‘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. Eh pretty sure jl is gonna be 3d too

  2. WB execs need to be replaced. How many films is this so far that they’ve delayed or decided at the last moment to post convert to stuff their pockets?

  3. The story in The Dark Knight Rises was amazing.

  4. When will they ever learn that post converted 3D more times than not,looks like trash.

  5. When will they get through their thick heads. NO ONE LIKES OR WANTS 3D

    • But thats just it. The younger crowd flocks to see 3D! It blows my mind too but the fact is they keep converting because people keep buying the tickets! I have a friend that works for the local movie theater and he says adults go to 2D but kids go with 3D most of the time.

      • It’s not just the younger kids. It’s pretty much everyone. Those of us that care enough about movies to do things like check websites like SR daily and post are informed and have higher standards (but we are a minority by a large margin).

        The people that will go see this in 3D are the people that probably don’t even know a new Superman is coming out. To them, it’s an up charge so it must be better. In my life, that includes my ex-wife and her entire family, my ex-girlfriend, 80% of my friends, my aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews and co-workers. Especially my parents. My Dad still thinks there isn’t a difference between DVD and Blu-Ray. But if a movie is available in 3D, he will he it in 3D EVERY TIME. I know maybe 3 people that know to avoid certain 3D. So it will keep making money, which means they will keep post converting.

        • Sad but true. I see 3D films now and again, but as long as I have the choice to see it in 2D (especially with post-converted films) then I’ll be happy. Let those people waste their money if they want.

          The only problem is when people see a badly post-converted movie and think that ones that are shot in 3D will be like that also.

  6. I saw The Avengers in 3D on my second viewing. It was not bad but still it wasnt worth the extra money. I will not be fooled again. For post conversion movies I am sticking to 2D.

  7. 3-D Conversions and superhero movies do not mix!

  8. I blame depth perception. It’s all his bloody fault, tricking us into living our lives in 3 dimensions without caring whether we want to live in 3D or not. I’d be quite happy living my life in 2D. Spilling my pint when I grab it because I can’t tell how far away it is, and why do you think cars have bumpers?! It’s not so you can stop at a polite distance from your fellow motorists I can tell you that.


  9. No, I’m not shocked. In the film industry, if money can be made it will be. Having said that, I’ll stick with 2D. If films aren’t shot in 3D the way that Avatar and Hugo were, then I’m not paying extra for it.

    • Funny you mention Hugo. Because at least an 30mins of that film was post converted….

  10. Not convinced with that.A movie not originally made in 3D shouldn’t be turned into it only for money.

  11. I have to admit, the lure of seeing something as big as Superman on the big screen in 3D is strong, but having seen Avengers in IMAX 3D (which was post converted) I can say that I probably won’t be dishing out the few extra bucks to see it. I’ll stick to 2D, and if I feel that it may enhance the viewing experience, I may go see it a second time in 3D. (If I even have the funds to do so)

  12. this is gonna be a big big movie…
    looking forward to it

  13. 3D Conversion..? :(

  14. I really think that THIS film will flop! Changing Superman’s character is just plain wrong!! And, I thought the last Batman movie Nolan made stunk like crap!

    • WHERE did you get the idea that anyone was changing Superman’s character?

      Oh, and for my part, I found “The Dark Knight Rises” to be brilliant. To each, his own…

  15. I HATE 3D !!!
    it dims the color of the surroundings…

  16. I love these sites that allow me to comment without having to register so I can inform you that the 3D in this film is going to be amazing. In case you are wondering who I am, I am one of the artists currently working on Man of Steel. One thing I have to say to the 3D ranters is that, yes, you are correct in the fact that most 3D post conversion does suck. I recently just saw Jurassic Park in 3D and walked out of the theater to request my money back. But even when there are a lot of those types of films out there, there is also the one diamond in the rough.

    As we wrap up Man of Steel in the next couple of weeks, a lot of us are proud to say, that this is one of the benchmark films that puts Post converted 3D back on the map and we know you are all going to love it. I would recommend seeing it in 3D even if you are a 2D fan. The reason is simple, the type of 3D we have been working on is the type that adds to the story and viewing experience. The quality control of our studio (which will not be named until after the release) is so high that we had to turn down other projects put all of our focus on this one.

    A little bit of education…
    3D post conversion is DEFINITELY the way to go over native shot 3D, especially in heavy action films. Shooting in stereo causes a lot of problems on all ends from production to post production. Some of you say that the studios decide to do 3D last minute, but that is not how it works as the film has to be budgeted for it from the very beginning as it costs millions of dollars to do so. With that said, the reason they choose post conversion is due to the fact that they are free to move the camera as they please, and in the end, the director himself gets to change the look of the 3D as he pleases. I know most of you trust Zack Snyder, and I know most of you trust Christopher Nolan. Well, trust their eyes, because they are the ones giving us the most feedback on what they want, and we want nothing more than to produce the BEST 3D experience possible for what could be the best film of the year. I hope you will all go see it in 3D. I promise you that it will not disappoint.

    • do you work at Legend or one of their outsource companies?

    • 3-D is not suited well for action scenes. Traditional editing suffers also a lot. Most of the Action in GI Joe was ruined by 3D. It was a headache. I’m going to avoid any 3D at all costs, except for documentaries maybe.

    • I just saw the 3D trailer in front of The Great Gatsby, and it was stunningly bad. Everything was in obvious layers. It was immediately followed by a 3D trailer for Alfonso Cuaron’s Gravity, and that looked great.

      Furthermore, the 3D conversion of Jurassic Park, at least at an IMAX theater, was terrific.

  17. Having just watched Jurassic Park in post-produced 3D I have to say I really enjoyed it despite the unprofessional-ism with the quality. That being said, I’ve seen some superb quality 3D which has been post converted.

    Whether you’re a 2D or 3D fan yourself, it’s certainly worth seeing Man of Steel in 3D to really appreciated what modern technology can do.

  18. “@Anonymous Converter
    In case you are wondering who I am, I am one of the artists currently working on Man of Steel. One thing I have to say to the 3D ranters is that, yes, you are correct in the fact that most 3D post conversion does suck. I recently just saw Jurassic Park in 3D and walked out of the theater to request my money back.”

    LOL, that so funny “expert studio converter opinion” critic the only good converted 2D movie of all the time, STEREO D studio, which are also converted TITANIC in 3D for James Cameron, so let me explain what a good State-of-the-art 3D conversion mean ! this are apply only for TITANC 3D and JURASSIC PARK 3D !

    In the case of Jurassic Park 3D Universal got the point of 3D and spent a ton of time and money on making it happen. Universal had a team of 700 artists working on converting Jurassic Park to 3D according to the Telegraph. These 700 artists worked for 9 months with a budget of $10 million converting Jurassic Park into 3D and the results are spectacular if you listen to the fans !

    TITANIC in 3D and now JURASSIC PARK in 3D, are the best at date 2D to 3D converted movies, the results are so good than is closer to Native 3D with EXTREME DEPTH PERCEPTION closer to what it expected if this movies are shut in NATIVE 3D, but only for one reason: Because their working for it happen, 400 artists for Titanic 3D and 700 artists for Jurassic Park 3D, converted manually all frames, one by one more than 200.000 frames of the entire movie, this manually converted take a lot of time for build Depth Map for each scene, conversion take 1 year long for each movie ! so the 3D depth are spectacular !

    Now let me just have little fun with your comment:
    “As we wrap up Man of Steel in the next couple of weeks, the quality control of our studio (which will not be named until after the release) is so high that we had to turn down other projects put all of our focus on this one.”

    if Man of Steel will be equal to Iron Man 3 bad automatically converted in 3D without build any Depth Map information before converted to 3D, the 3D conversion results will be useless without any depth. perception results, because for successfully convert a Mono 2D to Stereo 3D, you need to create a Depth Map information for the other missing eye which don’t exist on original 2D mono version of the movie. If you watch a “pseudo 3D” movie on cinema and have no Depth perception is because is a FAKE 3D converted from 2D, and bad converted because the missing of depth. perception mean missing of stereo for vision ! and Iron Man 3 in 3D have a serious miss of stereo depth. effect perception for the Fans !

    • do you work at Legend or one of their outsource companies?

  19. Post-conversion is a terrible thing for cinema. To truly experience 3D, the material must be filmed using 3D equipment. Otherwise it isn’t truly immersive. I’ll admit I’ve been to plenty of these post-converted 3D films at the cinema and it’s always been a disappointment. I always leave the theatre wishing I hadn’t wasted the extra £2-£3 it cost. And also having to watch the picture slightly dimmed through the use of the 3D glasses.

    I think I’m going to avoid 3D from now on. Sorry Hollywood, but unless you spend the money filming it in 3D, I’m going to stick with 2D.

    • 3D (post-conversion or not) does not RUIN a freaking 2-D movie.

      Both 2-D AND 3-D can be bad. But MANY 3-D movies ENHANCE 2-D. Especially as of late. So get used to it, because it’s only going to get better.

      And Man of Steel in 3-D? BRING IT ON.

  20. I love 3D. I’m a huge supporter of it, but only when its done right do I think it’s worth it. Post converting, no matter how accurate it is, ruins 3D. Shooting 3D is an art in itself. Just because a director is visually a great 2D director, doesn’t mean he knows how to visually utilize a 3rd plane. Similar to a videogames creating the 1st 3D worlds, designers needed to learn how to incorporate that extra content into the game. Many people are comparing 3D to the colorizing of film, but its not. Taking black and white to color was easy, look at the real world and paint on the appropriate color. That can be done with 3D and it will just be a simple visual tweak, but directors who utilize it to emerse us more into a film will need talent and must film in 3D. Another issue is in real life I can focus on objects in the background, or where ever I choose to focus, and see with clarity. 3D is supposed to give us a real life visual, but you can only look at what the camera has been focused on. This causes us to see an image between 2D and 3D. I noticed watching The Hobbit in HFR that was eliminated. Everything on screen was in focus, thus creating the first real 3D experience I feel I’ve had. Until, the studios and talent utilize 3D appropriately people will be against it. Its unfortunate its about money more than experience, but thankfully directors like Cameron and Jackson truly understand what this format can bring. Which brings the question, are the 3D detractors (directors as Nolan et all and movie going public) against inferior/bad/untrue 3D or against all 3D even when executed in the truest format technology and creativity will allow?

  21. I LIKE 3D. James Cameron and Avatar showed how great 3D can be. the only problem is, these execs, always wanting to save more money, ruined 3D. this post conversion crap sucks, its not even worth seeing in 3D at that point. The average person doesnt know whats done in post or filmed in 3D so they get themselves ripped off and it ruins 3D as an option.

    3D has the potential to really upgrade the viewing experience, but post conversion is a way to see 3D go away altogether because people dont feel its worth the money.

  22. Gee, I don’t think I’m going to spend an extra 2 dollars on a 3-D movie ticket because it’s really not worth the money seeing something more akin to reality.

    Now excuse me while I go spend 40 dollars on a carton of cigarettes, or go to Bingo. Thanks!

  23. I would see it in IMAX 2D. This superman costume is darker than previous ones and the 3D will darken it even more. I think the bright colors of 2D will add a lot to the film in Smallville and elsewhere. The Krypton scenes look really dark as well.

    The Imax 2D should have more of the original film in it’s aspect ratio than the standard release.

  24. “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.”

    Well in most cases in my experience the movie theatres show many more screenings of a movie in 3D than the 2D equivalent, giving us no option but to see the 3D version. So maybe part of the reason so many people are paying in droves is that they don’t have the option of a 2D screening? I just looked up my local IMAX and they’re showing THREE screenings of MoS in 2D, versus 70-odd screenings of the 3D version over 3 weeks. I’d rather watch in 2D but will likely have no choice but to watch in 3D.

    I’ve never found 3D to add much to a movie for me (there’s the qualifier – that’s just my personal taste), though I liked the depth of field in Prometheus. Particularly if a movie is shot with vivid colours (eg Avatar) I’d rather get the visual impact of the colour without a tinted film in front of my eyes dulling the image.

  25. Its simple. If your going to release a 3D film then film it in 3D.

    All the post produced films I’ve seen have been rubbish.

    If there is demand for 3D films then make them for sure, but don’t rip people off with blurry rubbish.

  26. 3D is painfully boring and just doesn’t let you connect with the movie or the characters due to that dumbass glass on your eyes. I can’t thank Nolan enough for not taking the 3D route for Batman series. I’ll prefer 2D over 3D anyday and will watch MOS in 2D even if I have to drive 100 miles to find a theatre that’s playing it in 2D since all big names around will release it in 3D just to fill their pockets a wee bit more. 3D sucks