That still doesn't address the fact that there are many, many people for whom viewing a 3-D movie is simply a physically uncomfortable, "take you out of the movie" experience, not counting those who simply can't see the effect at all. As I mentioned elsewhere, a myth has arisen around the idea that "oh, well, there'll always be a 2-D version playing somewhere." Wrong. I live in a city of a million people and I was unable to see Hugo, Three Musketeers, Toy Story 3, the last Resident Evil film and about 3-4 other movies because either no one brought it in as 2-D or they played it in one screen out of dozens of theatres. And when I went to see Harry Potter Deathly Hallows 2 in 2-D the picture was so dark and muddy I was reminded of the Boston Globe expose that revealed some theatres are showing 2-D prints using 3-D projectors, which just doesn't work right. The result is I no longer become excited about theatrical releases - I'm disenfranchised as far as that goes and if they closed all the movie theatres tomorrow I'd be rather ambivalent as opposed to if they closed all the DVD/Blu-ray shops (which is coming, I know - pretty soon I'll be a hermit; nah, my feet are too hairy - I'll be a hobbit.
The only good thing about 3-D movies is that the 2-D versions often look really really good on HD because of the added resolution. So if nothing else, Hobbit 1 & 2 will be a kick-ass Blu-ray release.
You're right - it doesn't address the uncomfortablility issue. I live in a town of 100,000, with one 10-screen theater. Two of those screens are 3D. We didn't get Hugo until two weeks after its release, but at least we got both 2D and 3D versions.
Have you complained to the theaters? Or maybe written a letter to the editor of the paper? I would think that a city the size of yours would have more options available for screenings.