I saw Coraline in 3D and it did look good - but it was a case of gilding the lily rather than being a film made by the 3D. I was concentrating on the story and the fact it was in 3D was an afterthought.

I currently see it as a gimmick to make the cinema experience provide something extra to the DVD. As much as technology's moved on since the more hokey 3D efforts of a few decades ago merely highlighted the cardboard sets and papier mache, I'm wondering if it's a coincidence that this convergence of tech and new ways of viewing has happened at a point when cinema was trying to cram more people in and worried about losing ground to the home market.

After all, it's amazing what you can obfuscate with a few flashy graphics - as James Cameron's income for this year attests, even if his Oscar haul doesn't.

I'll go for 3D when there are no glasses, and it looks naturalistic. Until then, I'm not that excited. A crisp, 35mm film print (or its digital equivalent) doesn't look far from 3D as it is. A good amount of cinematography is spent giving the illusion of depth to a shot.

3D is doubtless going to be the way forward sooner or later. Then we'll all be clamoring for smellivision, as promised by all those old Warner cartoons.