The Avengers was not shot in 3D, it was converted after filming. It is generally accepted that converted 3D films look pretty poor compared to films shot with 3D cameras. If you do a bit of googling usually you can find out if a film is converted(aka post-converted) or if it was shot in 3D(native 3d). Studios do this because some directors find the 3D cameras cumbersome on set, or to save money.

Two films that were actually shot in 3D coming out in the near future are The Amazing Spider-Man and Prometheus. They should be better 3D representations and more representative of what can be achieved.

That said you still may not like 3D. 3D theatrical presentations require the projectors to be run more brightly than 2D, and theaters try and save money by not setting the brightness of the projector bulbs high enough. This can cause the image to be a bit dingy and blurry. This varies from theater to theater. Also 3D's not for everyone, some people just dislike it.

I've only personally been impressed with the 3D in the film Avatar, where James Cameron used it create a greater depth of field in the image, rather than popping stuff out at the audience. The Hobbit, coming out this christmas, promises to be a better 3D experience than we've seen before, because it was shot and is meant to be projected at 48 frames per second(versus 24 for normal films). This effectively doubles the amount of light projected, and will result in a far brighter and sharper image. The difference is said to be staggering.

Just to add to this, CGI movies tend to be glorious in 3D.

Yes.
The best 3-d movie I have seen was How to Train Your Dragon.
Yes, Avatar was pretty, but the movie wasn't as good.

3-D added nothing to the Avengers for me, except for the ticket price.

I agree I loved the Avengers, but really wasn't impressed with the 3D. I thought the best 3D movie I've ever seen was Hugo. It was the first time I realized how good 3D could be. I can't wait for Spiderman.

This site tells you which movies were filmed in real 3D and which were converted on a computer:

http://realorfake3d.com/

The good news, most 3D movies are now being shot with actual 3D cameras. Amazing Spider-Man will be the first superhero movie to be done that way though. I certainly hope Marvel Studios will follow suit, but the way they're picking low-rent directors for all their upcoming movies, I'm not sure they're willing to let them try, since it would be the first time any of them used 3D cameras.

In theory, there's no reason a conversion can't be good 3D, since you can create any image you want on a computer. But IMO doing a 3D conversion right would be MUCH more expensive than shooting with 3D cameras. The only really good conversion I've seen is Titanic, because James Cameron is a true master of special effects technology and an absolute technical perfectionist. Titanic 3D looked pretty much indistinguishable from any movies I've seen filmed with 3D cameras.

I watched Brave in 3D this past Monday and while it made the animation pop it seemed like it could have done a lot more to really make the screen jump out at you. It felt like they only focused on character depth and not enough on depth of field. I wanted a Wisp to pop out at me or a bear claw to swing out of the screen, but it never really went far enough.

Thankfully the theater I go to only charges $7.75 for 3D matinees.

Emerje

The best 3D movie I saw was Hugo. It really showed me how 3D could be used to enhance the story and not just a gimic. I was disappointed in the 3d Avengers, but I can't wait for 3D Spiderman.