not utilize the technology – it’s also true that he handed off real control of Man of Steel relatively early on in the process. It was probably not too difficult for Warner Bros. to convince Zack Snyder, whose film aesthetic actually kind of lends itself to 3D, to post-convert his take on Superman. (After all, they convinced Guillermo del Toro to post-convert Pacific Rim, and del Toro was openly against it as recently as August.)

From Zack Snyder himself:

“The film is going to be a visually exciting experience in all formats: 2D, 3D and IMAX.  Anticipating how audiences today embrace 3D, we designed and photographed the movie in a way that would allow ‘Man of Steel’ to captivate those movie goers, while respecting fans who prefer a more traditional cinematic experience.  We’ve taken great measures to ensure the film and the story come first, and 3D is meant as an enhancement.”

There are a lot of opponents to 3D on the Internet – I count myself among them – but there’s no denying that moviegoers are still paying for it in droves. It’s hard to blame studios for wanting to charge more money for this stuff when audiences are seemingly eager to pay for it.

Are you happy to hear that Man of Steel will be released in 3D, Screen Ranters? Would you have preferred they shoot the film in 3D as opposed to post-converting it? Let us known in the comments.

Man of Steel - starring Henry Cavill and Amy Adams – hits theaters June 14th, 2013.

-

Follow me on Twitter @benandrewmoore.

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: superman, superman man of steel

120 Comments

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.

  1. Star Treck was post production 3d and it was great! Based on this fact alone I will see Superman in 3d.

  2. “Post-converting” is retarded. The 3D looks like s***, when they do that.

  3. I honestly think, and this is from my experience, us moviegoers are only paying EXTRA to see a movie in 3D because we have no choice, or REALLY limited choices. Whenever there is a choice I always pick the 2D. It’s easier to watch, especially during dark scenes (Which explains Nolan’s stance against it), w/ out those 3D TINTED shades; PLUS its cheaper. Yet A LOT of theaters restrict the audience choices, giving 3D priority. So of course, if you take away our choice, the only option is the 3D that is being shown or wait for retail release.
    One time my local theater, of which also lacks competition (there are only two theaters in town and both are Edwards), gave 6 show times for TinTin in 3D and only one show time in 2D. I paid and waited for the ONLY one screening of it in 2D only to end up sitting in a theater still playing the same 3D movie. What’s worse, I seemed to be the only one who got up and grabbed a pair of glasses from the recycle box and noticed that it WAS INFACT 3D. Everyone else just sat there and watched the few occasional 3D scenes with blurred vision.

  4. I am a HUGE Superman fan but refuse to watch it in ugly 3D for the first showing. I had to wait and wait until finally the cinema opened up 2D tickets this week (looks like they promoted 3D only to being with).

    Can’t believe how much 3D has been shoved down our throats and how many people are actually buying into 3DTV’s etc.

    If I get to watch it again, I’de be interested to compare the movies but my first choice is ALWAYS 2D.

  5. I was looking fowards to deeing this in IMAX, (one opened localy about 8 months ago and the Hobbit 3D convinced me IMAX 3D has the same headache problems as Real 3D) but have no desire to pay extra for the “privelage” of getting a bad headache, which always accumpanies a compatently directed 3d film (I hope Man of Steel will fall into this catagory)the crazy thing is the cinema in queation stoped the 3d showings of Star Trek and Iron Man 3 weeks ago but is still showing both in 2d, suggesting that locally 2D is more popular

  6. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but some things are not opinions. Below I have made a few comments on common misconceptions and false statements:

    1: Many on here say that Native 3d is better than converted. This is not true due to many reasons. Look it up. Not just the cost, but stereo artifacting is increased by a large margin when filming in 3d due to rigs, etc. And while you do that, look for the post compositing needed for native 3d film which had rigging, greenscreened backgrounds or other post compositing because of it being filmed in 3d.

    2: 3D is bad for film. People said this about sound and color and digital vfx. People also said film could never reproduce what a stage performance was. How far we have come. 3d gets us even closer.

    3: 3D adds nothing to a film. Actually, viewing film in stereo stimulates parts of your brain into thinking what you are watching is more real than 2D. As long as the film’s stereo resembles “real” life stereo, your brain is more engaged in what you are seeing.

    4: Converted 3D is fake. All film 3D is “fake”. It’s an illusion or trick to make you think something has volume and depth but is never “real” including native 3D. It doesn’t make it bad. All visual effects, whether practical or CG, are illusions to make you think it’s real. That increases the drama and spectacle of the film. Imagine The Thing with no Thing Or Alien with no matte paintings!

    5: It’s dumb and people hate it. This is simply not true. Many like it, they just aren’t vehemently against anything in 2D which is why we don’t hear from them.

    People don’t like things that are different. 3D is new and different, so people don’t like it.

    There’s a lot of talk in here and most of you have no clue about what your talking about. It really is a shame that something that can add so much more to our beloved films is slandered by so much ignorance.

    Give peace a chance! Give 3D a chance!

    See these films in 3D: Life of Pi; Top Gun; Man of Steel; anything Pixar. There are more, but as an advocate for 3D films these are my suggestions.

    • I have seen many films in 3d and most are shockingly ad in terms of 3d. I don’t know weather that’s because im sat in wrong place or cinema doesn’t use enough rightness(cost cutting on thee expense.)But a lot actually ALL THE FILMS EXEPT ONE I HAVE SEEN I FELT WAS A WASTE AND THAT INCLUDES MAN OF STEEL(a fantastice or good film to a lot). the only film that stood out and worked brilliantly in 3d for me was star trek into darkness, excellent job.

      But there’s another aspect I don’t like from 3d movies. when watching 2d my brain seems to absorb all the information around me like back drops ect, without distracting myself from the dialogue and actor(ess) that is speaking it. 3d often takes my focus of those moments and I find myself missing part of the film.
      So I would be happy for 3d in cinemas to disappear, keep it for the imax. And plse if your taunting a list for people to look at in 3d as the champions, might I suggest you take the great film of man of steel off your books, its not even in the realm of good 3d just a after thought. eg 11/35 in table for 3d measuring compared to star treks 34/35.
      Sorry to be abrupt but im just telling you how it is, and that’s not just my perspective.

      I have no idea about your other choices as I haven’t seen them. But to be honest once I saw man of steel on your list I kinda ignored the rest of your recomandations though everyone should watch man of steel cause its a good film, I personally found it excellent and not because it was in 3d.

      • I agree with the fact that MOST films are simply a waste of time in 3D. Not sure if they simply skimp on the tech and just overcharge for the depth aspect or what but when 3D comes to mind I want to see screen popping effects. Things that jump off of the screen occasionally that make you want to touch, grab or move from them! I have not seen Star Trek but have seen many, many movies in 3D and the most notable one’s for visual and screen popping effects were Beowulf (actually ONLY like it in 3D), Avatar and UP. In that order. The rest have been terrible. ESPECIALLY non-CGI movies. I remember watching an underwater adventure flick in IMAX where the entire film surrounded you and engulfed you. Sea weeds were literally floating around you. Most amazing 3D experience of my life and that is what I though Hollywood would do with their films. BOY was I wrong. They market as so but overcharge for depth alone. No more 3D movies for me unless it’s CGI and has great 3D reviews.

  7. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but some things are not opinions. Below I have made a few comments on common misconceptions and false statements:
    1: Many on here say that Native 3d is better than converted. This is not true due to many reasons. Look it up. Not just the cost, but stereo artifacting is increased by a large margin when filming in 3d due to rigs, etc. And while you do that, look for the post compositing needed for native 3d film which had rigging, greenscreened backgrounds or other post compositing because of it being filmed in 3d.
    2: 3D is bad for film. People said this about sound and color and digital vfx. People also said film could never reproduce what a stage performance was. How far we have come. 3d gets us even closer.
    3: 3D adds nothing to a film. Actually, viewing film in stereo stimulates parts of your brain into thinking what you are watching is more real than 2D. As long as the film’s stereo resembles “real” life stereo, your brain is more engaged in what you are seeing.
    4: Converted 3D is fake. All film 3D is “fake”. It’s an illusion or trick to make you think something has volume and depth but is never “real” including native 3D. It doesn’t make it bad. All visual effects, whether practical or CG, are illusions to make you think it’s real. That increases the drama and spectacle of the film. Imagine The Thing with no Thing Or Alien with no matte paintings!
    5: It’s dumb and people hate it. This is simply not true. Many like it, they just aren’t vehemently against anything in 2D which is why we don’t hear from them.

    People don’t like things that are different. 3D is new and different, so people don’t like it.

    There’s a lot of talk in here and most of you have no clue about what your talking about. It really is a shame that something that can add so much more to our beloved films is slandered by so much ignorance.

    Give peace a chance! Give 3D a chance!

    See these films in 3D: Life of Pi; Top Gun; Man of Steel; anything Pixar. There are more, but as an advocate for 3D films these are my suggestions.

    • I agree with some of what you say. “The Hobbit” looked great in 3D, and parts of all the movies you listed looked great, (anything from Pixar is pure art), but I don’t get past the jumbling that occurs during action shots when the camera is all over the place. 3D matching of such scenes must be a nightmare, and the messy evidence is proof.

    • and D matey why call people ignorent and then post this.

      1: Many on here say that Native 3d is better than converted. This is not true due to many reasons. Look it up. Not just the cost, but stereo artifacting is increased by a large margin when filming in 3d due to rigs, etc. And while you do that, look for the post compositing needed for native 3d film which had rigging, greenscreened backgrounds or other post compositing because of it being filmed in 3d.

      as a viewer I am talking like all the viewers about what we get from 3d and most of us are saying the experience is beter when 3d is implemented during the film making process and not post.

      So my question to you is simple why would our personal views on what we see as our preference in 3d options have anything what so ever to do with the fact it harder for film makers to made a 3d film so they post it.

      Sorry if its harder for film makers but it doesn’t change my opinion and many others that post 3d is rubbish. so really narrative in a lot of peoples opinion wins out and I’ve talked to alot of peeps and read google stuff, and it seems to be a popular attitude.

      So rather than making a statement like : There’s a lot of talk in here and most of you have no clue about what your talking about. It really is a shame that something that can add so much more to our beloved films is slandered by so much ignorance.

      maybe you could give peace a chance and let people have their opinions. After all they go watch THE FILMS TOO

  8. I’ve seen the last couple of block-busters in 3D, and 3D IMAX. The best part of the ’3D IMAX Experience’ is the intro to the IMAX experience; it’s a great ride, but the movies haven’t generally lived up to that boosterism at the front — action scenes get blurry and the effect seems to disappear. I had originally planned to see “Man of Steel” in 3D IMAX, but now that I know that it’s all post-production 3D that’s not happening. Luckily the multi-screen down the street is showing it in all formats.

  9. I went to my local Cinema today to see Man of Steel and chose to watch it in 3D Imax option. The film itself was great but the 3D experience was the worst I had ever had. There was simply no depth to the visuals at all. On leaving the Auditorium I complained about the experience on on paying almost an extra £5 per ticket for the three of us. The staff told me that the film was screened as the Studios had instructed. I asked them what the difference was between the 2D, 3D and 3D IMAX screen options were and if Man of Steel was a genuine 3D film or one that had been up converted afterwards and no-one in the cinema could answer that. Similarly I asked if there was any industry standard like a certificate or something to let viewers know if the film they were watching was filmed in 3D or converted afterwards as paying customers should have a right to an informed choice. The cinema gave me 3 free tickets due to my dissatisfaction which I appreciate, but I am still concerned that I will easily make this mistake again only to see visuals that my TV at home can better, and that is not something I am happy to be charged a premium for.

    • thk you. I too was wondering about the certification on 3d. So far my experience in 3d is limited but it all seems to be about 2 things from my point of view. First I sit close to screen in a 3d film and it worked incredibly for star trek into darkness, it didn’t for man of steel. Second seems to me that films made in 3d as they are filming work well and post ones don’t. Either way I goggled this site

      http://www.cinemablend.com

      I used the films I had watched to see if this was a good tool to use. and so far its brilliant. It marks 3d out of 35. ps star trek got 34 and man of steel got 11, im personally gona watch a film in 3d only if its 25 and above and see how that goes cause all the other films I watched in 3d were crap 3d and when I checked this site all were pretty much 11 lol
      crap 3d doesn’t mean its a bad film its just my way of expressing the 3d element

      • JUST found out that star trek into darkness was post 3d and that was brilliantly done, so im guessing its just a lot of films are done badly in 3d or the cinemas saving money on the bulb costs. great.

    • Simply wait like I did. Now that I know it was converted and not so good in 3D I will be taking my wife to see it in 2D tonight. I have started doing this with all the recent 3D blockbusters. Just have been burnt one too many times on overcharged 3D tickets!

  10. The footage, which is screening before Imax showings of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey from today, is in post-produced 3D, which used to be considered infinitely inferior to that which had been shot in stereoscope. Abrams told a select group of journalists afterwards via video link from LA that Star Trek into Darkness would break new ground for its use of the format.

    “3D was something that I was frankly not a big fan of to begin with, but knowing that we were going to be shooting this movie in 3D we thought we’d go ahead and see how it went,” he said. “And the truth is that I’ve actually been having a lot of fun with it. When we shot the movie I couldn’t help but be thinking about certain shots working in certain ways, sequences … how they might play in 3D. We shot the movie with anamorphic lenses, which you can’t do in native 3D, and converted it, which is actually incredible because there’s an amazing amount of freedom with 3D in post. There’s this myth that it only looks good if you shoot in 3D but we have done a bunch of things that have never been done before and used techniques that have not been seen. A lot of the film is shot in Imax, including many of the space scenes, and then converted to 3D, which is a first.”

    jj adrrams and he would know so its just that 3d has been bad for me till this film so wanted to share it with you all

  11. My first 3D experience was Friday 13 3D. Like the Terminator show at Universal Studios, it used the tricks I like about 3D, namely objects floating out of the screen inches from my face. But almost no 3D movies made now do this, especially Hugo and other artsy director features that are so enamored by the process. I saw the Masters golf tournament in 3D on my home theater, and it was cool. Guess I’ll skip the 3D movies that are “fake”, although I’d love to see Yellow Submarine tricked out in 3D (the original onloy).

  12. Thank you for such a valuable reference. My math came up differently though. I saw 30/35 for Star Trek and 19/35 for Man of Steel. It wasn’t long ago that we had to bear Beowulf and A Christmas Carol, which had horrible CGI 3D. The first three movies I saw this year were Oblivion, Ironman 3 and Star Trek, all in IMAX 3D. Wow, welcome to the 21st century. Now, I fear Man of Steel will ruin things for me. I really wish there was an IMAX without 3D option for these types of movies. I’m leaning toward seeing Man of Steel on regular screen. At 2:30 in the afternoon it’s $16 for two versus the $35 for IMAX tickets. That price differential makes the 3D an expensive gamble. Those other movies I saw though were really made for IMAX 3D.

    • Germain…

      There IS a 2D IMAX option for “Man of Steel” in theaters. Î know this for a fact because the second of the three times I’ve seen the film so far was indeed in 2D IMAX. Maybe, the area where you live simply is too small or out of the way to offer the option…?

    • I saw the 2D IMAX. I have to say, it looked rather muddy; the muted color palette didn’t help. I’ve heard that the non-IMAX looked better. It wasn’t SHOT in IMAX, was it?

  13. A TOTAL DISGRACE !!!! Horrible 3d a waste of time and money. A technical FLOP!!!!

  14. I have been waiting for the 2D screening as the local, and only cinema within 170km is playing it 3D! What the F is happening to film?

    Will have no choice but to wait for the torrent then and add to the problem of slowing cinema sales.

  15. 3D adds Depth…I was amazed by the 3D effect in Superman Returns at IMAX when the plane scene took place and the pen nearly flew by my face and could almost grab it…now that was REAL REAL 3D…and those were the days when you had to be told to put on and take off the glasses for certain scenes…So with Man of Steel there was no “eye popping” moments and I dont really care for them…I guess I seen so much 3D that it doesnt really matter anymore…3D for me adds depth and makes the film and the world in it more “real”…I dont know what people are b#tching about 3D is pretty cool and I am a little confused as to why the author put in the red and green 3D as a pic and not a Side by Side…its like he has not really seen a movie in 3D?

    So if you are going to experience 3D DO IT IN AN IMAX THEATER…NOT your local cinema lol…

    Now I want more than 3D…I want 4D(?) and add the depth behind me as well…that will probably be the next thing.