I still have yet to see a HFR film, but I've watched plenty of 24fps stuff displayed on TVs running high motion interpolation.
It SUCKS to look at.
It doesn't look filmic, and if anything, it really takes me out of the immersive experience of a film because I've gone too deep into the "uncanny valley."
That said, I'm also reading some interesting stuff about 48fps, 3D, and fast action sequences, as well as lighting.
I think part of what we're seeing is that the technology is not yet at a point where it's effectively married to filmmaking techniques, with the end result looking like a stage play. In essence, this destroys one of the most effective aspects of film: the illusion that what you're watching is "real."
We've seen this issue come up frequently in discussions about CGI. Too much CGI looks "fake." This is often not because CGI itself is inherently crappy. Certainly Jurassic Park is a testament to the contrary. But the problem is that CGI WHEN DONE POORLY looks like crap. My bet is the same is true of 48fps.
Maybe the solution is something like adapting lighting and/or propmaking techniques. Maybe CGI animators are going to have to render less motion blur and render more detailed images to match with what's on screen. Maybe makeup and costume and set dressing all will need to be adjusted for the new technology.
From the sound of it, 48fps CAN be used effectively in the right moments, with the right presentation. Lots of discussions of the 3D action sequences in the new Hobbit film seem to talk about how they looked much better than 3D action sequences in previous films. So, maybe the solution is not to shoot entire films in 48fps, but rather specific sequences.
Of course, the real dilemma will be in how this is all marketed. 3D seems to be clinging on by its fingernails, but that's mostly because studios seem to have no other better options (like, say, "stop making so many s***y films and relying on marketing to save your asses for a weekend."). So, i fully expect that we'll see a period of filmmakers shoving this down our throats, and it being rejected....because it's being done really poorly. Eventually, though, there will be some good examples of what can be done with 48fps.
For everyone who's complained about crappy 3D, people DO talk about how films like Hugo and Avatar (and even some discussions here about Dredd) make very effective use of the technology. So, it strikes me that, much like CGI, rather than being a panacea for what ails the industry, HFR will become another tool in the toolbox for filmmakers. As long as it's done well and not used improperly, I expect folks will find it to be fine. Where it becomes a marketing tool or a one-size-fits-all solution is where it'll fail.
