Is 3D worth the extra few bucks?
Every 30 years, 3D becomes the future of cinema. It happened in 1952. Then it happened in 1982. And here we are in 2012, and half the tentpoles in your local movie theater come with a pair of bitchin' shades, the promise of things popping out at your face, and a $14 price tag.
The movie exhibitor chains (i.e. Regal) are leaning desperately on 3D for many reasons -- it's an experience that isn't easily replicated at home, and it's an extra few bucks they can tack onto every ticket. The movie studios themselves are hanging on for the same reason. And sometimes, it really does seem to work. Avatar was, by most measures, a great use of the 3D medium. Most folks seemed to like the 3D in the most recent Transformers movie in the few cases where their ears weren't ringing.
But there have been myriad cases where the 3D lands with a resounding... meh. Especially films that weren't shot explicitly with 3D in mind, but had it added in retroactively in post-production. Yes, this is another opportunity to take a shot at The Last Airbender, as if we needed any excuses.
Tell me, folks, do you generally find 3D films worth the extra few bucks at the theater, or do you find yourself avoiding it unless people insist that it's the only way to go?