3D no better than 2D and gives filmgoers headaches

[Feanor]

RGA, his points are bullcrap. I watch 3D on a 180" screen, a 65" screen, and a 55" screen sitting at the proper distance for those screen widths, and I don't see what you are seeing at all. There is some very good 3D out there, and there is some very bad, but not all exhibit the qualities you state. Avatar certainly does not look like you describe.
...

To me Avatar looked very good when I saw it in theatre. A few days ago I say Conan the Barbarian and it was terrrible -- kind of like RGA describes: 2D objects floating about a 2D background. I suppose it has something to do with the respecitive technologies.l

......
My problem with Ebert in general is his disdain for progress, and his one dimensional opinion to what he considers a good movie. His opinions when related to film making are outdated, and just because he agrees with you in this one respect does not mean a thing. An opinion is an opinion, and that is all he is forwarding here. His opinions does not make anything fact.
...

Well, I was always more likely to agree with Siskel -- a big loss there.

But RGA has that problem with critics: he picks those who agree with him and presents their views as Gospel.