I have not seen Hugo, but
Roger Ebert says that Scorsese used 3D the way that 3D should be used in Hugo. Based on that, I may go see Hugo in 3D.
Personally, I thought that 3D added nothing to Avatar. Avatar was equally as good without 3D, and in no way did 3D, to me, add anything to the movie.
Many 3D movies have used 3D as a marketing gimmick, and I believe that is their downfall. The more 3D is a marketing gimmick, the less moviegoers will appreciate it. For the most part, there have been few movies, two in fact - Hugo and Cave of Forgotten Dreams - where reviewers have said that 3D has added anything to the movie. In my opinion, two movies in the recent spate of 3D movies where 3D has added something to the movie not even remotely a good track record given the number of 3D movies that have been released in the time frame.
Having one or two artists out there that are capable of using the medium in a meaningful manner is not going to drive 3D into the forefront of the market place even though movie studios like it because it siphons the cash from the moviegoer's pocket into the studio's pocket.
When I go to a movie, I am not looking to be on a theme park ride. So far, that is what the vast majority of 3D movies seem like they have attempted to create. It adds nothing to the film, and even 3D cannot make a bad movie good. Personally, I would not miss the medium if it were to disappear.