I think the biggest limitation of 3D, that is not shared by sound or color or other cinema technologies, is that it has limited ability for the director to styl

I think the biggest limitation of 3D, that is not shared by sound or color or other cinema technologies, is that it has limited ability for the director to stylistically alter the scene. It's limited to faithful and accurate reproductions, and that limits its ability to be used for artistic purposes. Color can be used, and more importantly altered, to adjust the audience's perception, by giving characters and scenes psychologically/culturally-loaded color pallets. Smaller and more nimble cameras allow for all sorts of cinematographic shenanigans that subtly manipulate the audience's view by playing with the background while maintaining the foreground. Sound allows an actor another channel to convey emotion, and allowing spoken words instead of text allow for more interactive dialogue, which presents greater options for showing the relationships between characters. Sound also allows for narration, which allows the juxtaposition of exposition and demonstration. The point of all of this, is that all of these technologies give the director additional tools with which to communicate, and using those tools, there are ways in which the cerebral stimulation or emotional impact of the film can be enhanced. Even the most gratuitous of CG effects can be used to good effect, even though 95% of CG is used for bigger and more impressive explosions. E.g., Children of Men makes excellent use of cinematography and CG enhancements, in order to add to the emotional impact of scenes and to add craptons of cultural allusions to the background. By contrast, I don't see how 3D can be used to alter or enhance reality in a way that has meaning. It's largely limited to faithfully reproducing a real or realistic scene. You can make something appear closer or further than it otherwise would... I don't see the use case. This is not to say that it can't be done. I'm not a film maker, and I'm obviously not aware of the full scope of what can be done. Maybe there is some crazy mind-bending case, and I'd love to see it. I love it when technologies are pushed beyond their boundaries to good effect. But I honestly don't think that there are ways to push the envelope of this technology. I think it's limited to realistic reproductions of reality. With that limitation, the film maker cannot use 3D to communicate something that he could not otherwise have communicated. The only thing that additional mechanical accuracy adds is "immersion," which isn't really useful outside of escapist fiction. I, personally, am not very excited about the idea of more effective escapist fiction. Obviously, all new technical achievements in film lend themselves to bigger better escapist fiction, and often get invented for those use cases first. I have no problem with bigger better escapist fiction because I can just choose not to watch it. But, unlike other technical advancements in cinema, I don't think 3D has use outside of escapist fiction, which to me, makes it a rather lackluster achievement. It advances the craft of filmmaking without advancing the art. [e]: I don't believe that 3D is entirely without potential. I'm outlining why I'm skeptical.