Quote Originally Posted by Smokey
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.
He really should no better than saying this...really. You cannot do well done 3D with film, it requires a digital solution. The means replacing the tens of thousands of film projectors in the field. It also means adding secure servers, buying 3D glasses by the millions, and changing screens as well. None of this is cheap. Yes, once you buy the equipment you can project both 3D and 2D films, but that is after you have paid for the new digital projector, and secured server. Once the price goes up though, it rarely comes back done. But let's face reality here, is there anything out there that has pricing that has remained exactly the same for years? Not many. Price increases are a way of life, and so is premium pricing as well.

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."
There already is a premium experience that is better than the typical movie theater experience. It is called Arclight theaters, and it has been around for years. You don't need 3D to give a premium experience. 3D price raising are paying for equipment upgrades - upgrades that will eventually cost the theater exhibition chains more than $10 billion dollars when all is said and done

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."
In other words he is looking for high art, which by the way does not fill seats. Hollywood has to make big money off of big box office movies to subsidize high art movies. If they don't make the money, don't expect low budget indies pictures to see the light of day, except amoung independent exhibitors which are falling by the wayside a six pack at a time these days.