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

Published 2 years 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:


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. well they say it will be in 3D in “select theaters” so hopefully that means it will available in 2d more widely.

  2. God I hate your face, 3D.

  3. I hate 3D it’s just another way for people in movies to get money the only difference is its more annoying, I always see it in 2D and when I do I always think two things 1: I’m saving money and 2: forget you guys who made 3D

    • Hey atleast the guys who first made 3D movies wayyy back in the day gave us some really cool vintage glasses with awesome miss-match lense colors. Great for parties, conversation starters, and a general expression of nerdiness and/or childhood nastalgia everywhere. And have those very same glasses not become a symbol of the vision of the magic of the entire movie going experiance since their inception?

      That statment aside. Modern 3D sucks!!! There’s a reason they decided to stop using it back then and it has in no way changed now. Its always at best a cheap ploy to grab more money from consumers who are being tricked into watching nothing more than a cheap smoke and mirrors trick to make an image seem to rise a few inches from the screen its projected on.

  4. Can someone please kill this 3D trend?

  5. I am going to disagree with you guys. On the one hand I am pleased it will be available in 3D, but at the same time disappointed its going to be a post converted job and not narive. Although post converted is getting better, you will never beat native/real3D. Providing it’s bright enough, 3D adds more atmosphere and just plain thrills to a movie, especially a fantasy one. Just does guys, period. And when the glasses barrier goes in a year or two, you’ll stop complaining

    • Well, my brain and imagination work well enough that I already get all the possible thrills and atmosphere from a 2D image. For me 3D actually takes away thrills from my experience, because it has so many drawbacks. I don’t need it. It hurts my moviegoing experience. It’s a useless and completely unecessary a gimmick to make tickets more expensive. It’s a nuissance. Just is, buddy. Period. 😉

      • in no way are you forced to go see a film in 3d. i have yet to hear of one that was released in 3d only, so until that ever does happen, you can be happy that you have a choice and don’t have to fall prey to those hollywood shenanigans.

        • That’s just the thing: I very often don’t have the choice, because movies are being shown exclusively in 3D in my area. Take Captain America and Thor for example. I would have loved to see them in the theater in 2D, but I wasn’t allowed to. I had to wait for the Blu-ray release. You are still right, though. No one forces me to see a film in 3D. I have the choice to not see it at all, to keep my money and to rent it later on for a very small price.

          Consider yourself lucky that you still have the choice where you live. I don’t.

          • Ha ha “period” again. Now there’s a cool trend.

        • Yeah, I think what the LostWinchester says is probably true – more and more blockbusters are being shown on a majority of 3D screens, which means the chance of seeing a movie on a 2D screen is dwindling. I live in an area that has options for all of the above, but people who live in towns with just one theater – my hometown, for example – will probably not have a choice a lot of the time, short of waiting for the thing to be released on DVD.

          This is one of those things that could backfire on the industry. Last year, ticket sales were already down, despite Avengers making a billion and a number of other movies setting records. Perhaps the big films are still doing their thing, but they’re taking away from the smaller films (not just “small” films, but “smaller” blockbusters, too). People are probably like, “I can’t justify spending insane prices for anything other than the three or four major movies that come out this year.” In that way, I could see an argument for why 3D is financially hurting the industry overall. I mean, I avoid 3D every chance I get, because it’s nearly $20 where I live. It’s insane.

  6. Really? 3D? TDKR sold just fine NOT being in 3D. When will Hollywood learn that 3D doesn’t sell.

    • WTF are you talking about? The Avengers had half its ticket sales in 3D. Likewise for many blockbusters these days. TDK actually suffered for not being in 3D, else it may have broken The Avengers’ box office record.

      • LOL. If 1.1B is suffering I’m sure lots of films would love to suffer like The Dark Knight Rises did.

        • You know exactly what I’m talking about. Because it was a good Batman film made by Nolan it still made tons of money but it’d have made tons more if it had the added ticket sales of 3D.

          3D DOES sell. Stop ramming your head in the wall to induce forced amnesia and deal with the bitter facts.

    • um…when it actually DOES stop selling. until then, it’s hear, probably for awhile, but like i said earlier, you don’t have to see it in 3d. no pressure.

  7. Does nothing for me. Looks like you’re watching a kids cardboard diorama. In no way adds atmosphere or thrills. Just headache.

  8. I usually don’t know if a movies is going to be in 3D or not until I get to the theater. It irks me a little that they felt they needed to make it 3D. That coupled with the utter lack of movie advertising/footage makes me wonder if the movie development isn’t going the way its creators had hoped, and we’re going to wind up with a bit of a disappointing movie. I’ll blame the lack of red underwear.

    • We had a teaser trailer over the summer. We only recently saw a trailer for Iron Man 3 and that’s coming out in May. So I’m not sure what kind of footage/advertising you’re expending this early on.

      • I guess it’s a difference of feel, having just seen Tony Stark off of Avengers this summer, a November trailer for IM3 seemed about right. I guess I wanted more substance from the teaser. It could just be less excitement on my part. I love Superman, but I want him to be done with respect to the property which makes me a little anxcious, and cautious. No red underwear… no kneeling before Zod? /cry

        • I’m not sure how using the “kneel before Zod” line and red briefs makes it respectful to the original property. The best respect is just making something good.

          • And I hope that’s what happens. I’m allowed to have reservations 😛

            • Fair enough!

  9. Dredd was unreal in 3D, and I’m not much of a fan of 3D.

  10. The fact that ” Man Of Steel ” is being released in 3D isn’t really a big deal. A lot of us don’t like 3D. Some 3D is very good. When I saw “Prometheus” in 3D IMAX I was actually impressed. Visually it looked great and the 3d was not over the top. It was subtle yet effective.

    As this article suggests, Zack Snyder’s visual aesthetics are suited towards 3D. MOS would actually be his first film to be released in this format. In June, I think I’d actually like to see this in 3D IMAX. Since Snyder wrapped up principal photography last summer, he and Warner Bros have a lot of time to make sure that the post conversion is done right. Everything about the film, for that matter, benefits due to the fact that they have a lot of time in post to enhance the film.

    Most importantly, MOS will be released in various formats so it would be unfair to say that WB is shoving 3D or even IMAX down our throats (eyes). Anyone who hates 3D can simply choose to see it in standard 2D.

    A lot of purists may not like 3D but it hasn’t gone away ( ever since Cameron re introduced it with Avatar ) and the studios keep on releasing the bigger spectacles in 3D.

    I can live w/out it. It depends on the film and the mood I’m in. I have many friends who will pay the extra money for the experience.

  11. I’m not a hater of 3D (I even have a 3D projector), but I don’t like post-converted 3D, especially when I have to pay more for it. Titanic proved that it can be done well, but you have to really try hard and actually care about it (which James Cameron did), so I still think that most post-converted 3D is really just a cash grab.

    There are way more examples of bad post-converted 3D than good ones. If they really wanted 3D, why couldn’t they have just shot it in 3D? This just screams greed by the studio execs.

    So this will be shown in FAKE 3D and FAKE IMAX. To me that means there’s no point to seeing it in anything other than 2D.

  12. Ive seen a commercial the other day where a fat guy says “You know what they say. Once you go 3d…am I right!?” Biggest face palm ever.

  13. Wouldn’t IMAX lend itself better to this type of film? You know, big action set pieces, big visuals? Do we really need to ‘see’ the third dimension when Superman punches Zod into a building or something? Geez.

  14. I’ll stick to 2D 😉

  15. The only movie that blew me away in 3D was Avatar, since then everything else has just seemed rather pointless, the 3D bubble has burst and as soon as i read ‘to be in 3D’ it makes me lose a little interest, GI Joe is the worst offender for this!

    If I want to see 3D I will go to the theatre and watch a show!

  16. This is excellent news! 3D films are pretty much the only things I’ll still go to the theater to see. The lack of 3D in the last Batman film is exactly why I have still yet to see it! I even skip most of the 3D films in the theater, opting to put my money towards owning the 3D BD to watch at home.

    • Kyle, curious? What benefits do you get from a 3D Movie?

    • well the story was terrible in TDKR so consider it money well saved. but i have to say that NOT going to a movie due to lack of 3d is a bit close-minded.

      • Well.. that’s a boldly incorrect statement. lol.

        • +1 Ignur

        • +2 Ignur

      • I thought the story was amazing.

        • amazing story hhaha lol

  17. I see a movie being post converted to 3D, as opposed to being filmed in 3D since the begining as somewhat of a bad omen.

    Is it the studio that sees the movie as needing to make a sizeable dent in its budget, to counter the prodection cost? Is it saying to us, “We think this movie needs a boost to earn more money?

    To me, 3D is nothing, I see things in 3D everyday of my life, and a 3D Movie actually does nothing for me.

  18. I think choice is fine. I hate 3d, but I respect others liking it and preferring it to be available.

    What I am however PISSED OFF about, is that here in Holland they’re increasingly deciding to only show the 3D version, which is nothing short of unfair imo, as plenty of people not only dislike 3d, but actually aren’t able to accurately see it or experience physical complaints because of it (and yes there are PLENTY of people in that category). Didn’t get to see Avengers or Spider-man in theaters because Disney decided not to release the 2D version in the Netherlands!

    And this is where I start to agree fully with Nolan and Pfister as they’re afraid eventually the choice will vanish. Their fears are valid, as that’s already starting to happen here.

    Absolutely ridiculous.

    • It’s the same thing in Germany. Having the choice between 2D and 3D is becoming more and more rare and I totally agree with you: it’s completely unfair to those who can’t really see 3D (because of eye damage or whatnot) but who still have to pay the premium, and to people who actually get motion sick by 3D. And of course to those who simply don’t like it and who prefer seeing movies in 2D for simple aesthetic/artistic reasons.

      • Sorry to hear that. Might be a European thing. In any case *@&$*$&#^$*#*$ those damn studio’s and everyone who cares to little in their 3D madness to care about people who might be different, have different opinions or actual different needs.

  19. I remember being wowed by the novelty of 3D watching Avatar. But I’ve been burned one too many times now. Tron: Legacy was too dark, Legend of the Guardians had ghosting issues. I’m guessing this was a results of the way my cinema projected the films. In any case, it’s a whole lot of cash to waste on a sub par viewing experience. To give myself the best chance of enjoying Man of Steel, I’ll see it in the traditional format.

  20. I also think the term 3D IMAX is misleading, as it’s impossible. IMAX Camera’s are film. 3D cameras are digital. One of the two will therefore be either just a size-up of normal camera resolution or a post-conversion of 2D material, both imo suck. (Though I’m biased as I think 3D sucks even when it’s “true” 3D. Which is also a misleading term, as your eyes do not look at a 3D movie the same as they do to the real “3D” world. It’ an illusion, and a very, very unnatural one. Nevertheless it’s about choice… And money. Well to the studios it’s probably only about money. Which is why choice will suffer over raving 3D fanboys spending so much money, studio’s will increasingly let 2D films literally out of the picture.)

    • Hahaha hilarious! :-)

  21. I bet this makes Nolan angry, but he’s not the director or studio head and can’t make those kind of choices. :-(

    • Doubt it makes him angry. He actually did a lot of tests with conversions while doing Inception, and he liked the results.

  22. Not a 3D fan. I have yet to see a film in 3D that I feel added value to my experience (and this includes avatar and transformers 3). I’ll be seeing this in IMAX if possible.

    • 2D IMAX, that is!

  23. Not a fan of 3D. Even the ones people say are good 3D didn’t look good to me.

  24. Eww lol

  25. 2D, IMAX. Nuff said.