Ebert's article citing Murch is commonly invoked by those decrying the so called "3D revolution," along with his previous polemical take in "Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should, Too)."
Ebert's been a partiularly caustic 3D detractor, so inevitably he'll shout the views of those that agree from the rooftops (though Walter Murch is of course eminently qualified to comment on the subject).
Interestingly, Ebert seemed to soften his position in his review of Hugo, perhaps because it's a commentary on film form that draws parallels between the early twentieth century "cinema of attractions" and the current 3D production cycle.
Anyway, whether you love 3D, loathe it, or feel entirely indifferently, it's still here, and it's still considered a viable commercial proposition across the entertainment and consumer electronics industries (though there are indications that perspectives are changing).
For something of an alternate stance on the validity of 3D, see http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/knowledge/culture/3dcinema
(for what it's worth, I don't agree with the author).