But I disagree with a key point of his: that thepaylist is required to, as a journalistic entity, show some restraint, or, as he put it, the site ought to have had a \”bit more of a discussion about it’s editorial content\” in allowing this article to run \’as is\’. That TPL is entitled to halt a peon from peeing on (thx Weezy) a prince. Nay, I say. Run away. Let Mr. Davis take any stab he wants to take at anyone he wants to stab. Such is the power when one wields a pen. To make such a poor argument is the real injustice here.

How can you posit that a man who you describe as \”one of the greatest editors,\” someone who has proven his expertise in his award-winning films, is, \”saying nothing new?\” The mere fact that he is articulating it all in a novel way, with a thoroughly explained and technically elucidated argument that, because of its scope and brilliance is really irrefutable, is saying something new. To paraphrase Ebert, he is closing the case.

I guess that all of us \”discernible filmgoers\” that somehow can\’t really discern the important things about 3-D technology or ocular function have always been thinking it, so we get a pass.

Just as film editors are known for showing restraint, so too should you exhibit a similar characteristic. Refrain from spouting half-cocked ideas lest your articles be left on the cutting room floor.

wink! ? ;^ }

There\’s nothing wrong with adding to the conversation on 3D, but I think if this piece were written in a print magazine, there\’d be a bit more of a discussion about it\’s editorial content. I love that you guys publish as many posts as you do each day and I think you\’re the best place to go for film commentary and news (print or Internet). I just think this piece could have been written with a bit more respect. In the same way that I\’m sure you\’d all agree many commentators could make steps to be a bit more respectful and thoughtful in their own writing (as I hope I have been here).

I think 3-D is here to stay but I wish it were not only because it does not improve the experience – it just makes it novel for a while. And then people eventually go back to the story itself.

if you need that extra dimension in your filmgoing experiences shouldn\’t you be annoyed that 3D doesn\’t really provide an extra dimension but the mere illusion of one? it\’s just (poorly) manipulated 2D. if you rrrrrrrrrreally want 3D, you should also vote with your dollars and force these gluttonous studios to get to work on actually having Johnny Depp stand behind you, whispering in your ear while Penelope Cruz performs a striptease in front of you, tossing her brassiere in your face.

this is your Sputnik moment, people.