> How about the new 3-D movies? Are they any better than the ones made 50 years ago? Do you still need those silly glasses? When will we see 3-D TV?

The 3D projection technology has improved since the 50s, but not as much as you might think. You still have to wear glasses, but I think they're different glasses. They're not the cheesy red/green lenses but rather colorless polarized lenses. Unfortunately the colors get dimmed, but at least you're not looking at everything through red and green shades. The other problem is that the glasses get fingerprints and stuff all over them from previous patrons.

There's a more expensive 3D projection technology around that was used for The Polar Express a few years ago. That was excellent, but 3D movies since have cut more corners. The worst situation is if a movie filmed in 2D is artificially manipulated to produce a 3D image. This process was used on the Harry Potter films, for example. It's ridiculously lame and disappointing.

Animated movies tend to be better, but so far only The Polar Express, that I know of, has managed to improve upon the 2D experience.

It's likely that the forthcoming movie Avatar will be well worth seeing in 3D, because it seems like the studio is spending ridiculous amounts of money to use the absolute best technology for it. But I'm only cautiously optimistic about that until we can see it for ourselves.

Finally, don't expect 3D TV any time soon. Existing televisions can do the red/green type of 3D, which looks terrible anyway, but they can't project polarized light and aren't likely to in the near future.