The average person doesn't know what 60fps is. And the only difference it will make is slightly more fluid movement - which, I'm sorry, I don't think many people complained Avatar wasn't "fluid" enough. This is the public that largely claims they cannot see much, if any, difference between Blu-ray and DVD (I disagree, I see a massive difference, but most people say they do not which is why Blu-ray is still a rather niche product).
While 60fps is not well known to the masses now I think it is something that will be big in the not so distant future. Coming from a video game angle where fps is king, there is a significant, real world difference between 24 fps and 60 fps especially when dealing with fast action. Once people see it both ways they will be clamoring for it.
It is going to be interesting to see how well your standard 120 mhz TV's handle it. If an upgrade to 240 mhz or better is needed to get the most out of it I could see hardware manufacturers really getting behind the standard to sell more TV's until the new 4Ks are at a reasonable price.
As to those that can not see the difference between 480p and 1080p (DVD and Blu-Ray) I can only think of two possibilities.
1. They are looking at a DVD through an up-converting DVD player.
2. They are legally blind. My 80 year old mother who could barley operate a remote control could see the difference between 480p and 1080p.
When I "admitted" I don't know people who watch with goofy glasses at home, you missed the point - in five years, penetration will be deeper (just by default, as by then most TV's will have 3-D standard, if people use it or not). And by then we won't be dealing with expensive goggles, Polarized technology is here but not cheap enough, but by then it will just be a light pair of glasses like you wear at the theater. (Yes, autostereoscopic like Nintendo 3Ds is also coming along, but the super-limited viewing angles inherent in the tech are at least a decade more from becoming viable for home size screens and most viewers.
We dipped out foot into the 3D would a little less that a year ago. We went with a 3D LG TV that unlike everyone else, uses the standard glasses that you see at the theater. The passive glasses provide a better experience on all fronts when compared to the active shutter. The are inexpensive ($30 +/- a dozzen vs $60 or more a piece), lighter, have a brighter image, no flicker, no dead batteries and a great viewing angle. Why the other manufacturers have not gone with them is beyond me.
Admittedly, we do not watch a tremendous amount of TV or movies on 3D but I have found that gaming, especially first person shooters, is much more immersive in 3D. Halo Anniversary came with a 3D mode and was the first game I gave it a whirl on. I expected it to be cute and gimmicky, but I was pleasantly surprised at what it really added to the experience.
The holy grail for 3D TV and movies will be the autosteroscopic 3D that you mentioned. If they can solve the viewing angle problem and get the cost to a reasonable level, 3D will finally take off.
There was a time I would have wished that a property like that would end up at Disney but sadly at this time, I wouldn't want it to go to anyone else but Universal as they seem to be willing to pony of the money to develop a project as it deserves to be built (Thank you Comcast...never thought I'd actually say that. 
