It will be good once 3d is like any other aspect of film, and you don't think about it — meaning no headgear and no extra ticket price — but that's likely coming in the next few years. The high-priced novelty downturn is because people are accustomed to it and don't want to pay the extra dough — imagine if you had to pay more to see a movie in color? But the interest is still high if audiences here the film is a good one, so once the technology becomes passive, it will simply become normalized.

In the meantime, I just hate having to weather the people who hate 3d, who are radically vocal about it. I wish i had the choice to not experience them, like they have the choice to not see 3d films. It seems an utterly bizarre attitude to take to say "I don't like it, so I want you not to have it," but even worse, in terms of film, to think that a technology has anything to do with quality.

" The 3D, easily dismissible elsewhere, is intrinsic to the movie's success…" couldn't this be said for the black and white in 'The Naked City'? Or the sound in 'Amadeus'? Or the color in 'Days of Heaven'? This article seems to be saying "ah, well at least 3d is good for something" — even while saying it's great for 'Gravity;' but we should discount that for some reason as an anomaly — instead of saying "wow, when you make a movie well, 3d can actually enhance the experience, no matter what kind of movie it is." Maybe bad 3d films are bad because they are bad films, eh?

Implying we should essentially stop making 3d films, or at least only use them in certain ride-film ways, because so many 3d films are bad….this is the same as saying we should stop making movies because their are so many lousy ones. Clearly it's something about the camera technology that prevents people from writing well. Except for The Godfather, of course, it's obviously all a sham.