You don't get it. Your situation must be very specific, as most megaplexes I know of have showings in 2D alongside the 3D option. The crowd who love the kind of movies they make in 3D now generally prefers to see them in 3D theaters if they can. It's even revitalized the declining theater business a bit, after several very lean years. In several areas, theaters were dying.

If people en masse truly preferred 2D showings as you seem to think, the megaplexes would have problems selling those tickets, would tell the studios to stuff it and would favour 2D showings. A great deal of people don't like or don't care for 3D like you, but most appears not to be regular theater attendees, or don't see many blockbusters in theaters, period. Among blockbuster fans, 3D is popular. It's why the studios continue to produce them, and why the theaters give those movies very good space, and it's why the studios are investing money to fake 3D versions of movies not filmed that way from the start.

Ironclad's right. It's just that like it happens regarding a great deal of other subjects, the 3D haters are very visible and vocal on the net. Most regular customers of megaplexes either like 3D or don't care much either way. The day will likely come when studios no longer produce a 2D version of some movies, like the day is very near where they'll stop producing film versions for non digital theaters. The big distribution laboratories that printed the theatrical copies are closing down one after the other (the one in Canada that made the copies for all the east coast theaters in the US and Canadad did earlier this year). Producing multiple versions is expensive. The studios are just waiting for theaters to have enough screens/rooms that can show both 3D and 2D projections to stop making 2D versions of 3D movies. They'll keep 2D versions for home releases after some point.

I'm not defending 3D by the way. I find it useless to most movies (and alas so far all movies I've seen where it added something were movies that sucked anyway) and distracting for the most part. I totally disagree with ironclad it's a more immersive experience, to me it's the opposite and gimmicky (I hate it when stuff in movies make me think too much of the technology behind them) and as I almost always get bad headaches when I work for more than 30 min with the damned 3D glasses on, the last thing I'd want is put them on on my leisure time to see movies. The only movie I'm considering seeing in 3D this year is Tintin, as I'm curious to see what one of the best American directors of blockbusters has done with it - and because it's animation and so won't be as distracting to the flow of the movie.

But as much as personally I'd like 3D to have been a fad that will die down soon, it's not at all the vibe coming from the grapevine at work. It's popular, it sells, the theaters owners are glad for the revitalization it brings to their faltering business and more and more screens will be devoted to 3D in the next years, the studios are still investing massively to be able to make even more 3D movies (and it's not investments they can rentabilize fast, they're planning long term on this) and make them more sophisticated, and the postproduction/VFX software companies are developping (or adapting) more and more tools to work in this environment. It took a while to start, as a great deal of professionals were very sceptical, but now it's catching on. It's here to stay, and it's far from done gaining dominance. It's been mostly targeted at young people and big action productions, but it will start being used for other types of big productions soon (think dramas with impressive vistas and such, à la Out of Africa etc.). Even some great directors outside Hollywood (like Wim Wenders) are showing interest in the medium as it's getting cheaper and more accessible.