Wow...shocked at the titanic response. Glad y'all didn't mind the 3D, but it reaaaally bothered me on this one. I spent most of the movie trying really hard to not pay attention to it, but eventually just gave up and was completely taken out of the story.
Personally I think cameron's view on 3D is backwards. I don't think any movie can play in 3D, and I don't think it brings you any closer (emotionally) to the story. In fact, I think it does the opposite. To use one of them obnoxious film school terms, a story is supposed to take place in its own diegetic universe. That's the entire point of the medium!
Now when jack and rose are screwing in the back of a car on a ship in 1912, I should NOT be there. I am sitting in a movie theater in 2012. Why exactly am I supposed to be part of their world, or they mine? To me, it makes the entire world of the story lose credibility. When the ship is sinking, through story I should be able to experience it emotionally...but I should not actually BE there, because I WASN't there. Only the characters should be there.
To me, the only media that should be in 3D are the ones that acknowledge their audience...at least thematically or in the premise. Video games, concert films, any given IMAX exploration film. Narrative films I enjoyed in 3D like Hugo and Avatar were predicated on openly inviting their audience to a visceral experience. And, personally, neither of them play for me in 2D.
But a standard, old-fashioned narrative like Titanic? I'd rather see the 2D version any day of the week. 3D has its place in a small niche, but if Cameron has his way we are all in trouble. Not only does it not add anything meaningful to the experience, but it ruins and demeans 100 years of storytelling.