Now, this is where I'd usually gloat and jump up and down saying "HAHAHAHA! I TOLD YOU SO!" But I'm beyond that (and already did that this morning). During CinemaCon, Warner Bros. showcased some "beautiful" 48 fps footage of The Hobbit, where it was...well, let's say less than well received, ok? One attende from IGN said that "...it looked like an old Doctor Who episode." Ouch.
See, the inherent issue with 48 fps is that it looks plain awful when making narrative films. The only reason I can see to capture movement at that high a framerate is when you're making a documentary, or broadcasting sports or news. Reality is what you're capturing, so reality is what you want to showcase. With narrative films, you're not showcasing reality; you're showcasing what the artists perceive as reality within the confines of the narrative. Aside from that weird artsy explanation, imagine what animators have to go through with 48 fps. They have to double the amount of time they're working on a specific shot. When the animators are working double, your post budget goes up a lot.
Hopefully this is the wake-up call all of these technological filmmakers (with Peter Jackson and James Cameron at the forefront) need to realize "Hey, maybe this isn't a good thing." And if these journalist types are identifying an issue with 48 fps, imagine the general audience's reaction.
[*].disqus.comto your security software's whitelist.