3D is good when it's meshed with a deliberate style, like in Cave of Forgotten Dreams, Avatar, or Coraline. When it's used to just make the film seem more "real," though, or is pasted on the film later, it fails. 3D is very good when it's used as an element of a whole aesthetic, but is utterly awful when it's used as a substitute for good design.

As for 3D gaming, I'm not really excited by the idea. If a game is good enough, then I stop seeing the graphics after a few minutes. For instance, the original Half Life kind of looks like shit, but the gameplay is compelling enough that I don't care. If someone could make a game where the 3D was integral to gameplay, I'd be interested. But it seems that most developers would just use it as a gimmick.

The filmakers could try to bring back the shaking seats or the smell o meters, or sludges coming out the venues "holes". I guess it could take a little while, but gimmicks like that or others revamped could bring mayor attendance to personal owned theaters me thinks.

Meaning if you use that as a gimmick it would be just like a filler, prolly rendering useless the feature, instead if it`s worked to the point in which takes effect it would be useful like in movies made to be seen in 3-D.

3D is one of those things that I don't know why it exists, but is easy enough to avoid. Much like your continued employment.

2D movies are boring. 3D movies are boring. In the future, when people go to the hypercube multiplex, 4D movies will be boring. We demand fractal dimension movies!

My friend was ready to buy a 50 inch plasma LG for less than $500. We had spent 30 minutes trying different computer formats from the our USB chip and were sold. The sales guy threw in two free 3D glasses. We tried the glasses on with the 3D sales video. We both said "oh man this 3D suck" and forgot we liked the TV and the price and walked out.

We already see in 3D, and all movies use depth of field to produce a 3D image.