Page 22 THE VILLADOM TIMES I & III • September 18, 2013 Moviegoers’ demand for 3D apparently waning by Dennis Seuling Moviegoers who arrive at the theater to see the latest, heavily advertised movie discover there are various options. The film is available in 3D for a surcharge of sev- eral dollars, or in the two-dimensional standard version. If the family is along, the 3D version can add considerably to the cost. When “Avatar” was released in 3D in 2009, its spectac- ular imagery and painstaking cinematography justified the use of 3D and enhanced the experience of seeing the movie in a theater. Studios were not immune to the megabucks earned by “Avatar,” but attributed its box office gross to 3D rather than the script, direction, and groundbreaking visuals. Soon, moviegoers were inundated with 3D movies, some good, others hardly worth the effort or the additional fees charged at the box office. Back in the early 1950s, 3D had a brief heyday, drawing crowds because of the novelty. “House of Wax” (1953), one of the best of the lot, combined horror and Vincent Price with the technique of jettisoning items toward the camera to exploit the 3D effect. “Creature from the Black Lagoon” (1954) introduced an entirely new and popular attraction to Universal’s stable of classic creatures that included the Frankenstein monster, Dracula, and the Wolf Man. These were exceptions in a spate of low-budget gim- micky films that quickly rang the death knell -- at least temporarily -- to the fad. Some films that had been shot in 3D, such as Alfred Hitchcock’s “Dial M for Murder” and A scene from ‘Avatar,’ the film that spurred a renewed fascination with 3D features. MGM’s musical “Kiss Me Kate,” were released in flat ver- sions once audiences tired of glasses that caused eyestrain and began to associate 3D with routine or substandard sto- ries. Since the ‘50s, 3D has been used only sporadically, mostly in horror films. The current 3D trend has endured somewhat longer than the ‘50s fad, but there are signs audiences are push- ing back. For “Cars 2,” “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides,” “Green Lantern,” and “King Fu Panda 2,” for instance, fewer than 50 percent of the audiences chose the 3D version. Viewers may simply be tired of a technique that fails to deliver promised thrills. A study of 400 filmgoers by L. Mark Carrier of Califor- nia State University concluded that compared with 2D, 3D movies do not produce more intense emotional reactions, are no more involving, and do not enhance the viewer’s ability to recall a film’s details. Carrier’s study did sug- gest that watching films in 3D tripled the risk of eyestrain, headache, or trouble with vision. Though there is at-home technology for 3D, consumers have been slow to embrace it, since it is still fairly expen- sive and requires new widescreen TVs and costly glasses. With lots of folks happy with their current big-screen TVs, shelling out more to watch 3D at home seems an unneces- sary extravagance. Still, the studios persevere. Upcoming 3D features include the science fiction thriller “Gravity” (Oct. 4), the animated films “Free Birds” (Nov. 1) and “Frozen” (Nov. 27), the prequel “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug” (Dec. 13), and the samurai fantasy “47 Ronin” (Dec. 25). The latest news is that MGM has retrofit “The Wizard of Oz” for 3D and it will play in IMAX theaters for one week beginning on Sept. 20. Can Dorothy’s ruby slippers dazzle even more in 3D? Can those flying monkeys appear even more menacing? Can Munchkinland take on greater magic? That remains to be seen. One thing is certain: Overall infatuation with 3D and audience demand for it as part of the film-going experience is waning.