It's impossible. If you notice the 3D it's distracting, if you don't there's no real point having it there.
The thing is, conventional 2D movies already have most of the 3D cues we need - blurring, parallax, etc.
The thing is, conventional 2D movies already have most of the 3D cues we need - blurring, parallax, etc.
Adding these elements would be far too distracting. And if we weren't distracted by sound and color, then what's the point in having them there?
Artists should work in the most limiting possible way -- in a way that everyone is already accustomed to. Otherwise, they're cheap, tawdry sensationalists. Down with change! Down with innovation!
Wait... what?
NO COLOR vs COLOR isn't the same as "n 3D cues" vs "n+1 3D cues".
A better analogy would be
"All colors apart from a particular shade of purple" vs "all colors".
Of course the current systems are rubbish, so you're getting an extra 3D visual cue at the expense of clarity sharpness brightness. And headaches thrown in to boot.
Think about Technicolor, for instance. Unrealistic, and to some, headache-inducing. But it was an early step toward what we have today.
These days, most films are shot in color, and in a fairly naturalistic way that people don't generally notice. But that certainly doesn't mean there's "no point in having it there." It's just a greater level of immersion, which helps draw people even further into what actually matters (for most films): the story, the characters, etc.