I don't do "event" movies in the theater, so no. Plus I'd avoid all movies not filmed fully in 3D to begin with, which cuts them down even further. Maybe I'll be interested when I get a capable tv, but for the time being meh.

It depends on the film. If it's something like Thor, where the Rainbow bridge is spectacular, then, yes, 3D.

But for a film that has only been marketed in 3D to capitalize on the craze... no.

I don't think I saw the last Harry Potter film (#8 - The Conclusion) in 3D cause it didn't need it.

95% of the time, I will always pick the 2D version. The extra charge annoys me. And, in most cases, it is not even justified/worth it. After Avatar, studios got greedy and thought that adding 3D to everything is a great way to increase $. Especially for the films where the 3D is just added in post, it's such a waste. A few films can justify it, but I generally prefer the 2D version. But if you're in a smaller city, sometimes the 3D version is your only option (lame!). Also, sometimes, if the theatre switches between the two versions, the projector needs to do something when they switch back to 2D or the picture can be too dark (I learned this recently listening to the Doug Loves Movies podcast). If that's the case, apparently you can ask the theatre to fix it.

I've only seen Avatar in the newer 3D, and I was less than impressed. I greatly prefer *real* 3D, where images actually jump out at you instead of contemporary 3D, which adds a limited amount of 3rd dimension, almost always added in post-production.

I'm also very skeptical about how well 3D would work in a home theater unless consumers are willing to pony up for a ginormous TV set for the full home theater experience. It seems like that sort of thing has fallen out of favor in this economy.