Except that it's not a way of life. Its just popular. He doesn't have to watch movies in 3D. Cinemas don't have to upgrade their existing technology and charge customers more and movie makers don't have to film it that way. They just want to because they enjoy it. Sorry you don't enjoy it so much Ebert.
1. Just as artificially adding a 3d layer can be distracting it can be accentuating and immersive.
2. Was it necessary, no. But many would argue that most films themselves aren't necessary. Thinking back on some of my favorite movie going experiences I can see how some of them might have been helped with 3D.
3. Any tool a director has at his disposal can be distracting. It's up to good directors to use those tools for the right situation
4. Legitimate concern
5. Once again up to directors
6. If you are mad about people creating technology and trying to push it as standard then it seems like you are mad at more than 3D movies
7. God forbid companies wanting to make money back from investing in expensive technology.
8. Just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean there aren't people who can. Imagine shawshank redemption but you feel as if you too are in the rain that soaks anthony robins character as he emerges from the underground.
9. So you are mad them for doing what you think they have been doing all along?
Though I love his opinions on movies and he has helped find some amazing films i might have never found otherwise I must remember that he is a critic.
