Wow, 9 days of debate here! I guess I'll add my .02.
I have nearly 20/20 vision in both eyes for distance viewing. I only wear corrective lenses for reading, but I have very bad depth perception, and always have. I see the real world with much less depth than the average person. The real world is not quite like watching a 2D TV or looking at a 2D photograph for me... because there are other depth queues in the real world. For example, I can tell how far away a car is because there are lots of queues... the lines on the road, the buildings, the telephone poles, the apparent narrowing of the road as it disappears in the distance, etc. But, I couldn't hit a baseball with a bat if my life depended on it. I've managed to hit a baseball exactly ONCE in my life. I made it to 1st base, but the next batter hit a ground ball right to the 2nd baseman.
In my childhood years, I continuously complained that I didn't have very good depth perception. Everyone thought it was just an excuse for my poor performance in just about every sport. In my early 20's, I was finally tested for it. I was correct.
For me, 3D is amazing! When a movie is well made, it allows me to see things like normal people do. It's wonderful.
The key phrase in that sentence is "well made". When a live-action movie is actually filmed with 3D cameras, the 3D effect is usually very good. But when the 3D is computer-simulated in post production (like Alice in Wonderland), it sucks. The people in Alice in Wonderland looked like cardboard cutouts. I hated it. The thing is, the director planned Alice to be 3D from the very start, but chose to do the 3D in post production! Crazy.
I also enjoy fun movies (kids movies, slapstick comedies, scary movies, some adventure films) where things pop out of the screen. But for a serious movie... I prefer not to have things popping out of the screen.
I haven't seen Dredd yet. I saw the first one in the movie theater (2D) and I thought it was crap. It wasn't on-par with many of the other "comic book comes to life" type movies.
The glasses vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. The comfort of the glasses was a high priority for me when I purchased my Samsung PN64D8000. I sat for more than an hour each watching 3D offerings from Sony, Panasonic, and Samsung. The Panasonic glasses were very uncomfortable. The Sony glasses were OK, and the Samsung glasses felt like wearing a pair of sunglasses. I got the TV on sale at the end of 2011, and I also got the dealer to throw in four pairs of glasses. Since then, I've bought three more pairs, used, on e-bay for about $20 each. That gives me enough of the glasses for everyone in the family to watch, plus one guest. I also bought 100 of the batteries on e-bay for $10. When you can get batteries this cheap, the additional cost of the rechargeable glasses doesn't make sense.
I have a friend who bought a passive 3D TV, and it definitely doesn't look as sharp in 3D as my active TV. Sure, he can get the glasses cheap (or steal them from the movie theater), but it's just not as good as active 3D.
My only complaint about 3D is that there isn't enough content, and I can't rent them on NetFlix. It was almost criminal that the biggest blockbuster 3D movie (Avatar) was limited to only be included with the purchase of a high-end Panasonic TV. I refused to pay $90.00 for it on e-bay, so I had to resort to other means.
The interesting thing about Avatar, was that I saw it in a 3D movie theater... and I wasn't impressed. I didn't see the "depth" that everyone was talking about. On my TV, it looks great! I think the movie theater passive glasses must have been defective. Maybe they had two left lenses, or two right lenses in my glasses. When I watched it on my TV and closed one eye, it looked just like what I saw in the movie theater. My wife's glasses must have worked correctly in the movie theater, because she said it looked identical on the TV compared to what she saw in the theater.
All the talk about 4K (UHD) and glasses-free 3D makes me chuckle. I'll believe it when I see glasses-free 3D work for a wide audience. I just don't believe it's going to be possible. There will always be a "sweet spot" where you have to sit... and even then, it won't be the same as 3D with active shutter glasses. I have a glasses-free 3D smartphone, by the way. I've watched The Green Hornet on it in 3D. I prefer my TV.
And... 4K (UHD)... that's just another marketing ploy to get you to go out and buy the shiny new TV. Many of you are complaining about 3D because it was just a gimmick. Well, 4K is even more so, and here's why... I challenge those of you who have a 1080p TV to find (or make) a still 1920x1080 image that has alternating vertical lines of black and white pixels. They need to be exactly one pixel wide. Put the image on your screen, and make sure your TV is set to 1:1 pixel matching (called "Screen Fit" on my Samsung TV). Make sure your video source (computer) also has over-scanning turned off, and that the resolution is set to 1920x1080. Now, stand or sit close enough to your TV to see the individual vertical white and black lines. Back up until the screen appears gray. This is the maximum distance that will allow you to appreciate the full 1080p resolution. If you normally sit any further than approximately HALF of this distance, you will not benefit from 4K (UHD).
I did this test on my 64" TV. The black/white vertical lines blurred into a gray image at 5-6 feet from the screen. So... if you get a 64" 4K (UHD) TV, and you plan to sit 3 feet from the screen, then you should definitely buy a 4K TV. If you plan to sit further away from a TV this same size, then you don't need 4K.