[nvarsj]

You're in the minority, I think. The Hobbit was shot in 60fps and most people found it very uncomfortable to watch. It felt like you were watching a movie set rather than a movie. Suspension of disbelief is pretty important for cinema and 60fps really messes with that.

I also think most jerkiness in 23.976/24 is due to incorrect display settings leading to dropped/skipped/repeated frames. If your display can match 23.976, even panning scenes look pretty smooth. It's the jitter that messes with our brains and looks bad.

[maskros]

I'm also in the 24fps hater camp.

It's not jitter that bothers me, it's the stop motion effect. It's especially bad with action sequences that have a lot of closeup shots.

This is basically every movie with any sort of action in the past decade or so. If you do closeup shots in on some fast action in 24fps you don't have to worry one bit about choreography, since it'll just be a choppy blurry mess and nobody can tell what's going on anyway.

[nvarsj]

I can agree things like sports are a lot better at high frame rates. You want to see what players are doing precisely in a live setting. But people don't watch sports in movie theaters.

I'd argue stylistically the lower frame rate works a lot better on a big screen. There's also the fact that high frame rates on a big screen seem to cause some people to get motion sick.

I personally have no issue w/ action scenes which are shot at 24fps. Yeah, there is a fair amount of blur but it all seems natural (at least on a cinema projector), and conveys the fast movement, even if it might not be precise.

Take Jackie Chan's Drunken Master epic final fight scene for example - yes it's a bit blurry but I can make sense of everything going on. If anything it enhances the feeling of action - if this was shot at 60fps, it would look much more "real" and be a lot less enjoyable.

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwDU3IOBEIk