I had a number of problems with this article.
Let's start with this hash of a sentence: "for every Piranha 3D, there's been a Prometheus; for every Clash Of The Titans a Toy Story 3". That is simply ridiculous. All that was proved there was that two terrible contractually obligated films, REGARDLESS of their format, were worse than two excellent films that did extremely well in BOTH 2D and 3D.
In the next breath 3D is being compared to the onset of technicolor. That's like comparing the Xbox 360 and Kinect. One provided a platform, if you'll excuse the pun, from which completely new and diverse titles could be produced. The other was made in order to squeeze a few extra bucks out of the consumer. It was totally limited in its application and it was shit.
The point about classics being revived on the main screen with the added 3D is also ridiculous. Films are constantly being re-released in cinemas for a number of reasons, whether it be due to that film's anniversary, or due to a relevant current event (Chariots of Fire, for example, was recently re-released to coincide with the London Olympics). Therefore, to say that 3D is giving a new generation the chance to see old classics at the cinema is a huge overstatement of the utility and power it holds.
As for 3D itself and my beliefs, I can only say that, whilst I know very little about the technicalities (something the writer and I seem to have in common), 3D hasn't increased my enjoyment of any film it's been used in, but rather it's significantly decreased my wallet size.
p.s. Ridley Scott seems pretty undecided about whether 3D really is synonymous with progress (see for yourselves
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FD0201NqjA8&t=8m0s).