Not thin as in incorrect, but thin as it uses one line to explain something which really needs a paragraph or two.
There are people who aren't interested in 3D that don't realize that if they want a good display they likely must get a 3D display, even if they never utilize the feature.
I kinda felt that the article had to much of the personal 'gimmick' mindset and not enough of the substance of the question posed as the title: "Is 3D HDTV Right For You?" followed by a question at the end of the opening paragraph "But is it necessary?"
If we are to ask if 3D is right for a general populace, then the facts about the technology should be presented, along with a lot of open ended thoughts to allow people to make up their own decision. But this statement early in the second section: "It’s only contribution to the medium of film is turning it into a passive carnival-ride." is extremely questionable as both a statement on its own and as something which then will allow for people to make up their own mind about the technology.
By example, there are people who think that surrond sound is an abomination to the way audio should be heard. That 2 speakers are plenty and anything more is not at all immersive, but is completely distracting to the art as it should only be presented. 3D is can be a spectacle, but should not be used as one. Instead, it should be done, as Avatar did, as a tool to enhance the film in subtle ways to a point where you do ignore it and simply want it, as you do a good image and good audio.
In fact, almost everything about the opening sections aims to discourage the technology based more on personal belief and bias instead of presenting facts first, then stating why your opinions are your own. Which, as an editorial is your right, but as a reader with an open voice on the forums, is my right to say why I think it is inappropriate. Especially in consideration of the title of the editorial.
The facts in helping a consumer make an informed decision are not something which should be presented as an afterthought, but your opinion of that technology should be the afterthought.
ie: People don't have to be persuing a 3D TV, but perhaps just a really nice Panasonic, Samsung, or Sony TV. The fact that their best TVs also support 3D and do so at about the same price that last years premium TVs were selling for means that there really isn't a premium on 3D itself, or the display itself. They've just added features and kept the price the same on their best displays. If someone wants 3D, they just have to get the nicer display which supports it.
Finally, the failure to mention the Panasonic DMP-BDT300 player, which has dual HDMI outputs, one for the 3D video, the other for the HD audio, was either intentional so that people don't know that they have a choice. Or, worse, perhaps unitentional indicating that you weren't aware of this player and that it allows people to get both the video and audio without the requirement to change out their current HD audio setup.
http://www2.panasonic.com/consumer-electronics/shop/Video/Blu-ray-Disc-Players/model.DMP-BDT300_11002_7000000000000005702
Sorry, I am coming off a bit negative, but as I said, I thought that the article, by the topic title, was thin on the information that actually matters to consumers if they are interested in 3D, and is far more of your opinion ("over-publicity of this terribly ordinary sci-fi movie") which just doesn't help anyone make any decision other than the one you want them to make.
But, I guess, that's why they call it editorials and not news.
Also, why we have forums to respond.