I don't have a problem with the idea of 3D, per se, but its implementation has made watching films in a theatre very frustrating and uncomfortable.

First is that the technology is just plain uncomfortable. The glasses feel bad, and my eyes hurt after a while.

Second is that filmmakers seem to have no clue how stereoscopic depth perception actually works. Objects only have perceptible parallax out to a couple dozen feet. Beyond that, depth is perceived purely by other means. But 3D movies keep applying parallax to objects much farther away. All this does is make them look closer and therefore smaller. The worst example I saw of this was an IMAX film at the Smithsonian about the development of the Boeing 777. There was a scene of a distant 777 in flight which popped the plane out of the screen. The result was that this 100-ton building-sized machine looked like a child's toy.

If the technology can be improved so it doesn't hurt, and if filmmakers can figure out how to use it without it looking utterly stupid, I'll give it another shot. Until then, I'm sticking with 2D.

Some 3D movies are great, like Avatar that actually shot things using 3D cameras. In other movies, like Captain America, they add the 3D in post and it looks like garbage. I appreciate a 3D movie done well, but too many are half-assed.

The real problem for me is if I can't see it in IMAX I'd rather see a film in not-3D but because the theaters have a hefty 3D surcharge, they're not interested in running the 2D version. I'm paying a ridiculous tax for something I don't even want, and I have no options other than going way out of my way to avoid it.

Maybe you like everything in 3D. That's fine. There are a lot of people that don't care for it and yet are forced into paying for it for lack of options.

Funnily nobody watches movies in 3d anymore I think? Looks like it was bust a fad.

For a while, it was really hard to go to the theater. Everything interesting was only in 3D. I didn't want to pay more for an experience I liked less than the previous status quo.

Other than that, they may have seen a Pixar movie or Hugo in true 3-D. Or the Transformers one where they rampage through Chicago.

Otherwise, it has all been post-processed fake-3-D crap that unsurprisingly turned audiences off.

Also there's a misconception that 3-D is only good for spectacular movies. Hugo showed otherwise, and anyone who has experience taking 3-D pictures knows that the best ones are often indoor scenes of dinner tables or rooms or normal objects, or water.

Digital projectors allow for super-sharp images, in combination with a short depth-of-field (for cool bokehs) it's all you need for 3D effects without giving you nausea, not to mention the images are pseudo-3D at best. To make matters worse, I went to the latest Pirates of the Caribbean and the 2D option wasn't available.

To paraphrase other people - 3D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension; and it's getting shoved on people's throats, even if they don't like it.

While I agree with this, I've to say I generally prefer 3D versions of the movies for that extra oomph. There is no particular reason left to visit theaters otherwise. Especially it's just super cool on IMAX (I mean "real" IMAX). Movies like Space Station 3D would miss out on too much fun without being 3D.

I saw Tron in 3D and suffered very mild side effects -- facial tension and a headache that went away after a few glasses of wine. The 3D effects weren't enough to make even those mild side effects worth it. I'm not even sure the 3D effects were a net plus for the experience without considering the side effects. Add a 40% premium on the ticket price, and it was a great deal for the theater and a lousy deal for me.

Until the technology changes fundamentally, I'm starting to think 3D movies are like heroin: we'll see a periodic resurgence and decline as the lessons fade away with one generation and are relearned by the next.

For me, 3D does nothing to get more immersed into the story. Frankly most of the 3D movies suck. Weak plots sprinkled with in your face 3D effects. Booooring.

It is about the plot and the acting. The content, not the form. Look at Hitchcocks movies. Would adding 3D do anything for them? Look at Jim Jarmushs movies or at "Lost in translation", would adding 3D do anything for those? Would adding VR do anything for those? I don't think so.

In the end it is about content. Second life and "there" was all the hype around 2005 but the hype wore off. Maybe it is time for 3rd life with the OR and the myo armband now. I think it depends on whether there is something in there that makes it worth while to come back after the initial "whoa this is awesome, wow" effect wears off.

For my own part, I'd love to see a VR based construction application like Sketchup where you are IN the model and build something with gestures. I'm pretty sure that would fly with the maker possy.

It is a serious problem for the 3-d cinema as it reinforces the multiple-screen business model. Having 3-d and 2-d versions of the same film in the same theater with a $3 higher ticket price on the first one appeals to the short-term greed of the exhibitor but more importantly it creates a perception of greed on the part of the moviegoer. Look closer and you realize though that showing the same movie on two screens tends to be a money loser.

One can imagine an alternate world where all movies are produced and exhibited in 3-d, where moviegoers have learned to be enthusiastic about 3-d (often it is striking in movies that are not special-effects focused), where production in 3-d is normalized, and people have a reason to go out to the cinema.

Stereoblindness, however, kills that dream and leaves us in the present where 3-d is perceived as a greedy gimmick.

The best quote for me in this article comes at the end: "[...] if the film story has really gripped an audience they are "in" the picture in a kind of dreamlike 'spaceless' space. So a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with."

This seems exactly right to me. A captivating film already sucks you in. 3D just doesn't improve upon that for me.

This discussion shouldn't be about 3D, it should be about motion pictures more closely approaching the experience of reality. Sure, 3D technologies today are kind of crappy, but it's part of the technological evolution process. Eventually, we're going to have movies that feel so real you can't tell the difference between the movie and reality. That is the goal. Fake 3D is just the first step, I think.

(When the first motion pictures were displayed for audiences on large screens, they also caused nausea and dizziness. In some theaters where the images projected were exceptionally large, people were even provided with vomit bags like on early airplanes. The technology improved and overcame these drawbacks.)