3D or not 3D?

With televisions delivering every increasing levels of definition, blu-ray players producing images of clarity to rival any big screen and home theatre kits becoming more affordable all the time, not to mention the illegal availability of films online before their official release, more and more people are watching movies in their comfort of their own homes.
To counter this, cinemas have had to resort to offers like monthly tickets, premium seating, and service in your seat to encourage film buffs through their doors. In short, a trip to the cinema has to offer something that cannot be as easily obtained within your own home, otherwise the trip is seen by many as unnecessary.
One of the more recent innovations that the studios have re-introduced is the concept of 3D. Tried and failed regularly throughout the last 50 years, technology has evolved from red and blue shaded glasses to polarised lenses giving a sense of true depth to the screen, as well as allowing objects to appear to be approaching you from the flat panel.
The drawback with this new gimmick (and that is all it is, a gimmick) is that it should be used as part of the story, not dicatating how the story itself evolves. The film should be developed enough to be told equally well in 3D as in traditional 2D, with the extra dimension only adding to the experience, not dicatating the storyline.
Following the success of Toy Story, and subsequent Pixar masterpieces, studios were tripping over themselves to release their own CG movies. The majority of these releases failed to realise that the true genius of Toy Story was the story itself, it could have as easily been told in live action, animated or with sock puppets and it would have been the same excellent story. Pixar and Disney Animation Chief Creative Officer John Lassiter has gone as far to state that CG is not a genre, it's another format for telling a story.
We can only hope that directors treat 3D as well as Pixar have treated CG.