Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
I share some of his misgivings, but I don't see the validity of dismissing 3D altogether when the ramp up with cinematographers, directors, theaters, and HDTVs is just beginning.
If you read the whole article, it doesn't seem he dismissing it as much pointing out the nagative side of 3-D, and extra expense that goes with it.

For example, he argued that in 3-D-ready theaters, the 3-D projectors are also outfitted for 2-D films: so it uses the same projector but doesn't charge extra. But when shown a 3-D movies, theater charge $5-$7 extra. "Are surcharges here to stay, or will they be dropped after the [new] projectors are paid off?", he ask.

Or he comment that reason is Hollywood pushing for 3-D is because..."it needs a "premium" experience that is obviously, dramatically better than anything at home, suitable for films aimed at all ages, and worth a surcharge."

But he wrap the article by saying that..."I'm not opposed to 3-D as an option. I'm opposed to it as a way of life for Hollywood, where it seems to be skewing major studio output away from the kinds of films we think of as Oscar-worthy. Scorsese and Herzog make films for grown-ups. Hollywood is racing headlong toward the kiddie market."