My comment to this Facebook Status message:
My take: 3-D should be reserved for simulators and amusement park rides. The point of the third visual dimension is to give a sense of interaction and interactive immediacy, which most movies are unsuited for as they (or, the vast majority of them) are not interactive (and attempts at audience interaction haven't been substantially successful).
For example, 3-D would be awesome in a well-done downhill ski simulator, where we'd get an approximation of the experience of whizzing past the trees (and that approximation would be a major point, if not the point of the simulation; it wouldn't be about a story or characters, but about a visual-spatial experience). Other simulators include deep sea diving, mountain climbings, and visiting impressive locations (real and fictional; imagine a 3-D tour of Minas Tirith).
I have two 3-D experiences that stand out in my memory: seeing Avatar last year and taking the Spiderman ride at Islands of Adventure in Orlando. While Avatar's 3-D was cute (though it distracted me from the story...which I might be thankful for), the 3-D in the ride strikes me still as a far more impressive experience. When the Green Goblin threw a fireball at the audience, we got the visual experience of fire coming against us (which was supported by a smaller, though warming fireball for the heat effect).
***
As a side-note, I wonder when we'll have the first 3-D porno, which seems slightly more in line with the simulation experience rather than the narrative experience.
