That was a great article, Paul, thanks for sharing!
Poorly done 3D will do more to turn people off than anything else. I think we're seeing that on the theatrical side of things as well.
I think back to the release of Avatar, and how everyone wanted to see it and experience it, and how people were eager for more 3D. And then I think back to studios deciding to post-convert their movies to 3D despite never having been intended for 3D, simply to take advantage of audience enthusiasm in the wake of Avatar. And then the audience ate up all those subpar 3D releases that were barely distinguishable from the 2D versions (other than on their wallets, their wallets could tell the difference), and came to the conclusion that it wasn't worth their time or money. If the studios had been thinking more long-term, perhaps they wouldn't have allowed subpar 3D to give a bad name to the format as a whole.
I love 3D, but I feel like what we're getting by and large doesn't take advantage of what the format has to offer. It's kind of like getting 7.1 surround sound systems for everyone and playing only stereo tracks over them, but calling it surround sound anyway - but in that example, the consumer would (hopefully) realize "Hey, it's not the fault of the sound system, it's the fault of the filmmakers not using all of the speakers!" A lot of filmmakers don't seem interested in 3D production; a lot of 3D post-conversions seem like studio mandates rather than artistic decisions, and the resulting films have a very indifferent use of 3D. You can't expect an audience to get enthusiastic about an indifferent product.
By the way, had the 3D broadcast of the London Olympics opening and closing ceremonies been made available in the US from my cable provider, I would have definitely watched it in that format.