The ups and downs of 3D movies at home

I like 3D movies, even if most Americans don't care about them.

It's taken more than a century for 3D films to break through, and even then, its status is shaky.

Fewer than half of Americans opt for the 3D version in theaters when the option is available anymore. One reason for that is the extra couple of bucks it costs, usually pushing the cost of a movie ticket over the $10 mark in Great Falls.

Three-D has had a rough go of it over the years, and it's still not out of the woods.

Six decades ago, film studios began monkeying with goofy movies shot in three dimensions, such as "Gorilla At Large" in 1954.

Those early 3D flicks featured cardboard glasses with one red lens and one blue lens. Wearing the glasses enabled the movie-going public to see a 3D effect, sort of. The effect was underwhelming, and 3D flopped.

So did gimmicks such as Smell-O-Vision, Smell-O-Rama and AromaRama that offered doses of pleasant and awful smells to film customers, according to the Wikipedia website. Director John Waters tried a scratch-and-sniff card, which he called Odorama, for his 1982 film "Polyester."

None of these smelly movie technologies took off.

However, 3D made a comeback when A-list directors such as James Cameron of "Titanic" fame decided to give it a try after the turn of this century.

"Avatar" was released in 3D in 2009, and the effect was spectacular, especially when big, blue aliens were leaping on and flying past floating rocks up in the clouds. I saw "Avatar" several times, including at an IMAX theater in Monterey, Calif., and it did a great job coming closer to representing a real three-dimensional world on film.

Other movies have had sparkling 3D effects, including "Hugo," one of the best films ever about the movies; action-adventure flicks and films based upon comic books. "Gravity" was dramatic in 3D, too. "Titanic" has a 3D version created after the fact that gives the viewer more of a sensation of water rushing at you through the hallways of the sinking ship.

Still, home viewing of 3D has been problematical, in part because of cost and lack of interest. At home, 3D requires a 3D television, a 3D Blu-ray player and sometimes expensive "active" 3D glasses. There are also passive 3D glasses and TVs, but the effect isn't as good.

Most people just can't be bothered. I was a big enough fan of 3D that I began to plot to buy a 3D TV a few years ago, even though we already had a nice 55-inch TV in our rec room.

As luck would have it, friends of ours agreed to buy our big TV, and we bought a 60-inch 3D smart TV on sale. My late wife, Carol, rolled her eyes but went along with the purchase.

We bought a couple extra pairs of glasses, in addition to two glasses that came with the TV, and we were ready for the big viewing of "Avatar."

After watching the entire movie, Carol pointed out she didn't see any difference between 3D and 2D. I leafed through manuals, and finally figured out that the audio receiver we had didn't support 3D. So I had to buy a new one of those, too.

Armed with the new receiver, we watched "Avatar," and the 3D effect was extremely cool. Later on, some visitors have actually been thrilled with the 3D effect, including daughter Johanna from New Orleans.

Today, issues remain with 3D. If you want to buy a 3D movie, for example, it usually retails for about $50. Ouch! The best time to buy one is when it's first released, and the cost can be less than $30.

Meanwhile, some studios are starting to pull back on releasing a film for home use in 3D, although it was shown in 3D in theaters. Two examples of this are the Disney animated hits, "Big Hero Six" and "Frozen." In some foreign countries, such as China and England, a 3D home version was released, but not in the United States.

Disney's approach tells me home 3D may have become a bit of a dud in this country.

After all, I even mention plain old Blu-ray to some people and they give me a weird look like they don't know what it is. (It's a high-definition disc, with about twice the resolution of a regular DVD and better sound.)

"Are 3D movies over?" asked Rolling Stone magazine two years ago. Its story said 3D is big in China, so it will continue to be offered in theaters. And the article concluded with the theory that once 3D without glasses is perfected, people might like it better.

Maybe so.

Deadline Hollywood cited stats showing two-thirds of U.S. theater-goers opted for the 3D version of films in 2009, but that percentage was expected to drop below 40 percent last year.

I still like 3D, and I hope it sticks around. After all, it's more like real life.

Richard Ecke writes a weekly column on city life. Reach him at 406-791-1465, or follow him @GFTrib_REcke on Twitter.