Some of that comes from my job. I can usually make abstraction of most VFX as long as they are unobstrusive (at least in drama, in action movies I don't mind bolder stuff) and get distracted only by errors and such, or by extremely clever stuff that spark professional curiosity at the wrong time, but with 3D so far it's never been good enough that it could forget about the technique behind it, or find it believable. I don't think the technology at this point gives very impressive results. In a few years, no doubt this will get much better, but for it's still pretty much at the same early stage as I had seen many years ago from early tests from a developper.

I still perceive faked depth when I see it - that's very cool for some scenes when you watch only those (like on a 3D demo reel I saw last year at the "office", but it's still too glaringly faked to work for me within the context of a movie, especially when it's not constantly there. The movie would have to be very very immersing for me to be oblivious to all that (and I rarely ever get "immersed" in American blockbusters, so..). I had hopes that this would work much better with 3D animation as technically the depth data is available for every pixel on screen, but when I worked on the dubbing for Mars needs Moms I wasn't impressed. I'll give Tintin a try in 3D because I'm curious to see what Spielberg might have done with it, being Spielberg. Avatar I've skipped altogether as I never liked a Cameron movie.

I'm mildly curious to see what Jackson will make of it too, but I'm not very interested in his Hobbit (never liked the book to begin with, and find Jackson's idea to "LOTR-ize" it and inflate it to two movies kind of weird).