Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather
A large part of cinema is about involving the viewer in the artificial.
Like I said before, that is achieved with mis-en-scene, not frame rate. People like motion blur because they're used to it (and I'm not trying to insult people for liking 24fps, I like it too), not because it's an essential tool in suspension of disbelief. Habit and routine become the warm blanket of normalcy, and normalcy becomes "correct" and "true" if for no other reason than there is nothing else going on. And anything introduced as contrary, even if it's good, will upset people at first. That's basic human psychology, of which you're probably aware, but I wanted to point that out because it's what I think the main issue is.
That said, there is nothing inherently "wrong" with 24fps, just like there is nothing inherently "wrong" with higher frame rates. The eye sees at about 120fps, so 48 or 60 isn't even approaching some reality based frame rate. People associate the higher frame rate with a soap opera because they're trying to find reasons to dismiss it, since soaps have a negative reputation among geeks. It's an easy way to blow it off because that's what the mind does in order to keep the status quo. There's nothing logical about that kind of thinking IMO. It may sting at first, but I think it helps to keep an open mind and at least see a few movies in 48fps all the way through (and I mean good films, which hopefully the two Hobbit films will be) before coming to a conclusion about it.
Mis-en-scene, which is lighting, camera placement, lens selection, production design, costumes, visual FX, even acting. These are the core foundations of the proscenium arch, and they are what divide reality from fiction. Just the mere act of dressing someone up, putting a camera in front of them and taking a picture does more to separate the viewer from reality than anything else (especially frame rate), along with the protracted or contracted nature of editing which manipulates time in the narrative. I don't like soap operas, but there have been times where I was at a laundry mat or something and with nothing else to watch got caught up in one of them and I wasn't thinking about how it "looked" at all...it was the mis-en-scene that I was caught up in. Now if an amazing filmmaker wants to show me a motion picture with the same level of production as his earlier work and it happens to look (with "look" being a very tenuous word here) similar to a soap (and I'm not even convinced that's an appropriate comparison) then I'm all for it.