Depends on quality. AVATAR in 3D was one of my best cinematic experiences ever, I didn't even care about the story, was having so much fun trying to grab stuff out of the air...

PIRAHNA 3D the quality was awful, blurry and not very creative use of it.

I can live without it, especially on films that use it to gloss over a crappy story. Like Avatar

When 3D is truly immersive (and doesn't require glasses that invariably sit askew atop my glasses, reminding me constantly I'm watching a movie), I'll be excited about 3D. 'Til then, give me brighter colors. (And that is a broad stroke, Herzog's Cave seems a wonderful use, taking us someplace we'd otherwise never see, and Avatar certainly made a splash.)

And I have no doubt the technology will evolve. All about immersion.

I can take it or leave it. Most of the time it's a waste. Avatar had some beautiful moments. Thor didn't need it. Neither did the latest Pirates of the Caribbean. In both of the latter cases, 3D tended to make the action scenes unwatchably blurry. Mostly, I'd rather leave it.

I was amazed the first few times I saw it, but am now over it. As a gimmick/selling point, it already feels done-to-death.

I hate it and it gives me a headache. Here's probably why:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html

I already wear glasses... don't need another pair.

Just hope this is a fad and not a trend.

Maybe they should work on smell-o-vision???

I liked Avatar in 3D.

I enjoyed it more in 2D.

I didn't notice how flawless the CGI backgrounds were until I saw Avatar in 2D.

I find 3D to be distracting. The artificial aspect of 3D actually knocks me out of the story more than its 2D counterpart.

The irony is -- Cameron is pushing 3D so hard because he believes its effect to be just the opposite.

Neither.

The problem with 3D is that in real 3D (real life) you can focus on any part of the scene you want.

In theatrical 3D you can still only focus on the thing the director wants you to look at.

Hate it.

http://bo.st/kBFGey

No contest. Hate.

Hate it. I will not see a movie in 3D, even if it's a movie I want to see.

Yeah I gotta' jump on the hate express for this one too. In fact, I don't know ANYone who likes it. Mostly because everyone has been burned by the shoddy quality (Avatar being the exception, not the rule).

What's worse, they are making it tough for folks who prefer the non-3D showings. In seeking out 2D Thor last week, I was relegated to a 10:40pm screening only.

I read somewhere that the real reason the studios are so horny for this crap process is that it deters people filming movies in theaters with their devices and then posting them online. I can certainly see a bit of that logic but still... anyone who professes that 3-D is the magic bullet that will get folks back into the multiplexes is awfully awfully delusional.

Didn't we head down this road before??? "House of Wax," "Creature from the Black Lagoon?" And then in the 80's, "Treasure of the Four Crowns," "Spacehunter," and who can forget that perennial classic, "Metalstorm - The Destruction of Jared-Syn?"

Oy vey.

From Roger Ebert, informative piece on 3D: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/05/the_dying_of_the_light.html

Includes advice on how to ensure best picture in theater, including this: if movie title followed by "D" in listing, digital projector being used. Make sure there's a single versus two stacked beams of light coming from projector window. If two, get them to use proper lens or get your money back.