It happens every two years. After months of debating the financial viability of 3-D in the movie marketplace, a film comes along that silences the naysayers who describe the technology as nothing more than a money-grubbing gimmick. In 2009 it was James Cameron’s Avatar. With 2011 came Martin Scorsese’s Hugo. And earlier this month, Alfonso Cuarón’s Gravity became the most recent reminder of the genuine storytelling power that stereoscopic filmmaking holds.

"One of the things that is great about Gravity is that Alfonso embraced 3-D as a full-fledged storytelling tool," says Namit Malhotra, founder and CEO of Prime Focus World, the company that converted Gravity’s 2-D elements into 3-D and also lent a technical hand to both Avatar and the upcoming 3-D re-release of The Wizard of Oz. "Not only did [Cuarón] want to ensure that the 3-D was an integrated and value-added aspect to his film, he decided at the beginning to make it so. This approach allowed 3-D to be a supporting element and enabler of the outstanding story. And what's great is [that] audiences are validating that decision."

In its opening weekend, 80 percent of all Gravity ticket-buyers chose to see the film in 3-D (compare that to 71 percent of Avatar’s opening audience). The following weekend, that number rose to 82 percent and remained steady through the third weekend. "I think that an increasing number of people no longer feel that it's worth paying a premium to see a film in 3-D, unless there's something really unique and interesting about the 3-D presentation," says Bruce Nash, founder and president of Nash Information Services, LLC and publisher of movie analysis site The Numbers. Gravity, with all its eye-popping visuals, is the rare kind of movie that demands to be seen as it was intended: in the theater, on as large a screen as possible, tub of popcorn and 3-D glasses firmly in place.

The fact that we’re even still talking about Cuarón’s cinematic journey into space three weeks after its initial release is a testament to its originality. After setting a new October box office record with its $55 million take in its opening weekend, the sci-fi drama continued its winning streak into week two, when it generated another $44.3 million in receipts (an audience drop of just 21 percent). And it became the highest-grossing October film release ever this weekend, where it easily crushed any purported competition from newcomers like Carrie or The Fifth Estate."

Few people are more excited about the attention being paid to Cuarón’s film than Jon Landau, producer of Avatar and COO at Lightstorm Entertainment, who told WIRED that Gravity "seamlessly integrated 3-D into some of the most outstanding visual effects ever created. The combination of story, performance and 3-D visuals made for one of the most memorable experiences in the theater that I can remember in a long time." It's strong praise, particularly from the previous poster boy for the rebirth of 3-D cinema.

When Avatar hit theaters in 2009, it was heralded by some as the movie that would change the face of 3-D film, but in the four years since, audiences have largely been subjected to the same 3-D cycle of kiddie CGI, in-your-face concert films, nature documentaries, cheesy horror movies, superhero flicks and studio tentpoles that would be unsatisfying in any dimension (can you say John Carter?). Rather than changing the face of cinema, 3-D technology has too often been used to charge us more for an experience that feels superficially enhanced, something that hasn't been lost on audiences asked to pony up more money for 3-D movie tickets.

"Movie audiences – now more than ever – are savvy," says John Fragomeni, president of Mirada, a production company he runs alongside Guillermo del Toro and a veteran visual effects supervisor who counts Pacific Rim among his credits. "If 3-D is used in a gimmicky way, it often triggers a negative viewer and critical response, because they know when it’s enhancing the story and when it’s not. 3-D works best when the technique is used like any other filmmaking tool – be it CG, SFX, lighting, etc. – that’s applied in service to the story. In the case of films like Gravity, Pacific Rim and Life of Pi, the 3-D helps immerse the moviegoing audience into a fuller experience, which can be more intimate and emotional."

But when so few films fit that bill, coupled with the growing number of moviegoers who are making their preference for 2-D widely known, why do studios keep churning out 3-D movies at all? The answer is simple: overseas markets.

In a Forbes article about "the necessary evil of 3-D," film critic Scott Mendelson argues that "in today’s marketplace, where a big-budget film’s financial fate is often decided by overseas dollars, it’s almost fiscal self-injury not to make the call. For anywhere from $10 million to $20 million extra, you can add around 15 to 20 percent to your opening weekend grosses (think around 40 percent of tickets sold via 3-D and prices around 33 percent higher per 3-D ticket) and around 15 percent to your total domestic box office, with an unquantifiable upshot for foreign grosses. For numbers like that, why wouldn’t you convert your purely commercial popcorn genre film to 3-D?"

The real problem, according to IMDb managing editor Keith Simanton, is not with the technology, but with the content to which the technology is most frequently attached. "3-D can either be the hood ornament on an Edsel, like Wrath of the Titans, or the star emblem on a Mercedes-Benz hit like The Avengers," says Simanton. "The perception of depth does not lead the perception of good taste astray." (Though he does include higher ticket prices and uncomfortable glasses as two of the "many direct and negative associations people have with 3-D.")

Despite its continued description as "game-changer," at the end of the day can Gravity – or any other movie that successfully utilizes 3-D as a tool for immersive storytelling for that matter – truly change the course of which films studios deem worth of being given the 3-D treatment? Will Gravity’s success inspire a rash of pictures that look at 3-D as a meaningful way to enhance the storytelling, and not just the studio’s bottom line?

Nash, for one, isn’t expecting the market to be flooded with films as similarly well-suited to 3-D technology anytime soon. But he does see Gravity as a positive step forward for innovative filmmaking in general. "I don't expect it to have a huge impact on 3-D movies over the next year or two, although I'm hopeful we might see a resurgence in films that depict space more realistically. I think Cuarón will be very influential in the long term though. I'm sure there are many young filmmakers who will be inspired by Gravity."

Simanton, too, sees Gravity’s true impact as a good news/bad news proposition. “The film’s success has given [3-D] new life and new positive figures to point to," he says. "But, and this is inevitable, right around the corner will be some mega-bomb that will tout the format and 3-D will once more be pilloried as a gimmick. Until Avatar 2 comes out."