Entrepreneurs are still at work trying to develop and perfect a workable system of Smell-O-Vision that will be socially and economically viable.

Its genesis began in 1916 at a Family Theater in Forest City, Pennsylvania. It was a simple affair with an electric fan circulating the required fumes.

Other experiments followed in 1929. Scents were sprayed on the ceiling of a New York theater. This it was hoped would enhance the production of The Broadway Melody that was a musical and romantic production by Harry Beaumont.

In 1939 “Scentovision” made its debut at the New York World’s Fair. It was a process through which scents were pumped through pipes that led to viewers’ seats that was being operated through the use of a control board.

A 1943 New York Times story described such a system as one that was able to produce “odors as quickly and easily as the sound track of film.” If that was the case why did not the development that some see as the next revolution become a reality? This assertion obviously did not fully materialize as expected. The difficulty was in the fact that there could be no synchronized blast that clearly matched the visual in the film. It was said that even the scents that were being pumped into the theater were muddled and it was difficult determining one from the other.

Since the 1960s it was postulated that Smell-O-Vision would replace television. Many critics attributed such a prediction to the strides made by a Swiss-born professor Hans Laube. He studied smells and discovered how they could be reproduced in film and movie theaters via selected points in the sound track.

The film Aroma-Rama (1959) flopped in American theaters and was followed by The Great Wall (1959).

An entrepreneur Mike Todd, Jr., worked with Laube in a movie deal and it was during their collaboration that their system came to be known as Smell-O-Vision. The “smell track” was activated by a tubing assortment that transmitted the odors to the viewers. Todd, Jr., had put a fortune in this enterprise and the film the Scent of Mystery (1960) used much of Laube’s technology that they hoped they would be able to perfect. Todd, Jr.’s attempt to accomplish these dreams failed and he lost his investment.

There was also a psychosomatic phenomenon that could be associated with such multi-sensory experiences. It was noted when the BBC-TV played an April Fool’s Day joke on its audience. An individual posing as an inventor of Smell-O-Vision was interviewed. During the interview this impostor started slicing onions and brewing coffee. The results saw viewers calling the network to say that they smelled the ingredients.

The mid-sixties witnessed some resurgence in the concept of Smell-O-Vision on television. The film Polyester (1981) was a nonsensical brilliance from the “Prince of Puke” used “scratch and sniff” cards. When messages periodically came on the screen the audience was instructed to starch patches that smelled of different odors from the pleasant to the unpleasant.

Would a person be able to immerse himself in such a system with his ears, eyes and nose? Or, would movie odors affect a film’s aesthetics? It seems as though this would depend on the level of perfection of the technology. Some persons have complained that some odors themselves were a distraction and tended to hang around for a long period. One blogger pointed out that he wondered what it would be like to smell the deceased in zombie movies while another thought that pornography would be quite awkward.

In 1992, MTV re-aired Scent of Mystery (1960) with “scratch and sniff” cards. By 1999, ABC was reporting on “scent software” and a plug-in device that buffeted Web surfers.

DigiScents, Inc was co-founded by Joel Bellenson and Dexter Smith. Their developments of 5,000 software of scent were for distribution to videogames that provided the necessary bouquets of different smells. Their iSmell (1999) however proved not to be viable. DigiScents, Inc had plans to have licensed a whole scent spectrum.

Would there ever be a technology that could refresh one scent before another begins? What are the implications for young impressionable minds? With sex and violence there will be young children to worry about. Some parents might object to the grossness of some odors and argue that they do not represent reality or that their children should be protected against them.

Some 3D films by Disney and Disney World already make use of odors. At Epcot’s Imaginary Pavilion in the show I Shrunk the Audience (1994) mists were sprayed to simulate appropriate scents. Unpleasant scents were released in the Animal Kingdom’s Its A Bug’s Life as stinky bugs appeared on a screen.

It is interesting to realize that although we do not smell what we see or hear still we do not consider our present audio-visual systems inferior or that we do not receive meaningful services . Is it because of our active imagination? It seems that people are able to fill in the gaps with their mind’s eye.

Through Nippon Telegraph and Telephone (NTT) of Japan, The New World (2006) by John Farrell was shown. During several moments during this show scents were downloaded via an Internet server.

Some saw this as another attempt for an audience to have greater experiences with the film’s plot. Mixes of oils and herbs were used to create aromas. Many articles mentioned the experiment but failed to say if the producers of the show were able to perfect the problem of synchronizing scents with the sceneries.

In 2007, the “Kaori Web” also came into being in Japan with experimental Internet cafes. Another player, the Tokyo Institute of Technology (TIT) endeavored to analyze scents. So far they have identified 96 chemicals that could stand alone or in combination with others.

Developments in Smell-O-Vision could have great benefits to online shoppers. Imagine being able to smell spices, bouquet of flowers, Italian sausages and cheese, freshly baked bread and pastries before making a purchase. It is often said that audiences would like to smell the perfumes of their favorite Hollywood stars in movies and at banquets. Inevitably, we could expect advertisement of all sorts to experience a revival.

Some would continue to bemoan the fact of having to smell the bodies of persons in natural disasters, war, toxic dumps, stale urine in restrooms and the awkwardness of the stench in decaying animals. It could be expected that like sex and violence Smell-O-Vision would bring limits through self-censorship as opposed to government censorship.