Ever since the wild success of Avatar in 3-D, Hollywood trend spotters have been trumpeting the dawn of a new three dimensional era in film. But for film critic Roger Ebert, that would be an awful, awful thing:

3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Hollywood's current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches. It is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets. Its image is noticeably darker than standard 2-D. It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness.
He then gives a nine point diatribe against 3-D films with the following subheads:

1. IT'S THE WASTE OF A DIMENSION.

2. IT ADDS NOTHING TO THE EXPERIENCE.

3. IT CAN BE A DISTRACTION.

4. IT CAN CREATE NAUSEA AND HEADACHES.

5. HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT 3-D SEEMS A LITTLE DIM?

6. THERE'S MONEY TO BE MADE IN SELLING NEW DIGITAL PROJECTORS.

7. THEATERS SLAP ON A SURCHARGE OF $5 TO $7.50 FOR 3-D.

8. I CANNOT IMAGINE A SERIOUS DRAMA, SUCH AS UP IN THE AIR OR THE HURT LOCKER, IN 3-D.

9. WHENEVER HOLLYWOOD HAS FELT THREATENED, IT HAS TURNED TO TECHNOLOGY: SOUND, COLOR, WIDESCREEN, CINERAMA, 3-D, STEREOPHONIC SOUND, AND NOW 3-D AGAIN.

Rebuttals from 3-D fanboys are already spreading through the blogosphere but The Atlantic Wire is interested in hearing what you think. Is 3-D just a "suicidal" Hollywood fad?