I never had a problem watching 3D. I think the factor here is that both Ebert and Murch are middle-aged and their eyes probably have trouble focusing on objects anyway, besides the point that they both require corrective lenses to see. So having to take off their glasses and put on the 3D glasses coupled by the fact that they then can't see right probably accounts for a lot of the shared hate directed at the 3D being expressed in that article by them both.
I mean, sure, if your eyes are pushing 65and not as snappy and able to focus as before coupled with having to remove your corrective lens glasses that enable you to see correctly, you're gonna have a crappy visual experience and perceive the picture as being sub-par.
Like I said, I never had any problems watching a 3D movie before, and found that in some instances it actually added to the engagement factor and made the film just that much more engrossing. But then again, I'm one of the people who saw Cloverfield and didn't get even a bit motion sick, so maybe I'm the exception, I dunno.
As for the surcharge for watching a 3D movie, I'll tell you what, I came this close to stopping going to the movies altogether due to the screaming kids, people kicking my seat from behind, cell phone talking, and the place just being inundated by a general class of a-holes. I like the stratification of the theater system. I doubt that some junior high brat is going to shell out nearly 20 bucks to talk on his cell phone during the whole movie. And families with like 6 kids ranging in age from 12 to 6 mos can't afford it either. So it's a nice economic barrier keeping the wackness out of particular showings.
To me, 3D/Lie-Max are the only theaters I show up to, cause only the serious movie-goers are gonna put out the extra cash.