3D in the Cinema isn't going anywhere, whether you are a fan of it or not.
In the home market though, its just not there yet.
There is no standard, so you have TVs that require passive glasses and some that need far more expensive active glasses. The viewing angle is also seriously limited on such a small screen, so its difficult to have a group watching a film appreciate it properly.
Then there is the issue of content....
It's yet another premium, when HD broadcasts are already something of a premium. For example with Sky, you essentially need the most expensive pack to have 3D programming. Sports are also what TV broadcasters like to tout as ideal for 3D, but the reality is that live broadcasts in 3D are actually the worst use of the medium. 3D really needs to be used in something that is edited properly with structured angles, which is why its works well for films, or even something as mundane as an episode of Eastenders. With a game of football the angle can just end up making things too miniature.
The television manufacturing industry may now be pushing 4K, and I know some are very excited about it, but its going to face a very similar problem. Its going to attract a further premium from content providers, something which the majority won't be prepared to pay for. Then with content, 4K workflows push the cost of productions up significantly for little return. At the Box Office, its clear to see the extra return a 3D movie brings in, with 4K or higher you can't make that return. People are going to shun it when they can see a standard 2K projection for a normal price. Thus you won't get the content filtering down from the cinema to the home video market because there just isn't the money to be made from 4K for how much it costs and the extra time it would take to complete a production.
We will have 3D TVs without glasses and broadcasts that are much higher resolution, but its not going to happen anytime soon.