What's to add, he's right.

Another major problem is that 3D is a huge setback in picture quality (which with its darkness are the two main reasons why dir. of photography and VFX artists/postprod people are prominent among the detractors of 3D in the filed). The way the technique works, there are two copies of each frame (we call them the left-right "eyes" in a single picture frame, the differences between the two pictures creates the pseudo 3d effect. Of course, the size of the full frame is exactly the same you get in traditional cinema, so 2048 pixels wide in traditional 35 mm (almost abandoned at this point) and 1920 in digital cinema, thus when you watch the 3D version, you actually watch the movie at half the horizontal definition it was shot and postproduced in: 960 pixels., another factor that increases strobbing. It's closer to the horizontal def of old standard definition TV, 720 pixels, than it is to full HD, at 1920 px or even 1280 px Hd TV. Except considering how huge the screens are compared to a TV, the picture quality is basically shit. People are lining up to go watch a movie of marginally better quality than if it had been shot in video and printed on film before HD, when they could see the movie at full resolution, twice the quality and much better contrats, in a 2D theater.

It doesn't look like it will die soon. As gimmicky and poor quality as it is, it's helping theaters to stay afloat at the moment, and studios are still investing (and asking their providers to do the same) to produce a greater percentage of 3D movies in the next years. The whole technique behind it is flawed, but there's no major change in the way 3D will be envisioned technically in sight for the near future.