The problem with 3D isn't so much a technology problem as much as it is an intelligence issue with Hollywood. The reason 3D is just 'ok' and not great is because it is an inherantly different medium with different story telling tools than good old 2D film/video. Even Avatar (not last airbender, the good one) suffered from wierd/jarring transitions, and occasional scenes with strange depth of field issues. Still a great movie though, and by far the best non-animated 3D movie out there, but even the 'best' still isnt perfect, and the rest of the 3D movies just suck so far. But in a few years when directors stop using 3D as a gimmick and start using it as a real story medium then I will be convinced that 3D is here to stay, and that it deserves to stay.
Also, to mr 'i promise you this', the passive 3D tech is expensive because it just came out. The tech for active shutter glasses has been around sense the '90s, and thus it is cheaper. Give passive a year or so and it has the potential to be much cheaper because there is only one variable to worry about (the screen), rather than having the transmitter with several sets of glasses each with their own receiver, power source, and shutter. There is also potential here for a brighter picture (which shutter glasses always dim things too much), and the ability to have multiple concurrent 3D sources in view because they don't need to be synced. Seems to be a much more elegant solution, and would be especially appreciated for the PC.