No need to pay more, you can actually make your own 2d glasses in case you go to watch a 3d movie with someone else. You'll just need two pairs of 3d glasses and switch the polarized filters on them so that you have two pairs of glasses: one with two polarized filters for the left eye and one with two right eye filters.

Yeah but it still blows though. Slightest move of your head to the side and things become blurry, same issues with light and focus as 3D movies.

Best thing IMO is to avoid 3D completely and find those awesome 2D movies playing in AVX theaters.

I highly disagree. Watching a movie at a theater is a much better experience for me then watching it on my tiny (in comparison) TV and sound coming through the crappy TV speakers. Movie theaters are actually starting to do better compared to past years as well. Most people simply cannot watch films at even remotely theater level quality and a lot of the appeal lies in the whole "going out for the night" appeal (much like restaurants). On top of all that you get to see highly anticipated movies months in advance.

As for the price, well, I think that's coming down actually. Every local theater (even nice one's like AMC) have $5 showings during the day, $7.50 showings at night, and $10 showings on weekends. It's really not a terrible price considering.

As for the topic of 3D, I can safely say that I strongly dislike it. Only ever went to one movie with it and I never want to go again. I also would be willing to pay more to watch normal films than 3D one's.

It's obvious we have completely opposite experiences with 3D.
I just hope it's not becoming the norm as I have already tried to explain numerous times that 3D limits artistic expression, the way scenes can be composed/framed and fast editting between scenes. Watching a 3D movie in 2D still carries all these restrictions.

Anyway enjoy it while it lasts, at least the surcharge and ease of digital projection is keeping 3D alive longer then it usually does.
I'm looking forward to 4k mastering to finally get a match and even an upgrade to the old 35mm standard.

$1-$3 more??  I don't know what theaters you are referring to.  But, the AMC theaters in my area charge $10.25 for 2D, $16 for 3D, and $18 for IMAX 3D.  That's more of $6-$8 difference.  When you start multiplying that out, of course they are going to account for higher dollar amounts despite being only a small percentage of overall ticket sales!

Almost every 4K HD TV is a glasses-free 3D TV.

Anyways I hear you are ask for the first 1 to 3 seconds if you want to watch the 3D content in 3D and if you don't respond before it is gone, it will show the 3D in 2D for all 3D TVs & 3D Blu-Ray players, plus you can respond no as well.

Plus you will always have the 2D option in theaters that continues to be play the last few weeks when they no longer show the 3D version, so it has always been like there is 0% 3D movies in theaters because everyone can see the 2D version instead, but 3D screenings for less then 10% of movies will always make up more then 40% of the box office totals because of people who see it as solid as it feels.

This year has around 70 3D movie premieres, and 2014 has around 100 3D movies.

But it seems that independence 2 has been push back to 2015, so I guess the 3D re-release of the first one will be in 2014.

Anyways with 100% of movies being shown in 2D and less then 10% of 2012 movies also being shown in 3D while the 3D screening themselves make up 40% to 60% of box office totals, and with 3D TVs being as common as color TVs became, and with everything electronic getting cheaper with every single year that goes by, and with sales of 2D TVs on a dramatic decline & 3D TVs on a year-on-year increase, it seems 3D is here to stay. Clearly more then most foreigners love 3D and clearly the majority of Americans like 3D.

So if 3D becomes the norm, then just look at it this way:

You will automatically see 3D content in 2D if you don't respond, and you can turn it off on computers & Handheld Consoles that actually get sold (Nintendo 3DS) & so fort.

So 3D becoming the norm doesn't change your life style at all.

But I would suggest you someday see The Great Gatsby in 3D.

I actually enjoy some good 3D effects in movies and liked games on PS3 in 3D although unfortunately my TV suffers bad from Ghosting so I have to limit the level of the depth to being low.
But I only know 3 people who like 3D it's me, my dad and my uncle, pretty much every other person I know and talked about stereoscopic 3D either dislikes it or never goes to 3D movies cause they hate it that much for various reasons.

That's brutal man.

Later this year or during next year they are going to cut the 3D ticket price to equal 2D ticket price because they already took care of their 3D glasses cost and more some. But they also said they are going to increase 2D ticket prices again.

I had in my city a Cineplex Odion (4) & Mann crtiterian 6 & AMC century 7, but then Loews bought Cineplex and then AMC Bought Loews Cineplex Odion, and then AMC bought the local Mann theater and now they have closed it or renovating it (I hope renovation to have more cinemas).

Anyways before 6 pm on weekdays is a mantinee discount, but I travel a little further to go to Rave Theaters where they don't charge that much more, plus they have Mantinee discounts (before 6 pm discounts) 7 days a week, and they do student discounts if you have a student ID (college ID) 7 days a week. My several AMC theaters on the same block only do student discounts on Thursdays.

I basically shave my facial hair so they will ask me for a student ID (which is where I got the idea to use my old college ID), and then I show my old college ID which still looks brand new, and I go before 6 pm for the mantinee discount, so I basically pay $6.00¢ for 3D & $6.50¢ for IMAX subsitute, but it use to be $4.75¢ for 3D & $5.25¢ for XTREME and then later became $5.25¢ for 3D & $5.75¢ for XTREME (IMAX double ganger LOL), and all of this since May 2012.

Im curious to see how sales go, when they drop the price of 3D movies to be the same as 2D movies.

I don't know how much my AMC charges for 3D nor IMAX.

You keep repeating the same things over and over.
I find 3D a fascinating subject so I wanted to post 2 interesting articles about the differences between 2D and 3D viewing.

The first one shows that movies made for 3D should be made differently then made for 2D, and consequently 3D becoming the norm will hurt the 2D experience, and vice versa post process converting 2D to 3D makes bad 3D.

http://3dperfection.blogspot.ca/p/psychology-of-3d.html

Some excerpts:

THE PROBLEM

My biggest objective to the current use of 3D is that movie-makers are still thinking in 2D and still filming using 2D techniques. What they end up with is a 2D movie + depth.

THE SOLUTION

For a 3D movie to work, it has to be conceived from start to finish with 3D in mind. 3D is such a powerful tool (as much as colour, sound or even visiual perception itself) that I feel a whole new approach to movie-making is needed.

1) The 3D depth must be deep, immersive and consistent throughout the movie
2) Every single shot needs to be conceived with 3D in mind with the idea that the audience is the camera and a part of the environment.
3) The 3D camera should be thought of as an invisible character moving within the movie. Therefore it is more important than ever that the camera is seen to be the audience's eyes.
4) The composition of each shot is more important in 3D and there should be an obvious sense of background, middle and foreground so that we remain "within" the movie.
5) Fast MTV style editing has no place in a 3D movie but may be used fleetingly for effect e.g. for flashbacks or if a character is watching a 2D monitor or similar etc.
6) A slow tracking camera that moves within the world, especially going down tunnels or roads would work well in 3D and should be used to good effect.
7)The camera should always make us feel a part of the world, so positioning of the camera and its movement is crucial to make us always feel immersed.
8) The 3D depth must never change. Sudden changes of 3D depth will draw the audience out of the movie. A constant 3D depth will allow the audience to settle within the 3D world and stay within that space throughout the duration of the movie.

CONCLUSION

For 3D movies to be successful in the future, a whole new approach to both making and viewing a 3D movie is needed. For this reason, personally I don't want all future movies to be shot in 3D because 2D movies still have their place and importance. No, instead, 3D movies should be made sparingly and with a totally different approach to that of making a 2D movie. I believe that if a 3D movie is done well and gives the audience a real sense of being immersed in the environment, the audience will be willing to sacrifice certain elements that they are used to in 2D movies...i.e. fast editing between scenes. When making a 2D movie, the 3D element can't just be "added on" as an afterthought, it should be as important an element as the storyline and characters because essentially the audience becomes the 3D camera and we become an invisible character sharing the onscreen space of the world that we are watching. A whole new approach is needed for this to work.



The next one is from the founder of Legend3D, inventor of digital colorization and responsible for many 2D to stereographic 3D conversions. It is fairly technical, very interesting too.

http://bsandrew.blogspot.ca/2012/02/3d-movies-and-primal-brain.html

Conclusion

We know that our highly evolved frontal cortex mediates cognitive functions that normally inhibits or controls the amygdala and consequently evoked emotions.  I contend that our brain’s reaction to a 2D movie is more of a top down cognitive process involving the higher order frontal cortex.  The greater our suspension of disbelief, the more these higher cognitive functions come into play, releasing emotions mediated by the lower order amygdala.  On the other hand, in a 3D movie, emotionally packed visual information more directly affects these lower order emotional areas of the brain in a bottom up fashion, evoking a more primal subconscious response.

I can't say I agree with his further conclusions that 3D heightens the story telling. Maybe that's because of focus / convergence, edge problems, and everything feeling hollow getting in he way. People don't all experience things the same, for some the top down process might work more strongly, and for others the bottom up process.

Anyway there is no reason for the 2D art form to go extinct, or take a minority role, ever.
For now 3D still has too many downsides, for the one upside, feeling you are part of the scene in correctly done 3D.