zombie84 said:

I always get a kick out of hearing complaints about 3D. It reminds me of the newspaper articles from when sound and then colour was invented. Literally, its almost verbatim the same sort of phrasing. Of course, a lot of early sound films had terrible, tinny audio, and some early colour films had poor, gimmicky colour effects. Done right, and done enough times, and you don't think about it as a gimmick because you aren't paying attention to it anymore. As far as 3D goes, most films try to draw attention to the effect, because that is why you are paying the premium price to see it. A lot of early sound and colour films had similar marketing philosophy. Then after a while, everyone was doing it, audiences got used to it, and then peope stopped trying to outdo each other in gimmicks and audiences simultaneously stopped paying conscious attention to it.

Ironically, the situation is now reversed--because people are used to colour and sound, if you do part of movie silent or in black and white, it is seen as being self-consciously stylistic, or maybe even gimmicky or pretentious. I have this sneaking suspicion that this will apply to 2D films ("flat pictures"?) at some point in the distant but not too distant future.

Sound and colour do not require wearing glasses with polarised lenses. Once that can be overcome, I basically agree that 3D has a chance to become de facto rather than de jour.