I personally can't stand 3D, unless it's something like Tron Legacy but even then I thought it was a bit unnecessary.

3D works in animation; it gives depth of field that just doesn't exist. In live action, though, we perceive space between the foreground and the background; that's the first step of the suspension of disbelief, basically. By drawing attention to that space, it becomes a gimmick, not an addition to the story. Granted, that's good for gimmicky movies, like the 3D booms of the 50s and 80s, but it's just bad in anything else. Plus, I wear glasses, so I have to constantly adjust the 3D glasses to keep the effect from failing and making me watch the whole thing with double vision.

I hate 3D because around here, I don't even get the freaking 2D option! Oh, I wanted to see that movie, but I'm not paying $4 more to see a bird fly out of a screen or something. I go to theme parks for that. I go to a movie for a story first. And I'm not paying more money because it's shiny!

The 3D optical illusions don't work for me. I really do have only one eye. So whenever I hear "3D is the next big thing in entertainment" I think "F#%@ YOU."

3D apparently cannot work any better than it does now. There was an interesting post about it on Roger Ebert's blog:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html

3D, much like every film making tool, can be good when used well and can be bad when used poorly. This same thing could be said for Post-Conversion 3D.

This is not to say, however, that there's only one method of using 3D. There's a multitude. UP, for example, used it to contrast Carl's slow, dull home life and the wide open world of the jungle. Piranha 3D used it for cheap, fun gags that further solidified the film's tone. Avatar used it to fully immerse the audience in the film's world. All three films had very different goals with their 3D, and all three films succeeded.

When it comes to 3D, I'm not against it in theory.

3D would be fine by me if I didn't get the headaches.

Thats my issue with 3D. I've been told alot that I need to stop bitching like people way back when bitched about sound and then color.

My response is that 3D is the only innovation of film that physically hurts a lot people (sound doesn't count because it CAN hurt, 3D ALWAYS hurts).

I'm interested in the Nintendo 3DS because, if we can actually have 3D without glasses, I don't see any issue with it. Its just the next jump in visual quality, like tape to digital or VHS to DVD; and don't you dare bring up BluRay.

I still cannot see any major difference between DVD and BluRay. Sure, BluRay is better but not THAT much better.

Avatar in 3D, as much as I hated the film and the 3D headache that came along with it, proved to me that 3D is the next jump in visual quality. The problem is that 3D Glasses are giving many people headaches. Now, when you take off the glasses, starring at something thats between clear and blurry for any length of time will cause you discomfort if your lucky or a headache most likely.

So, if someone can make 3D without the headaches and not charge over $10 a ticket, I'll be fine. I don't see much point but I won't bitch about it then.

However, I'll refuse to bring a bottle of advil and enough money to buy a new movie just to see one movie once till the day I die.

Cave of Forgotten Dreams is pretty much the only truly worthwhile film seeing in 3D, now all of you go see it in 3D. Short answer why: it's Werner Herzog documenting an absolutely pristine series of caves that contain the earliest drawings known to man. Not once did the 3D give me eye strain and holy shit for once it's actually put to good use so it really does seem like it's in front of you. Along with Herzog's seductively poetic dialogue, the film is also quite funny, so yeah, do see it.