Setting aside the ocular arguments, I think the Slate post overstates things here:<p><i>Take Toy Story 3: I've gone on record with my admiration for the scene at Daisy's window, where Lotso finds he's been replaced by another toy. There's no sight gag there, no objects hurtling off the screen; instead, the image contorts visual space into a crisscrossing, emotional depth. If the scene were flat, Lotso and Daisy would be right next to each other on the screen; in 3-D, they're spread across a lonely chasm, separated by rain-streaked glass.</i><p>I've seen Toy Story 3 in both 3D (IMAX) and 2D (home DVD), and the scene retains its poignancy (and potency) even on the small screen without the 3D apparatus. He's wrong when he says <i>"If the scene were flat, Lotso and Daisy would be right next to each other on the screen"</i> -- when the scene is flat, our brain stills views the scene as a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional situation, and inserts the gap between Lotso and Daisy.