At this moment, we find ourselves in the middle of what film historians of the future may remember as the great 3-D frenzy of 2010. Is this a revolution or a craze?

The commercial power of 3-D is hard to dispute, at least for now. Theaters have raised the surcharge for thickframed disposable (or rather, recyclable) glasses, from the typical $3 to, in some places, as much as $5 or $7.50 per ticket, a premium that has hardly deterred moviegoers. The added expense almost seems to be having the opposite effect. Spending more on a 3-D ticket makes that extra dimension feel extra special. It’s a mass-produced luxury, a splurge that almost feels like a bargain.

Six months after prerelease speculation about “Avatar” reached its breathless acme, that movie has quieted skeptics by earning around three-quarters of a billion dollars in the United States alone. Not all of that money has come from 3-D engagements, but the triumph of “Avatar” has certainly helped to establish the viability of the format. The subsequent success of every other nonnature-documentary feature released in 3-D this year - “Alice in Wonderland,” “Clash of the Titans” and “How to Train Your Dragon” - has laid the groundwork for a new conventional wisdom that will hold at least until the first major 3-D disappointment.

One important tenet of the conventional wisdom is that 3-D is drawing crowds to the multiplexes that might otherwise have stayed home. Ever since the rise of television, theater owners and Hollywood studios have lived in a state of panic - sometimes low level, sometimes acute - that a new invention would cause people to stop going to the movies.

The paradox is that the features of 3-D are migrating from the theater to the living room. You can find 3-D televisions in the showrooms of home electronics stores, and as the economy continues to recover, you will see more and more of them in your neighbors’ houses. Your kids will be able to watch the same movies they saw twice in theaters again and again .

So there is no question that a bonanza of economic opportunism is under way, as studios rush to retrofit twodimensional movies - as with “Clash of the Titans” and Disney’s “Alice in Wonderland” - or to refurbish existing franchises. This year we will see not only the fourth “Shrek” movie and “Toy Story 3,” but also the fish-mayhem movie “Piranha 3-D” and fully fleshed-out installments in the “Step Up” dance series and the “Jackass” extreme-stunt documentaries.

It seems reasonable to wonder just what is added when an illusory third dimension is tacked on. And also whether it will be suitable for all kinds of movies. In a dissenting essay published in Newsweek - and titled “Why I Hate 3-D (and You Should Too)” - Roger Ebert wrote that he could not “imagine a serious drama, such as ‘Up in the Air’ or ‘The Hurt Locker,’ in 3-D.”

He didn’t think most filmmakers could either, and to be honest, neither can I. But back in the old days there were critics who were similarly skeptical about sound and then color, both of which were thought to diminish the distinctive artistic qualities of cinema.

So far 3-D works better in animation than in live action. “Avatar,” with its motion-captured figures and computer- generated landscapes seamlessly blended with real actors and settings, is the exception that proves this rule.

The movies that astonished our parents or our younger selves now look creaky or quaint, charming rather than mind blowing. This will happen to 3-D, perhaps faster than we think. Maybe it’s here to stay, and maybe it’s not such a big deal.


A.O.SCOTT


‘‘How to Train Your Dragon,’’a 3-D success, may owe more to its sheer visual appeal than anything else.