It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose. I fully agree with him at this point i

It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose. I fully agree with him at this point in time. I think once 3D gets more mainstream young directors will find ways to make use of this new medium. A lot of the points that Ebert raises are similar to ones raised when sound was beginning to be added to the films in the 1920s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_film http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_film). For example "Sufficient playback volume was also hard to achieve"Current problem is that Hollywood uses 3D just to project inherently 2D designed movies on screen, except for some shock scenes where a snake comes at you, etc. This limits its use to juvenilia or "blockbusters" like Avatar. That doesn't mean it's always going to be that way. It's interesting that a sort of Innovator's Dilemma biases people who are in the movie making business. For example, Chaplin saw little value in talkies: "Chaplin firmly believed that “silent film's message reaches the entire spectrum of ‘intellectual and the rank and file’" (http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Charlie-Chaplin-and--Talkies-/695199 http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Charlie-Chaplin-and-...) and his sentiment was shared by many actors and producers.